Speaker 1: Lately.
Speaker 2: General, welcome to the Late pay.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Joe Hildebrand and Liz Sto. Great
Speaker 3: to have your company.
Speaker 2: We've got a.
Speaker 3: Lot to get through tonight, including a woman accused of
Speaker 3: race hate for playing a Bob Bob Marley record. I reckon,
Speaker 3: if you're going to engage your hate, you'd probably pay
Speaker 3: us Taylor Swift record or something like that. We'll talk
Speaker 3: about that later. Plus, when we look at the papers,
Speaker 3: a new South Wales school slammed over sexually explicit questions
Speaker 3: being asked of students in a classroom, and Victoria Park's
Speaker 3: boss loses his job over the controversial closure of climbing
Speaker 3: routes in Victoria. We'll get to all of that when
Speaker 3: we look at the papers. But first, it's Islamophobia Awareness
Speaker 3: Month in the United Kingdom and to celebrate, Prime Minister
Speaker 3: Keir Starmer has left open the possibility of introducing blasphemy laws.
Speaker 2: He was asked in Parliament today.
Speaker 3: By one of his own Muslim mp if you would
Speaker 3: commit to criminalizing the desecration of religious texts and the
Speaker 3: prophet and Kirstama seemed way too inclined to oblige have
Speaker 3: a listen.
Speaker 4: Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing megas to prohibit
Speaker 4: the desecration of.
Speaker 5: All religious texts and the profits.
Speaker 1: Of the Abrahamic religion. We are, as I said, the
Speaker 1: foremost to speaker, committed to tackling all forms of hatred
Speaker 1: and division, including of course Islamophobia in all of its forms.
Speaker 2: Just before we get into the discussion on this, just.
Speaker 3: Should point out the sleight of hand by Tahir A
Speaker 3: Lee who asked the question he's a Muslim MP. He
Speaker 3: talked about can we outlaw disrespect for religious texts and
Speaker 3: for profits of the Abrahamic religions? And of course what
Speaker 3: that means is he's talking on behalf of Christians, Jews
Speaker 3: and Muslims. Interesting, of course, is that neither Christians nor
Speaker 3: Jews are calling for the criminalization of anybody disrespecting their religion,
Speaker 3: but he pulls them in to make it seem like
Speaker 3: he's doing this for everybody.
Speaker 1: He's worried about criticism of for the prophet Isaiah. Sure,
Speaker 1: every obviously Isaiah, that was the first one that came
Speaker 1: to mind. Mind, who are you thinking of it?
Speaker 3: Well, it's also nonsensical because Christians believe Jesus is God
Speaker 3: in human form. Muslims do not believe that at all.
Speaker 3: They just believe he's a mere man, though a very
Speaker 3: good one. And Jews think he was a total blasphemous.
Speaker 3: So you've got all of these contradictions. But here's the
Speaker 3: big thing. What he's asking for is not for people
Speaker 3: to be protected. He's asking for ideas to be protected.
Speaker 3: And the one idea that should never be protected, and
Speaker 3: I said this is a Christian is the idea of religion,
Speaker 3: because religion is your answer to the big questions in life,
Speaker 3: where do we come from, what's wrong with the world,
Speaker 3: how do we fix it? How do you define right
Speaker 3: and wrong? What happens when you die? If you can't
Speaker 3: discuss those questions openly, then it pretty much makes it
Speaker 3: impossible to talk about anything meaningful at all. And that's
Speaker 3: what he's asking for, and that's what the UK Prime
Speaker 3: Minister is saying he is.
Speaker 2: Open to doing, to outlawing.
Speaker 3: Any disrespect of religious ideas. You can't have a free
Speaker 3: society in which religious ideas are unable to be critique,
Speaker 3: criticized and if you want mocked.
Speaker 6: Indeed, and the Prime Minister, of course, no one would
Speaker 6: expect this from kir Starmer should have responded by saying.
Speaker 5: Mate, get stuffed.
Speaker 2: This is the UK.
Speaker 6: We have freedom of speech here and that includes people
Speaker 6: being able to say things that you might not like.
Speaker 5: Boohoo, so sad, this very weird would have.
Speaker 1: Been a weird thing.
Speaker 6: Is utterly ridiculous, right, because a phobia isn't an irrational fear.
Speaker 6: And I genuinely get hot under the collar when I
Speaker 6: consider that people in the UK are being lectured on
Speaker 6: is Lamophobia on the daily, when these guys have copped it,
Speaker 6: when we talk about terrorist attacks on their own soil,
Speaker 6: all by radical Islamist Back to two thousand and six,
Speaker 6: we've got fifty two dead in.
Speaker 5: The July London bombings.
Speaker 1: In the tubes.
Speaker 6: We all remember that one May twenty seventeen Manchester.
Speaker 5: Arena bombing, another twenty two dead.
Speaker 6: A month later, eight dead in the London Bridge attack.
Speaker 6: And this is to say nothing of the individual instances
Speaker 6: of people being beheaded in the street, as was the
Speaker 6: case with Samuel Patty in twenty twenty, a teacher in
Speaker 6: France going about his own business beheaded in the street,
Speaker 6: and the twenty sixteen case. These are just the ones
Speaker 6: that came to mind, by the way, the twenty sixteen
Speaker 6: case of the pre least his name was.
Speaker 5: Jack Hammel who's beheaded during Mass.
Speaker 6: And of course most recently they're still coming to mind,
Speaker 6: ladies and gentlemen, the Southport case where we had three
Speaker 6: little girls killed by a guy who had in his
Speaker 6: possession an El Qaida training manual.
Speaker 5: So how dare.
Speaker 6: You lecture people in the UK on being Islamophobic when
Speaker 6: any fear they have is bloody well founded if they
Speaker 6: have concerns relating to Islam. That is a country who
Speaker 6: can say, don't lecture us, mate.
Speaker 5: And this is nothing to do with a phobia.
Speaker 6: This has nothing to do with racism, This has nothing
Speaker 6: to do with us hating Muslims. We've simply had a
Speaker 6: gut full of you gaslighting us into believing there's something
Speaker 6: wrong with us when we simply keep looking at these cases.
Speaker 6: And I'm sure if I lived in the UK I
Speaker 6: could name far, far more. I haven't even got started
Speaker 6: on the grooming gangs have been making a lot of
Speaker 6: headlines in the UK recently, and their Prime Minister just
Speaker 6: wants to be like, oh, yeah, well, we're just going
Speaker 6: to keep you know, putting the screws in you guys,
Speaker 6: we can't have Islamophobia.
Speaker 1: I think he's actually doing something a bit cleverer than that,
Speaker 1: I think because so he's obviously got his MP who said,
Speaker 1: all right, will you commit to laws banning the desecration
Speaker 1: quote unquote of religious texts? That is not what Keir
Speaker 1: Starmer agrees to. So kis Dama says, oh, we're committed to,
Speaker 1: you know, to tackling Islamo phobia, just.
Speaker 5: Something fun.
Speaker 2: A lot of forms, in all its forms, in.
Speaker 1: All its forms. That's right, But he's not actually committing
Speaker 1: to And again this is sort of politics. One oh one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I answer the question that you want to answer, not
Speaker 1: the questions that's actually been asked. So it's a bit
Speaker 1: like the very famous example in New South Wales was
Speaker 1: when there was a bit of a law and order
Speaker 1: auction and the coalition was demanding minimum sentences of twenty
Speaker 1: five years for murder, and the state government under bobcast It.
Speaker 7: You say, minimum sentence of twenty five years for murder,
Speaker 7: we are proposing maximum sentences of thirty five years for murder.
Speaker 7: Because yeah, but we're talking about minimum centers is twenty
Speaker 7: five years. Yeah, but we're saying, we're going to have
Speaker 7: a maximum sentence of thirty five years. So you place
Speaker 7: the So you're you're responding to a question he's not saying. Now, Islamophobia,
Speaker 7: like homophobia or like you know, anti Semitism or whatever,
Speaker 7: is not the irrational fear or hatred of religious texts,
Speaker 7: which is.
Speaker 1: It's not of the text. You're falling for the same trap. Again,
Speaker 1: it's not of the text. It's of the people, rights
Speaker 1: of the So it's the mistreatment of Muslims based on
Speaker 1: whatever you think, just as antisemitism is the mistreatment of
Speaker 1: Jews based on what you think of them. And so
Speaker 1: he answers a completely different question to that, and I
Speaker 1: think you can. You can. And again, you know, there's
Speaker 1: Muslims and there's actual Islamness, which is the extreme form
Speaker 1: of Islam that results in terrorism and extremism and fundamentalism.
Speaker 1: And again that is a sort of different thing. Again,
Speaker 1: so you can tackle you can. You can still have
Speaker 1: measures that apply to zonophobia, just as they would to
Speaker 1: anti Semitism without touching which is vital, Without touching the
Speaker 1: ability of people to be able to criticize the Koran
Speaker 1: or indeed, you know, make jokes about it like they
Speaker 1: do about it.
Speaker 2: That's very clever politics.
Speaker 3: Then, from Kirstar, if it is as you described, except
Speaker 3: this is not a time for clever politics. This has
Speaker 3: made front page news right through the UK because people
Speaker 3: have said he's clearly given an obtuse answer. He's given
Speaker 3: a clever answer when what people want is clear direction
Speaker 3: that we've got leadership who won't put up with the
Speaker 3: sorts of things that you have described and the kind
Speaker 3: of retrick that leads to that.
Speaker 2: But he's not given clear leadership.
Speaker 3: He's trying to play both sides of defence and in
Speaker 3: doing that all he does is give you encouragement to extremists.
Speaker 1: That's right. Sorry, if you look at and I dare say,
Speaker 1: if you look at the election result we've just had
Speaker 1: in the US, and I dare say Labor would have that,
Speaker 1: and it's got its own problems as well with the
Speaker 1: budget have just passed. I think I think they would
Speaker 1: be very sort of I suppose they would be have
Speaker 1: one eye on that. They would have one eye on
Speaker 1: their constituents. And again there are a lot of very
Speaker 1: very Muslim heavy seats in the four million four million.
Speaker 1: There are also I think five seats that were won
Speaker 1: by Muslim voice or Muslim votes matter type candidates either.
Speaker 1: I don't think they ran as an actual party, but
Speaker 1: people who are aligned to that movement, so they are
Speaker 1: going to have half an eye on that as well.
Speaker 1: But I totally agree that it should be absolutely no
Speaker 1: place for blasphemy laws. I mean, look at the number
Speaker 1: of jokes that people have made throughout the centuries about
Speaker 1: characters in the Bible, including Jesus himself. Now the idea
Speaker 1: that you would add a stroke effectively ban all of
Speaker 1: those because imagine the law fare that Christian groups would
Speaker 1: engage on. Imagine the mass class actions they would if
Speaker 1: there was the same applied to it. And again, does
Speaker 1: this means that you know that Kiostama or you Calaber
Speaker 1: says Charlie, hebdo had it coming.
Speaker 3: The reason you can tell so many Christian jokes is
Speaker 3: because Christians don't believe in shutting down any critique.
Speaker 6: People know that they're not going to be beheaded in
Speaker 6: the street if they criticize Christianity, Catholicism, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 6: and so on to the US now, and perhaps the
Speaker 6: biggest confirmation that most Polsters are absolutely pathetic at their jobs. Today,
Speaker 6: we learned from one of Harris's main campaign guys that
Speaker 6: their internal polling actually never showed Harris out front of
Speaker 6: Trump in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 5: Check it out.
Speaker 6: Hear it from him here he is talking to Pod
Speaker 6: Save America podcast.
Speaker 5: You can hear it from the horse's mouth.
Speaker 8: When we got in. My recollection is some of that snapback.
Speaker 8: But you know we were behind. I mean, I think
Speaker 8: it surprised people because there was these public polls that
Speaker 8: came out in late September early October shown us with
Speaker 8: leads that we never saw. I think even after the
Speaker 8: debate we might have gained what point five to one.
Speaker 8: It wasn't a race that moved a lot. You know,
Speaker 8: you've got to have bun decided to break your way
Speaker 8: more than your opponents, and you've got to get a
Speaker 8: little benefit from turnout, which we weren't able to do.
Speaker 5: Thank you, David Plof.
Speaker 6: So how was it that the public polls which he
Speaker 6: made reference to there were so out of step with
Speaker 6: their own internal polling, whereby they knew there was more
Speaker 6: than one other guy on their campaign who joined him
Speaker 6: on that podcast, and they said, look, we knew we
Speaker 6: actually knew it was a lost cause, which begs the question,
Speaker 6: had everyone known it was a lost cause, do you
Speaker 6: think Harris would have had a billion dollars to incinerate?
Speaker 5: I think not.
Speaker 6: Can you imagine being one of her donors right now
Speaker 6: and learning that these guys always knew that it was
Speaker 6: a jolly lost cause. Check out this great of just
Speaker 6: how out of touch the average polster was with what
Speaker 6: was actually going on behind the scenes in the Harris camp.
Speaker 6: In the right hand column there you can see how
Speaker 6: badly the end result deviated from what they projected was
Speaker 6: going to happen. This is an absolute embarrassment. And we
Speaker 6: had David Plouf there saying that.
Speaker 5: It didn't even change.
Speaker 6: Much after she took after dementia Joe. Now we were told, oh,
Speaker 6: Harris is at the wheel. Now she actually did really
Speaker 6: well during the debate. Don't you think that was amazing?
Speaker 6: She's doing incredibly. The Trump camp should be worried. She's
Speaker 6: actually skyrocketing and popularity, and we all said, oh, maybe
Speaker 6: it's just a honeymoon period. You know, she's just taken
Speaker 6: over from Joe. She didn't actually crash and burn in
Speaker 6: the debate as we were expecting, and we just thought, oh,
Speaker 6: you know, she's has got a bit of a pump
Speaker 6: in the polls. Maybe this will be tighter than we thought.
Speaker 5: Turns out it was all a nonsense. So much for
Speaker 5: suppression polls being a conspiracy theory. Another great day to
Speaker 5: be a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, this is private internal party polling. They're
Speaker 1: not going to make a public they never do, never have,
Speaker 1: never will. Otherwise, what's the point They're not going to
Speaker 1: do it before during the actual election campaign. No, of course,
Speaker 1: that's the whole point of having your own internal polster.
Speaker 1: And then you've got the public poles. If you actually
Speaker 1: looked at the public polls throughout the entire campaign, as
Speaker 1: I was doing obsessively, they showed pretty much the same
Speaker 1: thing he was talking here, mostly about the battleground states,
Speaker 1: which is also the ones that matter, that's right, And
Speaker 1: you know there's about seven of those that really matters,
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania being the most important, but you know, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Speaker 1: and a handful of others, Georgia, Arizona, those sorts of
Speaker 1: things if you actually looked at them, if you look
Speaker 1: at the average of polls, that the real clear politics.
Speaker 1: Who are five thirty eight puts up all the time.
Speaker 1: Trump was marginally ahead, a tiny bit ahead in most
Speaker 1: of those most of the time. And that's why, that's why,
Speaker 1: and that's why you saw and that's why you no
Speaker 1: Trumps mostly and again. And Paul Murray, you know, was
Speaker 1: constantly drawing attention to this fact. And it was a
Speaker 1: white knuckle ride. But Trump won by much much, much
Speaker 1: more than those poles predicted. So those poles still got
Speaker 1: it wrong. But this is what I found really strange.
Speaker 1: It was that even when I think I mentioned it
Speaker 1: on my podcast, the real story with Joe Hilda Round
Speaker 1: download it now, which is the gas sliding. And this
Speaker 1: is what makes it even worse, the obsession of say
Speaker 1: the MSNBC types or the CNN types, or we had
Speaker 1: certain you know, Twitter raadi here, you know, saying I
Speaker 1: predict it's going to be Carmela by this and that
Speaker 1: we sat the ridiculous Iowa pole. But it was right
Speaker 1: there in front of their faces. This is this wasn't
Speaker 1: even like in twenty sixteen where everyone's saying, oh, it's
Speaker 1: definitely Hillary Clinton, it's all over bar the shouting. The
Speaker 1: poles were still showing it was incredibly close. The battleground
Speaker 1: states edged towards Trump more than Harris the vast majority
Speaker 1: of the time, and the bedding market had Trump pretty much,
Speaker 1: you know, fifty five forty five.
Speaker 3: So how do you for the whole time parody because
Speaker 3: between the internal polling and all the other polling.
Speaker 1: Well, no, this is what I'm saying, though their internal
Speaker 1: polling actually matches up pretty well with the public polling.
Speaker 1: What neither matches up with is the result, and neither
Speaker 1: matches up with the commentary of.
Speaker 5: People who thought it was sad.
Speaker 6: He said, the public polls had us ahead, and we
Speaker 6: never saw that in our internal poll didn't you.
Speaker 1: He said that we were always behind the battleground.
Speaker 5: Rod about post debate famous right.
Speaker 1: And that that polster has actually resigned. That showed up
Speaker 1: something like a ten to fifteen point turnaround. It was
Speaker 1: absolutely bonkers, right, So that was some weird, crazy anomally
Speaker 1: and that should have just been put on the scrap
Speaker 1: heap and just burned alive, because that was clearly just
Speaker 1: a crazy, crazy outlier. And yeah, maybe the pub and
Speaker 1: the public poles I think were probably a bit more
Speaker 1: favorable to Carmla because I think a lot of Trump
Speaker 1: voters were gaming the polls and just not answering. And
Speaker 1: there was some anecdotal evidence after that. Say here a poster,
Speaker 1: I say, no, f you, I'm not talking to you,
Speaker 1: don't trust you. You're part of the system.
Speaker 6: But they don't explain that people are watching these polls
Speaker 6: unfold on MSNBCC and.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying, even those false hope, but even those
Speaker 1: but even the polls, if you actually look at them,
Speaker 1: weren't giving them pulse. You had people talking about them,
Speaker 1: talking about Karmala mentor.
Speaker 5: Internal polling clearly disagree with you, Joe.
Speaker 1: So no privately knew they that to stay privately knew
Speaker 1: that things were not going as well as all Karmala
Speaker 1: Harris's cheerleaders were saying they were going. That is exactly
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to tell you that you had people
Speaker 1: who were so blinded, it was so completely dissociated from
Speaker 1: the possibility that Donald Trump could actually win, that they
Speaker 1: were talking about Karmala Harris having this rollicking campaign, having
Speaker 1: all this Famouskama momentum and being ahead and going to win,
Speaker 1: when even the public polls that were published were saying
Speaker 1: in most cases the opposite of that. That is how
Speaker 1: deluded they were so again, it wasn't like Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, where they were following what the Poles
Speaker 1: were actually telling them. Well, poles never pointed to They
Speaker 1: didn't point to a Trump landslide, but they sure as
Speaker 1: hell never pointed to a Harris landslide. It was always
Speaker 1: at most a white no you.
Speaker 3: Mentioned disassociation from reality, which is a perfect way to
Speaker 3: describe Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: She's still talking to.
Speaker 3: Americans saying, don't lose your power, even though she of
Speaker 3: course has lost hers.
Speaker 2: He is a recent video she released and a look
Speaker 2: at this.
Speaker 9: I just have to remind you, don't you ever let
Speaker 9: anybody take your power from you. You have the same
Speaker 9: power that you did before November fifth, and you have
Speaker 9: the same purpose that you did, and you have the
Speaker 9: same ability to engage and inspire. So don't ever let
Speaker 9: anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.
Speaker 3: Now, she's still speaking in word sounds, but to help
Speaker 3: us understand what's really going on in that video, someone's
Speaker 3: just added a few little parts to make it a
Speaker 3: bit more obvious what's actually happening.
Speaker 9: Would you ever let anybody take your power from you?
Speaker 9: You have the same power that you did before November fifth,
Speaker 9: and you have the same purpose that you did.
Speaker 3: You know, when your friends are drinking, you typically take
Speaker 3: away their keys. Maybe take away their camera, Liz, that would.
Speaker 5: Be very kind.
Speaker 6: The funniest part of all of this the video goes
Speaker 6: for almost ten minutes, her full address to the nation,
Speaker 6: first we've heard of her since the failed election bid,
Speaker 6: and the full length is so much more painful to watch.
Speaker 5: I do not recommend it.
Speaker 6: Back to Australia now, where medical cannabis is taking the
Speaker 6: nation by storm.
Speaker 5: Get this, we are expected to.
Speaker 6: Spend a billion dollars on medical cannabis this year as
Speaker 6: use of the drug sky rocket.
Speaker 1: That's just Kamala Harris's use.
Speaker 6: I was gonna say, maybe we shouldn't have put alcohol
Speaker 6: in the AI version of that.
Speaker 5: Someone could have just easily put a bong in there instead.
Speaker 6: But this spending correlates with usage, which jumped from just
Speaker 6: three point nine percent of survey respondents in a twenty
Speaker 6: nineteen survey to almost thirty percent admitting they.
Speaker 5: Use prescription marijuana.
Speaker 6: Now, it's true, this is a wonder plant for people
Speaker 6: with a plethora of physical and mental issues. Anyone who
Speaker 6: knows much about medical marijuana knows that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's it's referred to as.
Speaker 6: The wonder drug, although so I don't really call it
Speaker 6: a drug because it ain't appeal. It is a plant,
Speaker 6: thanks God. And so people are getting I'm not surprised
Speaker 6: by this at all. People are getting incredible results from
Speaker 6: it that they have not been able to see from
Speaker 6: drugs from Big Farmer.
Speaker 5: And it's interesting because this is.
Speaker 6: At a time as well where legalized cannabis type parties
Speaker 6: have got quite a foothold in nearly every state parliament now,
Speaker 6: so it's an interesting.
Speaker 3: Time and that they're using the popularity of medicinal cannabis
Speaker 3: to make the case that cannabis should be legalized recreationally,
Speaker 3: and that as medicinal cannabis is used so to the
Speaker 3: acceptance of it in the general community is becoming more
Speaker 3: important common This is not being lost on the green
Speaker 3: or the cannabis part.
Speaker 1: Ironically, early their use of medicinal cannabis, for the most part,
Speaker 1: is meant to be in such a way that it
Speaker 1: doesn't actually produce a high. You don't actually go high
Speaker 1: for it, to which I think most people would say,
Speaker 1: what's the full point? But yes, no, that is exactly
Speaker 1: what's happening, and it is and it is. It's basically
Speaker 1: just one party, which is the Legalized Cannabis Party, which
Speaker 1: has done deals or is about to do deals. It
Speaker 1: did a deal with Labor at the Queensland state election
Speaker 1: and did very well and possibly help Labor win maybe
Speaker 1: three seats it wouldn't have otherwise. Now, I no one
Speaker 1: particularly cares if Stephen Miles wins government or not. Well,
Speaker 1: no one wants him to win. But this does mean
Speaker 1: that they could help Anthony Albanezi and Labor federally sneak
Speaker 1: over the line. And more importantly, they give Labor an
Speaker 1: option to shore up second preference votes from a minor
Speaker 1: party that is not the Greens, and so Labor can
Speaker 1: have as its first party of choice, its primary partnership
Speaker 1: in the electorate where does a deal where it gives
Speaker 1: two to that party above any others, it can have
Speaker 1: that as the Legalized Cannabis Party and not the Greens.
Speaker 1: And of course we all know Labor hates the Greens.
Speaker 1: At the moment, the Greens are trying to destroy Labor.
Speaker 1: It's never been more toxic. The Greens are a bunch
Speaker 1: of extremist a holes and are doing just terrible, terrible things,
Speaker 1: holding the country to ransom. So this, this deal with
Speaker 1: legalized cannabis gives labor a huge, huge, huge sort of
Speaker 1: I suppose shot in the arm if you're like where
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to associate with people who are fundamentally crazy,
Speaker 1: anti submitted extremists. Which is a long way of saying
Speaker 1: that cannabis, the wonder drug, can not only you know,
Speaker 1: help cure arthritis or other forms of chronic pain or
Speaker 1: whatever islands or whatever whatever these things are, it can
Speaker 1: also cure Australia from the Greens.
Speaker 5: They're fixed.
Speaker 1: It just gets rid of them.
Speaker 3: You finally convince me if.
Speaker 1: It does legalizing dope to get rid of the Greens,
Speaker 1: I say, let it rain down, Let it rain down
Speaker 1: from heaven.
Speaker 2: I reckon.
Speaker 3: You get a lot of support for that, Joe, if
Speaker 3: only get find something to heal us from the ABC.
Speaker 3: Kim Williams, the boss of the ABC, is in all
Speaker 3: sorts over his criticism of the most popular podcaster in
Speaker 3: the world, Rogan. He went nuclear on Joe Rogan, talking
Speaker 3: about all sorts of descriptors of the podcast, and then
Speaker 3: got surprised when people said he was completely divorced from
Speaker 3: reality and out of touch. Just to remind you, here's
Speaker 3: Kim Williams speaking at the Press Club. He was asked
Speaker 3: what he thought about Joe Rogan and if maybe the
Speaker 3: ABC could learn from Joe Rogan in order to boost
Speaker 3: their influence in this country.
Speaker 2: Here's what he said.
Speaker 4: I personally find it deeply repulsive, and to think that
Speaker 4: someone has such remarkable power in the United States is
Speaker 4: something that I look at him disbelief. I'm also absolutely
Speaker 4: in dismay that this can be a source of public
Speaker 4: entertaining when it's really treating the public as plunder for
Speaker 4: purposes that are really quite malevolent.
Speaker 3: So he's talking about Joe Rogan, who is incredibly popular,
Speaker 3: way more popular than the ABC will ever be, and
Speaker 3: with nowhere near the.
Speaker 2: Budget or the staff.
Speaker 3: He's talking about Joe Rogan being a malevolent force in
Speaker 3: the public discourse.
Speaker 2: And he said all of that.
Speaker 3: After he admitted he doesn't listen to Joe Rogan at all.
Speaker 3: So how he came up with all those criticisms is
Speaker 3: a mystery. Anyway, there was a massive pilon, of course,
Speaker 3: because how out of touch could a man be? And
Speaker 3: then he was surprised by the pylon here is talking
Speaker 3: on radio today.
Speaker 10: I might say I've been surprised since making that response
Speaker 10: that there has been an astonishingly large pylon from people
Speaker 10: saying that I was an embarrassment to Australia. I've been
Speaker 10: accused of having a walk down look on life. I've
Speaker 10: been accused of being unhinged. I've been threatened with I'm
Speaker 10: staying in my lane. I find the reaction really out
Speaker 10: of all proportion with what I said.
Speaker 3: Well, if you are the boss of the ABC, then
Speaker 3: what you say about media matters does tend to matter.
Speaker 3: And especially when you say that someone who simply provides
Speaker 3: plenty of opportunity for very powerful and well known people
Speaker 3: to discuss their ideas and share them in a free
Speaker 3: ranging conversation, when you call that malevolent, and when you
Speaker 3: say that it's a terrible thing, then of course it's
Speaker 3: going to make news. He's surprised Liz that people were
Speaker 3: critical of him, which was.
Speaker 6: Such a dumb move, because you're doubling down on these
Speaker 6: accusations of people saying you are so out of touch
Speaker 6: with the everyday person, and then you.
Speaker 5: Go on radio the next day to be like.
Speaker 6: I can't believe they think I'm out of touch, just
Speaker 6: admit fold button. But if you're worried about Joe Rogan,
Speaker 6: don't be. He tweeted today news of little Kim Williams
Speaker 6: yacking these terrible remarks about him. Loll what that's how
Speaker 6: much he cares. Lol, by the way means laugh out loud.
Speaker 6: This is Joe's way of saying, I couldn't give a
Speaker 6: rip mate and Elon Musk and also, incredibly, these are
Speaker 6: probably the two of the most famous men on the
Speaker 6: planet right now. Elon Musk then tweeted from the head
Speaker 6: of Australian government media, they're Pravda. Pravda of course being
Speaker 6: the Russian newspaper that was the official mouthpiece of the
Speaker 6: Soviet Communist Party in Russia for.
Speaker 5: Sixty nine years.
Speaker 1: Kim Williams.
Speaker 6: There was also other people laughing at Kim Williams on
Speaker 6: social media today.
Speaker 5: One of my favorites came from milk.
Speaker 6: Bar TV, who said, oh, yes, well, Kim Williams. Joe
Speaker 6: Rogan is so upholesev. I heard that he docted wartime
Speaker 6: footage to make our.
Speaker 5: Guys, our soldiers, Australian soldiers.
Speaker 6: Look like they were committing war crimes. Overseas when they
Speaker 6: really weren't. Oh whoops, Kim Williams, that was your lot, that.
Speaker 5: Was the ABC. It really gets my goat Joe when
Speaker 5: these tiny, tiny men.
Speaker 6: Yap at the heels of titans, because when we're talking
Speaker 6: about Joe Rogan, we're.
Speaker 1: Talking about that's how I feel like has al.
Speaker 6: Those twenty million subscribers on YouTube, almost fifteen million subscribers
Speaker 6: on Spotify. Every single one of his episodes gets at
Speaker 6: least eleven million eyeballs on it his podcast, Yes, and
Speaker 6: then you've got Kim Williams being like he's just malevolent,
Speaker 6: He's disgusting, and you're like, mate, like, what is going
Speaker 6: on upstairs?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think this is the thing. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: is high the ironic there's a home. All these people
Speaker 1: calling me out of touch took me completely by surprise.
Speaker 1: But I don't think I like Kim Williams. He was
Speaker 1: a former CEO at News Corps and so it's strange
Speaker 1: to see that's usually the sort of accusation that he's
Speaker 1: making about Joe Rogan. That's the sort of thing that
Speaker 1: people often say about Rupert Murdock can use him. This
Speaker 1: is this man who's controlling everything, and he's ironically, I think,
Speaker 1: falling for the same line that you know that people
Speaker 1: aren't actually sentient beings that decide for themselves what they
Speaker 1: want to read or watch or listen to, and that
Speaker 1: they don't think for themselves and know what they like
Speaker 1: and what they don't like, and what they believe and
Speaker 1: don't believe. They're just somehow kind of formless blobs that
Speaker 1: get molded into clo or agents of evil by these
Speaker 1: evil sort of media proprietors or media performers, these puppet masters,
Speaker 1: who tell them what to think because of course they're
Speaker 1: so sluggish and dim witted and slow minded themselves they
Speaker 1: couldn't possibly they couldn't possibly think for themselves. And it
Speaker 1: is really interesting. I don't think Kim is doing it deliberately,
Speaker 1: and clearly he hasn't realized clearly, I mean self evidently
Speaker 1: he hasn't actually listened to much, if any, of Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan podcast. And that's fair enough because they're about three
Speaker 1: hours long, right, But you know, Joe Rogan, we're talking
Speaker 1: about this still marijuana. Joe Rogan to Stoner. Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: sits around with his mates, some of whom happened to
Speaker 1: be billionaires or the most the rich and famous, and
Speaker 1: they just they just shoot the ship. They just talk
Speaker 1: about whatever, and so they go down all these rabbit
Speaker 1: holes and people call them conspiracy theories or whatever. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, that's dangerous, but none of it's actually malevolent.
Speaker 1: They're just they're just sitting there kind of Isn't.
Speaker 3: That why people like Kim Williams, who are in charge
Speaker 3: of you know what they call the legacy media organizations,
Speaker 3: are so offended by the very presence of Joe Rogan
Speaker 3: on the media landscape because he's got this huge audience.
Speaker 3: I feel on his qualifications. He used to be involved
Speaker 3: in World Federation wrestling. It's like, who's this guy? Usc, Yeah,
Speaker 3: World Federation?
Speaker 1: That was Donald Trump, sorry as it was.
Speaker 2: You've got Kim Williams.
Speaker 3: He's got a one point something billion dollar but obviously
Speaker 3: very traditional.
Speaker 1: He's a classical penist, I believe, and then he was
Speaker 1: in charge of Fox Tail. I did a great job
Speaker 1: here in the news court and stuff. But again I
Speaker 1: think you're just looking at something else and you don't
Speaker 1: understand it, and you think, oh my god, this is terrifying.
Speaker 3: So rather than colonize, maybe try and learn something it
Speaker 3: might help the ABC with ratings, although he also said
Speaker 3: in that address that ratings don't really matter.
Speaker 2: That The irony, of course is, isn't it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, because your taxpayer funded, you don't have to deliver
Speaker 6: on any KPIs, you won't get the boot. We're used
Speaker 6: to the ABC sucking, so you keep that up while
Speaker 6: sucking up one point two billion dollars worth of taxpayer
Speaker 6: money and asking for more, which he also did at
Speaker 6: the Press Club yesterday.
Speaker 5: How pathetic.
Speaker 2: Exactly so not a fan, not a fan, he wants
Speaker 2: more money.
Speaker 3: I tell you what who when I'm a fan of either,
Speaker 3: and that is Senator Lydia Thorpe.
Speaker 2: But we better talk.
Speaker 3: About her antics in the Senate because of course they've
Speaker 3: made headlines, oh the country. She was, of course suspended
Speaker 3: for a couple of days because she tore into pieces
Speaker 3: a Senate motion, threw it into Pauline Hanson's face, and
Speaker 3: then flicked Senator Hanson the bird as she left the chamber.
Speaker 3: So suspended for a couple of days, but she'd only
Speaker 3: been suspended for five minutes before already the talk was
Speaker 3: do we think she'll stay away or will she violate
Speaker 3: the suspension and indeed, as predicted, she did. She appeared
Speaker 3: in the press gallery. And here's what happened.
Speaker 5: Ray Palist I called a clerk.
Speaker 2: I called a clerk.
Speaker 3: Now, she was suspended from the Chambert because she was
Speaker 3: accusing Pauline Hansen of racism.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that in a moment. But then she
Speaker 2: comes back.
Speaker 3: In the day of her first suspension and she's yelling
Speaker 3: for Palestine.
Speaker 6: What on earth doesn't exactly a peck acause lady.
Speaker 1: What comes? It's like when brain damage. People just want
Speaker 1: to make a noise. They just want to make her sound,
Speaker 1: but they don't actually know what to say. They don't
Speaker 1: have anything to say. No, but she is that she's
Speaker 1: clearly impaired, and so she just starts chanting, I don't
Speaker 1: want free Palestine.
Speaker 2: This is a crazy thing.
Speaker 3: Like they put security guards, I believe reading the media
Speaker 3: reports today at the doors of the Senate chamber. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we'll try to prevent her use of them. You've got
Speaker 3: a senator who needs to be She.
Speaker 6: Got into the press gallery anyway, So I'm like, seriously,
Speaker 6: were you not paying attention yesterday when she was suspended
Speaker 6: and you just let her in the doors or where
Speaker 6: You're like oh well, the press gallery isn't exactly the chamber,
Speaker 6: although it is in the.
Speaker 5: Exact same room.
Speaker 6: But of course she made even her suspension about the
Speaker 6: fact the Parliament was just being racist and treating her
Speaker 6: like a naughty little black girl.
Speaker 11: It seems like there's one rule for white people who
Speaker 11: get away with racism, and there's one rule for us
Speaker 11: when we call that out, we're the ones that are
Speaker 11: the naughty little black girl.
Speaker 6: Again, she really seemed to have a theme during this address,
Speaker 6: the first of its kind following her suspension.
Speaker 5: See if you can pick up on what that theme
Speaker 5: might have been.
Speaker 11: You know, I'll do what it takes to stamp out racism.
Speaker 11: We need to stand up to racism, inquiry into racism,
Speaker 11: in stamping out racism, anti racism, training, discussing racism.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we'll get right on that. Love. I mean that interview, she.
Speaker 3: Spoke for four minutes and thirty seconds. She used the
Speaker 3: word racism or racist seventeen times, which is once every
Speaker 3: fifteen seconds. And this is all because Senator Pauline Hansen
Speaker 3: dared to ask a question about the eligibility of fatima
Speaker 3: payment because she's got dual citizenship. The same question that
Speaker 3: was asked of Barnaby Joyce. This is what the time ago.
Speaker 2: It's not racists what I'm saying. Someone is eligible based
Speaker 2: on their capacity.
Speaker 1: Like she's she is not functional, She's she's clearly not
Speaker 1: a functioning human being. I honestly, I'm not the first
Speaker 1: person to raise concerns about her the status of her mind.
Speaker 1: She's like, she's either I mean, I'm pretty crazy myself,
Speaker 1: I being too kind, Maybe I am maybe I'm being kind.
Speaker 2: She is exactly what she's doing.
Speaker 1: How many, like, how many other indigenous senators felt the
Speaker 1: need to rip up bits of paper and flip.
Speaker 2: Many Indigenous senators?
Speaker 1: How many non indigenous? How many? How many white senators
Speaker 1: ripped up some emotion someone else's motion, flipped the bird
Speaker 1: to the other senators in the chamber and had no
Speaker 1: action taken against them. So where the double like? And
Speaker 1: she's manufacturing this double standard? And again it is like
Speaker 1: that there is there is some form of malfunction in
Speaker 1: the brain seeing things that are not there. It might yeah,
Speaker 1: it might be like borderline personality disorder. It might be
Speaker 1: delusions of grandeur. But there is something just so wrong.
Speaker 3: Why is she not completely disowned by all the key
Speaker 3: Indigenous voices in this country and in the parliament. That's
Speaker 3: the question I always ask, where are all the Indigenous
Speaker 3: people saying this woman does not represent us?
Speaker 2: She did as a scrap.
Speaker 1: Extremist activists of her ilk who are again completely and
Speaker 1: utterly deluded, who who want a revolution or a civil
Speaker 1: war or just love I just love the chance, you know,
Speaker 1: they just rock. I'm here for the chance. And those
Speaker 1: sorts of people will end up backing her in or
Speaker 1: just not saying anything. And then I think there are
Speaker 1: other people who have come out and said she's an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: She's an embarrassment to indigenous scores. She helped sink the voice,
Speaker 1: which I.
Speaker 3: Think she's useful to the call because she's so extreme.
Speaker 2: She makes other requests seem reason.
Speaker 1: To the conservative cause because they look at her, she's
Speaker 1: what all activists look like, and in many cases they're
Speaker 1: not wrong.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including a new South Wales school slammed after students were
Speaker 3: asked sexually explicit questions in the classroom.
Speaker 2: That's coming up in a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at What's Making News tomorrow. We'll
Speaker 3: start with a really disturbing story in the Newcastle Herald.
Speaker 3: The headline reads porn fan fiction, sex ed material in spotlight.
Speaker 3: Another story of students at school being exposed to sexually
Speaker 3: explicit material without their parents' knowledge, let alone consent. A
Speaker 3: Hunter School is under fire over its choice of material
Speaker 3: to help teach sex health in the classroom.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: The book contained questions asking kids to brainstorm listing as
Speaker 3: many sex acts as they could possibly think of, and
Speaker 3: then after that they were asked to list the sex
Speaker 3: acts they look forward to trying, the ones they're not
Speaker 3: sure about, and the ones that they definitely don't want
Speaker 3: to do. So, just to be clear, the kids were
Speaker 3: put into groups. They had to brainstorm what sex actually
Speaker 3: aware of, what would you like to try? And then
Speaker 3: there was discussion. Parents, of course, are outraged because they
Speaker 3: didn't know this was happening, They certainly didn't give consent
Speaker 3: for it, and.
Speaker 2: The school was slow to respond.
Speaker 3: It begs the question what happens to teachers who have
Speaker 3: these kinds of discussions in the classroom without parents consent?
Speaker 3: Because if I had that discussion with some kid at
Speaker 3: a shopping center, it would be hell to pay. And
Speaker 3: it's before the police were called. You stand in a
Speaker 3: classroom at a public school. This wasn't a public school.
Speaker 3: This is a private school, I should say, and somehow
Speaker 3: it Yeah.
Speaker 1: Even with public schools and private schools, the problem always
Speaker 1: seems to be is they get these people in from outside,
Speaker 1: these experts in, and they tend to be the one
Speaker 1: within the actual school.
Speaker 2: You still have a duty of kids.
Speaker 1: Absolutely acutely right, and the school absolutely is responsible. But
Speaker 1: this seems to be the problem that is happening is
Speaker 1: but where they're getting these people from outside and then
Speaker 1: they're coming in with all these crazy whackamami ideas. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you know, if you want someone to talk about
Speaker 1: all the sex they don't want to have, just get
Speaker 1: my wife to come in there and have talk to
Speaker 1: the kids.
Speaker 5: But this is utterly disgusting.
Speaker 6: I mean, year ten, so these kids are what fifteen
Speaker 6: years old?
Speaker 5: Fifteen years old. You can't even legally have.
Speaker 6: Sex at fifteen years old, So what are you doing
Speaker 6: inspiring them with all these different sex acts and getting
Speaker 6: them to basically rate them in order of the ones
Speaker 6: that they want to try.
Speaker 5: We've got pedophiles in the school. Room here. No, seriously, who.
Speaker 6: What adult in their right mind thinks this is appropriate
Speaker 6: when it's just you the teacher in the room and
Speaker 6: a pile of students And what's really galling about this is.
Speaker 5: His The response from the school.
Speaker 6: Hunter Valley Grammar School principal Rebecca Butterworth says the material
Speaker 6: in the workbook is.
Speaker 5: Aligned with age appropriate lessons.
Speaker 6: Okay Butterworth, let's see your head roll next, because that's
Speaker 6: not true and the parents certainly don't agree with you. God,
Speaker 6: i'd be ropable to the front page of the Australian
Speaker 6: Now SeaBus scandal. I'm so sorry, says Swanen. This is
Speaker 6: the death payment saga. You will recall, SeaBus chairman, when
Speaker 6: Swann has apologized unreservedly for the excessive delay in paying
Speaker 6: millions in payments to grieving families and disabled people in
Speaker 6: an extraordinary address to the ninety four billion dollars superannuation giants.
Speaker 5: And you will.
Speaker 6: Meeting this of course, as the article goes on to say,
Speaker 6: and I will speculate this is why.
Speaker 5: He's saying sorry now.
Speaker 6: It's as he faces questioning in Parliament on Friday over
Speaker 6: the ten thousand SeaBus members and claimants whose death and
Speaker 6: disability insurance claims we're delaid for twelve.
Speaker 5: Months or more.
Speaker 6: Mister Swan apologized for the fund's latest scandal, but stood
Speaker 6: by a raft of new board members source from the
Speaker 6: controversial CFFMEU, Well, I'm sure they'll be better than the
Speaker 6: last ones who came from the same source.
Speaker 5: But sure, Okay.
Speaker 3: What made me laugh about this article is it says
Speaker 3: the apology was mister Swan's strongest statement yet on the
Speaker 3: death three payments saga, and I thought, sorry, it would
Speaker 3: have been the first thing you would say, the strongest yet.
Speaker 1: Do you remember last night we talked about how to
Speaker 1: handle a crisis? Peter mallanows, because yes, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely terrible and we're not going to do
Speaker 1: it and be the head of Jaguar saying what do
Speaker 1: you mean This ad with no cars and all these
Speaker 1: gender neutral, weird people with strange kind of hair is
Speaker 1: a good idea. We think it's genius. But again, this
Speaker 1: has been on the front page of The Eyes for
Speaker 1: a week now or thereabouts. And Wayne Swine, you would
Speaker 1: think with someone who had the nouse of a former treasurer,
Speaker 1: a very well seasoned politician or you know, elbowed his
Speaker 1: way up through the Labor Party in the awe what
Speaker 1: and could have you know, you could have just nipped
Speaker 1: this in the bud on day one. You still have
Speaker 1: the same thing. You still have to make your unreserved apology.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, you haven't actually won any kind of
Speaker 1: political skin. You haven't say any political skin. All you've
Speaker 1: done is given yourself a week of hell that you
Speaker 1: didn't need. I just find it very strange he didn't
Speaker 1: just come out straight away yet. Absolutely we're going to
Speaker 1: you know, root and branch review to make sure this
Speaker 1: never happens again.
Speaker 6: Ter At this point those affected would be like, mate,
Speaker 6: you can stuff your apology.
Speaker 5: It took you this long for a simple sorry.
Speaker 1: The apology didn't not take as long as the death
Speaker 1: payments did to drive to the greeting families. How's that
Speaker 1: going from?
Speaker 6: Oh my gosh, If that's what we're trying for to
Speaker 6: talk him back up, it's.
Speaker 5: A low bar.
Speaker 6: Also on the front page of the Oars, a rock
Speaker 6: shock Parts Parts boss goes Hope climbs the Allen government's
Speaker 6: destruction of the state's globally significant rock climbing industry over
Speaker 6: cultural Heritage Bands has cost the Parts Victoria boss his
Speaker 6: job and forced an independent review into the organization's failures
Speaker 6: and future. For five years, Parks Victoria chief executive Matthew
Speaker 6: Jackson rubber stamped a secretive process that destroyed Victoria's reputation
Speaker 6: as a world destination for rock climbing and pitted First
Speaker 6: Nations people against outdoors enthusiasts.
Speaker 5: Now the Environment Minister.
Speaker 6: Steve Demopolis is acting all embarrassed over this, but I
Speaker 6: don't buy that for a second. This is exactly the
Speaker 6: kind of move that this Victorian government would have rubber
Speaker 6: stamped themselves had it been up to them.
Speaker 5: Let's not kid ourselves.
Speaker 1: If it had it worked out, they would have been
Speaker 1: claiming complete responsibility for it. Exactly the fact that it
Speaker 1: was a complete shambolet disaster leads its blank and you
Speaker 1: know it doesn't even notice the bullet in the back
Speaker 1: of his head as he's jumping to the sharks. Let's
Speaker 1: get to the Townsville bulletin now, because this is, without
Speaker 1: a doubt, my favorite story in the country. Yes, he's
Speaker 1: back the mayor of Townsville, where he belongs on the
Speaker 1: front page of the board. And when I say he's back.
Speaker 2: Left there all along.
Speaker 1: This is just a great one. So as we know,
Speaker 1: we told you last night, this guy's is pulling in
Speaker 1: more than seventy grand a year to do nothing, to
Speaker 1: just be suspended while he's investigated for his various allegedly
Speaker 1: misleading the allegedly misleading the voters and his counselors and
Speaker 1: the council and the rate pay to everyone. But I
Speaker 1: just have the headline here explosive spray over mayors paid
Speaker 1: holiday falsifier must go. Doesn't that have a just a
Speaker 1: great kind of tent pole Baptist evangelical zeal about it?
Speaker 1: Command you leave this moder butter your evil leagion and brethren.
Speaker 3: On the other side, the people demanding that the false,
Speaker 3: the people demanding the falsified must go. In the tent
Speaker 3: pentecostal meeting that you are reenacting is the state opposition,
Speaker 3: which just a couple of weeks ago, were the state
Speaker 3: government decided even Miles could have done this, his government
Speaker 3: could have done a couple of weeks ago. Now you
Speaker 3: guys should have sacked him rather than keeping him on
Speaker 3: on paidgation.
Speaker 1: Misleader.
Speaker 3: And on that note, we go to a break.
Speaker 2: But when we come back.
Speaker 3: A person investigated by the police for a hate crime
Speaker 3: and what did they do played a Bob Marley record.
Speaker 2: It's coming up in a moment.
Speaker 3: Just when you thought the British police couldn't get any
Speaker 3: more ridiculous with their investigation of hate crimes, it gets
Speaker 3: more ridiculous. You remember last week we talked about a
Speaker 3: couple of nine year olds who were investigated by police
Speaker 3: after the school reported they were calling each other retard
Speaker 3: in the playground. Another kid was investigated when she said
Speaker 3: that her friend smelt like fish. Police were called to
Speaker 3: investigate at the primary school. Well, it gets even more
Speaker 3: ridiculous than that. Can you believe it? Two neighbors had
Speaker 3: been at each other for quite a while, squabbling over
Speaker 3: things that neighbors squabble over.
Speaker 2: One was white, one was black.
Speaker 3: Well, the white neighbor decided to play some reggae music,
Speaker 3: some Bob Marley music. The black neighbor took a fence,
Speaker 3: saying the only reason the white neighbor was playing Bob
Speaker 3: Marley was to mock her for the fact that she
Speaker 3: was black.
Speaker 2: She called the police.
Speaker 3: The police arrived at a big investigation and recorded a
Speaker 3: non crime hate incident had been committed.
Speaker 2: If you were going to taunt your.
Speaker 3: Neighbor, the last thing you would play is Bob Marley,
Speaker 3: because everyone knows when you play Bob Marley, everything's going
Speaker 3: to be all right. Mocking your black neighbor, that's paying
Speaker 3: tribute to black culture and black music, Bob Marley.
Speaker 1: A white woman playing reggae, playing Bob Marley. If she
Speaker 1: was really into reggae, she'd be playing Ub forty.
Speaker 2: We both know exactly.
Speaker 3: But this is this is just out of control where
Speaker 3: you now have to double guess what CD am I
Speaker 3: going to put on?
Speaker 2: What track on Spotify?
Speaker 3: Am I going to select them? Will it offend someone?
Speaker 3: And we will end up with the police off.
Speaker 6: The worst part of it is the police actually came
Speaker 6: instead of laughing this woman off the line and did
Speaker 6: indeed record a non crime hate incident. Yes that is
Speaker 6: literally the technical term over there, they call it a NCCHI.
Speaker 5: Yeah, what so there's been no crime, but there has been.
Speaker 6: Some hate, but that hate isn't breaking any laws whatever.
Speaker 5: To a really cool story.
Speaker 6: Now in Tibet, a worker really tired goes to bed.
Speaker 6: Guess what the CCTV camera capture. This guy is out
Speaker 6: like a light when a bear just ambles in to
Speaker 6: his obviously very tight space.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 6: The worker wakes up, realizes what's going on, does a
Speaker 6: little scoochlett to get out of here, grabs his phone
Speaker 6: first because you know, hashtag priorities, and sprints out of
Speaker 6: the room.
Speaker 5: The ban doesn't seem to care that he's there at all.
Speaker 1: That that super Tibetan shop worker startled by bear. That's
Speaker 1: incredibly offensive. He's not startled at all. He's cool as
Speaker 1: it's like I'm not again. It's almost like his phone.
Speaker 5: There's no startled.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Canada very very well kept his cool, got his phone.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 3: We got time for tonight, but don't go anywhere. Coming
Speaker 3: up in just a moment is three dependent.
Speaker 2: He show