Speaker 1: Lately welcome the Late Debates.
Speaker 2: Well, it's great to have your company on the Late
Speaker 2: Debate James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. We've
Speaker 2: got a lot to get through tonight, including comedian Dave
Speaker 2: Hughes is applauded for throwing people out of his most
Speaker 2: recent show. We'll let you see exactly what happened a
Speaker 2: little later. Plus, when we look at tomorrow's papers, police
Speaker 2: say the caravan filled with explosives in Durall was not
Speaker 2: a terror plot, it was a hoax. And news from
Speaker 2: Canberra that our government has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars
Speaker 2: by continually amending contracts after they've signed them. We'll get
Speaker 2: to all of that soon, But just imagine for a moment,
Speaker 2: if you will, that you're a new South Wales judge
Speaker 2: and you're dealing with, I don't know, a fifteen year
Speaker 2: old boy who's facing a string of car theft and
Speaker 2: break in charges, including holding residents at knife point, and
Speaker 2: he's asking for you to release him on bail. What
Speaker 2: would you do. Well, you'd probably ask to see his history,
Speaker 2: his track records, see whether he's trustworthy to release on bail.
Speaker 2: What if you learned that that fifteen year old boy
Speaker 2: had already been released on bail four times and on
Speaker 2: every single occasion wound up back in police custody. Would
Speaker 2: you still grant him bail? This is the exact situation
Speaker 2: that faced a New South Wales judge last week. She
Speaker 2: was confronted by a fifteen year old boy facing car
Speaker 2: theft and break in charges, and she learned that he
Speaker 2: would been on parole in April last year when he
Speaker 2: broke into four homes allegedly stealing cars and assaulting residents.
Speaker 2: He was granted bail again, and during that period of
Speaker 2: bail he broke into more homes, was arrested again, granted bail,
Speaker 2: and while on bail four a third and fourth time,
Speaker 2: broke into more houses, stole more cars, threatened people with knives,
Speaker 2: and here he is before justice. Julia lonegan asking for
Speaker 2: bail a fifth time, and the judge found and I
Speaker 2: quote a high degree of confidence that he would not
Speaker 2: offend again. And you know why she was so confident
Speaker 2: he would not offend again because the boy, through his solicitor,
Speaker 2: said he wanted to be a good role model for
Speaker 2: his younger siblings, and he promised he would stay at
Speaker 2: home when not at school. You have to wonder whether
Speaker 2: the judge would have a high degree of confidence if
Speaker 2: this fifteen year old boy lived in her suburb. Calebin
Speaker 2: Lizza reminds me of another case in Melbourne, also last week,
Speaker 2: where a fifteen year old boy, already out on bail,
Speaker 2: broke into a home, stole Mercedes Benz, led police on
Speaker 2: a car chase reaching speeds of two hundred and forty
Speaker 2: kilometers an hour. The magistrate slammed the kid said, you
Speaker 2: could have killed somebody if I took a poll out
Speaker 2: on the street. Everybody would say you should be denied bail,
Speaker 2: And then the magistrate promptly gave him bail. The magistrate
Speaker 2: actually said that I quote, proms to commit no further
Speaker 2: acts of offending. The young man said, what do you reckon?
Speaker 1: He said, Caleb, I reckon? He said, yes, I do.
Speaker 3: He said, I.
Speaker 2: Promise I won't do it again. And the judge said,
Speaker 2: all right, I'm going to hold you to that and
Speaker 2: granted the kid bail. We can have politicians change the
Speaker 2: laws all they like. We can have police do the
Speaker 2: best police work you can imagine. But if magistrates and
Speaker 2: judges keep looking at a track record that clearly says
Speaker 2: this kid cannot be trusted and ignore it because for
Speaker 2: whatever reason they take pity, or they think the rules
Speaker 2: are too harsh, or it's just a kid, or they
Speaker 2: believe a sop story. We are never going to see
Speaker 2: the youth crime crisis resolve.
Speaker 4: I mean, how can you possibly say that you could
Speaker 4: have a high degree of confidence that someone who has
Speaker 4: been bailed four times will not then reoffend, you know,
Speaker 4: allegedly after all this reoffending that they have been doing.
Speaker 4: And Justice Lonigan and a number of other judges in
Speaker 4: New South Wales have been openly critical of the reforms
Speaker 4: that the state government the Men's government have made to
Speaker 4: youth bail laws. Because the government changed the laws to
Speaker 4: say that if you're going to give bail to someone
Speaker 4: on multiple occasions, you must have a high level of
Speaker 4: confidence that they won't reoffend, and according to Justice Lonigan,
Speaker 4: that imposes an additional obstruction to their release to their
Speaker 4: family and community. Despite that child being entitled to the
Speaker 4: presumption of innocence. All everyone before a court is entitled
Speaker 4: to the presumption of innocence. It doesn't mean they're entitled
Speaker 4: to be walking around in the community if there is
Speaker 4: evidence that they may well reoffend many many times, or
Speaker 4: we think they are a potential danger to the community.
Speaker 4: And of course it's not like bail is added on
Speaker 4: to any future sentence you may receive. You get compensation
Speaker 4: for time already spent in custody that is taken off
Speaker 4: of your sentence, and if for whatever reason, you're found
Speaker 4: not guilty at a trial, you receive some form of
Speaker 4: compensation monetarily for the time you spend in custody. So
Speaker 4: there is literally no argument you can make that just
Speaker 4: because they're a child, they should be at home with
Speaker 4: their parents. I mean, heck, if they're at home with
Speaker 4: their parents, and how allegedly committing crimes, do you really
Speaker 4: want them going back to that home climing It is
Speaker 4: something wrong in that home. It is a joke, a
Speaker 4: mockery of the system. And until someone actually applies it
Speaker 4: as it ought to be applied, this will not change.
Speaker 5: But applies what therein lies the question.
Speaker 6: Because all bail applications come down to what's called judicial discretion.
Speaker 6: So every time you want to rail against a bail
Speaker 6: yes or no from a magistrate, know that there are
Speaker 6: no hard and fast rules when it comes to bail,
Speaker 6: there's no check list.
Speaker 5: I learned this at a little school, but I'm not
Speaker 5: an authority.
Speaker 6: I never graduated, but loved, loved learning about bail laws
Speaker 6: and why they are a dog's breakfast in every single state.
Speaker 6: You can't find a state or territory in Australia that's like, actually,
Speaker 6: our bail laws are working beauty so bad the New
Speaker 6: South Wales's bail laws that the New South Wales Bureau
Speaker 6: of Crime, Statistics and Research did a paper just in
Speaker 6: October of last year because they wanted to figure out
Speaker 6: what is going on. The police refused bail and then
Speaker 6: over fifty percent of the time the accused comes to
Speaker 6: the bail hearing and gets granted bail. In twenty twenty
Speaker 6: three it was over fifty percent. It was fifty three
Speaker 6: point five percent that everyone who came before a magistrate
Speaker 6: or judge and the police were like, no, don't let
Speaker 6: these guys out on bail. The magistrate is far more
Speaker 6: often likely to be like, yeah, okay, they're out on bail.
Speaker 6: And it all boiled down to this judicial discretion hinging
Speaker 6: on one particular thing. Because both parties care about community safety,
Speaker 6: but a magistrate is far more likely to be convinced
Speaker 6: by a good defense lawyer, which is why the accused
Speaker 6: gets a defense lawyer.
Speaker 5: They're far more likely to be convinced by.
Speaker 6: That lawyer that the risks to the community can be
Speaker 6: mitigated by certain bail conditions, and so by perhaps it
Speaker 6: was then.
Speaker 4: The rules of this guy's bail.
Speaker 6: If he's like, I just go to school and I
Speaker 6: come straight home and that is literally my only outing,
Speaker 6: then a magistrate is going to go, Well, that mitigates
Speaker 6: the risks of him reoffending, doesn't it If he's only
Speaker 6: ever at school or at home at supervision of his parents, etc.
Speaker 3: And so on.
Speaker 5: It's these softy magistrates basically would be.
Speaker 2: Very native maistrate who believes that.
Speaker 3: Yes, and you've got to then go.
Speaker 6: If it was your friends or relatives who had gotten
Speaker 6: mugged by this kid, threatened by this kid, assaulted by
Speaker 6: this kid, or had their property damaged by this kid,
Speaker 6: would you, as the magistrate, really be that forgiving. Unlikely,
Speaker 6: But that is what it comes down to, and you
Speaker 6: can't really make laws to them, be like, well, the
Speaker 6: magistrates don't have judicial discretion anymore. It's supposed to guarantee
Speaker 6: an individualize, proportionate, case by case basis decision making process.
Speaker 6: But again that relies heavily on the judge, and then
Speaker 6: you get other judges who are way too heavy ended
Speaker 6: and lo everyone up.
Speaker 4: But this is the thing, right, It's like, why can't
Speaker 4: they just see what the rest of us can see?
Speaker 4: That there is generally a strong community reaction because people
Speaker 4: feel like they're not safe, and it's like, how are
Speaker 4: these people so far removed from the rest of us
Speaker 4: that they can't understand there are simple things that can
Speaker 4: be done to make us feel safer. It should be noted,
Speaker 4: of course, that many people who are magistrates and judges
Speaker 4: are former criminal defense lawyers themselves, and so it may
Speaker 4: well be possible that coming from that world, they have
Speaker 4: a different perspective on the way the criminal law should
Speaker 4: be applied to say, a prosecutor who spent their career,
Speaker 4: of course, trying to have people convicted in courts.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've sat in.
Speaker 4: Many court rooms and it's very clear that different magistrates
Speaker 4: and judges have very different ways of doing things and
Speaker 4: very different bents against certain prosecutors and lawyers, etc.
Speaker 1: Because they are vested with that power.
Speaker 4: Because we say they should be trusted with that power,
Speaker 4: but so often what they exercise just seems to be
Speaker 4: so far removed from the rest of us.
Speaker 2: I was at a cafe in Brisbane a few weeks
Speaker 2: ago and waiting for my coffee and ended up hearing
Speaker 2: a conversation behind me which involved a magistrate talking to
Speaker 2: a couple of friends, I suppose about how he had
Speaker 2: denied the media some sort of request that the media
Speaker 2: were making in court, and he was puffing out his
Speaker 2: chest and quite proud of himself that he had sat
Speaker 2: that little television journalist down back in her seat and
Speaker 2: denied her requests. I'm listening to it thinking, if only
Speaker 2: you knew how ticked off the majority of people are
Speaker 2: with decisions that happened now Magistrate's Court, particularly relating to
Speaker 2: youth crime. I don't think you'd be quite so. When
Speaker 2: we get to the papers. There's a story on the
Speaker 2: front page of tomorrow's Herald's Son where our former police Commissioner,
Speaker 2: Shane Patten in Victoria had a potential solution to this issue,
Speaker 2: and we'll get to that later when we look at
Speaker 2: the papers.
Speaker 4: Indeed, I particularly love it when the people who administer
Speaker 4: our justice system get in the way with us knowing
Speaker 4: what's going on in the justice system. It's great though
Speaker 4: unfortunately one of my favorite magistrates in South Australia when
Speaker 4: I was a court reporter there was then sent.
Speaker 1: Off to jail himself for alleged corruption.
Speaker 4: But anyway, at least you did a good thing by
Speaker 4: us trying to know what was going on, including what was.
Speaker 1: Happening with himself.
Speaker 4: Speaking of what's going on, let's talk about the UK
Speaker 4: where if you want to get paid more money in
Speaker 4: the public broadcast, we've worked out how to do it now.
Speaker 4: I haven't checked whether this is the case at the
Speaker 4: ABC here, but maybe we can deploy some people to
Speaker 4: see whether it works. But it turns out at the BBC,
Speaker 4: if you want to get paid more, it's very simple.
Speaker 4: You've just got to be a woman, disabled, gay or black.
Speaker 4: It is your free pass to getting paid more than
Speaker 4: the people you work with, specifically if you are a
Speaker 4: senior manager. Now, the BBC a few years ago made
Speaker 4: a commitment that they would have quotas for people from
Speaker 4: these particular groups. It was a fifty to twenty twelve target,
Speaker 4: which meant it had to be fifty percent women at
Speaker 4: least twenty percent Black, Asian or minority ethnic and at
Speaker 4: least twelve percent disabled employees. So they've been hurtling fast
Speaker 4: towards that number, and we see in their latest annual
Speaker 4: report that if you're in one of those categories and
Speaker 4: you're a senior manager at the BBC, you are getting
Speaker 4: paid more than men, or non disabled people, or straight
Speaker 4: people or white people at the BBC, because we know
Speaker 4: that discrimination is good as long.
Speaker 1: As it goes to minorities.
Speaker 4: Women are paid five point seven percent more if they're
Speaker 4: a senior manager at the BBC. Then men are disabled,
Speaker 4: senior managers are paid eight point four percent more than
Speaker 4: non disabled people, Black Asian and other ethnic minorities twelveero
Speaker 4: point six percent more, and if you happen to be
Speaker 4: LGBT GOOPLUS you get a whopping fifteen point six percent
Speaker 4: more than you do if you are a straight person,
Speaker 4: which are tasso Is, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK said,
Speaker 4: top tip if you want to earn more at the BBC,
Speaker 4: don't be a straight white male. People should be appointed
Speaker 4: and paid based on merit, not on their ethnicity or
Speaker 4: sexual preference. Now I've told you all of these numbers
Speaker 4: and they may well be staggering, but there is one
Speaker 4: number I want to see in the next annual report
Speaker 4: from the BBC. What do you get paid if you
Speaker 4: are a disabled female who is black and LGBTQ. Surely
Speaker 4: that gets your fifty percent more than anyone else in
Speaker 4: the building.
Speaker 2: Are you become the chairperson of the bb sir? If
Speaker 2: you fit that criteria? Imagine the BBC literally paying you
Speaker 2: to be gay. You ask if this happens at the ABC.
Speaker 2: A friend of mine, this is some years ago, but
Speaker 2: he worked at the ABC and he was applying for
Speaker 2: a promotion and he was filling out the forms and
Speaker 2: he told, you know, I have no reason to doubt him.
Speaker 2: He's not with the ABC anymore. That there was a
Speaker 2: section of the form he had to fill out, an
Speaker 2: internal form that asked what diversity characteristics would you bring?
Speaker 2: And he was sitting there with one of his colleagues
Speaker 2: trying to work out, what's my diversity characteristic? He wasn't gay,
Speaker 2: he wasn't female, he wasn't trans, he wasn't disabled. And
Speaker 2: then finally he realized his parents spoke a second language,
Speaker 2: and so he put that down. That was the one
Speaker 2: two about half an hour to remember, Oh, I could
Speaker 2: use that, but literally he wasn't filling out his resume
Speaker 2: in terms if he had this experience, he had these
Speaker 2: abilities and talents. It was trying to work out what
Speaker 2: is it about me that would tick that box? And
Speaker 2: could you imagine any other industry. I mean, would you
Speaker 2: fly on an aircraft where they said specifically we need
Speaker 2: twelve percent to be disabled, or you know, twenty percent
Speaker 2: to be Asian, Or would you go for surgery where
Speaker 2: they had quotas for surgeons to meet certain diversity characteristics.
Speaker 2: And yet this is all through the UK. Just this
Speaker 2: weekend the Krufts International Dog Show, which I've not heard
Speaker 2: about before, Caleb, but apparently it's a big deal.
Speaker 4: Sounded like you're seen because a dog show in the world.
Speaker 2: They get nine million viewers, who's been running since eighteen
Speaker 2: ninety one and Channel four. They chose Ellie Simons, who's
Speaker 2: probably a lovely young lady. She's a paralympian and she
Speaker 2: was selected to host the coverage of this massive dog show.
Speaker 2: And when the interview is done, as you know, she's
Speaker 2: been promoted as the new host. She says, I actually
Speaker 2: don't know anything about dogs at all, but I'm really
Speaker 2: looking forward to learning about them. She was clearly appointed
Speaker 2: because she's a former para olympian, nothing to do at
Speaker 2: all with having any expertise to lead the coverage of
Speaker 2: dog shows.
Speaker 6: And what a shame for all the people out there
Speaker 6: who would have been qualified up the wazoo for that.
Speaker 2: Exactly for that very job.
Speaker 6: Love dogs have religiously watched this competition every single year
Speaker 6: since they were a kid. You see how DEI breeds resentment,
Speaker 6: especially when it comes to light they're getting paid more,
Speaker 6: not because they're more skilled, not because they topped the pops.
Speaker 3: In the meritocracy.
Speaker 6: No because they're either disabled, a different color to you,
Speaker 6: or a different gender to you.
Speaker 5: It's simply unfair.
Speaker 6: Which is why DEI shoots itself in the face with
Speaker 6: an elephant dit. No one is feeling warm and fuzzy
Speaker 6: about diversity, equity and inclusion when you're the ones missing
Speaker 6: out on that job promotion that you do deserve above
Speaker 6: everybody else. You've been with the company longest. I cannot
Speaker 6: tell you how many male mates of mine in their
Speaker 6: respective sectors have suffered through this very process, seeing people
Speaker 6: who haven't earned it, don't deserve it, are even relatively
Speaker 6: new to the company have at no point during their
Speaker 6: short tenure showcased skills being superior to theirs. I suddenly
Speaker 6: shot up the food chain, and these white, straight blokes
Speaker 6: are thinking, for heaven's sake, this is simply unfair, and
Speaker 6: you want to force me to celebrate this.
Speaker 3: It's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Because I couldn't.
Speaker 4: I couldn't think logically why any of these people would
Speaker 4: be paid more than they're non disabled, or straight, or
Speaker 4: male colleagues, etcetera. The only thing I can think of
Speaker 4: is that as part of this drive to meet the quota,
Speaker 4: that they are giving attractive contracts to people to get
Speaker 4: them to come to the BBC.
Speaker 1: Because why, I mean, you wouldn't just.
Speaker 4: Walk into any organization, would not you'd presume pay anyone
Speaker 4: more than they could get away with paying them if possible.
Speaker 4: I mean, look, if I can walk into a room
Speaker 4: and say hey, because I'm a woman, I deserve a
Speaker 4: bit more.
Speaker 1: And like, ah, yeah, sure, I haven't.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't think that's going on in any
Speaker 4: boardroom anywhere. Surely it's because they were so desperate to
Speaker 4: meet this quota that they were like, I'll just put
Speaker 4: any number on the piece of paper if it means
Speaker 4: I can meet my KPIs, which means I can stay
Speaker 4: on the board and then I'm safe.
Speaker 2: And of course I'd be fascinated to know if the
Speaker 2: BBC can define what a woman is. I mean, this
Speaker 2: stuff is everywhere? Is us reading into the UK Telegraph
Speaker 2: today an article was the front page of the main
Speaker 2: part of their website was talking about how they have
Speaker 2: decided the next James Bond will be a man, be
Speaker 2: a man, and the headline.
Speaker 3: And British and come from a CommonWell a female.
Speaker 4: I I know it, guy, this was this was the
Speaker 4: thing as Amazon's got the contract.
Speaker 3: Okay, you're going to be blad James and not the
Speaker 3: male bit down. What are they going to do?
Speaker 7: Who?
Speaker 2: That's good enough?
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness.
Speaker 6: To Syria now where finally, finally we are getting some
Speaker 6: attention on the fact that two minority religious groups in Syria,
Speaker 6: the fall of the Assad regime was.
Speaker 1: Not a good thing.
Speaker 3: Oh my goodness, who knew?
Speaker 6: This has been going on for a long time now,
Speaker 6: but finally it's getting some attention from the media because
Speaker 6: since Thursday of last week, they're saying over a thousand
Speaker 6: people have been killed, namely mainly Ala white Muslims and
Speaker 6: Christians in Syria now, sources on the ground say it's
Speaker 6: more like thousands. They're seeing bodies pile up in the streets.
Speaker 6: A lot of the footage that I've seen made available
Speaker 6: on x by people there in the country is simply
Speaker 6: far too disturbing to allow.
Speaker 3: Who would have thought that if you.
Speaker 6: Have a failed state pretty much run by al Qaida,
Speaker 6: that's what we're looking at now. They are going to
Speaker 6: turn on religious minorities.
Speaker 3: And massacre them.
Speaker 6: Trump's administration has rightly condemned this. Secretary of State.
Speaker 3: Marco Rubio on over the.
Speaker 6: Weekend, released a statement saying the United States condemns the
Speaker 6: radical Islamis terrorists, including foreigny Hardy's, that murdered people in
Speaker 6: western Syria in recent days.
Speaker 5: As the United States.
Speaker 6: Stands with Syria's religious and ethnic minorities, including its Christian, Jews,
Speaker 6: Allyorite Kurdish communities, and offers its condolences to the victims
Speaker 6: and their families. Syria's interim authorities must hold the perpetrators
Speaker 6: of these massacres against Syria's minority communities accountable.
Speaker 3: Thanks for the word salad.
Speaker 5: You ticked the box.
Speaker 3: What are you going to do about it. Head of National.
Speaker 6: Intelligence, newly appointed Tulsey Gabbard, also had similar to say
Speaker 6: in a Senate hearing.
Speaker 8: I shed no tears for the fall of the Asad regime.
Speaker 8: But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now
Speaker 8: in charge of Syria, as I said, who danced on
Speaker 8: the streets to celebrate the nine to eleven attack, who
Speaker 8: ruled over it, live with an Islamist extremist governance, and
Speaker 8: who has already begun to persecute and kill and arrest
Speaker 8: religious minorities like Christians in Syria. I understand why that
Speaker 8: should be acceptable to anyone is beyond me. True certainly, of.
Speaker 3: Course they're in government now.
Speaker 6: So what they're not going to talk about was that
Speaker 6: during Barack Obama's reign.
Speaker 5: This was a CIA op.
Speaker 6: The US port a billion dollars, specifically into a project
Speaker 6: called Project Timber Sycamore that funded terrorists, armed and trained
Speaker 6: them to topple the Assad regime. Now, when Trump's first
Speaker 6: administration came in, they.
Speaker 3: Trashed that project.
Speaker 6: But these terror roups groups sat there like sleeper cells,
Speaker 6: waiting for the green flagged by their Neocon overlords in
Speaker 6: the CIA. And when they got that green flag they acted.
Speaker 6: What we saw last December was a coup. You've got
Speaker 6: all these competing agendas in Syria. The US wanted Zad gone,
Speaker 6: Israel wanted Assad gone, Russia wanted Asad to stay, and Iran,
Speaker 6: of course wanted Assad to stay.
Speaker 3: And let's not mention.
Speaker 6: Turkey, who also has its own agenda sharing a border
Speaker 6: with Syria. So what we saw in December was a coup.
Speaker 6: We're supposed to believe that fifteen hundred rebels literally overpowered
Speaker 6: the Syrian military, which is over three hundred thousand strong.
Speaker 3: Not likely. I'm not buying that.
Speaker 6: But the ugly truth is what we're seeing here, and
Speaker 6: the reason why we have not seen any media coverage
Speaker 6: of the carnage that is currently happening in Syria is
Speaker 6: because the US and Israel have outwardly taken credit for
Speaker 6: the fall of the.
Speaker 5: Syrian regime, and this being a.
Speaker 6: Very unfortunate byproduct of the fall of said regime, nobody
Speaker 6: wants to take credit for that.
Speaker 4: I think what it proves is when you start interfering
Speaker 4: in other countries' business, you want to be damn sure
Speaker 4: you're going to do the job properly. Are the wise
Speaker 4: you end up with serious trouble. I mean, look at Afghanistan,
Speaker 4: for Heaven's sake, which is now back in the hands
Speaker 4: of the Taliban. Of course, when Biden pulled out of there,
Speaker 4: he left all the gear behind. They came in and
Speaker 4: took it. And look what's happened there. I mean, Basha
Speaker 4: al Assad was an evil man, was a dictator, you know,
Speaker 4: had a reign of terror across his own country, rampant
Speaker 4: people being locked up because they were against it, like
Speaker 4: you know, all the stuff that dictators do. So you
Speaker 4: take that away and you say, okay, we got rid
Speaker 4: of that bad guy. And then who replaces him other
Speaker 4: bad guys. And of course, if you look at the
Speaker 4: ethnic and religious makeup of Syria, ala whites, of which
Speaker 4: Assad was one sort of had a great rise under Assad,
Speaker 4: or when he replaced his father, that is, and so
Speaker 4: that created tension, but he generally had a secular government.
Speaker 4: What you've had since the civil war that started in
Speaker 4: twenty eleven is an increasingly sectarian war that has been
Speaker 4: four along religious lines, and of course in Islam it's
Speaker 4: the Shias versus the Sunnis and on. It has gone
Speaker 4: to a point where you now have islamus running the show,
Speaker 4: and of course they're going to slaughter Christians. What do
Speaker 4: you think is going to happen? The more we interfere overseas,
Speaker 4: the more trouble we cause, and then we have more trouble.
Speaker 1: But what do we think happens?
Speaker 2: And it should not be a surprise to anybody. Mohammed
Speaker 2: el Jilani, who toppled Ass'ad, worked with al Qaeda and
Speaker 2: with ISIS. His stated goal has long been to impose
Speaker 2: Sharia law on Syria. He says as a seventeen year
Speaker 2: old he became radicalized by reading the sayings of Mohammed
Speaker 2: in the Hadith and the Qur'an. He spent time in jail,
Speaker 2: whereupon he wrote a manual for jihad, which then became
Speaker 2: a document used by ISIS. So what did anybody think
Speaker 2: was going to happen when he became the leader of Syria.
Speaker 2: It's funny watching some of the media reports from the
Speaker 2: time when Asad was toppled, because Mohammed el Julani promised,
Speaker 2: we're going to have a nation of tolerance and we're
Speaker 2: going to a diverse word and we're just seeing played
Speaker 2: out now what we've seen, you know, since five seventy AD. Interestingly, though,
Speaker 2: imagine if Israel had not taken out all of those
Speaker 2: weapons supplies that the Asad regime left in Israel. Were
Speaker 2: criticized for that at the time, but thank god they did,
Speaker 2: because the last thing you'd want is effectively an al
Speaker 2: Qaeda Isis supporter with his hands on all of those.
Speaker 2: And the other interesting thing is that you've got now
Speaker 2: ethnic communities in southern Syria asking for Israel to take
Speaker 2: on governance of their areas and come under the protect
Speaker 2: So you've got Arabs wanting the Israelis to protect them.
Speaker 2: And Third, all those people on university campuses, you know,
Speaker 2: campaigning against genocide and ethnic cleansing and all that sort
Speaker 2: of thing, are strangely silent at what is happening in
Speaker 2: Syria where people are being targeted not because they're holding hostages,
Speaker 2: but because they are Christians, or because they're the wrong
Speaker 2: brand of Islam, or because there's some sort of other
Speaker 2: mystical religion. They're being argeted for those reasons and not
Speaker 2: a peep on our university campuses, which just shows the
Speaker 2: utter hypocrisy of the left. Let's go to Victoria, where
Speaker 2: utter hypocrisy rains continually as well, not to mention incompetence.
Speaker 2: If you've been to Victoria recently and traveled on public transport,
Speaker 2: it's a nightmare, unlike Sydney, where you just tap on
Speaker 2: and tap off using your credit card. They want that
Speaker 2: system in Victorians, but in fact they spent one point
Speaker 2: seven billion dollars contracting someone to create it, which I
Speaker 2: must point out was always a folly since that system
Speaker 2: existed in New South Wales, for instance, But rather than
Speaker 2: adopt an existing system, the Victorian government decided to build
Speaker 2: it from scratch. It's still not working, and now those
Speaker 2: responsible for implementing the contactless ticketing system have been paid
Speaker 2: several million dollars not to do it so somebody else
Speaker 2: can be brought in to do it instead. This is
Speaker 2: typical Victoria lives where the government paid what was it
Speaker 2: a billion dollars not to build the East West Freeway link,
Speaker 2: where they paid four hundred million dollars not to run
Speaker 2: the Commonwealth Games, and now they're paying several million dollars
Speaker 2: not to have this company fix the my key system.
Speaker 6: Do you think this is one of the contracts included
Speaker 6: in the story that we'll get to in the papers. Wait,
Speaker 6: till you find out how much tax payer dollars are
Speaker 6: being spent on these contract amendments. Does that include cancelations
Speaker 6: which is outright cancelation?
Speaker 2: Why not?
Speaker 4: Let's check it all in. How hard can it be that?
Speaker 4: This is what I don't get. We've wont it in
Speaker 4: New South Wales, they've got it down in South Australia.
Speaker 2: In London for years.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know what the.
Speaker 4: Situation's like in Brisbane, whether they can use credit cards.
Speaker 4: But how hard can it be to take a piece
Speaker 4: of machinery that allows you to tap on a card
Speaker 4: and then also allow it to tap on a credit card.
Speaker 4: I mean, if they can't do that, if they can't
Speaker 4: update the market system, why don't they go to a
Speaker 4: bank and say, look, can we just have a bunch
Speaker 4: of FPOs terminals please, and we'll just fit them in
Speaker 4: the trains and the buses.
Speaker 1: They don't cost any money.
Speaker 4: The banks hand them out for free because they want
Speaker 4: the business, they.
Speaker 1: Want the money going through their banks.
Speaker 4: And then you just tap your credit card like you
Speaker 4: do when you go to the shop and it charges.
Speaker 1: You the fair How hard can it be in to
Speaker 1: do this stuff?
Speaker 4: The technology exists, I mean when it happened in South Australia,
Speaker 4: and I go down there frequently being an Adelaide boy,
Speaker 4: I didn't know it was coming because it didn't have
Speaker 4: a lot of wide reporting, presumably because it wasn't an
Speaker 4: extraordinary thing that the South Australian government worked out how
Speaker 4: to make their systems work with credit cards. I just
Speaker 4: rocked up one day and you could use your credit
Speaker 4: card and they did a trial and it was great.
Speaker 1: Now it's on every bus, simple as that. Why can't
Speaker 1: Victoria do this stuff?
Speaker 4: Like how hard is it when you have a ticketing
Speaker 4: system to just make it do what everyone else's.
Speaker 3: Hand all done out the Allen government. You're asking for
Speaker 3: too much.
Speaker 4: I know. And we're talking about the government of course,
Speaker 4: where the Premier says there should be a rev you
Speaker 4: into Bayol laws, and then the Police Minister doesn't think
Speaker 4: they should be review into Baio laws, and then the
Speaker 4: Attorney General doesn't know that there's going to be review
Speaker 4: into Bayol.
Speaker 6: Laws and they did amend their bail laws just last year.
Speaker 6: It's unbelievable, Victorians, Why are there any of you left?
Speaker 3: Just high tail it out of there?
Speaker 6: A great story out of America tonight Missouri has decided
Speaker 6: to take China to court and sue them for the
Speaker 6: whole You know, that COVID thing, that massive pandemic, that
Speaker 6: people lost, bajillions of money, Countries were on their knees,
Speaker 6: entire economies ruined.
Speaker 3: People were traumatized.
Speaker 6: In their personal and professional lives for years on. And well,
Speaker 6: Missouri's decided they're going to get justice. Andrew Bailey, Missouri
Speaker 6: Attorney General, is quoted as saying, China refused to show
Speaker 6: up to court while we were suing them here in Missouri,
Speaker 6: but that doesn't mean they get away with causing untold
Speaker 6: suffering and economic devastation. We intend to collect every penny
Speaker 6: by seizing Chinese owned assets, including Missouri farmland. So they've
Speaker 6: taken China to court. China, of course, didn't show up.
Speaker 6: They found in favor of Missouri and have successfully sued
Speaker 6: China for twenty eight billion dollars. And they say, oh, look,
Speaker 6: it's fine, they're not going to show up and pay
Speaker 6: us the cash.
Speaker 5: We're just gonna keep seizing assets.
Speaker 6: Of course, China addressed this and just waved it off
Speaker 6: like it was utter nonsense. The Chinese Embassy in Washington's
Speaker 6: spokesperson said, the so called lawsuit has no basis in fact,
Speaker 6: law or international precedents. China does not and will not
Speaker 6: accept it. If China's interests are harmed, we will firmly
Speaker 6: take reciprocal countermeasures according to international law. Now Eric Schmidt,
Speaker 6: now Missouri Senator, was the former Missouri AG. I got
Speaker 6: the ball rolling, and my predecessor, my successor, rather has
Speaker 6: kept it going.
Speaker 3: Go us, He says.
Speaker 6: When I was AG in Missouri, I sued China for
Speaker 6: unleashing COVID on the world. My successor and friend Andrew
Speaker 6: Bailey continued the work, and today the court awarded Missouri
Speaker 6: twenty four billion in damages. I said twenty eight earlier.
Speaker 6: Oh okay, we'll round it down to twenty four. Missouri
Speaker 6: can now seize assets. Just call us the show me
Speaker 6: the money state. My question is, if Missouri can do
Speaker 6: this and now just start ripping back Chinese own assets
Speaker 6: in their state.
Speaker 5: What's to stop the rest of us from taking note?
Speaker 2: So specifically, they found that China had covered up the pandemic,
Speaker 2: especially at the start, and that China had hoarded protective
Speaker 2: gear and equipment, and then that of course affected people
Speaker 2: in Missouri. But you're right, and not just individual states.
Speaker 2: Why haven't international institutions and bodies pursued this? Why is
Speaker 2: at some court in Missouri that none of us have
Speaker 2: ever heard, that have had the balls to take on China.
Speaker 2: Scott Morrison, for all of his failings, at least tried
Speaker 2: to get the world to hold China accountable. How come
Speaker 2: it's a court in Missouri that's doing this and not
Speaker 2: all these international bodies that keep going on about how
Speaker 2: they're here to guard our rights and to ensure justice,
Speaker 2: and they just wave this one.
Speaker 4: Away because I'm not sure how you actually enforce it.
Speaker 4: It's a thing in the US where you can actually
Speaker 4: sue foreign countries through their courts, and that's obviously what
Speaker 4: has happened here. It was originally knocked back, then it
Speaker 4: was appealed, that went to the district court, which is
Speaker 4: where this.
Speaker 1: Judgment came down.
Speaker 4: But I don't know, once you've sued a foreign country
Speaker 4: in your own country and then say that a foreign
Speaker 4: country owes you a lot of money, how do you
Speaker 4: go and actually collect that debt in a legitimate way,
Speaker 4: Like I know they're saying. I know they're saying they're
Speaker 4: going to seize the assets. But once they've seized the assets.
Speaker 4: What do you do then, how do you actually legitimately
Speaker 4: seize the assets?
Speaker 1: Are like a murky situation. I love it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I hope they can pull it's the money from.
Speaker 4: Well the state because the states the state.
Speaker 3: Can just respend it, or that the state can.
Speaker 1: Do it at once with it.
Speaker 4: It's the state that's won the case, so that the
Speaker 4: state would be the beneficiary of the damages. So they
Speaker 4: say they're going to seize assets, but they're saying, okay,
Speaker 4: we'll seize Chinese owned assets, but they've.
Speaker 1: Sued the CCP, et cetera.
Speaker 4: If you're some bloke in China who owns a bit
Speaker 4: of land in Missouri and then all of a sudden
Speaker 4: your land is being taken away because the CCP did something,
Speaker 4: you're probably going to be pretty upset. I don't think
Speaker 4: this is going to be the end of this discussion,
Speaker 4: but I like where they're going with it.
Speaker 1: You know, if we could do it, if we could.
Speaker 4: Pull it off, I'd be all on board with it,
Speaker 4: and I just think it would be a little bit dodging.
Speaker 1: But of course, you see, the thing is they say.
Speaker 4: We'll retaliate, and the only way they can retaliate is
Speaker 4: in trade means, which is of course where the United
Speaker 4: States actually does have a little bit of an upper
Speaker 4: hand here in any other country that wanted to try
Speaker 4: it on would have an upper hand because theydn't retaliate
Speaker 4: by saying, well, we're going to stop the Aussies and
Speaker 4: the US from owning land in China because that's already illegal,
Speaker 4: and maybe we should take note of that.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should think for ourselves.
Speaker 4: We're saying now that we're going to reclaim land that's
Speaker 4: owned by Chinese people in Missouri in the United States,
Speaker 4: why are they allowed to own it in the first place.
Speaker 4: Just aarsts China, they'll tell you why they don't want
Speaker 4: people having land in their country.
Speaker 1: Let's go just a little bit further over the border.
Speaker 4: Up to Canada now, where they have a new prime Minister,
Speaker 4: Mark Karney. He's the new leader of the Liberal Party,
Speaker 4: who of course replaces the train.
Speaker 1: Wreck that was justin Trudeau.
Speaker 4: He worked out, of course that there is no way
Speaker 4: he's going to win the election that is set to
Speaker 4: be held in October this year. It'll probably be earlyer
Speaker 4: now that they've had a change of hands with the
Speaker 4: leadership here is justin Trudeau saying thank you so much.
Speaker 7: On a personal level, I've made sure that every single
Speaker 7: day in this office, I put Canadians first, have people's backs,
Speaker 7: and that's why I'm here to tell you all we
Speaker 7: got you. Even in the very last days of this government.
Speaker 7: We will not let Canadians down today and long into
Speaker 7: the future.
Speaker 1: Oh it's all very sweet, isn't it.
Speaker 4: So? Of course, sniffing the wind and realizing what's happened
Speaker 4: south of the border in Canada, in the United States
Speaker 4: where Trump has just swept to power, because of course
Speaker 4: people are sick of left wing politics, and we're left
Speaker 4: wing people doing what left wing people have been doing,
Speaker 4: which is basically not listening to what's going on in
Speaker 4: their own countries. The Liberal Party has said, yes, let's
Speaker 4: bring on someone who wants to do everything we've been
Speaker 4: doing for years and years under Trudeau.
Speaker 1: Here is Mark Carney.
Speaker 9: Donald Trump, as we know, has put as the Prime minister,
Speaker 9: just said unjustified terriffs on what we build, on what
Speaker 9: we sell, on how we make a living. He's attacking
Speaker 9: Canadian families, workers and businesses, and we cannot let him succeed.
Speaker 4: Yes, we're going to stop that evil Trump. Good luck
Speaker 4: with that, because you're not going to win the election.
Speaker 4: If there's one thing we should be grateful for, it's
Speaker 4: the Christia Friedland, who was also in the running for
Speaker 4: prime minister after this speech, just somehow didn't make it.
Speaker 10: A few weeks ago in Saskatoon, I met a four
Speaker 10: year old girl named Ari. She asked me, can you
Speaker 10: stop Trump from invading Canada. Ari is a smart girl
Speaker 10: and she's asking the right question. I'm running to be
Speaker 10: leader of the Liberal Party and the next Prime Minister
Speaker 10: of Canada.
Speaker 4: So I guess Canada is at risk of being invaded
Speaker 4: now because she didn't get the prime ministership.
Speaker 1: It's bad, but it could have been worse.
Speaker 2: She went further than that, She's actually asking for the
Speaker 2: UK and France to enter into a pact with Canada
Speaker 2: to provide a nuclear deterr It's to Donald Trump from
Speaker 2: ever invading Canada, which just shows you where the Canadian
Speaker 2: Liberal Party is. That they have nothing at all to
Speaker 2: run on other than turning Donald Trump into the ultimate
Speaker 2: bogey man who's going to invade Canada. And if anyone
Speaker 2: thinks Trump and America are going to invade Canada, they
Speaker 2: deserve to have who is that Mark Carney as their
Speaker 2: prime minister. The other interesting thing is about the Canadian
Speaker 2: Liberals is less than half of those eligible to vote
Speaker 2: for the next leader of the party to replace Trudeau.
Speaker 2: Less than half of those eligible bothered to vote, and
Speaker 2: when they did, they vote for guys not even in parliament.
Speaker 2: Mark Carney's not even in the parliament.
Speaker 3: This is true.
Speaker 6: This was replacing like king of the globalist picks with
Speaker 6: another king of the globalist picks.
Speaker 3: Like read Carney's resume. It's like, oh, Jermia favor.
Speaker 5: And this is going to be a marvelous showdown.
Speaker 6: Canada is due to go to the polls in October,
Speaker 6: but everyone suspects they'll go earlier.
Speaker 3: This will trigger so sort of a snap election.
Speaker 6: It'll end up being earlier because they're ready for a
Speaker 6: showdown now.
Speaker 3: But it's this.
Speaker 6: Carneie fellow versus the Canadian Trump in Pierre Polivier or
Speaker 6: however you want to.
Speaker 3: Pronounce his last name.
Speaker 6: I've heard so many different versions even I'm confused now,
Speaker 6: but this guy has been heralded as the Canadian Trump,
Speaker 6: and I think these guys are about to find out
Speaker 6: just how much Canadians actually don't mind themselves a little
Speaker 6: bit of trump.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, in Australia you'd never let a carne
Speaker 4: run the country, would you. But apparently in Canada that's okay.
Speaker 2: No, But they have now got a former banker leading
Speaker 2: their country, and didn't Australia have a former banker our country.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about him in the papers. But coming up
Speaker 2: after the break, including in the papers, police find that
Speaker 2: caravan filled with explosives was not a terror plot. Apparently
Speaker 2: it was just a hoax. All of that and a
Speaker 2: bit more, and we look at the papers in just
Speaker 2: a moment, welcome back. Let's look at what's making news tomorrow.
Speaker 2: The Daily Telegraph Lives have got a big story about
Speaker 2: that caravan filled with explosive.
Speaker 3: Big story and a great story. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: good news.
Speaker 5: Crook stage act of anti Semitic terror.
Speaker 3: It was all a vile hoax. We've been had.
Speaker 5: But have you ever been gladder to be to have
Speaker 5: been had?
Speaker 6: A caravan filled with explosives found in Sydney's northwest was
Speaker 6: part of a fabricated terrorist plot, masterminded by crime figures
Speaker 6: who held vain hopes of using it to cut a
Speaker 6: deal with authorities to seek a reduce sentence for other matters,
Speaker 6: police said yesterday. It comes as the Daily Telegraph can
Speaker 6: reveal the Australian Federal Police knew the explosive laden caravan
Speaker 6: existed before it was found at Dural. Here's the AFP
Speaker 6: Deputy Commissioner addressing this today. Today I can reveal that
Speaker 6: the caravan was never going to cause an casualty event,
Speaker 6: but instead was concocted by criminals who wanted to cause
Speaker 6: fear for personal benefit.
Speaker 3: Vile criminals.
Speaker 6: But what are relief to know that this was staged
Speaker 6: by some whack jobs with an entirely different agender. I
Speaker 6: think for that reason, it's a very good story and
Speaker 6: jokes on Australia because we introduce those hate speech laws,
Speaker 6: those new hate speech laws, which I was very vehement
Speaker 6: against and still am, due to this very thing that
Speaker 6: now has been confirmed by.
Speaker 5: Police to be a complete hoax.
Speaker 3: It was a fake terror.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I'd be that excited about the news
Speaker 2: just yet, because I reckon police have gone early. They've
Speaker 2: said in this article they're not sure if it was
Speaker 2: used as leverage to try and get a reduced sentence
Speaker 2: by criminals, ie they plant this caravan. Then they tell
Speaker 2: police about it, and police, oh, thank you, because you've
Speaker 2: done that, will reduce your sentence. In other cases, they're
Speaker 2: not if it's that, or if it was done to
Speaker 2: cause fear but was never going to be a threat,
Speaker 2: but done to cause fear, And if you've got organized
Speaker 2: crime now doing things to cause fear amongst the Jewish community,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that's something to be all that relieved
Speaker 2: or excited.
Speaker 6: I'm just saying it's a marvelous thing that we now
Speaker 6: know that nobody was intending to actually blow up another
Speaker 6: synagogue or harm people physically.
Speaker 4: Well the hell of a lot better than the alternative, right,
Speaker 4: But I suppose a terror terror a terror act is
Speaker 4: that terror is the operative word. I mean, terror is
Speaker 4: necessarily a physical act. It's a feeling that you experienced,
Speaker 4: and of course this would have created terror for whatever
Speaker 4: means was supposedly what these organized crime crims wanted. But
Speaker 4: what we know is that, you know, there are people
Speaker 4: on the periphery who've been arrested on this matter, who
Speaker 4: presumably have been contracted to get involved in these things,
Speaker 4: but we haven't been told who's actually pulling the selling.
Speaker 4: Weird thing about this just gets weirder. And it was
Speaker 4: weird to begin with, and it just gets weirder and
Speaker 4: weirder and weirder from the point that it took so
Speaker 4: long for police, of course to tell the public about it,
Speaker 4: that the Prime Minister seemingly hadn't been told about it,
Speaker 4: even though other people had been briefed and knew about it.
Speaker 4: Now we're told that it's organized crime, but we don't
Speaker 4: know who in organized crime it was.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is weird.
Speaker 6: So you can bet you take it to the bank
Speaker 6: that they know a lot more than they're saying they
Speaker 6: always do.
Speaker 2: But we had Chris Min's, the New South Wales Premier,
Speaker 2: saying that this was a terror threat. Well, the AFP
Speaker 2: apparently was sitting there knowing the entire time. No, no,
Speaker 2: it's nothing of the sort, and yet they allowed this
Speaker 2: thing to None of this makes sense.
Speaker 6: So you're saying now that the government was complicit in
Speaker 6: spreading terror when it knew there was no no.
Speaker 1: No, because the AFP.
Speaker 4: The AFP didn't tell the New South Wales Police about
Speaker 4: their thoughts and investigation. So of course the New South
Speaker 4: Wales Police talked about what they thought they knew, but
Speaker 4: the AFP had withheld information.
Speaker 6: Does this potentially plane why Albo didn't reveal what he
Speaker 6: knew when he knew it, because remember that was a
Speaker 6: massive talking point for a very long time. It's like,
Speaker 6: you knew about this van, you didn't say anything. Why
Speaker 6: didn't you say anything about the van? Maybe he had
Speaker 6: been made aware of something along these lines.
Speaker 2: That doesn't make sense because then he allowed Chris Mins
Speaker 2: to look like an idiot without I know, Chris Mins
Speaker 2: makes sense. We're never going to solve that one tonight.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to The Herald's Son. We were talking
Speaker 2: about bail laws earlier. This is a great story in
Speaker 2: The Herald's Son, Bail betrayal bombshell, great use of the
Speaker 2: literation by the sub editors at The Herald's Son. Former
Speaker 2: Victoria Police Chief Shane Patten lobbied the Allen government to
Speaker 2: adopt a seven point plan to fix the state's failed
Speaker 2: bail system about two weeks before he was axed. The
Speaker 2: Herald's Son can reveal the plan's keyplank was to limit
Speaker 2: accused offenders to a maximum of three sets of bail
Speaker 2: before they were remanded in custody. Now, whistleblowers say a
Speaker 2: senior official told mister Patten the government did not have
Speaker 2: enough care or prison beds to implement the proposal. It
Speaker 2: comes as repeat offenders have been released into the community
Speaker 2: up to fifty five times and pressure grows for a
Speaker 2: bail law's overhaul. That's an astonishing admission if it's true
Speaker 2: that the government simply said, look, we just don't have
Speaker 2: enough prison beds or money to implement tough bail laws,
Speaker 2: especially when you consider that just Center Allen has initiated
Speaker 2: a review into bail laws, which she initiated right before
Speaker 2: a couple of very important by elections, and here we
Speaker 2: have the former police commissioner giving her some pretty good advice.
Speaker 2: I would have thought he's a solution. You get three cracks.
Speaker 2: If you still offend after that, that's it, no more bail.
Speaker 2: But the government just said, haven't got the money, haven't
Speaker 2: got the prison beds, can't do it.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't carry a great deal of water
Speaker 4: for pattern after what happened during COVID. But it was
Speaker 4: said by many people who had knowledge within the force.
Speaker 4: When he was effectively sacked, well, he was told that
Speaker 4: his contract would be renewed. In any resigned there had
Speaker 4: been tensioned between him and the government going back to COVID,
Speaker 4: and obviously as recently as weeks before the government moved
Speaker 4: him on and they saw him, presumably as a difficult person,
Speaker 4: and so.
Speaker 1: Off you go.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you try to point out something that
Speaker 4: seems pretty straightforward that you know you shouldn't be able
Speaker 4: to break your bail conditions more than three times before
Speaker 4: you don't get bailing in and next thing you don't
Speaker 4: have your contract renewed, you can understand by Patton might
Speaker 4: have been a little bit peeved by that. Indeed, let's
Speaker 4: go to the front of the Odds tomorrow where it's
Speaker 4: undaluted troon ball, torpedos, traffic talks. I mean, you thought
Speaker 4: the alliteration was good on the front of the Herald
Speaker 4: Son James who we got a set five times quickly belt.
Speaker 1: Here on the front of the Odds.
Speaker 4: Australia's hopes of securing an exemption from Donald Trump stealing
Speaker 4: aluminium tariffs this week have been dealt a blow after
Speaker 4: the US President lash Malcolm Turnbull, who won a carve
Speaker 4: out from mister Trump's first term tariffs, as a weak
Speaker 4: and ineffective leader. And of course this all followed Turnbull
Speaker 4: getting involved making comments to the media about the tariff situation.
Speaker 4: Turnbull said, where Trump is chaotic, g will be consistent.
Speaker 4: Where Trump is rude and abusive, he will be respectful.
Speaker 4: Where Trump is erratic, he will be consistent.
Speaker 2: Is that what Jijinging was being when he had those
Speaker 2: warships go by Sydney live firing with eligent flights?
Speaker 1: So that was respectful?
Speaker 4: Was it?
Speaker 2: What an idiot?
Speaker 1: I can't get over? Like, what the hell are you doing? Malcolm?
Speaker 4: If you wanted to ensure that we got these tariffs,
Speaker 4: that's a pretty damn good way of doing it by
Speaker 4: enraging Gon Truple.
Speaker 1: How dumb do you get?
Speaker 2: Not much dumber? Is the answer to that is not
Speaker 2: much dumber. We're going to go to a break when
Speaker 2: we come back. And Dave Hughes, the Aussie comedian, is
Speaker 2: applauded for kicking people out of his most recent show,
Speaker 2: You will let me see what happened in just a
Speaker 2: moment Welcome back. Comedian Dave Hughes was performing in Adelaide
Speaker 2: at the weekend, but cadib it didn't quite go according
Speaker 2: to plan.
Speaker 1: No it didn't. I can tell you.
Speaker 4: Dave Hughes is a good bloke and he was just
Speaker 4: trying to predict his audience here. We've all been to
Speaker 4: a live show before, particularly comedy, and there's someone in
Speaker 4: the audience who just has to interject and interrupt and
Speaker 4: make a dick of themselves. It goes on all the time.
Speaker 4: It's so bloody annoying. Would you just shut up and
Speaker 4: let me enjoy the show?
Speaker 1: Well, it happened to mister Hughes.
Speaker 4: He wasn't having a Barret.
Speaker 11: Dave Hughes was forced to stop his show at the
Speaker 11: Woodcroft Hotel on Friday nights because, he says one woman
Speaker 11: wouldn't stop talking. After several warnings, the woman and her
Speaker 11: two friends were escorted out by security, one even giving
Speaker 11: us the hug before being shown the door.
Speaker 4: I suspect she's apologizing for the drunken behavior, presumably of
Speaker 4: the person she was with. But you know what, I
Speaker 4: had a moment like this myself on the weekend. I
Speaker 4: was on a train to Woole Gong. Two things happened.
Speaker 4: One bloke lit up a cigarette on the train. I mean,
Speaker 4: who does that?
Speaker 1: Who likes up a cigarette on the train.
Speaker 4: But the other was I was in a quiet carriage
Speaker 4: and these kids got on and started having a loud conversation.
Speaker 1: It's written on the door, quiet carriage.
Speaker 4: I went into the quiet carriage because I wanted to
Speaker 4: sit in silence, and these kids start carrying on.
Speaker 1: I wanted to.
Speaker 4: Turn around and go Dave fuse on them, but I thought, no,
Speaker 4: I don't want my face caved in. At least he's
Speaker 4: on stage and he can avoid that kind of thing.
Speaker 4: But do people not understand the contract of a civil society?
Speaker 4: Have some respect for the people around you, for Heaven's sake.
Speaker 6: Well, in defense of those kids, I didn't know we
Speaker 6: had quiet carriages.
Speaker 3: It's a Richtralian door European thing. I'm well aware of that.
Speaker 3: But here in Australia.
Speaker 5: We're not a quiet cult.
Speaker 3: Chest sack it up, butter caup before we leave each
Speaker 3: to night.
Speaker 6: Check out this bulldog by the name of Chowder. He
Speaker 6: has wrapped up one point six million TikTok followers.
Speaker 3: For his sweet skills.
Speaker 6: He started skateboarding when he was just two years old.
Speaker 3: He's now nine, and check.
Speaker 5: This guy out.
Speaker 6: He literally he steers the board, he rounds corners, he's
Speaker 6: leaning into it, so.
Speaker 3: He makes it through smoothly. This is utterly incredible.
Speaker 6: His owner, Jammy Delverdang, told the press that he literally
Speaker 6: behaves like a skater too. She says, if he has
Speaker 6: a bad run, he has a temperature for him and
Speaker 6: will flip the board over and be growling at it,
Speaker 6: just like skaters do.
Speaker 3: I mean, how cute is that?
Speaker 2: When I don't like it, he should be wearing a helmet.
Speaker 2: We've got coming up as the Reader Penny Show. Good Night,