Speaker 1: Lately, Generalman, welcome to the late.
Speaker 2: Pays Well, good evening and thanks for your company. I'm
Speaker 2: James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. Have you
Speaker 2: ever thrown something into the trash by accident? Will introduce
Speaker 2: you to a Welshman a little later who did just
Speaker 2: that and is offered to buy the entire city tip
Speaker 2: in order to search for his lost treasure. Plus, when
Speaker 2: we get to the papers, a convicted terrorist to threaten
Speaker 2: to blow up the MCG has managed to escape strict
Speaker 2: supervision orders. It's quite an incredible story in tomorrow's Herald
Speaker 2: Son And in another breaking story tomorrow, the Albenezy government
Speaker 2: says it will buy Rex Airlines if that's the only
Speaker 2: way to keep them flying. All of that when we
Speaker 2: look at what's making news tomorrow, But first, Queenslanders will
Speaker 2: continue to pay just fifty cents for public transport after
Speaker 2: the LNP government decided to make permanent the former government's
Speaker 2: six month trial the cheap fares offered by former Premier
Speaker 2: Stephen Miles as a way of buying votes just before
Speaker 2: the last election and of addressing cost of living and
Speaker 2: hopefully removing some cars from the roads and it worked well,
Speaker 2: not the buying votes part. No amount of bribery could
Speaker 2: convince Queenslanders to give Giggles another go, But in terms
Speaker 2: of getting people to use public transport, it seems to
Speaker 2: have been an overwhelming success. The Transport Department released figures
Speaker 2: showing that the use of public transport in Queensland had
Speaker 2: increased by eighteen point three percent during that six month
Speaker 2: trial compared to the same six month period in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three. As you can see on the screen, light
Speaker 2: rail usage increased by twenty seven and a half percent,
Speaker 2: rail eighteen point six percent, ferry usage increased by forty
Speaker 2: two point eight percent, and buses were up fifteen point
Speaker 2: eight percent. So the LNP announced today fifty cent fares
Speaker 2: would remain, but they would cost taxpayers one point five
Speaker 2: billion dollars over next four years. Good decision or bad decision, Caleb,
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to fifty cent coffees and fifty cent hamburgers.
Speaker 1: Well, if only the government provided those services then maybe
Speaker 1: they would be able to reduce the cost of them
Speaker 1: to fifty cents. But I think it's an eminently sensible
Speaker 1: thing to do that. The evidence has shown that it works.
Speaker 1: If that means you've had such an increase, you know,
Speaker 1: twenty percent more people getting on the bus. Well, that's
Speaker 1: twenty percent fewer cars on the road because of course,
Speaker 1: you know a bus, if you can get sixty people
Speaker 1: in it, that's potentially minimum thirty cars, maximum sixty on
Speaker 1: the road. I mean, if you can eliminate all of
Speaker 1: that every single day, that's fantastic, especially for those of
Speaker 1: us who drive around in cars, because it means I
Speaker 1: can go to work faster. So yep, b I think
Speaker 1: it's great. I mean, Townsville was forty nine point twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent increase in public transport use. And it was
Speaker 1: interesting that the numbers showed that regionally, it really increased
Speaker 1: the use of public transport because I suppose if you
Speaker 1: live in a regional area, probably more likely to think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: get in my car, because a lot of the things
Speaker 1: that you would do normally require you to use a car.
Speaker 1: And of course, if you've got to go to town, for instance,
Speaker 1: you're going to get in the car, so you get
Speaker 1: into a habit of using a car. But Townsville forty
Speaker 1: two point twenty nine percent, Gimpy forty nine percent, Mackay
Speaker 1: forty percent, Sunshine Coast thirty seven percent, Gold Coast twenty
Speaker 1: one percent, Logan twenty one percent, And the cost of
Speaker 1: running public transport that comes from fares is minimal. There
Speaker 1: was a report, secret report, It was only leaked to
Speaker 1: the media. That's any reason we.
Speaker 2: Know about it.
Speaker 1: But the New South Wales government did an evaluation of
Speaker 1: what its public transport system costs in twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: and they found that only ten percent of the costs
Speaker 1: were covered by fares and other revenue. So what we
Speaker 1: are paying when we tap an open card in New
Speaker 1: South Wales or a mikey in Queensland, or the trans
Speaker 1: cardgory it's called up in not transgender, but it's called
Speaker 1: trans dear, I can't remember, I've got one at home somewhere.
Speaker 1: But when you tap the card, what you're paying to
Speaker 1: use the bus or the train is actually a very
Speaker 1: small amount of what it costs the government to run
Speaker 1: that service. So if we're already happy as tax payers
Speaker 1: to subsidize the running of public transport by ninety percent,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with making it, you know, one hundred percent
Speaker 1: or ninety five percent with a fifty cent fare If
Speaker 1: it means people actually use the.
Speaker 2: So it's going to say this, they've still gotspect this.
Speaker 2: Why would you be inspecting for tickets? Like if someone
Speaker 2: pays fifty cents, doesn't employed? Right, that's about the union,
Speaker 2: says many people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: They probably struck that deal before Giggles even put.
Speaker 3: This legislation in place, to be like, yes.
Speaker 4: We're trying to win votes, but also no one's going
Speaker 4: to lose their job as a result. But what you
Speaker 4: have here is essentially what a lot of government policies do.
Speaker 3: Of course, it's not cheaper.
Speaker 4: The people commuting every day are only paying fifty cents
Speaker 4: yay for them, but the taxpayer is picking up the
Speaker 4: tab hence this one point five billion dollar price tag
Speaker 4: on this.
Speaker 3: So essentially it means.
Speaker 4: That the taxpayers of Queensland who don't use these facilities,
Speaker 4: who aren't commuting to work every day, who aren't using
Speaker 4: public transport, are now paying far more than their share.
Speaker 1: But the public. But the users, the people of Queensland
Speaker 1: who don't use the public transport also reap the benefit
Speaker 1: of the fewer cars on the road because they're driving right.
Speaker 1: So indirectly you're paying extra, sure, but you're actually getting
Speaker 1: a benefit out of it. Yourself.
Speaker 4: No, really, you're paying extra for the public transport that
Speaker 4: you're not using while putting out for Rego car insurance.
Speaker 4: The petrol you're paying for only most cars inner city
Speaker 4: nowadays is extremely expensive exercise. Absolutely everybody watching is nodding
Speaker 4: your head right now, aren't you. And so I don't
Speaker 4: think I don't think that that's fair at all as.
Speaker 3: A commuter if you choose.
Speaker 4: And to say that, oh well, the murderists are coming
Speaker 4: out on top because then there's less people on the roads.
Speaker 4: But the people then opting for their fifty cent fare
Speaker 4: and no longer happening to pay for the petrol, potentially
Speaker 4: getting rid of their car all together, not happening to
Speaker 4: pay the red Joe, not happening to pay the insurance.
Speaker 4: All the savings are on them. And again the motorist
Speaker 4: is not coming out on top at all.
Speaker 2: And I'm not sure it reduces traffic congestion because they
Speaker 2: put bus lanes everywhere that you're not allowed.
Speaker 3: To cycling lane.
Speaker 2: Argument for regional Queensland, and Queensland is a vast state
Speaker 2: and people, especially in the north would argue that they
Speaker 2: are subsidizing people in the southeast who are far more
Speaker 2: prevalent users of public transport now everything.
Speaker 1: I mean, they reckon they should be another state.
Speaker 2: They should be, having lived there. They should be because
Speaker 2: they provide all the natural resources that fund everything to
Speaker 2: the southeast corner. But you mentioned in Wa.
Speaker 3: Trust me, well, like we.
Speaker 4: If it work for the money, you flogs get off
Speaker 4: our gst. The two mighty mining states are never given
Speaker 4: enough credit.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned towns All right, So public transport there
Speaker 2: is increased by what nine? This is one of those
Speaker 2: things where okay, like if what if you've got two
Speaker 2: people using it and now you've got four, it's increased
Speaker 2: by what fifty?
Speaker 3: Amazing?
Speaker 2: Like look at that, right, So I would like to.
Speaker 1: Make sure that he's increased by one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: I would like to know the raw numbers, right, so
Speaker 2: to say it's increased by forty percent. I lived in
Speaker 2: Townsill ten years. I don't know anyone who ever took
Speaker 2: the bus. So I reckon the increase of usage would
Speaker 2: be marginal. If they want to be fair, provide fifty
Speaker 2: cent public transport fees in the southeast and just take
Speaker 2: off some fuel excise in the north. Hey, well, the
Speaker 2: problem is drive vast distance.
Speaker 1: The only problem is. I thoroughly agree with that. The
Speaker 1: only problem is that the fuel excise is levied by
Speaker 1: the federal government, not in Queensland.
Speaker 2: What hangover, Sorry, don't don't Queensland have a tax on fuel?
Speaker 2: I I'm all the.
Speaker 1: Questions owned on top of the federal fine leaders by
Speaker 1: Hang on a minute, we'll check it during the pow
Speaker 1: That really isn't in just I'm pretty now you've blown
Speaker 1: min much so the Queensland government adds another tax on
Speaker 1: top of fuel. Is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: You're making me nervous now that maybe I'm not right
Speaker 2: about this. We'll let the check.
Speaker 3: Your let us know.
Speaker 1: I hope you're not right about that, because that is
Speaker 1: that is an absolute describe. I mean right, my money.
Speaker 4: He's actually there, you have it. If we're placing bets,
Speaker 4: my money is on mac. But we will get back
Speaker 4: to you after the ad break to the UK now
Speaker 4: where an extraordinary edict from the British government, the deep
Speaker 4: state of the British government, has come to light.
Speaker 3: They handed in order to Apple.
Speaker 4: Telling the tech giant that the British government wanted a
Speaker 4: back door to all of the storage on the cloud,
Speaker 4: every single user, even all their encrypted stuff, everything stored
Speaker 4: on the cloud, not just in the UK by people
Speaker 4: living in the UK, but worldwide. The government says, we
Speaker 4: have the right to have access to this, thanks very much.
Speaker 4: You're going to give us a backdoor in order to
Speaker 4: enable us to access any body's data at any.
Speaker 3: Given time for any reason.
Speaker 4: Now in the past, how this works is that tech
Speaker 4: giants do help out the police or whoever's investigating, say
Speaker 4: an alleged criminal, they need data off that person's phone.
Speaker 4: The tech giants help them out. That's all written into law,
Speaker 4: that's all ticked up on that's all hunky dory. This, however,
Speaker 4: would be an absolutely unprecedented violation of privacy rights and
Speaker 4: civil liberties.
Speaker 3: But the UK government absolutely do not care.
Speaker 4: They say they have the power to do this. They
Speaker 4: say that Apple has to bow the knee. So far,
Speaker 4: Apple is holding out. They're saying, look, maybe we'll just
Speaker 4: have to stop offering encrypted.
Speaker 3: Services to UK users.
Speaker 4: But then again, that won't work because the UK government
Speaker 4: is talking about worldwide.
Speaker 3: Users, not just British Apple users.
Speaker 4: This is literally unthinkable what they are proposing here. And
Speaker 4: Apple is a company that has long since prided itself
Speaker 4: on privacy. Whether we can trust them or artists another
Speaker 4: discussion for another day.
Speaker 3: But this is something that.
Speaker 4: They market themselves on your privacy. We've got you covered,
Speaker 4: we would never snitch on you type thing. And here
Speaker 4: they have a government saying, look, under our act, you
Speaker 4: have to make a backdoor for us. You have to
Speaker 4: break your promise to millions billions of users worldwide because
Speaker 4: we say so.
Speaker 1: And it's not just a targeted thing like you put out.
Speaker 1: This is like just we need access to everything. Why
Speaker 1: do you need access to everything? Right? Indeed, people have
Speaker 1: continually been willing to give up small amounts of freedom
Speaker 1: if they think it makes them safer, for instance, you know,
Speaker 1: going through airports, or allowing certain bits of data to
Speaker 1: be accessed by government if it's for anti terrorism measures, etc.
Speaker 1: People have actually been willing to hand small amounts of
Speaker 1: freedom over to secure their own safety. I would argue
Speaker 1: that you know, you hand a little bit over, and
Speaker 1: then you had a little bit over, and then you
Speaker 1: hand a little bit over until you've handed all of
Speaker 1: it over. That's eventually where it ends up. But people
Speaker 1: will swallow it. If you say we need access to
Speaker 1: terrorists data, and we'll go to a court and get
Speaker 1: an order that we then go and get that data.
Speaker 1: Most people that say, okay, whatever, what the UK government
Speaker 1: is talking about is access to absolutely everything, and that
Speaker 1: might start out with oh, well, we want it to
Speaker 1: look at terrorist data, and then it'll turn into we
Speaker 1: want to look at data of people who are saying
Speaker 1: things we don't like about the government. I mean, how
Speaker 1: can you possibly this is the first time any Western
Speaker 1: government has asked for or actually asked for is probably
Speaker 1: a bit light demanded this kind of power to access
Speaker 1: whatever data it wants. And the worst part of it
Speaker 1: is that under the law in the UK, it's illegal
Speaker 1: for Apple to even talk about the fact that the
Speaker 1: government has asked them for exactly.
Speaker 4: Order is actually a month old, but we're only just
Speaker 4: hearing about it now because thank goodness, someone's leaked it
Speaker 4: to the media.
Speaker 2: And Apple can appeal the decision, but they appeal it
Speaker 2: to a secretive tribunal, so the result and the argument
Speaker 2: never becomes public, and during the appeal, Apple have to
Speaker 2: comply with the order as it exists. What's an old expression,
Speaker 2: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This
Speaker 2: is a classic case of that, I don't think well,
Speaker 2: a well intentioned argument that in order to catch terrorists
Speaker 2: and head off organized crime, perhaps we should have these
Speaker 2: these capabilities for government that.
Speaker 3: Already works.
Speaker 4: Yes, if it's everyday people, Hell no, what right do
Speaker 4: you have to people's think about it. What's not on
Speaker 4: your phone, your private conversations, your addresses, your bank details.
Speaker 4: There is nothing about your life that I wouldn't know
Speaker 4: if I had access to everything on your phone, your contacts.
Speaker 4: So you're talking to how regularly there is literally I
Speaker 4: will be aware of the intimate details of your life.
Speaker 4: And I am the state I don't have your best
Speaker 4: interest at heart. And keep in mind it was just
Speaker 4: a few weeks ago that Keir Starmer stared down Barrel
Speaker 4: and told us that the UK aimed to be the
Speaker 4: shining light of the world in terms of AI. They're
Speaker 4: building a frightfully large server and the fact that you
Speaker 4: could have access to everybody's data in.
Speaker 3: The world and be touting.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm sure they're probably leads ahead of already, because
Speaker 4: no government gives is honest about how far ahead they
Speaker 4: are in terms of their AI capabilities.
Speaker 3: It's an arms race.
Speaker 4: So why on earth would you openly, honestly advertised that
Speaker 4: those two things together you can rule the world.
Speaker 1: Gave over yep, and we've seen how things are going
Speaker 1: in the UK. I mean the coppers are running around
Speaker 1: arresting people for posting jokes on face. I mean the
Speaker 1: next thing the government will be going through all of
Speaker 1: your photos to see whether you've downloaded too many jokes
Speaker 1: or not, and then arresting you on the basis of that.
Speaker 1: And I know that sounds like a joke, but quite
Speaker 1: possibly it isn't. I might be arrested actually by the
Speaker 1: UK government if they go through my phone and noticed
Speaker 1: that I talked about this on at to night. They
Speaker 1: haven't sack while we're in the UK. There is no
Speaker 1: greater example of how how sorry our sovereign borders have
Speaker 1: been eroded in the West, Australia, the UK, the US,
Speaker 1: et cetera than this. An Albanian bloke who moved to
Speaker 1: the UK into the UK illegally when he was a
Speaker 1: child a teenager, got there, gave the authorities a fake name,
Speaker 1: said he came from Yugoslavia, which he didn't. He came
Speaker 1: from albat He got into the country under false pretenses.
Speaker 1: Then fast forward a few years twenty twenty one, he's
Speaker 1: picked up by the cops with three hundred thousand pounds
Speaker 1: of proceeds of crime. Off to jail, you go. Since
Speaker 1: he's been released from jail, they've tried to get rid
Speaker 1: of his citizenship and deport him back to Albania, which
Speaker 1: seems entirely fair. He entered the country under false pretenses,
Speaker 1: he gained citizenship under false pretenses, and then he turns out,
Speaker 1: on top of all of that, to be involved in
Speaker 1: criminal gang activity with three hundred thousand pound on his person.
Speaker 1: Off you go, buddy. Except for the fact that he
Speaker 1: has a young son, a ten year old, and his
Speaker 1: son is fond of chicken nuggets, and he's not fond
Speaker 1: of chicken nuggets in any country other than the UK. No,
Speaker 1: I am not joking. This bloke has gone to an
Speaker 1: immigration tribunal in the UK and argued that he should
Speaker 1: not be deported because his son has a few troubles. Now,
Speaker 1: according to the court documents, his son has food sensitivity,
Speaker 1: sensory issues and difficulties communicating emotions. He has no diagnosis
Speaker 1: of anything, but his school is currently helping him out.
Speaker 1: The only thing that he is mentioned in the documents
Speaker 1: is that he has an aversion quote unquote to the
Speaker 1: type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad, and on
Speaker 1: that basis, this tribunal has said it would be against
Speaker 1: the human rights to send them back to Albania. Have
Speaker 1: you ever heard anything so absurd? This is the UK
Speaker 1: Border Security Minister, Dame Angela Eagle, talking to LBC about
Speaker 1: this case his court with two hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: pounds worth proceeds of crime on his body, on his
Speaker 1: person rather and then when he's trying to port him
Speaker 1: it's because his child doesn't like oversea his chicken nuggets.
Speaker 1: This is the start to think of it, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Well, this is why we've appealed it, and the court
Speaker 5: processes aren't over yet. When we appeal things they often
Speaker 5: get overturned in higher christ.
Speaker 2: If this isn't overturned, what does that say about.
Speaker 5: Let's not anticipate what the courts are going to do.
Speaker 1: Do you think it breaches his human rights with his
Speaker 1: son's chicken nuggets?
Speaker 3: Well, look, I.
Speaker 5: Mean my opinions, since I'm not a judge, are interesting
Speaker 5: to you and me fairly astonished. I'm fairly astonished.
Speaker 1: Just that is The Border Security Minister asked a really
Speaker 1: simple question, do you think it breaches someone's human rights
Speaker 1: to send a criminal back to the country whence they
Speaker 1: came because their son doesn't like the chicken nuggets over there.
Speaker 1: And she couldn't give a straight answer. You're a minister
Speaker 1: of the crown and you can't just straight out say no,
Speaker 1: it's not actually a breach of human rights to send
Speaker 1: someone back to their own country because they don't like
Speaker 1: the chicken nuggets over there. For heaven's sake, but this
Speaker 1: just proves how bad the situation is in Western countries,
Speaker 1: particularly the UK. A tribuneal would even think that this
Speaker 1: was a legitimate argument to keep a criminal in your
Speaker 1: own country.
Speaker 2: It might prove how bad chicken nuggets in Albania actually are. Kleb.
Speaker 2: It could be a breach of human rights that bad.
Speaker 2: If only there was someone in the UK is in
Speaker 2: a position of power, you know, who had experience as
Speaker 2: a lawyer, maybe in human rights, and could now brain
Speaker 2: good body kissed Arma. What did he used to do
Speaker 2: he used to have in these sorts of issues, didn't he?
Speaker 2: I mean, is there any one that hyriarage and the
Speaker 2: Reform Party is now leading in the polls when you've
Speaker 2: got rubbish like this in the UK a second earlier tonight.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to believe that Britain actually won two World
Speaker 2: Wars when they're carrying on this sort of rubbish and looking.
Speaker 3: At the country today, does it look like a country?
Speaker 2: Well maybe not.
Speaker 4: I s is turning in his grave in a good way,
Speaker 4: being like I told you, flogged.
Speaker 2: So here's the irony. Though he enters the UK illegally,
Speaker 2: then he lies on his asylum application, then he commits
Speaker 2: and is convicted of major crimes for which he's in
Speaker 2: prison for two years. Then when he's deported, he suddenly
Speaker 2: appeals to human rights. I mean, what happens on chicken
Speaker 2: nuggets about the human rights of all the people who've
Speaker 2: been abused. While he's entering illegally, he's lying, he's ripping
Speaker 2: people off financially, and this is where the system has
Speaker 2: to be reformed. We have the same problems right across
Speaker 2: the Western world, where there's this desire to be so
Speaker 2: empathetic with everybody's problems that we make mugs of ourselves
Speaker 2: bending over backwards for people who shouldn't be here in
Speaker 2: the first place, and then use our charity to against
Speaker 2: us so they can basically just continue abusing the system.
Speaker 2: It's got to be reformed. You should be allowed to appeal,
Speaker 2: and if you lose that appeal, that's it. You're gone.
Speaker 4: But it's not a coincidence that this is the same
Speaker 4: across the West. I mean, we've talked about it here
Speaker 4: in Australia. You can come here commit grave crimes.
Speaker 3: You're not a citizen.
Speaker 4: We won't deport you for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's
Speaker 4: only in Western countries that we've brought into this ridiculous
Speaker 4: idea that you can come here, tick a few boxes
Speaker 4: and we hand you a piece of paper saying, oh you're.
Speaker 3: Australian, Now you're Canadian, Now you're American, now you're British.
Speaker 4: Now congratulations. Do you think if I moved to India
Speaker 4: stay there for twenty years, blood, sweat and tears, ran
Speaker 4: businesses there, whatever, do you think considered Indian or Africa?
Speaker 4: Would I be considered African? Would anyone call me African?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. It's only in Western countries that we have
Speaker 4: been told because you have prospered so well by virtue
Speaker 4: of your cultures, your values, your moral standing, and the
Speaker 4: fact that we were born out of the cradle of Christianity, yes,
Speaker 4: thank you very much. Because of all that, now you
Speaker 4: guys have to allow yourself to be overrun by other countries,
Speaker 4: other cultures, et cetera, and so on because they're not
Speaker 4: doing so well. So you just have to say yes
Speaker 4: to it because you're so bound toful and wonderful.
Speaker 3: And now if you disagree with.
Speaker 4: It in any way, well you're just being selfish and
Speaker 4: horrible and racist.
Speaker 2: Exactly before we move on, James Ashby, One Nation Chief
Speaker 2: of Staff is watching the late debate tonight and he
Speaker 2: has clarified for us there is no fuel excise charged
Speaker 2: by the Queensland government. But the Queensland government did provide
Speaker 2: an eight cent rebate the excise and then the Queensland
Speaker 2: Labor government removed that rebate. So that's where I was confused.
Speaker 2: But if they want to help North Queenslanders, give fifty
Speaker 2: cent public transport fees in the southeast and reapply that
Speaker 2: rebate that they removed on the fuel excise in North Queensland,
Speaker 2: everybody's happy.
Speaker 1: Well, you know what could happen? And the Morrison government
Speaker 1: gave a twenty cent rebate on the fuel excise. They
Speaker 1: cut it by twenty cents, right, and then Albanezi came
Speaker 1: to government and immediately ended that. So maybe they could
Speaker 1: just do it across the board. That'd be nice, a
Speaker 1: great thing.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the US now. Donald Trump was busy
Speaker 2: signing a very significant executive order which I think will
Speaker 2: make the whole world happy. We'll get to that in
Speaker 2: a moment, but first I want to show you what
Speaker 2: he had to say on this situation in Gaza. We
Speaker 2: all watched horrified on Saturday as three more hostages were released,
Speaker 2: looking absolutely sickly. They looked like skeletons, to be honest,
Speaker 2: having spent fifteen months in captivity in tunnels in Gaza,
Speaker 2: and then, of course before they made it back to
Speaker 2: their families, they were paraded by their captors. They were
Speaker 2: given gift bags and certificates, and the whole thing was
Speaker 2: absolutely horrendous. And Donald Trump had this to say on
Speaker 2: what should happen here on in have listen.
Speaker 6: If all of the hostages aren't returned by Saturday at
Speaker 6: twelve o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time. I would
Speaker 6: say cancel, and all bets are off and let hell
Speaker 6: break out. I'd say they ought to be returned by
Speaker 6: twelve o'clock on Saturday, and if there not returned all
Speaker 6: of them, not in drips and drabs, not two and
Speaker 6: one and three and four and two Saturday at twelve o'clock,
Speaker 6: and after that, I would say all hell is going
Speaker 6: to break out.
Speaker 2: Now. Of course, it's a decision for Israel whether they
Speaker 2: are going to maintain the agreement or whether they're just
Speaker 2: going to say we agree, give us all seventy three
Speaker 2: remaining hostages back this Saturday, or all bets are off.
Speaker 2: But finally someone says that this should never have been
Speaker 2: allowed to get to a stage where we've got hostages
Speaker 2: being released in dribs and drabs, paraded in some sort
Speaker 2: of sick pantomime of the seventy three hostages still being held.
Speaker 2: Thirty four are confirmed dead, so Hamas are holding corpses
Speaker 2: as hostage and as leverage. This should have been dealt
Speaker 2: with on October the eighth, the day after the High
Speaker 2: World should have said release them or there will be
Speaker 2: hell to pay. It's dragged out for fifteen months. Trump's
Speaker 2: finally said enough, which I think most sensible people would agree.
Speaker 1: What was only really by Trump saying there would be
Speaker 1: hell to pay if there wasn't an agreement that we
Speaker 1: even got to this place in the first place, right,
Speaker 1: And Hamas has been taking the piece with the release
Speaker 1: of these hostages in the form that they've been coming
Speaker 1: in our gift certificate. I mean, please as if they're
Speaker 1: leaving their thanking their captors for the time they've spent there.
Speaker 1: That is an absolute joke. And what triggered all of
Speaker 1: this was Hamas accusing Israel of breaking the terms of
Speaker 1: the ceasefire. So they said, well, we're not going to
Speaker 1: release the hostages that are due to be released this weekend.
Speaker 1: Israel has then said, well, we have to consider our
Speaker 1: options and what we can possibly do. Incomes Trump and says, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't release them by this weekend, they'll be
Speaker 1: hell to pay. And believe it or not, a few
Speaker 1: hours after that, Hamas came back out and said, oh,
Speaker 1: will actually our threat not to release the hostages quote
Speaker 1: unquote serves as a warning to Israel we want them
Speaker 1: to adhere to the terms of the Sea SPA. So
Speaker 1: all of this really is various countries testing each other
Speaker 1: to see exactly how far they will go. And the
Speaker 1: ultimate outcome of that is that Hamas has a lot
Speaker 1: more to lose than Israel does when it comes to
Speaker 1: the breaking of this sea SPI. So I suspect it
Speaker 1: will all continue on as it has, because the last
Speaker 1: thing they really want is to provoke Israel to the
Speaker 1: point that they do actually go back in there and
Speaker 1: go hammer and tongs, because there will be no Gaza
Speaker 1: at all left after that, and that's the worst thing
Speaker 1: that's happened for hald No garz are left now.
Speaker 3: But it is a lot of huff and puff.
Speaker 4: Trump is playing his part simply saying, hey, hey, we're
Speaker 4: in this boots and all. So you guys, he did
Speaker 4: this prior to his inauguration. You guys would remember, like,
Speaker 4: if you guys don't get your fill in the blank
Speaker 4: sorted by January twenty, by god, you're going to be sorry.
Speaker 4: So last time we saw some motion on this when
Speaker 4: he put his foot down. Let's see what happens now
Speaker 4: before Saturday twelve pm. I think we can all get
Speaker 4: behind from this Trump administration. Is his return to plastic straws.
Speaker 4: You may remember in his twenty and nineteen run he
Speaker 4: was selling plastic straws in violation of the current policies
Speaker 4: in the USA. You would know that these are also
Speaker 4: outlawed here in every state of Australia. Whenever I go
Speaker 4: anywhere and someone's got a cheeky straw that they're serving with,
Speaker 4: I don't even bring it to their attention. I don't
Speaker 4: want them to know it's illegal. Everyone keep your plastics straws.
Speaker 4: So here he is signing an executive order heralding the
Speaker 4: return of the plastic straw.
Speaker 6: So we're going back to plastic straws. These things don't work.
Speaker 6: I've had him many times, and on occasion they break,
Speaker 6: they explode if something's hot. They don't last very long,
Speaker 6: like a matter of minutes, sometimes a matter of seconds.
Speaker 6: It's a ridiculous situation. So we're going back to plastic straws.
Speaker 3: I think it's okay.
Speaker 6: And I don't think that plastics going to affect a
Speaker 6: shark very much. As they're eating. As they're munching their
Speaker 6: way through the ocean, he is thinking of.
Speaker 3: The ocean life, ladies and gentlemen. He has not forgotten
Speaker 3: about that. What a considerate president. I just love this.
Speaker 4: This is just practical sense. It has changed no one's
Speaker 4: life having paper straws. They are utterly inept. Everybody absolutely
Speaker 4: hates them and there's actually a lot of articles written
Speaker 4: about how unhealthy it is because obviously you're just drinking
Speaker 4: up this dissolving thing in whatever your beverage is.
Speaker 2: I can't believe you didn't mention, Liz. Studies are found
Speaker 2: fore mechanical microplastics in paper straws, So there you go.
Speaker 2: Plastics actually better if you I can't believe you fin
Speaker 2: off on you, j You know what. The other thing,
Speaker 2: of course, is the amount of plastic straw compared to
Speaker 2: other plastics exacts, is so minimal that to make this
Speaker 2: the hill that you want to die on in terms
Speaker 2: of the environment is simply ridiculously. It all comes back, sorry,
Speaker 2: Cut up to a twenty to fifteen video released by
Speaker 2: a German marine biologist who filmed herself taking a straw
Speaker 2: out of the nostril turtle and that went viral and
Speaker 2: it was because of that that then this became the
Speaker 2: big issue, but blown out of all proportion to other
Speaker 2: forms of pollution.
Speaker 1: And it lulls us into a full sense of security
Speaker 1: that we are actually saving the planet because oh we
Speaker 1: got rid of the straws, right, and there's all the
Speaker 1: other stuff that we just forget about. Because I did
Speaker 1: my bit with the straws. But I think of all
Speaker 1: the things Trump has done so far and will do
Speaker 1: in his time as president, this one will actually cut through,
Speaker 1: probably more than anything else, because it is like a
Speaker 1: day to day thing and it's just quility of life exactly,
Speaker 1: and it's so simple, but it affects people in America
Speaker 1: every single day. We know how much they love their
Speaker 1: takeaway drink, Starbucks and all this sort of stuff like
Speaker 1: this is the stuff that will actually make a difference
Speaker 1: in people's lives. And as I said the other day
Speaker 1: on the Sunday Showdown eight pm Sunday, straight after Denika
Speaker 1: and James seven pm Sundays, this is the greatest thing
Speaker 1: he has done in his presidency so far, and it
Speaker 1: will be the greatest thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just can't wait this till tomorrow for a journalist
Speaker 2: to ask anthe Albanezi, what will your policy be on paper?
Speaker 2: I want to see what Elbow says.
Speaker 4: Come on, Alvo, if you'll want to up your vote count,
Speaker 4: dun't beat him to it.
Speaker 3: Come on, buddy. Staying in the.
Speaker 4: States, you've all heard this saga of us aid and
Speaker 4: the fact that Trump administration has frozen all outgoing payments,
Speaker 4: So there's a lot of people who were receiving a
Speaker 4: lot of shiggy who are really really upset because their.
Speaker 3: Cash cow has frozen up.
Speaker 4: Well, one of the sectors that has been rocked to
Speaker 4: the core by this is journalism. Last week we told
Speaker 4: you how Politico, one of the American which we also discussed,
Speaker 4: had been bought out by Germans, so the American taxpayer
Speaker 4: were paying them to pump propaganda into their own country.
Speaker 4: Politico had received twenty seven million dollars from USAID during
Speaker 4: the duration of the Biden administration, So of course there
Speaker 4: are a very very very friendly media organization during those
Speaker 4: four years, they just loved the Widen government. Well, we've
Speaker 4: now found out that in over thirty countries, USAID has
Speaker 4: been funding these independent journalists, thousands of them. And since
Speaker 4: I've already told you USAID serves as a front to
Speaker 4: the CIA. It's the worst kept secret in the history
Speaker 4: of mannedkind, which is why they have a budget twice
Speaker 4: the size of the CIA and the State Department combined.
Speaker 4: These guys do a lot of dodgy dealings, and here
Speaker 4: we found out that they are controlling or having a
Speaker 4: very large say, being able to plan all sorts of
Speaker 4: propaganda in thirty countries throughout the world. Here's a Pharmaci
Speaker 4: agent CIA agent back in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 3: They've been doing this for a very long time, my friends.
Speaker 4: His name is John Stockwell, and he's going to explain
Speaker 4: to you exactly how this works.
Speaker 7: My war, the Angola War that I helped to manage,
Speaker 7: one third of my staff was propaganda. Ironically, it's called
Speaker 7: covert action inside the CIA. Outside that means the violent part.
Speaker 7: We would take stories which we would write and put
Speaker 7: them in the Zambia Times and then pull them out
Speaker 7: and send them to our journalist on our payroll in Europe.
Speaker 7: We pumped just dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists.
Speaker 7: In one case, we had the Cuban rapists caught and
Speaker 7: tried by the Ovimbundu maidens who had been their victims.
Speaker 7: And then we ran photographs and made almost every newspaper
Speaker 7: in the country of the Cubans being executed by the
Speaker 7: Ovimbundu women who supposedly had been their victims, which it
Speaker 7: was pure raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists,
Speaker 7: you know, eating babies for breakfast and that's sort of
Speaker 7: totally false propaganda.
Speaker 3: Nothing is as it seems.
Speaker 4: My friend John Stockwell also explained to people how that
Speaker 4: were those stories, saying the Zambia Times in other places
Speaker 4: would then of course be picked up by say the
Speaker 4: New York Times and Reuters, and then there it was
Speaker 4: right into the vein of mainstream media all across the West,
Speaker 4: convincing them of something that was completely.
Speaker 3: And utterly made up. This is how propaganda works.
Speaker 4: And if you think it's stopped now in modern day
Speaker 4: day the Western world and elsewhere, you can think again.
Speaker 3: This is Taylor's old as time. I love these stories
Speaker 3: that highlight it.
Speaker 4: Interestingly, USAID had been funding nine out of ten news
Speaker 4: outlets in Ukraine. What does that tell you in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty three the agency and they've taken this fat sheet
Speaker 4: down off their website, but someone.
Speaker 3: Caught it and here it is.
Speaker 4: In twenty twenty three, USAID had funded training and support
Speaker 4: for six two hundred journalists, assisted seven hundred and seven
Speaker 4: non state news outlets, and supported two hundred and seventy
Speaker 4: nine media sector civil society organizations. So it makes you
Speaker 4: wonder just how much of the stories you and I
Speaker 4: read on a day to day basis.
Speaker 3: I'm aware of it now you are too. How much
Speaker 3: of it is true?
Speaker 4: How much of it is even based on a sceric
Speaker 4: of truth regarding stories when we're helpless, we're sitting at home,
Speaker 4: we're reading things about like there were back in the
Speaker 4: eighties about Cuba, thinking well, this is gospel truth.
Speaker 3: I haven't been to Cuba.
Speaker 4: I don't know, but I'm trusting what the media is
Speaker 4: telling me is acting a lot.
Speaker 2: I think the answer to how much of it is true?
Speaker 2: If you're reading Politico, one hundred percent of it is
Speaker 2: not true.
Speaker 1: We all know that.
Speaker 2: Same with the New York Times. I think you're going
Speaker 2: to get propaganda always, and I hope our governments always
Speaker 2: use propaganda in a bid to head off our enemies,
Speaker 2: because we do have a few. The question is whether
Speaker 2: they're you're.
Speaker 3: Lying to you.
Speaker 4: They're not heading off the enemy. They're lying to you
Speaker 4: to justify their actions, i e.
Speaker 3: In Tuba. So just I hope my government lies to
Speaker 3: me always.
Speaker 2: Let me finish what I was going to say. I
Speaker 2: was going to say, the question is whether that propaganda
Speaker 2: is being used in the interests of the people the
Speaker 2: government is to represent or not. That's the clarification, it's not. Well,
Speaker 2: what I'm saying is this is to justify has specified
Speaker 2: that that's why they're going through.
Speaker 3: Rubio is a snake man.
Speaker 2: So Marco Rubio has said on behalf of Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: who's the president of the United States. They are going
Speaker 2: through every must all good. They're going through every line
Speaker 2: of US AID to find out is it being used
Speaker 2: in the national interest. Where it is, it will continue.
Speaker 2: Where it's not, it will not. Every nation uses propaganda.
Speaker 2: The question is whether it's serving the national interest and
Speaker 2: the people that it's meant to represent.
Speaker 1: And this is this is the thing, this is the lies.
Speaker 3: If I am lying.
Speaker 4: Americans, but none of the of course I would love
Speaker 4: the Americans had interests, but in doing what they were
Speaker 4: doing in Tuba, they had to get the blessing of
Speaker 4: the people.
Speaker 1: So just not on Cuba anything. But this is not
Speaker 1: in Cuba anymore. Which we're talking about about London.
Speaker 3: Changed.
Speaker 4: Now you need to read the Church Committee trends talking.
Speaker 1: About we're talking about funding for twenty twenty three. Now
Speaker 1: there's two issues here. As someone who has been a
Speaker 1: journalist since he started working walked into a newsroom at
Speaker 1: the age of seventeen. I have an issue with media
Speaker 1: that is not free and fair because if you are
Speaker 1: receiving funding from a government organization, then of course you
Speaker 1: feel like you have some sort of obligation to them.
Speaker 1: But this is the discussion we always have about the
Speaker 1: ABC and why they're so lefty. I mean, they get
Speaker 1: all their money from the government, right, But we also
Speaker 1: have to acknowledge that every government in the world, always
Speaker 1: and forever will participate in spreading propaganda. And the problem
Speaker 1: is that you can't just let every other country spread
Speaker 1: propaganda around and then go, Okay, well we're not going
Speaker 1: to do it because we're all high and mighty, because
Speaker 1: you just let their propaganda fill the void that you
Speaker 1: create by not using your own. So, whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not, you do actually have to participate in
Speaker 1: that suss.
Speaker 3: To their own people.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, every government is, every government is, but if
Speaker 1: you don't do it.
Speaker 4: About when we're talking about the CIA front buying up media,
Speaker 4: and that was just one testimonial from that form of
Speaker 4: CIA agent. There's video after video after video of whistleblowers.
Speaker 3: Throughout the decades saying this is what they do.
Speaker 4: We're tapped on the shoulder, we're given a story I
Speaker 4: didn't even write, but because I'm a well known author,
Speaker 4: I put my name to it. I get a payday,
Speaker 4: and they do me favors. We are talking about a
Speaker 4: Western power using propaganda on.
Speaker 2: Their own people, paganda the Germans to.
Speaker 4: The Western imperialism, as does every other forest as they
Speaker 4: crush every other country around them, like Cuba, perfect example, Congo,
Speaker 4: perfect example.
Speaker 3: Siria, Libya.
Speaker 4: I could go on Iraq, all there's weapons of massive
Speaker 4: lying to the American people saying that there's West weapons
Speaker 4: of mass destruction in Iraq.
Speaker 2: We've got to go with there.
Speaker 1: We've got to do this.
Speaker 3: You think that was good.
Speaker 2: I didn't say lying to your.
Speaker 3: Own that's a perfect example.
Speaker 2: And you let me if you ask me a question,
Speaker 2: then you cut me off halfway.
Speaker 3: You've already answered it.
Speaker 4: You think it's fine as long as they think it's
Speaker 4: furthering the nation's interest.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 2: You've heard what. I think. We're going to go to
Speaker 2: a break. When we come back, Well, look at what's
Speaker 2: making news tomorrow. It's coming up at just a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow.
Speaker 2: We'll start with a Herald's son, that's got an interesting
Speaker 2: story about a guy who plotted to blow up the MCG.
Speaker 1: Galib Oh, look, he could just talk about the fact
Speaker 1: he likes chicken nuggets and he might get an even
Speaker 1: cushy around this blow Terror's bullet chat is the headline
Speaker 1: the terrorists who plotted to blow up the MCG has
Speaker 1: escaped strict to supervision conditions to spart meeting a man
Speaker 1: jailed over a shootout with counter terrorism police where they
Speaker 1: discussed infidels and bullets. I mean, for goodness sake, Abdul
Speaker 1: Nasser been bricker. You probably remember we were talking about
Speaker 1: this a couple of years ago when he was released
Speaker 1: in December twenty twenty three. Then he goes and talks
Speaker 1: to a bloke who had a literal shootout with counter
Speaker 1: terrorism police and he still doesn't get strict to supervision
Speaker 1: or supervision orders. Sorry, we are mad, We are mad.
Speaker 2: No calep. He's receiving the court heard therapeutic tree off.
Speaker 2: So it's all gonna be okay. It's all the massag
Speaker 2: in his ideology away.
Speaker 1: Is that it become in the form of Albanian chicken nuggetings.
Speaker 4: I was just about to say, next thing, he's gonna
Speaker 4: have us.
Speaker 3: Oh, he's like lude.
Speaker 4: The food in jail are terrible, so con't possibly.
Speaker 2: It's the height of arrogance in the West to think
Speaker 2: that you can have people who are steeped in a
Speaker 2: religious ideology that they truly believe, and you can sit
Speaker 2: down with them, put them on a couch, give them
Speaker 2: a warm drink of milo, and talk with them gently
Speaker 2: and see them change their minds and will alla safe.
Speaker 3: It's so insulting and infantilizing.
Speaker 4: I am a Christian. You can sit me down on
Speaker 4: couches with spikes on him. In fact, throughout history you've
Speaker 4: thrown us to lion. Still didn't work. The reas location
Speaker 4: program doesn't hit home. If someone has a radical religious
Speaker 4: ideology or just normal religious ideology, you can't talk them
Speaker 4: out of it.
Speaker 3: Can we just give up on that? Thank you? Western
Speaker 3: countries around the world to the front page.
Speaker 4: Of the odds Now alban Easy pledges to buy failed
Speaker 4: airline if no one else does. Anthony Albanisi says the
Speaker 4: government would acquire fouled airline Rex in the absence of
Speaker 4: any buyers to ensure crucial regional aviation services continue beyond June.
Speaker 3: Why didn't you say this earlier? Mate?
Speaker 4: The twenty three year old airline was placed into administration
Speaker 4: in July with depths of more than five hundred million,
Speaker 4: and its jet operations to major cities were immediately scrapped.
Speaker 3: Now, we talked.
Speaker 4: About it at length back in July that the government
Speaker 4: should announce this. So here we are over six months
Speaker 4: later and they've decided to finally make a move. Because
Speaker 4: of course REX does supply certain services that nowhere no
Speaker 4: other airline in Australia does, including really really important flights
Speaker 4: out in regional areas that would otherwise be completely unserviced.
Speaker 3: So better late than never, thank you. But geez, why
Speaker 3: wouldn't you just make this announcement in jo line.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't even have to be in a position where
Speaker 1: the government has to consider buying res. The only reason
Speaker 1: we are in this position, the government having to buy
Speaker 1: an airline to keep it operating is because the government's
Speaker 1: regulation of the airline industry led REX to go into
Speaker 1: so much debt and go bust because they tried to
Speaker 1: break into the domestic capital city market and when they
Speaker 1: did so, they were only allowed to have flights at
Speaker 1: either end of the day, when people don't want to fly.
Speaker 1: They gave it a go in a market that is
Speaker 1: regulated by the federal government, where the federal government, sorry,
Speaker 1: did not give them a fair shot at being a
Speaker 1: third player along with Quantus and Virgin That's why they
Speaker 1: went down the toilet, and now the federal government has
Speaker 1: to pay to keep it alive. If you'd let them
Speaker 1: have some more slots when people actually fly, they might
Speaker 1: be a profitable operation.
Speaker 2: All true, and far be it from me to defend
Speaker 2: government regulation. But the Rex management knew that when they
Speaker 2: decided to try and break into the capital city routes,
Speaker 2: and they were a profitable airline until they made that move.
Speaker 2: They made that move knowing full well that it was
Speaker 2: going to be a regulatory nightmare, and that's when things
Speaker 2: started going bad. So they have to accept responsibility for that.
Speaker 1: That's not all on government, maybe, sure, but they gave
Speaker 1: it a go, and what they proved is that it's
Speaker 1: impossible because the government won't let you, and they.
Speaker 2: Were have anefitable regional airline. If they just stayed at
Speaker 2: that point, well, I know, but then we.
Speaker 1: All sit around forever not having a third player because
Speaker 1: no one is able to give it a go. No
Speaker 1: one wants to give it a go because the government
Speaker 1: won't let them. And we are the ones who pay
Speaker 1: for the extra cost for a virgin or quaters flight,
Speaker 1: and now we paid it by res I think well for.
Speaker 4: The second slash on the front of the ears, easy
Speaker 4: lending for young votes, Charmers tells banks to loosen rules
Speaker 4: help first home buyers get into the market. Jim Chalmers
Speaker 4: has instructed financial regulators to soften home lending rules for
Speaker 4: millions of Australians with university debts and developers who can't
Speaker 4: guarantee quote one hundred percent pre sol departments end quote
Speaker 4: in a pre election move to help achieve Labour's one
Speaker 4: point two million new homes target, and wo younger voters
Speaker 4: look between this and wiping people's students' debts. Mate, I
Speaker 4: might vote Labor if they keep up these promises. I'm like, ah,
Speaker 4: I could get rid of my hets, I can get
Speaker 4: a jape our house.
Speaker 3: I'm joking that will never happen. I bleed blue.
Speaker 4: But I imagine that there are quite a few younger
Speaker 4: voters if they're paying attention.
Speaker 3: Most of them aren't ever who would be swayed by
Speaker 3: something like this.
Speaker 4: This has got to be a critical issue going into
Speaker 4: the next election, and I don't think i've heard the
Speaker 4: Libs talk enough about it.
Speaker 2: Well, it'll help younger people get a bigger loan, it
Speaker 2: won't help their repayments of that loan. That's the other
Speaker 2: issue they'll have to consider. But I mean, this housing
Speaker 2: crisis has been around for a little while now, and
Speaker 2: the government's been in power for a little while now,
Speaker 2: and it's only at the eleventh hour they've come up
Speaker 2: with this idea right before an election, which is of course, and.
Speaker 1: Let's be clear, we had a banking Royal Commission which
Speaker 1: found that banks were lending money with great alacrity to people,
Speaker 1: which then meant when they couldn't pay it back, they
Speaker 1: defaulted and then they were stuffed forever. Basically, so the
Speaker 1: Royal Commission came make and said we should be stricter
Speaker 1: on lending. And the government, which of course presided over
Speaker 1: massive inflation, now says that the answer to the housing
Speaker 1: crisis is to put more money in the economy.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's how you'll get an interest rate reduction. Please.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the Mercury in Tasmania. Talking earlier about
Speaker 2: how Queensland have now decided to make permanent fifty cent
Speaker 2: fees to increase the usage of public transport. Well, they've
Speaker 2: tried something similar in Tasmania, hasn't quite gone to plan.
Speaker 2: Minimal change in bus use, reads the headline. The number
Speaker 2: of passengers using metro buses has increased by just zero
Speaker 2: point nine percent since June last year, indicating the state
Speaker 2: government's introduction of half price fares has not meaningfully affected
Speaker 2: patronage of the service. There might be something else at
Speaker 2: play here, though, because in December The Mercury reported that
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty bus services were suspended because of
Speaker 2: a lack of drivers. They reckoned they needed five hundred
Speaker 2: bus drivers to be able to run all of the
Speaker 2: services they advertised, and so the small takeup of public
Speaker 2: transport in Tasmania might have less to do with the
Speaker 2: price and more to do with the irregularity of services.
Speaker 1: That would make sense and the advertiser very quickly before
Speaker 1: we go, says Sanji Gupta. Didn't like our front page
Speaker 1: on Monday. His lawyer wanted it retracted. So here's a
Speaker 1: new take with the humble request please pay nice man
Speaker 1: with the bunnies and the daffodils and whatever around him.
Speaker 1: Sanji Gupta has the still works in Whyala, a regional
Speaker 1: town in South Australia, basically hasn't been paying his bills.
Speaker 1: The town is relying on this money. The tizer puts
Speaker 1: a wanted poster on the front of the paper and
Speaker 1: instead of paying his bills, Gupta sends a legal letter,
Speaker 1: well done, fellow.
Speaker 2: When you go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: a Welshman accidentally throws something in the trash. You don't
Speaker 2: believe the extreme lengths he's willing to go to in
Speaker 2: order to try and find his lost treasure that's coming
Speaker 2: up in just a month. I actually did a big
Speaker 2: clean out at home today, Liz. I don't think I
Speaker 2: threw anything valuable into the trash, not like our guy
Speaker 2: in South Wales.
Speaker 3: But did your ex girlfriend back?
Speaker 4: James Howel has got to be one of the most
Speaker 4: unlucky men on the face of the planet. His ex
Speaker 4: girlfriend back in twenty thirteen through his hard drive, not
Speaker 4: knowing there was eight thousand bitcoins on it. Those bitcoins
Speaker 4: are now worth six hundred million pounds. James lost a
Speaker 4: case in the High Court just last month where he
Speaker 4: tried to get permission from the Council to be able
Speaker 4: to search through the tip. Really, James has been there
Speaker 4: since twenty thirteen. That's a lot of the stuff you'd
Speaker 4: be searching through.
Speaker 3: And he lost his case. He doesn't get to search
Speaker 3: through the tip for his hard drive.
Speaker 4: But get this, now that the tip has announced that
Speaker 4: it's closing, he's thinking of buying it so he can
Speaker 4: foss it through a decade over a decade of trash
Speaker 4: in the hopes of finding his long lost hard drive.
Speaker 3: How would you be, no wonder she's an ex girlfriend.
Speaker 2: What six hundred million pounds is about one point something
Speaker 2: billion Australian dollars easily. Yeah, yeah, Uricon, it's worth it,
Speaker 2: by the tip. Spend the rest of your life digging
Speaker 2: through it exactly for chance and winning lotto right one
Speaker 2: hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if someone said to me there's six
Speaker 1: hundred million pounds waiting for you, you've just got to
Speaker 1: dig through the rubbish, you know, I'd probably do it.
Speaker 4: Imagine if it was a really bad breakup and she
Speaker 4: sat at home with her dr drive.
Speaker 2: Being like I never threw it.
Speaker 1: Maybe she had it all along. Yeah, he knows, Hey,
Speaker 1: quickly before we go, varlet Philip Brady. Melbourne viewers, particularly
Speaker 1: older Melbourne views will know exactly who I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: He died this morning at the age of eighty five.
Speaker 1: He spent decades and decades in broadcasting in entertainment. Sixty
Speaker 1: seven years he worked in entertainment, which is just something
Speaker 1: you don't hear of these days. He was part of
Speaker 1: the original crew back in the days in Melbourne Tonight
Speaker 1: he worked on the Don Lane Show. He hosted game
Speaker 1: shows for Reg Grundy. He ended up at three aw
Speaker 1: where he was for about thirty years hosting the Nightline
Speaker 1: program with Bruce Mansfield. We just don't get entertainers like
Speaker 1: that any more. Can you think of anyone who you know,
Speaker 1: you would say sixty seven years from now will still
Speaker 1: be working in radio and television, et cetera. And he
Speaker 1: dedicated his whole life to the entertainment, to the point
Speaker 1: that everyone he told he was sick he was diagnosed
Speaker 1: with cancer last year, not to tell a soul, and
Speaker 1: they didn't until today because he didn't want to upset
Speaker 1: the audience. That's an entertainer. There you go.
Speaker 2: Well, on that note that's skipped from us stick around.
Speaker 2: Coming up is the Riada Penney show, good Night,