Small Bits of News You Didn’t Know you Needed

Australian man glued to toilet seat by pranksters
A man who used a public toilet in a shopping mall was taken to a hospital to have the toilet seat removed from his backside after someone smeared it with glue in what an official condemned Monday as a sick joke.
Police urged possible witnesses to come forward after the man was humiliated by the prank.
An ambulance was called to help the man after he was found stuck by fast-acting adhesive glue to a toilet seat on Saturday in the busy shopping mall.
Paramedics removed the seat from the toilet and took him to a hospital, where medical staff used solvents to get it off.
Police said it was the second case of a strong, fast-acting glue being smeared on a seat in the same men’s toilets that day, although in the earlier incident the man had been able to get up before the glue set.
.
Is this the cruellest pet owner?
A dog owner fired five nails into his pet's head because he did not have a car to take him to the vet to be put down.
When his mastiff, Winchester, did not die from the nail-gun attack, John Delahaye killed him by stabbing him in the neck and smashing him over the head with a sledgehammer.
The RSPCA has expressed disbelief that Delahaye has been spared jail.
Animal welfare campaigners say it is one of the most severe cases of cruelty they have seen.
Instead of being sent to jail, the Traralgon man was given a suspended sentence for killing the three-year-old dog.
And he will be able to own another pet within three years.
.
A prostitute gave birth, and the accidental dad's in court
A man who paid a woman for sex is resisting child support requests after the prostitute had his baby.
The married Melbourne man argues the child is potentially a breach of the Trade Practices Act.
He told a federal magistrate he shouldn't have to pay for the inadvertent offspring given the circumstances of the conception.
The accidental dad - who can be referred to only by the pseudonym Mr Lilley - told magistrate Grant Riethmuller he'd had "a consumer transaction" with the child's mother.
Mr Lilley argued an implied term of the "contract" between clients and sex workers was that women would take measures to avoid pregnancy.
Mr Lilley told the court he was not disputing paternity.
The prostitute - known only by the pseudonym Ms Logan - did not appear in court, and details of her employer were not publicly revealed.
The magistrate heard Mr Lilley initially contributed about $100 a week towards the infant's upkeep under an informal arrangement with Ms Logan. The matter spilled into court in June after he lost his $140,000-a-year job and fell behind in the payments.
.