fines

From this week, there will be strict rules on the consumption of alcohol in two popular UK seaside towns, and anyone not careful could face a fine of up to a staggering £1,000

Two popular UK seaside towns have introduced a ‘booze ban’, with the risk of £1,000 fines for anyone caught flouting the rules.

In a bid to help manage anti-social behaviour in Kent, a new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) has been approved for three years. Under this order, which will be in force from Wednesday, 1 July, there will be a year-round blanket ban on the consumption of alcohol in Margate and Ramsgate high streets.

Anyone caught breaking a PSPO, which is a criminal offence, could be fined up to around £100. This can be reduced if it’s paid within 10 to 14 days; however, if anyone avoids paying the fine, they could face prosecution and be fined up to a staggering £1,000.

Margate has long been a popular destination in Kent, thanks to its traditional Victorian charm, stretches of golden beach and close link to London, often earning the nickname of ‘Shoreditch-on-Sea’. Ramsgate is just as popular with its sprawling beaches, Royal Harbour and thriving independent food scene.

But it’s not just these seaside towns taking the brunt of the new order.

The PSPO also sets out that in areas across Broadstairs, Cliftonville West, Margate and Ramsgate, there will be bans on anti-social behaviour related to the consumption of alcohol and not handing over alcohol when asked by authorities. It comes after Kent Police said fights had erupted on Broadstairs and Margate beach last week, while people were also assaulted at Margate Railway Station.

Some businesses in Thanet told BBC Radio Kent that they had been forced to close early on occasions due to anti-social behaviour in the area. One even said they were planning to move out of the area as it had become intimidating.

The aim of the order is to “introduce targeted restrictions to curb alcohol-related disorder, public urination, and defecation for a period of three years”, the Thanet District Council website noted. According to the BBC, East Thanet MP Polly Billington said following approval on Thursday: “It’s vital for our economy that people feel confident about keeping their doors open to their shop, and actually, [it’s vital] for the wellbeing of our residents and our visitors that everybody feels safe.”

Meanwhile, before the order was approved, Councillor Heather Keen, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, highlighted: “We are incredibly grateful to everyone who took the time to share their views. Our communities deserve safe, clean, and welcoming public spaces, and this overwhelming support shows how passionate local people are about protecting their environment.

“If Cabinet agrees to implement these proposals, our safety teams and the police will have an effective tool to address persistent issues impacting our towns. We have listened closely to feedback, and while enforcement would always be a last resort, these measures could significantly improve the quality of life across Thanet.”

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Canberra says tech platforms are still letting too many children bypass its under-16 social media ban.

Australia says it will double fines on social media companies that fail to keep children off their platforms, accusing Big Tech of dodging the spirit of its under-16 ban.

The government said on Saturday that new legislation would raise the maximum penalty for systemic breaches from 49.5 million to 99 million Australian dollars ($31m to $68m) and give the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers to force platforms to comply.

The regulator is investigating possible breaches by Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

“It’s clear Big Tech are not doing enough to comply with the law – there are still too many children on social media,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

“These changes reflect the seriousness with which we take any failure by social media companies to comply.”

The ban, which came into force on December 10, made Australia a global test case for countries trying to curb children’s access to social media. The United Kingdom, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand are among those watching or considering similar restrictions.

But children have continued to evade the rules by using accounts registered to older people, creating fake profiles or logging in through private browsers.

A peer-reviewed evaluation published this month in the British Medical Journal found “insufficient evidence” that the ban had sharply reduced social media use among young people. Researchers surveyed more than 400 children before the measure took effect and again three months later, finding “substantial circumvention” of the rules.

The government says more than five million accounts held by under-16s have been blocked, but Communications Minister Anika Wells said platforms were still falling short.

“Based on the regular updates I receive from the eSafety Commissioner, it is clear to me that social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the Big Tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by,” Wells said.

“Social media platforms are some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, and we’re serious about holding them to account,” she added.

The new powers would allow the eSafety Commissioner to demand documents and evidence from platforms, age-checking companies and app stores.

Platforms must show they have taken “reasonable steps” to keep under-16s out. Some use artificial intelligence to estimate ages, while users can also verify their age with a government ID.

California’s political watchdog commission on Thursday finalized a $31,500 fine against Gov. Gavin Newsom, alleging that the Democratic leader failed to report three dozen behested payments totaling $5.5 million mostly to support wildfire recovery by the deadline under state law.

The Political Reform Act requires elected officials to disclose payments of $5,000 or more that they solicit or direct others to give to a charitable, legislative or governmental purpose within 30 days.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report on time that Newsom and his staff directed outreach from companies and foundations that wanted to help after the Los Angeles wildfires to the California Fire Foundation. The nonprofit was started in 1987 by the California Professional Firefighters to support the families of fallen firefighters and communities impacted by fire.

The donations include $1 million from the Chuck Lorre Foundation and $500,000 apiece from Lockheed Martin, the Anthem Blue Cross Foundation and BlackRock, among others gifts.

The governor also failed in 2024 to report on time two behested payments, totaling $100,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation and Schwab Charitable Funds to the Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit within the League of California Cities.

The commission said the governor reported all of the payments “prior to public discovery” or contact from its enforcement division, which it considered a mitigating factor. Newsom also signed the stipulation and agreed to the fine.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said the issue involved late paperwork at a time when the governor’s staff was focused on emergency response and supporting survivors. She also underscored the fact that the reports were filed before he was contact by the FPPC.

Gallegos said the fine is unrelated to an alleged investigation into the governor and his wife by the Department of Justice, which Newsom announced this week.

Newsom alleged Monday that Trump is using the government as political weapon to target him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Newsom announced the investigation after he learned that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service asked his associates questions about nonprofits and businesses related to the couple.

The governor’s office characterized the investigation as a fishing expedition. The Trump administration declined to comment.

A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C., but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.

The FPPC violations mark the second time Newsom has reported payments late, which increased his penalty for the new infractions. The commission fined Newsom in 2024 for failing to timely report 18 payments totaling $14.4 million.

BRITISH holidaymakers going to France may be forced to cover their bare chests or risk being slapped with a £130 (€150) fine.

Men have been banned from walking around shirtless in several seaside resort towns – with one mayor citing concerns over hygiene and decency.

Topless sunbathing is still legal in France – but around 20 towns are clamping down on locals and tourists from baring their chests in city centres.

The glamorous resort of Deauville has hiked up its token fine of £15 (€17) to a heftier £130 (€150).

And in the southern French city of Narbonne – which last year saw blistering highs of 43 degrees – men are barred from going shirtless all summer.

The ban came into force on Monday and will end only at the end of September.

NICE TO SEE YOU

Elegant French resort of Nice is just ideal for a short break away

WAVE BYE

Greece BANS sunbeds & umbrellas across 250 beaches

The mayor of the resort town claimed it was common sense for a tourist hotspot to crack down on bare-chests.

“It’s about hygiene and avoiding exhibitionism,” he said.

One Narbonne restaurant owner hailed the crackdown as “a very good thing”, saying that “this isn’t something the staff of our café can easily police on their own without getting into arguments with customers”.

“Having bare-chested guys on the terrace can put off other customers”, added Anthony Hill, 53, who runs Le 89 cafe in the city centre.

But as a heatwave swept across the holiday hotspot – hitting highs of 34 degrees – not everyone welcomed the ban.

“This excessive puritanism is disturbing. Let people live a little. A bare chest never killed anyone”, complained one user named Gabriel on X.

Another seaside port – La Grande‑Motte – has imposed the same restriction and local resident Marie welcomed the change with open arms.

“If I’m out with my kids in the town centre I really don’t want to see guys without shirts. It’s a matter of decency — and there’s also the smell when they walk past you”, the 37-year-old told French TV.

But one holidaymaker, 55, questioned whether the £130 (€150) was “a bit steep” – though he added that he found rule logical.

French law forbids women from going topless – but there is no nationwide ban on men’s shirtlessness.

If a woman walks around bare-chested anywhere other than on a beach she risks being arrested for “sexual exhibitionism” and thrown in jail.

She may also be charged a fine of around £13,000 (€15,000).

In 2020 a row erupted across the nation after cops asked three topless women sunbathing on a southern French beach to cover up.

A family had complained that the women’s bare breasts had upset their children – but when police took action they were blasted for betraying the “French way of life”.

Brits should take note of strict dress code rules in a number of holiday hotspots across Spain, Portugal, Italy and Croatia with hefty fines for rule-breakers

Brits planning to hit the beach or pool in the likes of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Croatia this summer may want to take note of some strict rules, or risk potentially hefty fines.

In recent years, a number of holiday hotspots have clamped down on dress codes for both locals and tourists, particularly when it comes to the likes of bikinis, pool cover-ups and swim shorts.

The issue isn’t that people are wearing these on the beaches, but rather when they wander into local towns. In fact, since 2022 Italian hotspot Sorrento has banned wearing swimwear away from beaches and pools. Anyone caught flouting the restrictions could face fines of up to €500 (approximately £433).

You’re not going to get a fine if you’re walking around your hotel or a beach club in your swimwear, or if you’re at a pool or beach. However, if you stay in your swimwear to walk into the town and try to enter shops or restaurants, that’s where you could potentially face some trouble.

We take a look at some of the holiday hotspots with these strict rules below…

Spain dress code rules

A number of Spanish hotspots have been introducing beachwear dresscodes in recent years. In Barcelona you could face fines of up to £260 for wandering around the town, while in Majorca you could face fines of up to £500 if you’re wearing beachwear away from the main beaches and pools. The rule also applies to anyone wandering around shirtless. Plenty of restaurants also have firm signs and rules banning visitors from wearing beachwear in their establishments.

Meanwhile in Malaga, wandering into the city centre in your beachwear could land you a fine of up to €300 (approximately £259).

Italy dress code rules

In Sorrento, locals have argued that they’re trying to protect the area’s decency with the rules, and swerve people rocking up to lunch spots in just swim shorts or bikinis. The ban doesn’t just apply to swimwear; it also applies to visitors who walk around the town topless.

Portofino, Positano and Capri all enforce similar rules with with fines of up to €500 (approximately £433) if you’re spotted walking around the main town in beachwear.

Other Italian hotspots with similar restrictions include Venice where walking around the historic city centre in swimwear or bare-chested is strictly prohibited, and could land you an on-the-spot fine of up to €250 (approximately £216).

Portugal dress code rules

In Albufeira, new dress codes were brought into force last year. That includes fines from €300 to €1,500 (approximately £259-£1298) for those who are found wearing swimwear outside of beach or pool zones, for example when wandering down the town streets. The dress codes came as part of a wider crackdown on unruly tourist behaviour.

Croatia dress code rules

In Dubrovnik, tourists are banned from entering the UNESCO World Heritage Old Town in swimwear or shirtless, with fines of up to €700 for rule-breakers (approximately £606). It’s not the only Croatian city to enforce rules of this nature; in Split, you could face fees from €150 (approximately £129).

Meanwhile over on the party island of Hvar, new rules include fines for wandering around in swimwear or being shirtless out and about in town.

Have you been caught out by a holiday hotspot’s dress code? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com.

Reporting from Sacramento — Susan Kennedy, the former top aide to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has agreed to pay $32,500 in fines for shadow lobbying, or advocating for clients before a state agency without registering as a lobbyist, according to documents released Monday.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement staff says Kennedy failed to register though she attempted to influence the California Public Utilities Commission from 2012 through 2014 on behalf of her clients, Lyft Inc. and San Gabriel Valley Water Co. Kennedy was paid $201,000 for the lobbying work.

Kennedy served on the California Public Utilities Commission from 2003 to 2006. She was chief of staff to Schwarzenegger from 2007 to 2011 before she became a consultant.

She signed an agreement with the FPPC enforcement staff admitting to the violations of the state Political Reform Act.

“In this case, the violations were serious since the public and other interested parties were not informed of Kennedy’s lobbying activity,” the agreement says. “While Kennedy maintains she did not intend to qualify as a lobbyist, given her experience and sophistication, she should have been aware at the time that her activity qualified as lobbying.”

The agreement and fines are expected to be approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission on Feb. 15.

The panel has been investigating shadow lobbying for years at the state Capitol and has fined others who have tried to secretly influence state government.

The state defines a lobbyist as someone who receives $2,000 or more in a calendar month to communicate directly, or through an agent, with state officials for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action. Such people must register as lobbyists with the state and periodically report who is paying them, how much and for what purpose.

Kennedy failed to register and disclose her payments, resulting in eight violations of the Political Reform Act. In 2012, Lyft Inc. gave Kennedy a $15,000-a-month contract to help “strategic management” of Lyft’s public policy interests, the report said.

Lyft and other ride-hailing firms including Uber were under the scrutiny of the PUC for operating without its approval at the time, and Lyft agreed to pay a fine of $20,000 for operating without the agency’s authority.

After being retained by Lyft, Kennedy contacted CPUC President Michael Peevey, Executive Director Paul Clanon and other staff to convince them that the state should work with the ride-hailing firms, not shut them down.

At Kennedy’s prodding, the California Public Utilities Commission decided to adopt rules on the new industry regarding liability insurance, driver licensing and background checks, driver training programs and vehicle inspections.

James C. Harrison, an attorney for Kennedy, said she “moved immediately once the discrepancy was identified to provide the necessary information requested by the FPPC. Integrity and character are hallmark principles in how Kennedy conducts herself in business, which is why she is acting swiftly and looks forward to its resolution.”

Updates from Sacramento »

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

UPDATES:

3:15 p.m.: This article was updated to provide total amount of fines and a comment from Kennedy’s attorney, James C. Harrison.

This article was originally posted at 2:20 p.m.