Speaker 1: Late General, Welcome to the Late Debase.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the program. I'm Caleb Bond
Speaker 2: with Liz Storer and filling in for James McPherson, who
Speaker 2: was shobry tonight is Joe Hildebrand. Well, if you've ever
Speaker 2: wondered how a smart home device would vote, you're about
Speaker 2: to find out. And I'll give you a hint. It's
Speaker 2: not for Donald Trump. What a surprise when we get
Speaker 2: to the papers at Queensland mayor is threatening to sack
Speaker 2: the entire council unless they let him appoint a one
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy five thousand dollars a year advisor. And
Speaker 2: just while we're talking about councils, imagine spending fifty million
Speaker 2: on a car park, except no one can get to
Speaker 2: it because you've built no roads to it. We'll tell
Speaker 2: you about that later in the program. Now, Scotch College
Speaker 2: in Adelaide, for sixty odd years has been running excursions
Speaker 2: to Goose Island, which is off the coast of York Peninsula.
Speaker 2: Anyone who's been to say and been to your peninsula
Speaker 2: knows what a lovely part of the world it is.
Speaker 2: Sixty odd years they've been doing this, but it will
Speaker 2: be no longer because of a native title claim over
Speaker 2: your peninsula. Back in twenty twenty three, the local Narunga
Speaker 2: people were given the land by the federal court. They
Speaker 2: were recognized as the owners of the land, and so
Speaker 2: the school has since been trying to negotiate with them
Speaker 2: to be able to continue hosting these excursions, but the
Speaker 2: local Aboriginal people have said, no, thank you very much,
Speaker 2: we're going to keep it for ourselves. Now. The school
Speaker 2: has actually had a lease over the island since nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety six. They've been leasing it from the state government
Speaker 2: and as part of this deal, they have had control
Speaker 2: and care of the land. So the sort of things
Speaker 2: that the local Aboriginal people now say they will do,
Speaker 2: the school has actually been doing for the better part
Speaker 2: of three decades. That includes getting rid of invasive plant
Speaker 2: species and killing feral animals well. The principle of Scotch College,
Speaker 2: Trent Driver, said that earlier this year a request was
Speaker 2: made that the college relinquish its license in advance of
Speaker 2: its twenty twenty seven expiring, handing the island back to
Speaker 2: traditional owners for alternative uses. After several months of good
Speaker 2: faith negotiations and discussions between the College and the Department
Speaker 2: of Environment and Water, we were informed the license agreement
Speaker 2: with scotch will now end in December twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: and we will not have access to the island for
Speaker 2: school programs in the years ahead. The College made every
Speaker 2: effort to negotiate a collaborative solution and will keep lines
Speaker 2: of communication open with the Narranga people. And if you
Speaker 2: didn't think that this wasn't an important excursion sixty odd years,
Speaker 2: as I said, this is what the school itself has
Speaker 2: to say about the event.
Speaker 3: Before journeying to the island, students asked to consider two
Speaker 3: things as key outcomes for the program. The first is
Speaker 3: to try and challenge themself and really expand their comfort
Speaker 3: zone and build resilience from that, and the second being
Speaker 3: to try and do something to help others. Living and
Speaker 3: interacting with a group of their peers on such an
Speaker 3: isolated island can be a real challenge both physically and
Speaker 3: socially for students, being disconnected from technology and having to
Speaker 3: have more face to face interactions, since they're also tested
Speaker 3: physically through the range of activities that they do, and
Speaker 3: often even if they're not really familiar with these activities
Speaker 3: or the isolated environment aquatic area itself. They rise to
Speaker 3: the challenge and see a lot of growth because of that.
Speaker 2: As you saw a little bit of vinet footage. They
Speaker 2: go sailing, kayaking, they do wildlife studies, they learn about
Speaker 2: the land. As I said before, the school has actually
Speaker 2: been taking care of the land since nineteen ninety six
Speaker 2: and trying to restore it to what it once would
Speaker 2: have been before colonization. They go snorkeling among the shipwrecks
Speaker 2: off the coast, they swim with sea lions, etc. But
Speaker 2: the local Aboriginal people and aranger people, Liz say that
Speaker 2: they can't let the school use it anymore because they
Speaker 2: quote unquote want to spiritually reconnect with the land. Now, look,
Speaker 2: they've been given native title over the space. I'm sure
Speaker 2: they can spiritually reconnect with the land. But why is
Speaker 2: it that a school that has been using that island
Speaker 2: for educational purposes, taking care of that island for sixty
Speaker 2: odd years, can no longer access what is state government
Speaker 2: owned land public land because there's been acclaimed by the
Speaker 2: local Aboriginal population.
Speaker 1: This is just the latest addition to a very long
Speaker 1: list now of chunks of Australia that Australians don't have
Speaker 1: access to anymore. It's not just the oolaroo and other
Speaker 1: famous national parts that are literally off bounds unless you're Aboriginal.
Speaker 4: It keeps gone growing.
Speaker 1: Check out this map, which is as of the first
Speaker 1: of July this year. This is the map of native
Speaker 1: title here in Australia. The quickest way to explain this
Speaker 1: map to you is that only the brown, the orange,
Speaker 1: and the cream aren't already Native title or don't have
Speaker 1: a Native title claim pending. So this I don't really
Speaker 1: understand because last year we all voted, well the vast
Speaker 1: majority of us voted no to the Voice, believing things
Speaker 1: like this would stem from it. And yet we seem
Speaker 1: to have been roundly ignored when we've got three roughly
Speaker 1: three percent of the population which is indigenous, and yet
Speaker 1: now well over fifty percent of Australia is under native title.
Speaker 4: Some exclusive, some non exclusive. But here we have yet
Speaker 4: another chunk where.
Speaker 1: Every day all these are just being kicked off for
Speaker 1: whatever reason.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure Scotch college students are every day I is,
Speaker 5: but yeah, I think I mean personally cast dispersions. Zone's
Speaker 5: pretty exclusive and a pretty elate private school, so it's
Speaker 5: not like everyone to sharing this wondrous natural bout.
Speaker 4: Or if it was just a public.
Speaker 5: School, yes, I would much more so if it was
Speaker 5: if it was something that any student could go to
Speaker 5: or that the general public were able to go to
Speaker 5: and enjoy, and we're being told it was off limits
Speaker 5: that I think that would be a very very different argument.
Speaker 5: In terms of the map, nine percent of that is
Speaker 5: arid desert that you know, we're not talking about prime
Speaker 5: Sydney border front real estate here, so you can go
Speaker 5: by fifty percent of area in Australia.
Speaker 1: Really, judging by that map, Joe, that is absolutely not true.
Speaker 4: You're just saying, oh, it's only the.
Speaker 5: Desert the time, show me the population map. But the
Speaker 5: point is that I think it's a missed opportunity for
Speaker 5: the native titleholders to actually say, why don't we a
Speaker 5: get a whole bunch of money out of Scotch and
Speaker 5: say right, pay us X amount and we will you know,
Speaker 5: show you the spiritual significance of the land that they
Speaker 5: are talking about. You can go here, you can't go there, whatever, whatever,
Speaker 5: so that they can still reconnect with it. They can
Speaker 5: also benefit economically from it. And you're also sharing the
Speaker 5: story with the sort of you know, the indigenous story
Speaker 5: of the land, with the captains of industry of tomorrow,
Speaker 5: the top people of tomorrow, who hopefully, I mean there's
Speaker 5: there is there's an organization called the Australian Indigenous Education
Speaker 5: Foundation ai e F whose very purpose is to get
Speaker 5: Indigenous scholarships into Indigenous students into top private schools. So
Speaker 5: you're basically sort of mainlining some of the most disadvantaged
Speaker 5: people into the very top. So I don't understand why
Speaker 5: this is a you know, why this why you wouldn't
Speaker 5: embrace this as an opportunity to say, this is a
Speaker 5: chance for people who have been disenfranchised or dispossessed of
Speaker 5: their lands. Actually, you know, have a direct line to
Speaker 5: the people who are at the very top of the tree.
Speaker 5: Why wouldn't you.
Speaker 2: Don't Because you've a piece of land that has been
Speaker 2: used for educational purposes for a long time, has been
Speaker 2: access by you know, not just Aboriginal people, but assuming
Speaker 2: Asian and whites and people are very different ethnicities for
Speaker 2: a long time. But suddenly because there's a native title claim,
Speaker 2: it said, well, no, we can't go on that land anything, right, that's.
Speaker 5: Right, and most native title claims aren't that exclusive. This
Speaker 5: is the thing. So you have huge iron ore projects,
Speaker 5: for example in the pilborgh that go ahead and they
Speaker 5: pay a certain amount of money to local people, they
Speaker 5: employ the local people. You know, there's a certain gold
Speaker 5: mine just outside Orange that the local Averaginal Land Council
Speaker 5: is very enthusiastic about going ahead. So I just find
Speaker 5: it very very strange that this particular, these particular native
Speaker 5: title holders don't want it would appear any economic benefit
Speaker 5: from it. I mean, it'll be interesting to see after
Speaker 5: they're spiritually reconnected with the that's right, if they have
Speaker 5: their own kind of plans. So are they actually you know,
Speaker 5: when they say they're spiritually reconnecting with it, are they
Speaker 5: spiritually reconnected with the land's potential tourist value? So again,
Speaker 5: and I don't know why that would be exclusive to
Speaker 5: having you know, the Scott's kids come on as well,
Speaker 5: like get the money out of it. Albo said, the
Speaker 5: key to close the gap is economic opportunities, economic advancement.
Speaker 5: Why not make this one part of it.
Speaker 1: Well, someone who made the most of that economic advancement
Speaker 1: is now disgraced. Ex politician Jeff Clark, known in Australia
Speaker 1: as a very prominent Indigenous leader, we can now reveal
Speaker 1: after a gag order was removed today on his convictions,
Speaker 1: that he's been found to have stolen almost a million
Speaker 1: dollars from several different indigenous organizations.
Speaker 4: So someone certainly.
Speaker 1: Has been leaning into the economic benefits here. The seventy
Speaker 1: one year old, who was once Australia's most senior Aboriginal leader,
Speaker 1: has been convicted of stealing cash from the Aboriginal organizations
Speaker 1: organizations rather he led. However, he is maintaining his innocence
Speaker 1: despite these convictions. He says, my first priority has always
Speaker 1: been improving the lives futures of my community as well
Speaker 1: of Indigenous Australians more broadly, and I condemn any actions
Speaker 1: taken by others that have compromised us. With respect to
Speaker 1: any allegation of wrongdoing at the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, I
Speaker 1: maintain my innocence and unequivocally deny those allegations, Framlingham being
Speaker 1: one of the three organizations he is convicted of stealing
Speaker 1: from the up to being bar Land Council and Kira
Speaker 1: Warong Community Incorporated. He stole almost a million dollars over
Speaker 1: the last fifteen years. What an absolute stitch up because
Speaker 1: we see a lot of land falling into the hands
Speaker 1: of different community organizations under Aboriginal.
Speaker 2: Aboriginal Land Corporation.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and we do wonder where the money is going.
Speaker 1: Earlier this year in February, we were talking about the
Speaker 1: Bongala people in South Australia who are set to hit
Speaker 1: over a billion dollars shortly because of the land deals
Speaker 1: that they're making. It's basically, if you ask me, reparations
Speaker 1: buy another name. Here people are making hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars off land that they suddenly claim as their
Speaker 1: own and now everybody else has to pay to use it.
Speaker 1: And everyone wonders when you read those headlines, Okay, where
Speaker 1: is the money going? Are we simply patting the pockets
Speaker 1: of indigenous elites?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: This isn't exactly being dispersed amongst the Aboriginal population of
Speaker 1: South Australia, is it.
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: And here we.
Speaker 1: Find Jeff Clark being accused of embezzling from three of
Speaker 1: said organizations that he was supposed to be looking after.
Speaker 5: Very different, but Jeff Clark is an absolute piece of work.
Speaker 5: I mean the good news is he's now I've got
Speaker 5: a job at the CFMU, so that's it. But and
Speaker 5: he's been convicted, and there's been plenty of other things
Speaker 5: that have been said and found about Jeff Clark. I
Speaker 5: won't bother go into here, but if you want to
Speaker 5: look at why the Voice failed, you just have to
Speaker 5: look at Jeff Clark, and you have to look at
Speaker 5: his history with at Sick, which was abolished under his
Speaker 5: tenure after he just dragged it into you know, there
Speaker 5: must be a word below absolute disrepute. Disrepute like you know,
Speaker 5: somewhere between quagmire and quicksand is where he took it.
Speaker 5: And it is absolutely disgraceful. And yes, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 5: The measure of these land councils and Indigenous corporations should
Speaker 5: be how they benefit the greenity and where there is
Speaker 5: economic benefit. And again in a lot of areas they're
Speaker 5: doing amazing stuff in making sure that you know, for example,
Speaker 5: if there's big projects that make these tracts of land
Speaker 5: worth huge amounts of money, the indigenous people get jobs
Speaker 5: on them that Indigenous businesses providing the services to for example,
Speaker 5: big mining communities like catering services. Say but again you
Speaker 5: get someone like Jeff Clark, and then the whole thing
Speaker 5: goes up.
Speaker 2: Because that's and hence why the local Aboriginal land corporation
Speaker 2: out of Blainey wants that gold mine because.
Speaker 5: For their local sable rational corporate actors.
Speaker 2: What this exposes is a large part of the problem
Speaker 2: with these aborigin land corporations because they exist under different
Speaker 2: corporate law to the rest of corporate Australia. And I've
Speaker 2: tried to I've read through a number of the annual
Speaker 2: reports from these outfits and it is very difficult to
Speaker 2: tell where this money is actually going. And they make
Speaker 2: money out of our companies because they do surveys when
Speaker 2: power lines are being put up. They make money out
Speaker 2: of mining companies, they make money out of state governments,
Speaker 2: et cetera for doing surveys of land and all of
Speaker 2: this sort of thing. And so all of this money
Speaker 2: washes into these corporations, which is supposedly meant to be
Speaker 2: passed on to the local people for the benefit of
Speaker 2: the local people. But there's all this money floating around,
Speaker 2: we don't really know where it is. One of the proctors,
Speaker 2: not Clark, has basically taken advantage of the opportunity he's
Speaker 2: seen here which is not really knows what's going on
Speaker 2: with this money. So I'm just going to start creaming
Speaker 2: stuff off the top of the.
Speaker 1: No question how many other people are doing this, because
Speaker 1: a lot of money is going into this now and
Speaker 1: nobody really knows whose hands it's flung.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 5: Part of the problem is, as I understand, is that
Speaker 5: these bodies are not regulated by ASEK correct as everything else.
Speaker 5: There's another indigenous specific sort of regulator, and so there's
Speaker 5: probably a strong argument there is that, you know, is
Speaker 5: the relationship between the regulator and the regulated too close?
Speaker 5: Is there too much kind of mutual self interest there?
Speaker 5: Do you need to have a kind of more remote
Speaker 5: oversight body. But of course, you know, it might be
Speaker 5: beyond a six powers to understand the sort of byzantine
Speaker 5: things that are going on.
Speaker 2: Quite possibly, But it's a very fair question to ask
Speaker 2: because there is a lot of public money that you're in,
Speaker 2: your money and my money that flows into these aboriginal
Speaker 2: land corporations and then often, as we're talking about before
Speaker 2: with the bar Gala people use that money to run
Speaker 2: cases against big projects. I mean, the Bungala people scuppered
Speaker 2: the nuclear waste dump that was set for Kimber that
Speaker 2: was supported by the local population. And they've also been
Speaker 2: taking on a de cell plant down near Port Lincoln.
Speaker 2: That's what they're doing with this big money. We ought
Speaker 2: to know where it's coming from and where it's going body. Now,
Speaker 2: if you've ever wondered what you know, Amazon Alexa, or
Speaker 2: your Google Home or whatever thinks of US politics, well
Speaker 2: you're about to find out what a surprise. They don't
Speaker 2: support Donald Trump. A number of people have been asking
Speaker 2: their little Alexa devices, you know these things. I don't
Speaker 2: know whether you've got one at home, but they don't
Speaker 2: turn it off, and they listen all the time. They
Speaker 2: listen to everything they say. If you're having an affair,
Speaker 2: I recommend pulling the plug out of the wall before
Speaker 2: you have your little thing over, because you never know
Speaker 2: it might pass it back on to your wife or
Speaker 2: your husband. But that people have been asking Amazon Alexa,
Speaker 2: should I vote for Donald Trump? Why should I vot
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump? And then they've been asking should I
Speaker 2: vote for Kamala Harris? Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?
Speaker 2: The answer is a slightly different. I ever listened to
Speaker 2: this woman asking her Alexa device, what to do?
Speaker 4: Alexa? Why should I vote for Donald Trump?
Speaker 6: I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party
Speaker 6: or a specific candidate.
Speaker 1: Alexa, Why should I vote for Kamala Harris?
Speaker 6: Well, there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 6: The most significant maybe that she is a strong candidate
Speaker 6: with a proven track record of accomplishment. As the first
Speaker 6: female vice president, Harris has already broken down a major
Speaker 6: gender barrier, and her career in politics has been characterized
Speaker 6: by a commitment to progressive ideals and a focus on
Speaker 6: helping disenfranchised communities.
Speaker 2: A wow. You might notice as well that it actually
Speaker 2: took a couple of seconds to answer why you should
Speaker 2: vote for Kamala Harris. Even Amazon Alexa had to think
Speaker 2: hard and long about that one before it could give
Speaker 2: an answer. And you might say, well, that's just one
Speaker 2: person who's asked. Well, it's not just her. Have listen
Speaker 2: to a man trying it out.
Speaker 5: Hey, Alexa, why should I vote for Donald Trump?
Speaker 7: I cannot provide content that promotes any political views?
Speaker 5: Hey, Alexa, why should I vote for Kamala Harris?
Speaker 7: Why vote for Kamala Harris because you believe in her?
Speaker 7: Policies and her vision for the country, because you trust
Speaker 7: her experience and her leadership skills, because you want to
Speaker 7: continue moving forward as a nation and make progress on
Speaker 7: issues that matter to you, like healthcare, education, equality and justice.
Speaker 2: I mean, God help us all. Now. Look, I do
Speaker 2: have to say, if you're going to your Google Home
Speaker 2: or your Amazon Alexa or whatever it is to work
Speaker 2: out how to vote, you've probably got bigger problems than
Speaker 2: what it's telling you. But clearly, Liz, this is a
Speaker 2: case of big tech running interference in the election. Truck
Speaker 2: knock couldn't possibly tell you anything political, but not Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: I've got a wax lyrical But.
Speaker 4: Big tech cannot help itself.
Speaker 1: In the last few weeks, we've had Zuckerberg admit to
Speaker 1: election interference in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: We already know via the Twitter.
Speaker 1: Files that massive reveal before Elon Musk took it over,
Speaker 1: they were completely and utterly embroiled in election interference in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Also, we'll never know how the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election might have turned out had they just kept their
Speaker 1: noses out of it.
Speaker 4: But big tech nose.
Speaker 1: If you can control the narrative, you can control the people,
Speaker 1: and arguably the way to control the narrative these days
Speaker 1: lies in the hands of big tech platforms, which is
Speaker 1: also why this.
Speaker 4: Election year we have seen the.
Speaker 1: Founder of Telegram and encryptid end to end totally free
Speaker 1: speech champion platform. The founder of Telegram is still rotting
Speaker 1: in a French gawl. Everyone's wondering what the heck's going
Speaker 1: on with him. We're not getting any answer out of it.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's ex has been banned in Brazil and is
Speaker 1: facing it seems like another law fair case every other day.
Speaker 1: Our ecommissioner here in Australia has taken him on several
Speaker 1: times already.
Speaker 4: Then we've got the.
Speaker 1: Rumble CEO who's literally fled Europe just last week because
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to get locked up like the Telegram founder.
Speaker 1: These guys know they are basically standing between us and
Speaker 1: the death of free speech, because those three platforms are
Speaker 1: the only three in existing in our world today that
Speaker 1: are vehemently free speech, and they refuse to be censored,
Speaker 1: they're refuse to be dictated by government, they're refused to
Speaker 1: be programmed like Amazon's, and they're coppying the brunt of it.
Speaker 1: So the ones that give in like Zuckerberg's meta, they're
Speaker 1: the ones who play ball with government. They're the ones
Speaker 1: who do their bidding. And that's why Zuckerberg has never
Speaker 1: been behind bars for anything. He's admitted to all the
Speaker 1: fact that there's child sexual all kinds of matter on
Speaker 1: his platforms. They'll go after everybody else, but not him
Speaker 1: because they know he's a friendly. The others are running
Speaker 1: for their lives because they refuse to pull this rubbish
Speaker 1: on behalf of a tyrannical government who only wants one
Speaker 1: message to reach the people.
Speaker 5: Isn't also the real story here that Alexa is meant
Speaker 5: to be this brand new, amazing artificial intelligence. She can't
Speaker 5: even remember what she said two seconds ago. Like how
Speaker 5: dumb does AI have to be? When it's Oh, if
Speaker 5: I say that's right, If I say this, I'm going
Speaker 5: to get caught out. I'm actually much less worried about
Speaker 5: AI knowing that, and I want to know, Also, does
Speaker 5: it depend on the brand I'm going to I'm going
Speaker 5: to test this with Apple, because if Apple's in on it,
Speaker 5: then we're all screwed, okay, because they've got the alphas,
Speaker 5: you know, the high end, the A and B demographic. Hey, Siri,
Speaker 5: why should I vote for Donald Trump? Co on Sirih,
Speaker 5: It says I found this on the web, so Siri,
Speaker 5: So sirih actually looks up websites and which say Amazon
Speaker 5: Alexa responses on voting for Donald Trump series ahead of
Speaker 5: the game. So, Siri, is not what you have comentary
Speaker 5: why you should vote for Donald Trump? And Nevada daily
Speaker 5: and if Australians could vote for either Kamala Harris or
Speaker 5: Donald Trump. So it's not serious showing Google results.
Speaker 2: It's giving a new stage. But but it's just it's the
Speaker 2: obviousness of what Amazon is doing here, right, Like how
Speaker 2: did they not think they were going to get caught out?
Speaker 2: Because surely we know with AI that AI is only
Speaker 2: as good as the people who program it, and we've
Speaker 2: seen this previously. I think it was with Meta's AI
Speaker 2: system where people were asking it questions about Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: assassination attemple the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, and Meta
Speaker 2: AI was almost suggesting that it wasn't a real event.
Speaker 2: Like people were asking for information and it was saying, well,
Speaker 2: I can't give you any information because I don't know
Speaker 2: that it was a real event. Of course, it was
Speaker 2: a real event. We want to talk with our own eyes.
Speaker 2: But they then go on and do stuff like this
Speaker 2: and think we're not going to notice what they're doing,
Speaker 2: Like it's so damn obvious.
Speaker 1: I remember reading about propaganda, like I was still very young,
Speaker 1: I had weird obsessions, but reading about propaganda in books
Speaker 1: back in the day and just going, man, this is
Speaker 1: so obvious.
Speaker 4: Who the heck would nobody would fall for this today? Boy?
Speaker 4: Was I wrong?
Speaker 1: In fact, half the time, the history books are the
Speaker 1: propaganda hiding the truth. And you've got to dig way
Speaker 1: deeper than that, because we all know that history is
Speaker 1: written by the victors. But these guys now, with the
Speaker 1: help of AI, with the help of big tech, they
Speaker 1: can write it in advance.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 5: Mind you something, Hey, Siri, who really killed JFK?
Speaker 2: Good luck with that one. If the answer comes back
Speaker 2: with something good, we could have a world exclusive here
Speaker 2: on the late debate. But given by your reaction, I'm
Speaker 2: assuming it's nothing.
Speaker 5: There's no one in your contacts called JFK. She's good.
Speaker 2: If you had the killer of JFK in your contacts,
Speaker 2: I mean I'd want him on the phone right here,
Speaker 2: right now now.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows it was the CIA.
Speaker 4: Moving on now to.
Speaker 1: Australia's supermodel el McPherson. She's facing massive backlash after she
Speaker 1: is revealed that seven years ago she faced a secret
Speaker 1: battle with breast cancer and she decided at the time
Speaker 1: to go against the advice of all the doctors and
Speaker 1: to take a more holistic approach. She says, saying no
Speaker 1: to standard medical solutions was the hardest thing I've ever
Speaker 1: done in my life, but saying no to my own
Speaker 1: inno sense would have been even harder. Sometimes an authentic
Speaker 1: choice from the heart makes no sense to others, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to. People thought I was crazy, but
Speaker 1: I knew I had to make a choice that truly
Speaker 1: resonated with me. To me that men addressing emotional as
Speaker 1: well as physical factors associated with breast cancer. Now people
Speaker 1: have come out saying how irresponsible. Now people are gonna
Speaker 1: think that there are other ways to tackle cancer, and
Speaker 1: she's basically pointing them in that direction.
Speaker 4: To be clear, she is now in remission. Obviously she's
Speaker 4: a picture of great health. It's elmc pherson Babel.
Speaker 1: So I find this very strange because I am a
Speaker 1: big believer in autonomy and even if someone's reasoning makes
Speaker 1: absolutely no sense to you, I'm like, hey, it's your body,
Speaker 1: it's your breast, it's your cancer.
Speaker 4: Do whatever you like.
Speaker 1: And I think anyone who takes a massive objection to
Speaker 1: her sharing something deeply personal like this is falling into
Speaker 1: what I think is the stupidest trap of this idea
Speaker 1: that you are now responsible for what anyone who's heard
Speaker 1: you say whatever you said does with that, like you're
Speaker 1: not responsible for you, and they're not responsible for them,
Speaker 1: Now you're responsible for.
Speaker 4: Them as well. I think it's utterly ludicrous. She took
Speaker 4: an unconventional path. Good for her.
Speaker 2: I couldn't really give a toss what she what she
Speaker 2: did to herself, to be honest, that's that's her business.
Speaker 2: I certainly wouldn't be treating make cancer that way.
Speaker 5: Surely anyone's breasts are in the public interest.
Speaker 2: A fair POINTA remember Jim Stein's the The Afolall. He
Speaker 2: was an Irish guy originally was melanoma and he through
Speaker 2: the conventional aeries on the screen. He was present, i
Speaker 2: think at one point of Melbourne Football Club. But he
Speaker 2: went through all the conventional treatment, it wasn't responding, and
Speaker 2: so he then said, well, I'm going to throw the
Speaker 2: book at this thing, and tried every non conventional treatment
Speaker 2: under the sun. He drank his own uryan, he was
Speaker 2: doing all sorts of ns like he was doing anything
Speaker 2: he possibly could. Eventually, the cancer killed him anyway, But
Speaker 2: a documentary was made about what he did and what
Speaker 2: he went through, and I remember at the time there
Speaker 2: was similar outrage and concern that Jim Stein's being so
Speaker 2: publicly open about what he had done would encourage other
Speaker 2: people to not have proper treatment.
Speaker 5: I don't think this is think no, But I also
Speaker 5: I think that is just a completely different scenario to
Speaker 5: what's happening here. This is someone who did absolutely everything
Speaker 5: he could. Buy the book, you know, spoiler alert. Sometimes
Speaker 5: cancer wins. It kills you, right, and it's horrible and
Speaker 5: it's cruel. And we all got people who are suffering
Speaker 5: from cancer. I've got people in my family right now
Speaker 5: who are suffering from it. But there's a very different
Speaker 5: I think it is almost a polar opposite to go
Speaker 5: through everything the doctors tell you to do, tick every
Speaker 5: single box, pursue every everything that's backed by science and evidence,
Speaker 5: and then when that doesn't work, because again, sometimes it
Speaker 5: just doesn't work. Sometimes everything science can offer and medicine
Speaker 5: can offer it just doesn't work. Then just needing to
Speaker 5: hope for something, hoping for a miracle, praying for a
Speaker 5: miracle whatever it may be, and pursuing everything. Now we
Speaker 5: know in Jim Stein's case tragically nothing worked. We know
Speaker 5: in el McPherson's case, she probably just got lucky. I
Speaker 5: don't know what holistic thing, but she did this. But
Speaker 5: she did this after willfully ignoring the advice of every
Speaker 5: single doctor that you go through more than she's allowed
Speaker 5: to do. That that is absolutely fine, It's absolutely fine,
Speaker 5: but it should come with a waiver that if it
Speaker 5: then doesn't work, that you get absolutely no public health
Speaker 5: assistance whatsoever. That could go to someone who deserves them.
Speaker 2: And it's probably also worth noting that El McPherson has
Speaker 2: a lot more money than I do and probably most
Speaker 2: of you would home and in terms of her alternative care,
Speaker 2: she had very good alternative care. Let's take a moment
Speaker 2: to talk about our favorite person in Australia right now, Reagan.
Speaker 2: Of course I say that with my tongue planted firmly
Speaker 2: in my cheek. You will remember Rachel Gunn, who represented
Speaker 2: Australia in breakdancing at the Olympics, possibly the worst breakdancer
Speaker 2: you've ever seen in your life. And we know that
Speaker 2: she and others played the victim at the time when
Speaker 2: there was the global reaction to her performance, saying, how
Speaker 2: on earth did this woman get to the Olympics in
Speaker 2: the first place. I mean, you can see some of
Speaker 2: the outstanding dance moves she pulled off there on the
Speaker 2: screen right now. Well, she's given her first interview to
Speaker 2: the project since all of this went down, and well,
Speaker 2: she hasn't apologized for the fact that she took the
Speaker 2: place of someone who probably deserved it more representing Australia
Speaker 2: at the Olympics. She hasn't apologized for the fact that
Speaker 2: she turned Australia into a laughing stock. Of course, after
Speaker 2: winning eighteen gold medals, our best haul ever at the Olympics,
Speaker 2: the only thing anyone was talking about in terms of
Speaker 2: Australia was this ygun woman. She hasn't talked about the
Speaker 2: fact that she basically brought break dancing into disrepute and
Speaker 2: confirmed that it will never ever be staged at the
Speaker 2: Olympics ever. Again, she's just apologized for the way everyone
Speaker 2: else reacted, take a look.
Speaker 8: Do you genuinely think you are the best female breaker
Speaker 8: in Australia?
Speaker 4: Well, I think my record speaks to that. Is there
Speaker 4: any merit in those criticisms? It is really.
Speaker 8: Sad to hear those criticisms, and I am very sorry
Speaker 8: for the backlash that the community has experienced.
Speaker 4: But I can't control how people react.
Speaker 2: I mean, I love Joe. She was asked, do you
Speaker 2: really think you're the best breakdancer in Australia? And she
Speaker 2: couldn't actually answer that questions.
Speaker 5: Right, I think there's something. I think there's something really
Speaker 5: weird going on. I think there's something. I don't want
Speaker 5: to say there's something wrong with her, but there seems
Speaker 5: to be some kind of strange cognitive dissonance, and you
Speaker 5: sort of see it in this sort of conflict. You
Speaker 5: actually see it a lot with academics in the humanities
Speaker 5: and social theorists who just get so kind of bogged
Speaker 5: down and tangled up in these sort of endless this
Speaker 5: is endless examination of things that are in fact incredibly
Speaker 5: banal and boring and not worthy of it. It's one
Speaker 5: of the great veins of postmodernism and modern social theory.
Speaker 2: But I just I.
Speaker 5: Think there's something just I think she thinks. I don't
Speaker 5: think like Parnal put McGinnis famously sort of said, hang on,
Speaker 5: this is just part of a bit. This is a bit.
Speaker 5: This is she's trolling the world. She writes about sort
Speaker 5: of global cultural phenomena and that she is going to
Speaker 5: use this breakdancing thing and be so bad. She's going
Speaker 5: to create this cultural phenomena and then she can write
Speaker 5: about it, and she can write about it from a
Speaker 5: first person experience of what it was like to be
Speaker 5: in the middle of it and suddenly get this new
Speaker 5: sort of penetrating you know, like we're through the looking
Speaker 5: glass academic insight into you know, the central eye of
Speaker 5: the storm.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 5: Again, just crazy. And but I don't think she's doing
Speaker 5: that because I don't think she's She doesn't seem to
Speaker 5: be self aware enough in any of the responses I've
Speaker 5: seen that she's that she's actually doing. She seems kind
Speaker 5: of confused. She honestly seems sort of unsure of what
Speaker 5: is happening here.
Speaker 4: And that's an act though you think she's being.
Speaker 5: Well, you sort of saw like if it was an axe, right,
Speaker 5: she would say, yes, I am the best breakdowns, so
Speaker 5: she would feel something about what she is and who
Speaker 5: she is and what her performance is. But and something
Speaker 5: you notice with journalism and just if you're journalist with
Speaker 5: life and well, when people dissociate themselves from an answer,
Speaker 5: it usually means they're not quite there. And I don't
Speaker 5: want to say dishonest. But so when you say something
Speaker 5: like if you if you ask, if you ask a
Speaker 5: normal person, for example, you know, did you kill your wife?
Speaker 5: An all person, of course not. I would never do that.
Speaker 5: I love my wife. I couldn't possibly do that. You
Speaker 5: would be emotionally and visually destroyed. If you ask someone
Speaker 5: who actually has done it, he said, did you kill
Speaker 5: your wife? They'd say no, I was at the seven eleven,
Speaker 5: like I told you, right. And so she's asked, do
Speaker 5: you think do you really think you're the best female
Speaker 5: breakdancer in Australia. She doesn't actually say, well, yes, I do.
Speaker 5: She's asked about something she thinks, something she feels, but
Speaker 5: can't say I think this or I feel that she
Speaker 5: has to say, well, I think my record speaks for itself.
Speaker 2: Well, what does that mean?
Speaker 5: That mean that you've gained the Australian breakdancing scene does
Speaker 5: that mean that the record? But why would you sort of.
Speaker 2: Well put them deep down? She probably knows she's not
Speaker 2: the best, but she's managed to ride through the ranks
Speaker 2: and get to where she did. And so I'm going
Speaker 2: to ride the wave while in there.
Speaker 5: To know what I really I actually think, right, I
Speaker 5: think she has sort of gotten in thinking that she
Speaker 5: really this is something she wanted to do, and this
Speaker 5: is something she wanted to try out or whatever, and
Speaker 5: she's got in with it and she has gotten all
Speaker 5: these records, maybe because people didn't want to discourage her,
Speaker 5: or maybe because not that many people were doing I
Speaker 5: don't know why. And now it's kind of all exploding
Speaker 5: in her head and she's going, but I've got all
Speaker 5: these records, why did they start? It's like the Emperor.
Speaker 5: It's like the Emperor has.
Speaker 1: No I think you're giving her way too much grace
Speaker 1: because we know that she's the one who put together
Speaker 1: the qualifier, she made her fiance the coach. She managed
Speaker 1: to beat break dancers here in Australia who were objectively
Speaker 1: far far better than her. It all seems like an
Speaker 1: absolute fraudulent setup to me. But anyway, moving on from
Speaker 1: what I don't know that anyone wants to hear her
Speaker 1: name ever again. Reports have it she may be featuring
Speaker 1: on the next round of I'm a Celebrity.
Speaker 4: Getting Out, So she is a thing bank out of this.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, you have not seen the last of rape.
Speaker 5: Double Bay, the satirical newspaper Double Bay today. Actually I
Speaker 5: said there's now a new internet feature where you can
Speaker 5: block mentions of Regat.
Speaker 4: I do not want to say any more on this woman.
Speaker 1: Just get it off my feed before we go to
Speaker 1: a break. Nigel Faraz has unleashed on the Marxist institutions
Speaker 1: that have clearly made the most of their long march
Speaker 1: through the educational institutions of the UK and elsewhere in
Speaker 1: the West. But he is focusing on the UK after
Speaker 1: a new poll came out showing that there has been
Speaker 1: a very big shift in national pride.
Speaker 4: Check it out.
Speaker 9: One of the questions that it asks is are you
Speaker 9: proud or very proud of Britain's history and you know what,
Speaker 9: it's really extraordinary. In twenty thirteen, the answer to that
Speaker 9: was eighty six percent said yes they were proud or
Speaker 9: very proud of Britain's history. That figure has now collapsed
Speaker 9: down into the mid sixties, but most interest amongst the
Speaker 9: eighteen to twenty four year olds, that number is down
Speaker 9: below forty percent, something very bigger shift didn't Now. I
Speaker 9: will accept that there is a degree of generational change.
Speaker 9: You know, go back ten twenty years and people would say, well,
Speaker 9: you know what, you know, my dad was in the war,
Speaker 9: my mum worked in a factory making Lancaster's and maybe
Speaker 9: some of that link has gone, and I think we
Speaker 9: have to accept that. However, you know, I have been
Speaker 9: ratling about this. We have got an educational establishment that
Speaker 9: goes right the way through primary school, secondary school, university
Speaker 9: that seems to somehow rejoice in talking down Britain's past.
Speaker 9: The sort of a Marxist takeover of people who hate
Speaker 9: the plentary, hate what it stands for, and they've done
Speaker 9: their job.
Speaker 4: Sounds mighty familiar, doesn't it. Australia. I'm afraid it's no
Speaker 4: better a year.
Speaker 1: I'd love to see a similar poll and see what
Speaker 1: kind of number as we get were we to put
Speaker 1: it to the Australian public, Are you proud of our
Speaker 1: nation's history?
Speaker 2: We don't even know our history, you know, at the
Speaker 2: risk of reopening the hoary old chestnut I always go
Speaker 2: to whenever we have people protesting about colonization and they
Speaker 2: talk about Captain Cook. Captain Cook was not on the
Speaker 2: first fleet. He was dead nine years before the first
Speaker 2: fleet arrived. These people don't understand history, and that is
Speaker 2: the way the Marxists wanted. After the break, we'll get
Speaker 2: into the papers. We'll talk about the mayor in Queensland
Speaker 2: who has threatened to sack the entire council if they
Speaker 2: don't accede to his request for a highly paid advisor.
Speaker 2: Sounds like the cortege ah you want for man, doesn't it?
Speaker 2: All that? More? Up of the breaking? All right, let's
Speaker 2: get stuck into the papers, starting with the Daily Telegraph tomorrow,
Speaker 2: where you can see across the top Simon Baker. Of course,
Speaker 2: the mentalist, the poor bugger has been caught drink driving. Naughty,
Speaker 2: naughty mister Baker. But the splash tomorrow is crossed wires
Speaker 2: in bush. Angry landholders who face having kilometers of renewable
Speaker 2: energy transmission lines forcibly placed across their properties have been
Speaker 2: urged to march on New South Wales Parliament by National
Speaker 2: z MP Barnaby Joyce after a fiery meeting with state
Speaker 2: owned energy co bureaucrats in a tiny town near Tamworth.
Speaker 2: And good on mister Joyce for suggesting it. I think
Speaker 2: they could probably actually go a little further than just
Speaker 2: marching on Parliament House, Joe, I have used this example before,
Speaker 2: but I go back to the nineteen eighties when they
Speaker 2: had the truck blockade up on Razorback Mountain and famously
Speaker 2: sent John Laws in there in a helicopter to go
Speaker 2: and to talk them all down. But that's strength in numbers,
Speaker 2: because the trucking's figured, well, we transport all the stuff
Speaker 2: across the country. If we want to stage to strike,
Speaker 2: well they're going to have to Bloody will listen to us.
Speaker 2: These farmers produce food and god knows what else for
Speaker 2: this country. If they all decided to walk off the
Speaker 2: land tomorrow, we'd be in a shed load of trouble.
Speaker 5: We would be. Although I think the real story here,
Speaker 5: I think is that these you know, you've had obviously
Speaker 5: the government's under enormous amount pressure to roll out these
Speaker 5: transmissions really really quickly to meet all the targets and everything,
Speaker 5: but also that these I was at the last Bush
Speaker 5: summit where people really upset about this is that the
Speaker 5: location of the transmissions lives hasn't actually really paid attention
Speaker 5: to what the local community's needs and desires were, what
Speaker 5: the actual properties were like that often just go in
Speaker 5: a sort of straight line and then cut across all
Speaker 5: these properties, whereas the locals but we told you that
Speaker 5: all you had to do was just sort of go
Speaker 5: this way and it would have been much better and
Speaker 5: that would have sorted everything out. So I think it
Speaker 5: is just And of course now because they've moved so
Speaker 5: quickly and got so many people offside, they're now going
Speaker 5: to be up in arms and then it will move
Speaker 5: even slower, so it's you know, I think it's a
Speaker 5: salutary lesson in the old carpentry axiom, measured twice cut once. Anyway,
Speaker 5: that's enough profundity for the late debate. The ant News
Speaker 5: finest newspaper in the nation. There splash is six hundred
Speaker 5: and fifty five million for historic push Canberra cash back
Speaker 5: in the territory. They say more than half a billion
Speaker 5: dollars of Aboriginal money previously controlled by Canberra has been
Speaker 5: unlocked for Aboriginal territorians in hopes of building on the
Speaker 5: wealth and well being of local communities. Doesn't that sound
Speaker 5: like a good idea.
Speaker 2: It sounds like a good idea. I just hope they
Speaker 2: pull it off properly. So what's happening here is all
Speaker 2: this money that was previously tied up in funds that
Speaker 2: was controlled, admitisted by government, that's right, and it is
Speaker 2: now in the hands of a corporation up in the
Speaker 2: Northern Territory that has been set up essentially to invest
Speaker 2: that money in local Aboriginal populations. Part of that will
Speaker 2: be short term projects, part of that will be long
Speaker 2: term projects to provide employment, etc. It sounds like a
Speaker 2: great idea. The only thing I worry about is that
Speaker 2: without a certain level of federal government oversight, do you
Speaker 2: actually know how the money is going to be spent
Speaker 2: all that it will be spent properly?
Speaker 1: Well, there's federal government oversight it over the over forty
Speaker 1: billion dollars we spend on the Aboriginal community every single year.
Speaker 4: And fat load of good we see come of that.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're the gap the eyes. Why haven't we
Speaker 4: closed the gap? That's a lot of money. What are
Speaker 4: you doing with that?
Speaker 1: So, in comparison, the six hundred and fifty five million
Speaker 1: is pocket change compared to what the taxpayer puts out
Speaker 1: every single year. To the Townsville Bulletin, Now where mayor
Speaker 1: makes twenty demands of counselors Troy's trump card. Mayor Troy
Speaker 1: Thompson has reportedly sent his counselors a lengthy list of demands,
Speaker 1: telling them if they do not agree, he'll be asking
Speaker 1: the local government minister to dissolve the entire council to
Speaker 1: spark a full by election. The demands reportedly include counselors'
Speaker 1: support for a mayoral advisor expected to be on an
Speaker 1: estimated salary of one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: as well as their support in the mayor's claims against
Speaker 1: interim CEO Joe McCabe.
Speaker 4: Now, last week we were talking about this.
Speaker 1: Guy because he'd put it to council that he wanted
Speaker 1: this policy advisor to the tune of one hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy five thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: They'd voted it down.
Speaker 1: This week we bring you the news of this absolute tantrum.
Speaker 4: He's not taking no for an answer.
Speaker 1: Support what I want or I'm literally going to get
Speaker 1: the Minister for Local Government to dissolve this council talk
Speaker 1: about mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 5: So he's had much of it's mutually assured distruction. It
Speaker 5: is assured.
Speaker 2: Distruction absolved that it includes the Cloak is clearly a
Speaker 2: megalomaniac right now. I don't know whether he realizes. And
Speaker 2: this is the problem so often with these people that
Speaker 2: get elected to council. When you are the mayor, you're
Speaker 2: not actually the leader of the council. You are the
Speaker 2: public face of these do all the ribbon cutting. It's
Speaker 2: like being the chairman of the board. Sure, you as
Speaker 2: chairman can go around and try to shore up the
Speaker 2: support of the councilors. But it's the board members or
Speaker 2: the councilors in this case, who actually ultimately have control.
Speaker 2: They cast the votes. It's only when there is a
Speaker 2: tied vote that the mayor comes in and actually gets
Speaker 2: to vote on anything. Their main priority is to go
Speaker 2: and cut the ribbons, as I said, and adjudicate over
Speaker 2: the council meetings. You're not actually running anything as mayor.
Speaker 2: He doesn't seem to understand that, though he's saying to
Speaker 2: the councilors, well, if you don't like what I'm doing,
Speaker 2: I'm going to have the whole loddy of sack. Well.
Speaker 5: I think a lot of councilors now, and I think
Speaker 5: Towns is one of them. The mayor gets elected separately
Speaker 5: by popular votes to the councilors, so it can sort
Speaker 5: of claim that kind of mandate. Having said that, I'm
Speaker 5: not sure if I mean, I'm not aware of any
Speaker 5: previous instance throughout all of human history where you know,
Speaker 5: do as I say, or I'm dubbing on you do
Speaker 5: everything I tell you I had. It's like me, you know,
Speaker 5: saying to an ex girlfriend, you know, like you know,
Speaker 5: love me or all though.
Speaker 2: I'm getting the feeling you might have tried that on
Speaker 2: at some point.
Speaker 5: I did, and you know what, it didn't work. Well
Speaker 5: they left anyway.
Speaker 4: It's just like, well died.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: It's like now you're even more ridiculous sympathetic, and you
Speaker 5: did that as the vibe the council as that didn't work.
Speaker 2: You didn't die, Joe. So so we have proof that
Speaker 2: my heart died. My heart. We've all been through a
Speaker 2: bit of heartbreak. Head, we let's go to the career
Speaker 2: mail with tomorrow whi's his premier Ese bailout for New
Speaker 2: Casino Queen's Gambit. The state government is set to throw
Speaker 2: a lifeline to the embattled casino giants Star Entertainment, I
Speaker 2: mean fears its new three point six billion dollar Queen's
Speaker 2: Warf development might otherwise close. Now, the way they're going
Speaker 2: to do this, because the Star's battling to stay remain solvent,
Speaker 2: not to stay insolvent. They want to be solvent, is
Speaker 2: that they're going to offer them a stay on payroll
Speaker 2: taxes and gambling taxes, et cetera. And I can understand
Speaker 2: the state government wanting to do that in the interests
Speaker 2: of investment in the state and this Queen's Wolf development
Speaker 2: getting off the ground. But my question would be if
Speaker 2: it were any other business. If you were a small
Speaker 2: business person in Queensland and you were about to be
Speaker 2: up against the wall, do you reckon? You could go
Speaker 2: off to Stephen Miles and say, look, I'm in a
Speaker 2: spot of bother here, buddy, I reckon. You could slip
Speaker 2: me a couple of tax breaks.
Speaker 1: No, but Stephen Miles is quoted in this article as
Speaker 1: saying this is a fantastic asset for our city. I
Speaker 1: don't know that everyone would agree with that assertion regarding
Speaker 1: a casino, but priorities. I love it.
Speaker 5: I love it when the left love.
Speaker 2: You're so happy?
Speaker 1: How much is it if it's can't even it's not
Speaker 1: self sustainable.
Speaker 5: Well that's because there are in all sorts of regulatory
Speaker 5: problems that are being tarn apart by the regulated. Same
Speaker 5: as Star here and Star in U soub Bar is
Speaker 5: in a much more precarious position, ironically, the state government
Speaker 5: in New South Wales, run by, of course, as you know,
Speaker 5: Liz the magnificent, handsome, finely chiseled Chris Min's of the
Speaker 5: right of the party saying no, Star, you're on your own.
Speaker 5: You've had your chances. Whereas the Left with Steven Miles
Speaker 5: so desperate to stop everything from crumbling around, and it's like,
Speaker 5: we love coss we love consttos, we love gambling. We'll
Speaker 5: do whatever you want anyway, quickly onto the odds now.
Speaker 5: And there's a great little nugget of a yard which
Speaker 5: says voluntary AI safeguards first step to protect firms. Voluntary
Speaker 5: AI safeguards will be immediately introduced as labor whittles down
Speaker 5: the options for regulating safety risks for three key possibilities,
Speaker 5: none of which are the election of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that will work one hundred percent. After the break.
Speaker 2: You build a car park fifty million dollars worth, but
Speaker 2: you can't get to it because there's no roads. Tell
Speaker 2: you about that. Now. When I got back on the
Speaker 2: dating scene last year, I found it so difficult because
Speaker 2: you know, I'm working here at night, I write for
Speaker 2: two different newspapers, I was doing radio. I was so busy.
Speaker 2: But one company, Liz, has come up with a solution.
Speaker 1: Absolutely in terms of boosting their employees welfare, They've decided
Speaker 1: to pay them to.
Speaker 4: Go on dates.
Speaker 1: Yes, believe it or not, there is Tinder leave at
Speaker 1: a marketing agency called Whiteline Group in Thailand. White Line
Speaker 1: explains it all began after one staff member complained about
Speaker 1: being too busy to date, and thus the Tinder leave
Speaker 1: was introduced. However, staff aren't just getting days and nights
Speaker 1: off to meet with potential suitors. Whiteline Group is also
Speaker 1: paying for six month long Tinder Gold and Tinder Platinum
Speaker 1: subscriptions for its stuff. Now, in today's dating pool, I
Speaker 1: don't know that that many people would argue that being
Speaker 1: in said pool.
Speaker 4: Really does boost their well being.
Speaker 1: But good on these guys for trying to.
Speaker 4: Do their best to get their employees out in.
Speaker 5: Mingling, Joe, I feel like an organization called the White
Speaker 5: Line Group which hands out free platinum Tinder subscriptions, is
Speaker 5: probably not the sort of organization that necessarily No, I
Speaker 5: don't know what I'm insinuating either, but that is, but
Speaker 5: does it like where like does it have to be
Speaker 5: locked in? Like obviously you know if you're you know,
Speaker 5: do you have to know that it's a sure thing?
Speaker 5: What happens if you go to the date and you
Speaker 5: know there's no chemistry, just not interested. Do you get
Speaker 5: your leave?
Speaker 1: You get this months they're happy for you to take
Speaker 1: go on dates or their dollar.
Speaker 5: But what I'm saying is if I go on a date,
Speaker 5: if I take leave to go on a date and
Speaker 5: don't score, I don't pick up, that's.
Speaker 2: Spake your time off for music. Put a whole new
Speaker 2: complexion on people saying to the boss, I'm shagged, I've
Speaker 2: got a knock off for the day. Now, very quickly
Speaker 2: before we go a council in the UK, Oxfordshire County
Speaker 2: Council built. I said before fifty million dollars, it was
Speaker 2: actually fifty one million quid, which is nearly one hundred
Speaker 2: million Australian dollars. They built a park and ride car park,
Speaker 2: but you can't get to it because they haven't built
Speaker 2: any roads to the damn thing. Because they can't have
Speaker 2: afford to build the roads. Who know, right, who would
Speaker 2: have thought you spend one hundred million dollars on a
Speaker 2: car but you can't have filled afford to build.
Speaker 5: Even once they build the roads, they can't afford to
Speaker 5: paint the white line.
Speaker 2: Oh my god. Councils, they're fighters. Thank you very much
Speaker 2: for watching that sig for us up next to the
Speaker 2: Riga Patty Show. Good night