Speaker 1: Welcome to the Late Debase. Good evening and welcome to
Speaker 1: the program. I'm Caleb Bond with Frei Leitch and Caroline
Speaker 1: Marcus coming up tonight. Forget about the Uberittes driver drones
Speaker 1: could be on the way in. Will tell you how
Speaker 1: many people have complained about their presence in the sky
Speaker 1: over their homes. Very soon. It involves one woman who
Speaker 1: thinks the drones were watching her in her bathtub. The
Speaker 1: NRL in the papers wants to get involved in the Olympics.
Speaker 1: I wonder what my beloved AFIL is doing. Once again,
Speaker 1: they're letting Peter Velandi's walk all over them. And how
Speaker 1: old is too old to be pushed around in a pram?
Speaker 1: How does eight or teen years old sound to you.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that a little bit later now. Of course,
Speaker 1: all week we've been talking about the debate that Chris Mins,
Speaker 1: the Premier Review South Wales, sparked on Monday when he
Speaker 1: suggested that the tobacco excise ought to be cut in
Speaker 1: order to reduce the illicit tobacco market that is currently
Speaker 1: taking over the country. All over the country. Of course,
Speaker 1: this started mostly in Victoria with fire bombings more than
Speaker 1: one hundred of them. Now of these tobacco are selling
Speaker 1: illegal cigarettes. It's now spreading into New South Wales, it's
Speaker 1: spread into South Australia, and Chris Mins has had enough.
Speaker 1: He said, look, there are two things that have to
Speaker 1: happen here. One is I have to pull my police
Speaker 1: off of other crimes that I'd rather they'd be dealing
Speaker 1: with to deal with this burgeoning illicit tobacco market. And
Speaker 1: federal government, it's your fault that this has happened. You
Speaker 1: jacked the excess up so much that you created a
Speaker 1: market where now last year forty percent of tobacco sales
Speaker 1: were illegal. Well, it turns out, as we talked about
Speaker 1: earlier in the week, that over the road from Parliament
Speaker 1: in New South Wales there is a dodgy tobacco shop
Speaker 1: that is selling vapes and illegal cigarettes. They came to
Speaker 1: the attention of the Daily Telegraph. It was on the
Speaker 1: front page on Tuesday. They've since been given a warning,
Speaker 1: not even so much as a fine. They've been given
Speaker 1: a warning and told do better next time. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: Tree Jim Chalmers, has said there is no way they
Speaker 1: will be reducing reducing.
Speaker 2: Sorry to excise, I respectfully disagree with Chris as a
Speaker 2: friend of mine. I work closely with Premier Mins. I
Speaker 2: don't think the answer here is to make cigarettes cheaper
Speaker 2: for people. I think the answer here is to get
Speaker 2: better at compliance.
Speaker 1: Now he says there, the answer is not to make
Speaker 1: cigarettes cheaper. The only problem with that is that they're
Speaker 1: already cheaper, because you can walk into basically any tobacco
Speaker 1: in Australia and buy them for twenty dollars. That the
Speaker 1: federal government has just dismissed this out of hand. They
Speaker 1: haven't even said, yeah, we'll take a look at whether
Speaker 1: the tax is working or not. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any other tax in the history of Australia
Speaker 1: where in five years you can double the levey. So
Speaker 1: it's gone from about eighty cents per cigarette five years
Speaker 1: ago to a dollar forty now, and at the same time,
Speaker 1: watch the revenue on that tax have it's obvious that
Speaker 1: this market has been created because of the high excite,
Speaker 1: it's actually driving less revenue to the federal government. Now,
Speaker 1: means is sensibly said, can we take a look at this.
Speaker 1: The federal government won't even bother to do that.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, there's no doubt that the high excise
Speaker 3: is pushing people to illegal tobacco. But then the question
Speaker 3: is why is there illegal tobacco available? And as we've
Speaker 3: discussed earlier in the week, there are twenty compliance officers
Speaker 3: based in the Health department, not even in the police force,
Speaker 3: in the health department that are responsible for regulating twenty
Speaker 3: thousand tobacconists.
Speaker 4: And as you saw in that case just then, even
Speaker 4: when these.
Speaker 3: Illegal tobacconists are caught, they're not even punished with the
Speaker 3: full force of the law. They're not imprisoned, they're not
Speaker 3: issued the maximum fine, which is over one hundred thousand dollars. Generally,
Speaker 3: what happens is they're just issued a warning a fine
Speaker 3: of about eleven hundred dollars. That's how much you get
Speaker 3: fined if you're driving thirty k's over the speed limit.
Speaker 3: That hardly seems like fit punishment for gangland figures who
Speaker 3: are operating criminal enterprises.
Speaker 4: So, yes, we can have a conversation.
Speaker 3: About cutting the tax, but I think we cannot have
Speaker 3: that conversation without also acknowledging the fact that there is
Speaker 3: insufficient compliance. And if Chris Minz can afford to put
Speaker 3: drivers on driverless metros, he can afford to hire a
Speaker 3: few more people to patrol the illegal TOBACCOO Well.
Speaker 1: He was forced to put the drivers on the metros
Speaker 1: by the union. But I mean, there's a police. We
Speaker 1: don't have enough police officers. And I think it's unfair
Speaker 1: of the federal government to expect the state to basically
Speaker 1: clean up their mess, because of course there's always been
Speaker 1: illegal cigarettes in some way, shape or form, but noway
Speaker 1: near the magnitude that exists now. And so you have
Speaker 1: the federal government with its ridiculous excise that the state
Speaker 1: government is then expected to monitor. And they've always done
Speaker 1: that with these you know, compliance officers who work in
Speaker 1: the health department, because it's never been a problem, but
Speaker 1: all of a sudden and out of nowhere, it is
Speaker 1: these twenty thousand shops. I mean, what are we to
Speaker 1: expect the coppers to go around and check out every
Speaker 1: single one of them.
Speaker 5: It's not realistic.
Speaker 6: And I do agree with Chrismin's The New South Wales
Speaker 6: premiere on that that the cops are already stretched absolutely thin,
Speaker 6: are dealing with domestic violence, drug issues, the weekly protests
Speaker 6: that they have to stand there.
Speaker 5: And babysit every week in the city. But what I
Speaker 5: disagree with you.
Speaker 6: About, Caleb, is that this means that the excize is
Speaker 6: not working, because what is the alternative?
Speaker 5: Do you then.
Speaker 6: Drop legal cigarettes back to twenty dollars in order to
Speaker 6: compete twenty dollars a pack they're currently about sixty bucks
Speaker 6: a pack to compete with the illegal tobacco.
Speaker 5: You can't.
Speaker 6: You absolutely can't get not because you can't. The smoking
Speaker 6: rates would first of all go through the roof, because
Speaker 6: if you actually look at the statistics, they've halved since
Speaker 6: the excise was first introduced, So it actually is working
Speaker 6: to do what its main per purposes, which is to
Speaker 6: cut smoking braids and therefore help the public health system
Speaker 6: obviously look after the well being of the country. But
Speaker 6: on top of that, it's second purpose is obviously to
Speaker 6: raise tax as well, So you would be raising tax
Speaker 6: if you drop it to compete with well.
Speaker 1: You'd actually make more because five years ago that were
Speaker 1: making double leaks.
Speaker 6: You have to have some excise on it, and if
Speaker 6: you put any excise on it, it's going to be
Speaker 6: more expensive than what you can get on the black market,
Speaker 6: So people are always going to go to the black market.
Speaker 5: And then the other argument I would raise with you
Speaker 5: as well. Of course, if.
Speaker 6: You don't want organized criminals to get involved in this,
Speaker 6: well there's all sorts of other things you can do.
Speaker 5: Well, why don't we just legalize heroine? Why do we
Speaker 5: legalize creme legal?
Speaker 6: Well, it is legal and they don't want to make
Speaker 6: it illegal, which I know is another ethical issue all together.
Speaker 5: But it's the same with prostitution.
Speaker 6: We have legal prostitution, we also have brothels that are
Speaker 6: operated and the legal type of sex work that's also
Speaker 6: being involved with the organized crime scene. So I think
Speaker 6: that on principle, I don't think it's something that just
Speaker 6: to try and get more tax or to make sure
Speaker 6: that the organized criminals don't have a market. We should
Speaker 6: completely remove what our concerns are with smoking, and there
Speaker 6: are some.
Speaker 4: Other options available to the government as well.
Speaker 3: They recently cracked down on bikey owned tattoo parlors, and
Speaker 3: to do that they did background checks on the owners
Speaker 3: of these parlors. I mean, I don't see why they're
Speaker 3: not doing that. Anyone who wants to open up a
Speaker 3: tobacconist you should immediately have to do a background check.
Speaker 3: If they have any criminal history, then immediately not the matter.
Speaker 4: I think there are so.
Speaker 3: Many steps we can take to just improve basic enforcement.
Speaker 1: That's fair enough. But two points you made there, One
Speaker 1: Caroline was that the smoking rate would go through the
Speaker 1: roof if you dropped the excise. They can already buy
Speaker 1: the illicit tobacco in pretty much every tobacconist, So I
Speaker 1: don't think it makes a great difference to smoking rates.
Speaker 5: Want to if you actually look at the statistics.
Speaker 1: But if you want to smoke, we're talking about people
Speaker 1: who are smoking now. So if you want to smoke now,
Speaker 1: you can go and buy the illegal stuff for twenty
Speaker 1: backs of packet, or you can buy the legal one.
Speaker 1: So if the legal one was twenty backs of packet,
Speaker 1: I don't think it encourages more people to smoke because
Speaker 1: they can already buy it for twenty backs of packet illegally.
Speaker 1: And as for what was the other point, and.
Speaker 6: General have to find a tobacconist. You have to go
Speaker 6: into each one and find out any advertizer.
Speaker 5: It's not every single one.
Speaker 1: Well, look you walk down any high street now and
Speaker 1: there's dozens.
Speaker 3: Of just prove the case that we need more enforcement.
Speaker 3: If every to back it is just breaking the law,
Speaker 3: then let's just crack down.
Speaker 1: Perhaps so, but look, I just think if you helped
Speaker 1: new to the market it would make a difference.
Speaker 3: I agree to disagree on that one. Then this is
Speaker 3: really interesting. Australia's leading expert who wrote the gender affirming
Speaker 3: care policy of the government has been lashed family Court
Speaker 3: judge who said that the evidence for gender affirming care
Speaker 3: is ideological and lacks evidence.
Speaker 4: To support it. This was in a case where.
Speaker 3: The mother wanted their twelve year old child to go
Speaker 3: onto puberty blockers, but the father said no, Let children
Speaker 3: be children. And the justice has also slammed this idea
Speaker 3: that gender dysphoria is this immutable trait and said, hang
Speaker 3: on a second, it can also be influenced by environmental
Speaker 3: factors and that's something we've seen.
Speaker 4: In the last five to ten years.
Speaker 3: There has been a shocking explosion in the number of
Speaker 3: children identifying as transgender and claiming to have gender dysphoria.
Speaker 3: So this judge is essentially interrogating the evidence base and
Speaker 3: it is seriously lacking. He also found that this gender
Speaker 3: expert gave misleading evidence and the significance of this is
Speaker 3: that the doctor's name was previously anonymised and she didn't
Speaker 3: want to be identified. But now the lid has been blown,
Speaker 3: and so this really shatters I think this whole narrative
Speaker 3: that gender affirming care is the only way to treat
Speaker 3: transgender children, because as we've seen in the UK with
Speaker 3: the Cat's Review, even in Queensland they've paused the use
Speaker 3: of puberty blockers for miners. It simply is not supported
Speaker 3: by the evidence. This field of study, as this judge
Speaker 3: points out, is inherently ideological, it lacks evidence support and
Speaker 3: ultimately children are being harmed by this through irreversible procedures.
Speaker 3: You can't just block or pause puberty. It causes lasting
Speaker 3: damage to these kids. So I think it'll be really
Speaker 3: interesting to see whether the federal government response. They're currently
Speaker 3: conducting a review into gender affirming care, but we're not
Speaker 3: expected to see any results until mid twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: How many other kids have to fall victim to this
Speaker 3: broken system before the government acts?
Speaker 6: Caroline, Oh, well, this is an absolutely critical judgment, I think,
Speaker 6: And just to pick up one of your points, I mean,
Speaker 6: I have no doubt that the expert would have preferred
Speaker 6: to stay anonymous, but it's actually part of our court
Speaker 6: system that when matters are in the family court witnesses
Speaker 6: like this expert witness how are keptainnonymous. So it actually
Speaker 6: took journalists and in this case the Australian to make
Speaker 6: an argument with the court and put in submissions as
Speaker 6: to why she shouldn't be anonymous, and for very good reason,
Speaker 6: and in this case the judge agreed it is in
Speaker 6: the public interest. We're not just talking about one gender
Speaker 6: care expert. This woman, Michelle Telfer, was the lead author
Speaker 6: of the nation's.
Speaker 5: Guidelines on how to look after children.
Speaker 6: One other worrying aspect of her evidence, the judge pointed out,
Speaker 6: was that she compared this landmark cast review into gender
Speaker 6: a firm and care.
Speaker 5: Which raised all sorts of concerns. As you point out
Speaker 5: about gender care. Two Nazis and how Nazis.
Speaker 6: Treated people are particularly gay and lesbian people during the Holocaust.
Speaker 5: They were persecuted as well.
Speaker 6: And the judge said there is no comparison whatsoever, and
Speaker 6: that demonstrated a true ignorance and also discredited her even further.
Speaker 6: So I'm glad that she's been unmasked because when it
Speaker 6: comes to other parents of confused children, and there are
Speaker 6: a lot, there is a kind of social contagion happening here.
Speaker 6: If they are going to take this person's advice or
Speaker 6: follow these sorts of guidelines, then they need to know
Speaker 6: who are the people who are making them.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is an extraordinary decision by Judge Andrewstrom
Speaker 1: to allow the name to be made public, like it's
Speaker 1: basically unheard of in the family court, and people in
Speaker 1: family law circles, even those who weren't involved in the case,
Speaker 1: were well aware of who was being named here. They
Speaker 1: knew well about the case and we're sort of waiting
Speaker 1: for this to come, and of course it has, and
Speaker 1: we have to be very careful when we talk about
Speaker 1: these things to realize there are two distinct types of
Speaker 1: children who present as quote unquote transgender. There are children
Speaker 1: who present and it's obvious their parents can attest that
Speaker 1: from a very young age they have showed some kind
Speaker 1: of issue with their gender. Gender dysphoria is the diagnosis
Speaker 1: that then leads to someone later becoming transgender. And then
Speaker 1: you have children who present during puberty, usually in their
Speaker 1: teenage years, saying that they are experiencing gender dysphoria, and
Speaker 1: in almost every case of a child presenting in that circumstance,
Speaker 1: there are other comorbid issues, whether it be anxiety or
Speaker 1: depression or one hundred other mental concerns, right, And so
Speaker 1: they're going through something and they think, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: know who I am, and they say that's gender dysphoria.
Speaker 1: And the rules as they are at the moment, the
Speaker 1: gold standard apparently is to tell these children and teenagers
Speaker 1: that that must be affirmed. It's gender affirming care. We
Speaker 1: believe you, without interrogating all the other things that most
Speaker 1: often are leading this teenager to say that they feel
Speaker 1: like they are transgender. And the fact that Michelle Telfer
Speaker 1: of course wrote the guidelines and then was in court
Speaker 1: using the guidelines that she wrote to justify the evidence
Speaker 1: she was giving, and the judge said it was like
Speaker 1: a judge giving a judgment on one base and then
Speaker 1: referencing his own case and saying that was the reason
Speaker 1: that it should be.
Speaker 6: Look speaking of confused children here, let's move on to
Speaker 6: Gretit Thumberg. She's technically not a child anymore, but for
Speaker 6: all intents and purposes, she still comes across as.
Speaker 5: A very ignorant, naive young woman.
Speaker 6: The ship the boat, I should say that she's sailing
Speaker 6: on towards Gaza to break the siege. While it's inching
Speaker 6: closer and closer. It has moved off course now lightly.
Speaker 6: It's responded to a distress call from a boat containing
Speaker 6: forty asylum seekers. But look, there's been many interviews, many
Speaker 6: pieces to camera posted to social media from this boat
Speaker 6: that Greater Thumberg is on. They're there to deliver aid.
Speaker 6: Let's take a look at some of what Greta and
Speaker 6: some of will.
Speaker 7: Attempt to again sale towards Gaza and to try to
Speaker 7: break the siege and open up a humanitarian code or
Speaker 7: by delivering aid. Keep trying everything we can, even if
Speaker 7: the odds are against us, to try to protest and
Speaker 7: do everything we can to stand against Israel's atrocities and
Speaker 7: war crimes.
Speaker 6: I mean, they're not just there with a few packets
Speaker 6: of milk and protein bars to deliver to people in Gaza,
Speaker 6: but they're carrying this banner saying humanity borders and talking
Speaker 6: about how there should be no borders and how Europe
Speaker 6: is evil because it doesn't allow safe passage to every
Speaker 6: asylum seeker who wants to enter its shores. I mean,
Speaker 6: I feel like if you looked up the term useful
Speaker 6: idiot in the dictionary, it would show gret A Thumberg.
Speaker 4: That's exactly right.
Speaker 3: And I think what this story also shows is that
Speaker 3: the pro Palestine movement is just the tip of the
Speaker 3: iceberg for what these people want to achieve. They do
Speaker 3: truly believe in a borderless society. We need to decolonize
Speaker 3: everything and we need to overthrow the oppressors.
Speaker 4: Take a look at this.
Speaker 8: They move from different places and they try to seek shelter.
Speaker 8: So this is something that we need to announce. The
Speaker 8: problems that were generated by the global norf colonizing powers
Speaker 8: on the global self that makes the people to move
Speaker 8: and in the end where they try to move to
Speaker 8: the global North to say shelter, they don't have a
Speaker 8: sick place of go. So we need to expose the
Speaker 8: whole system that is problematic. It's not just one specific situation.
Speaker 1: We need to change society in its cork, in its roops.
Speaker 3: Oh no, the global North is oppressing the global South.
Speaker 3: They called the Mediterranean a graveyard for those brave, fearless
Speaker 3: asylum seekers that are just trying to take shelter in
Speaker 3: the global North because they've been oppressed so much by
Speaker 3: the Western world, and now they try to go there
Speaker 3: to take shelter, yet there's nowhere safe for them to go.
Speaker 3: It's like, seriously, the people crossing the Mediterranean are illegal migrants.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure the people in Europe would be so
Speaker 3: happy to welcome them with open arms, and we've seen
Speaker 3: how that's.
Speaker 4: Gone for Europe.
Speaker 3: But seriously, and the other thing I find so funny
Speaker 3: about this is the victim complex of these people. It's
Speaker 3: truly beyond comprehension. So naturally they're sailing near Greek territorial waters,
Speaker 3: and so the Greek government has been monitoring them with
Speaker 3: a drone.
Speaker 4: Check this out, Hello of Ron.
Speaker 8: We're reporting here from them Adlin. We are right now
Speaker 8: at eighty kilometers from Greek lens and sixty eight kilometers
Speaker 8: from Greek territorial orders. What happened is that we just
Speaker 8: spotted a drone and we confirmed it is a drone,
Speaker 8: but we just lost to visual with it. We could
Speaker 8: have either turned back or turned off the lights. We
Speaker 8: need we need your help. Please send this is lass
Speaker 8: signs let.
Speaker 3: And this morning one of the members of the Freedom
Speaker 3: Flotilla said they were subject to psychological warfare because of
Speaker 3: this drone overhead. The whole saga is honestly embarrassing, but
Speaker 3: it does raise the question, Caleb, will the IDF let
Speaker 3: them into Gaza?
Speaker 4: Should they? How are they going to approach?
Speaker 1: This is the suggestion now is that they may not.
Speaker 1: I mean that they will probably hold a raid before
Speaker 1: it gets to the coast. And I can understand that
Speaker 1: fair enough, because you know you don't want them bringing
Speaker 1: ammunition or anything on board. But I'm not sure why
Speaker 1: you would actually stop them from making land. What is
Speaker 1: what's actually to gain in stopping them from making land.
Speaker 1: They are a bunch of idiots on a boat that
Speaker 1: were going to rock up and walk around for a while,
Speaker 1: probably realize that it's a lot worse than they really
Speaker 1: thought it was, and get back on the boat and
Speaker 1: bag her off. Like, what is there to gain into
Speaker 1: turning them away?
Speaker 6: Well, I think on principle Israel I absolutely can't. Otherwise,
Speaker 6: I mean, who knows what they are smuggling, No doubts.
Speaker 5: They'll be checks.
Speaker 6: But you can't let every activist boat just make land
Speaker 6: in gas and walk around free will. But a part
Speaker 6: of me would like to see Greta Thumberg over there.
Speaker 6: Maybe she can check out the climate credentials of the
Speaker 6: Hamas terraces. Are they offsetting their carbon when they're firing
Speaker 6: rockets and civilians in Israel? They are making sure that
Speaker 6: they only use you know, renewable energy when they're digging
Speaker 6: their tunnel terror tunnels underneath the ground.
Speaker 5: I'd like her to check out those credentials.
Speaker 3: All that cement takes a lot of fossil huels. But
Speaker 3: it is worth noting that this actually has happened once before.
Speaker 3: Back in twenty ten, a group of Turkish activists had
Speaker 3: their own freedom flotilla. It was intercepted by the IDF.
Speaker 3: They went on board to obviously seize the ship and
Speaker 3: turn them around, but the Turkish activists met them with punching,
Speaker 3: they tried stabbing them.
Speaker 4: A couple of the IDF.
Speaker 3: Soldiers got wounded and as a result they fired live
Speaker 3: ammunition and ten activists died. So this is actually a
Speaker 3: very serious situation, and I think honestly, going into a
Speaker 3: terrorist controlled enclave really nearly as they are, is a recipe.
Speaker 1: For disaster for themselves.
Speaker 6: For themselves because as we see what happens when aid
Speaker 6: workers do end up getting killed, often because there are
Speaker 6: mistakes that may have been made by Israel, but also
Speaker 6: because they can be very easily mistaken for her mass militants,
Speaker 6: especially if they're very close to her mask combat areas,
Speaker 6: So they're putting themselves a danger.
Speaker 5: Who will get blamed.
Speaker 6: Israel will get blamed in the end, Israel will always
Speaker 6: get blamed.
Speaker 5: Why don't Israel put itself in that position?
Speaker 1: Well, I couldn't particularly care if she got blown off
Speaker 1: the face of the earth, but is it not also
Speaker 1: then handing them a free kick, almost saying, oh, will
Speaker 1: you won't let me come and see what's actually going No, no, but.
Speaker 5: You honestly you cannot win in the situation.
Speaker 6: If they got on the ground there and they would
Speaker 6: parade around filming more propaganda, or they will get themselves
Speaker 6: killed and that would be yet more propaganda for her.
Speaker 5: Mask, Israel would lose, lose, lose either way.
Speaker 6: Look, let's move on because Safe Work, it's been revealed,
Speaker 6: has done an investigation. Well, they did an initial investigation
Speaker 6: into the University of Sydney, which is we know and Freyer,
Speaker 6: you know better than most was at the coal face
Speaker 6: of as anti Semitism crisis across our university campuses. Now
Speaker 6: a scathing report has found by an inspector has found
Speaker 6: that a high risk psychological hazardous workplace endured at the
Speaker 6: university for about eleven months due to the inactions of
Speaker 6: the university to eliminate hate. Now, despite that finding, and
Speaker 6: despite this investigator recommending that safe work go on and
Speaker 6: carry out a full investigation, that was never done. This
Speaker 6: is we only find this out as a result of
Speaker 6: a freedom of information request into this. So look, it's
Speaker 6: disappointing that there wasn't a full investigation. I think particularly
Speaker 6: we saw the longest running pro Palestine encampment on the grounds.
Speaker 6: I've revealed many stories here on Sky News about shocking
Speaker 6: cases of anti semitism there. But on the other hand,
Speaker 6: it is good that we are learning that an independent
Speaker 6: assessor made the finding that we could frankly all see, well, wow, thing.
Speaker 1: That's the most extraordinary thing, isn't it that it needed
Speaker 1: an independent decessor to to even notice that in the
Speaker 1: first place. But the bit I don't get is that
Speaker 1: the board then decides it's not worthy of investigation. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's the point of the independent aecessor going and look
Speaker 1: at these things, looking at these things and coming back
Speaker 1: and saying yes, this needs to be investigated. If the
Speaker 1: board then disregards the opinion of the independent deecessor, I mean,
Speaker 1: if that's how they're going to conduct things, cut out
Speaker 1: the middleman, get rid of the independent deecessor and send
Speaker 1: the board in to do the job because they clearly
Speaker 1: think they know better exactly.
Speaker 4: It really makes no sense.
Speaker 3: And the other interesting thing to note that was found
Speaker 3: by the Safe Work Commission was that the university had
Speaker 3: the policies and the legal authority to end the encampment
Speaker 3: and deal with the anti semitism, but they chose not
Speaker 3: to enforce them. And this is what we were saying
Speaker 3: for the entire duration. We kept saying, remove the encampment,
Speaker 3: enforce the rules you already have, But the universe he
Speaker 3: kept going, no, no, We've got to de escalate the situation.
Speaker 3: We couldn't possibly make the people breaking the rules actually
Speaker 3: suffer consequences. But to give you some context about what
Speaker 3: we actually had to face for at least eight weeks
Speaker 3: of proper encampment, but many, many, many months of anti semitism.
Speaker 3: Take a look at just one example of the kinds
Speaker 3: of marches that occurred at Sydney Union, seeing that week in,
Speaker 3: week out, plus a permanent encampment, like seriously, and then
Speaker 3: the university essentially trying to gaslight Jewish staff and students
Speaker 3: into saying no, no, there's no antisemitism here. This is
Speaker 3: all just legitimate criticism of Israel. I want some accountability.
Speaker 3: People have been calling for Mark Scott to resign since
Speaker 3: this saga started, and I think now we have damning
Speaker 3: evidence that he fundamentally failed in his duty of care
Speaker 3: to staff and students.
Speaker 4: When is he going to go, Well, actually he's.
Speaker 5: Getting a pay rise for it. He's getting a pay rise.
Speaker 5: He even admitted.
Speaker 6: I mean, we didn't need this independent review in one
Speaker 6: sense because he admitted that he had seriously failed Jewish
Speaker 6: students and staff. But it wasn't just all those incidents,
Speaker 6: which included members of the extremist group his book Tarrier
Speaker 6: on campus like they weren't students. They were coming onto
Speaker 6: campus and being part of these encampments and causing all
Speaker 6: this trouble.
Speaker 5: Not only did they not do anything about that, they.
Speaker 6: Appointed an anti Israel activist to handle the complaints from
Speaker 6: Jewish students and stuff, which I exposed on Sky News
Speaker 6: that the way that they went about actually handling the
Speaker 6: complaints was almost as bad as the acts of anti Semitism,
Speaker 6: if not worse, because they did breach that duty of
Speaker 6: care and not doing anything about that and not taking
Speaker 6: the complaints seriously.
Speaker 1: I wondered what happened to the water cannons bring him back.
Speaker 1: It's not just on the university campuses, it's the woo
Speaker 1: woo hippie community as well. Apparently you might have seen
Speaker 1: the case this week of Sharon tal who calls herself
Speaker 1: I've got to get this right, a soul alchemist, whatever
Speaker 1: the hell that is. But she was basically drummed out
Speaker 1: of the biggest wellness festival in Melbourne, the Mind, Body,
Speaker 1: Spirit Festival, because she is a Jewish woman, and people
Speaker 1: started this campaign online saying she was a Zionist and
Speaker 1: that she was taking part in genocide, which I'm not
Speaker 1: entirely sure how you do that when you're a sol
Speaker 1: alchemist on the other side of the world, but never mind.
Speaker 1: So they originally said that they were going to remove
Speaker 1: her from the festival. Funnily enough, today they decided to
Speaker 1: reverse their decision. Here she is.
Speaker 9: It was always about the Prohamace groups that has decided
Speaker 9: that I go for genocide, which I don't so I
Speaker 9: go for love and light, I go for empowerment, and
Speaker 9: that's it's all about. Some of the stuff are not
Speaker 9: allowed even to wear their name badge because of the
Speaker 9: direct threats that they have received from the frot from
Speaker 9: US supporters, and this is really really upsetting.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is bloody ridiculous. You can have a
Speaker 1: go atter all you want for being a dut job
Speaker 1: who gets involved in whatever soul job, let's know, but
Speaker 1: you know, to go after people for their religion on
Speaker 1: any basis, what I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 5: Isn't it?
Speaker 6: Of course absolutely to go after someone based on their
Speaker 6: religion or their ethnicity. And her case, there was one
Speaker 6: reference that they dug up to a women's international Zionist organization,
Speaker 6: but that's just obviously an excuse. It's because she was
Speaker 6: Jewish and she had an Israeli background as well, apparently.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's just ridiculous discrimination, it's racism, it's anti semitism.
Speaker 6: I'm glad the festival reinstated her, but the fact she
Speaker 6: can't even wear a name badge tells you everything that
Speaker 6: you need to know about this movement.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is really really really disturbing, But there we
Speaker 3: go and some people are applauding the festival for bringing
Speaker 3: her back. But why are we applauding people who were
Speaker 3: anti submitting in the first place.
Speaker 1: I'm not as bad as I used to be.
Speaker 3: Exact great, after immense public backlash, I've decided.
Speaker 4: To do the right thing. No, come on, but this
Speaker 4: is interesting. Drones aren't just changing the way we wage war.
Speaker 3: You may have seen in Ukraine they carried out an
Speaker 3: incredible operation using drones and destroyed a massive amount of
Speaker 3: Russian bomber planes. Drones are also changing the way we live,
Speaker 3: specifically drone deliveries. This is pretty incredible. There are now
Speaker 3: drones that can deliver small items like coffee or groceries
Speaker 3: straight from the shop to your home in as little
Speaker 3: as forty seconds, and now about three million. There are
Speaker 3: about three million drones in Australia in total. But it
Speaker 3: does raise the interesting predicament of how do you regulate
Speaker 3: the air and the noise, because if these drones are
Speaker 3: delivering things to people's homes, they're going to be going
Speaker 3: past people's houses. So there are three million drones in Australia,
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, yet the body regulating drones only received
Speaker 3: about three noise complaints in the last year. But is
Speaker 3: this really indicative of widespread community support for the drones.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: One woman expressed alarm at the drones because apparently she
Speaker 3: was in her bath and in a span of just
Speaker 3: three hours sitting in the barth, she had a drone
Speaker 3: go past twenty eight times. I mean, it also does
Speaker 3: make you feel a little awkward around surveillance, securious.
Speaker 4: But I don't know, Caleb.
Speaker 1: She might be good looking woman.
Speaker 5: But how lazy do you have to be to get
Speaker 5: a coffee?
Speaker 1: Well, I know, I know a crone, but this is
Speaker 1: I know of people legitimately who were on a set
Speaker 1: today morning order a coffee on Uber Eats, and it's like,
Speaker 1: just get out of bed and walk down the street, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course, the air is already regulated by cassipiaues.
Speaker 1: Of course you've got planes and helicopters and things flying
Speaker 1: around the air, and so most of what you have
Speaker 1: in the cities is already controlled airspace. There are very
Speaker 1: strict rules about it. That's what you can and can't
Speaker 1: do with drones. But the idea that they're going to
Speaker 1: start delivering things, Look, I'm not terribly opposed to it.
Speaker 1: But I think the problem is that because we haven't
Speaker 1: seen it on a large scale yet, I can't really
Speaker 1: tell you what may or may not be wrong with it.
Speaker 1: Now you know they have trialed it in some places.
Speaker 1: The fact there've only been three people who've complained may
Speaker 1: will say that it is a success. But I can
Speaker 1: understand why if you've got these things zipping around all
Speaker 1: the time constantly, the noise may actually get a bit annoyse.
Speaker 6: I think the noise was one aspect of it, like
Speaker 6: they're also the spying concerns, especially if you're naked in
Speaker 6: your bathtub was another one, and national security concerns well,
Speaker 6: I mean, where are these drones being made my guess
Speaker 6: would probably be so I think that could be a
Speaker 6: concern too. But I think the complaint argument doesn't really
Speaker 6: hold water because it's really difficult for people to know
Speaker 6: who to complain to. Even the department, the federal department
Speaker 6: that was supposed to be handling the complaints wasn't even
Speaker 6: aware that they were the ones that was supposed to
Speaker 6: be handling it, So I think that's a problem. But
Speaker 6: having used drones in filming for new stories and features here,
Speaker 6: I know how difficult it is to find a space
Speaker 6: where you can actually use a drone. And so I
Speaker 6: don't know how this is going to work on a
Speaker 6: large scale.
Speaker 5: But maybe we'll all be living in a very jetsons.
Speaker 1: And it does raise the point, do you have the
Speaker 1: right to sit in the nick in your own backyard
Speaker 1: and not be monitored doing so? Right hand?
Speaker 5: Love, you still have that right, You'll go ahead and do.
Speaker 1: That, thankfully. I live in the park. I don't have
Speaker 1: a backyard. But if you see me, if you see
Speaker 1: me on the balcony, if you're coming in on the
Speaker 1: ferry into the balmain wall, we don't want to look
Speaker 1: at We don't let me know. Well, someone wanted to
Speaker 1: see the person of the bath apparently and now helped
Speaker 1: looking fella and moving on to another story. Out of
Speaker 1: the US, they're worried that the Chinese potentially trying to
Speaker 1: import stuff that would kill their crops. Now, of course
Speaker 1: we know what happened with COVID nineteen. It was created
Speaker 1: or manipulated in a lab. Uhan. I know, you can't
Speaker 1: say it. You can't say it except that it did happen.
Speaker 1: So it's understandable why they would be worried about this
Speaker 1: because two researchers from China have been caught trying to
Speaker 1: struggle a struggle smuggle. They'll get into a struggle if
Speaker 1: they're not careful. Smuggle a fungus into the United States
Speaker 1: that is known to kill crops. Now, this thing, it's
Speaker 1: called Fusirium grammanarum. It does already exist in the United States.
Speaker 1: But the concern is, of course that if you can
Speaker 1: manipulate viruses in China and then release them to the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, God knows what they could be
Speaker 1: doing with live matter like this as well. So these
Speaker 1: two people who are connected to the Commune Party have
Speaker 1: obviously come under the rule of the feeds now. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're bringing in you got to ask the question,
Speaker 1: why would you be bringing in a crop killing fungus
Speaker 1: in the first place, like I'm coming here to do
Speaker 1: it's just doing some inniscent research.
Speaker 3: It's very obvious that this was meant to undermine the
Speaker 3: security of the United States, and the chair of the
Speaker 3: House Committee said the CCP will use any and every
Speaker 3: tool to bring the United States to their knees, including
Speaker 3: biological warfare, and actually on the phone of one of
Speaker 3: these Chinese researchers who was arrested. Now they actually found
Speaker 3: a PDF that talked about this fungus in the context
Speaker 3: of plant warfare essentially, so it's pretty obvious as to
Speaker 3: why they're bringing this fungus in. One of them is
Speaker 3: also a researcher at the University of Michigan. This ties
Speaker 3: into all the stuff we've been talking about with Trump
Speaker 3: cracking down on CCP influence in the universities and just
Speaker 3: goes to show it's not just influence over research, it's
Speaker 3: potentially creating biological weapons as well. And then the other
Speaker 3: thing to note too is that Chinese companies have been
Speaker 3: actively buying up farmland around.
Speaker 4: US military basis.
Speaker 3: So you connect all the dots there and it's not
Speaker 3: looking too good.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 6: The other point I would raise as to why this
Speaker 6: is not just some innocent explanation tool this, and of
Speaker 6: course it has to proceed through the courts, But this
Speaker 6: arrest of the woman happened, the researcher happened in July
Speaker 6: last year.
Speaker 5: Her boyfriend, who was accused of being part.
Speaker 6: Of this plot is still at large with a warrant
Speaker 6: for his arrest. So if there was an innocent explanation,
Speaker 6: why hasn't he fronted exactly though it is.
Speaker 1: Indeed, quickly before we go to a break, while we're
Speaker 1: talking about the United States, Donald Trump has launched an
Speaker 1: investigation into what exactly was going on with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Of course, I mean, look, you can look through most
Speaker 1: of his presidency and see that he wasn't all there
Speaker 1: and that he had expectatoes for brains. But it became
Speaker 1: pretty obvious as the campaign wore on. Remember, of course,
Speaker 1: the debate that essentially ended his presidency with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: where he just basically wasn't there at all. And so
Speaker 1: the President now says, well, we've got to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of all of this and how it all happened.
Speaker 1: The presidential memorandum said, the conspiracy marks one of the
Speaker 1: most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history. And of
Speaker 1: course you've got Jake Tapper's book Caroline that's sort of
Speaker 1: been blowing the lid on all of this. The number
Speaker 1: of people who must have been complicit in holding him up,
Speaker 1: Jill Barden chief among them, I think, is.
Speaker 6: Extreme, and we need to know their names, and we
Speaker 6: need to know exactly what they did, what they knew,
Speaker 6: who was running the show, because clearly it wasn't Joe,
Speaker 6: no matter what he said. Let's just take a look
Speaker 6: back at some of Joe Biden's finest moments. If you
Speaker 6: hold near and dear to you that you.
Speaker 5: Like to be able to.
Speaker 6: Anyway, America is a nation that can be defined in
Speaker 6: a single word. So thank you all, God.
Speaker 9: Bless you all.
Speaker 5: Let's go, Let's go late, let the world, let's get
Speaker 5: it done.
Speaker 1: The distraction that makes this country is one of the
Speaker 1: last of the point you need.
Speaker 5: You don't know whether.
Speaker 1: Both both. I think after the break we'll get into
Speaker 1: the papers. The NRL wants to get involved in the Olympics,
Speaker 1: and just for you at home, we will define the
Speaker 1: late debate in a single word for the what the hell?
Speaker 1: All right, let's get into the papers, starting with the
Speaker 1: Herald Sun, where of course, once again it has the
Speaker 1: mushroom murder trial on the front. What an extraordinary story
Speaker 1: it is. But we'll talk about another story. Super half
Speaker 1: on young more than four hundred and thirty thousand Australians
Speaker 1: would avoid being hit with Labour's super high tax or
Speaker 1: high super tax, it should be said, at retirement. If
Speaker 1: the three million dollar threshold was indexed in line with inflation.
Speaker 1: Analysis is found without indexation, about half a million people,
Speaker 1: including about two hundred and four thousand workers currently under thirty,
Speaker 1: would pay a higher concessional tax rate by age sixty five,
Speaker 1: according to the Financial Services Council. You know, if they
Speaker 1: wanted to do it, they could just just bake the
Speaker 1: indexation in. Instead, we're told by Jim Charmazol, well someone
Speaker 1: else will deal with it at another time, they'll raise threshold.
Speaker 4: Well why not just index it now exactly?
Speaker 3: And they won't like as if this is as far
Speaker 3: as label will go. Now that they've got the Greens
Speaker 3: in there, they've got their super.
Speaker 4: Majority, are you kidding?
Speaker 3: They're going to do as much as they physically can
Speaker 3: to steal your money.
Speaker 6: What that is and if the deal guys had with
Speaker 6: the Greens, well the threshold goes down to two millions,
Speaker 6: that's hundreds of thousands more people that can look forward,
Speaker 6: if not more than a million that can look forward
Speaker 6: to being hit with this.
Speaker 4: It is literally just a cash grab.
Speaker 3: And for them to change the rules on tax now
Speaker 3: that's also the really unfair part.
Speaker 4: We are forced to put our.
Speaker 3: Money into super I would rather have it in my pocket,
Speaker 3: especially when I'm young. Not only am I forced to
Speaker 3: give what twelve percent of my income to some fund
Speaker 3: I can't access till I'm sixty five.
Speaker 4: Now they're going to tax them more as well.
Speaker 6: And tax paper profits, not even profits in realized games.
Speaker 4: It's ridiculous. Let's move on to the Australian.
Speaker 3: Similarly, on that note, labor i'd tax exemption.
Speaker 4: For farms small business and said no.
Speaker 3: Key members of Anthony Albanesi's economic team considered exempting family
Speaker 3: farms and property owned by small businesses from Labour's controversial
Speaker 3: unrealized capital gains tax, which was excluded from Treasury's official
Speaker 3: advice to the government on how to make super annuation fairer.
Speaker 3: As Susan Lee's Shadow Cabinet on Thursday formalize its opposition
Speaker 3: to Labour's proposal to slug Australians with three million dollars
Speaker 3: or more in their super accounts, a prominent ALP source
Speaker 3: disclosed there were internal discussions about certain assets being exempt.
Speaker 3: Now this is interesting because it shows that they know
Speaker 3: this is a bad policy and it's really bad for
Speaker 3: those illiquid assets. So if your super is invested in
Speaker 3: a farm, a startup a business. How are you going
Speaker 3: to pay a tax on unrealized gains when you don't
Speaker 3: have that money as cash.
Speaker 1: Well, it's very similar with seem in some ways to
Speaker 1: what labor has done in the UK, where of course
Speaker 1: until now if you had a farm, it was exempted
Speaker 1: from death taxes, and so they now want to include
Speaker 1: it in death duties, which essentially means the end of
Speaker 1: the family farm, because how are you going to pass
Speaker 1: the farm on which is basically the one asset that
Speaker 1: you've bought all the money you've ever had, onto your
Speaker 1: kids if they're going to have to pay forty percent
Speaker 1: tax on that? What we're going to cut afod percent
Speaker 1: of the farm and sell it so you can keep
Speaker 1: the rest of the land. And that's essentially what this
Speaker 1: will do. If you're going to be text at thirty
Speaker 1: percent on the farm, which is double what you're currently
Speaker 1: paying at the moment in your superannuation, which is fifteen percent,
Speaker 1: it doubles your expenses and farming is hard enough as
Speaker 1: it is right now.
Speaker 6: And it just goes to show, you know, the argument
Speaker 6: that this is only going to affect a really small
Speaker 6: amount of very wealthy people who have a lot of
Speaker 6: money in their superannuation. It just doesn't hold because some
Speaker 6: people do have these assets on them and by no
Speaker 6: means would they be considered super wealthy and capable of,
Speaker 6: you know, paying a lot more in tax than they
Speaker 6: currently do.
Speaker 5: They're struggling and.
Speaker 6: They cannot afford to pay double the amount of tax
Speaker 6: on these assets.
Speaker 3: No, it is ridiculous, and as we've just heard, the
Speaker 3: average person is also going to fall under this threshold
Speaker 3: because it's not index. Another story in the Australian drone
Speaker 3: danger to fence, Australia's fleet of jet of fighter jet,
Speaker 3: warships and submarines would be sitting dusts if an enemy
Speaker 3: terrorist launched drone attacks at an at a rapt airfield
Speaker 3: or a naval base, as Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Did against Russia's bomber fleet this week.
Speaker 3: Experts say the Ukrainian attack, which destroyed up to one
Speaker 3: third of Russia's strategic bombers, open a new chapter in
Speaker 3: modern warfare, exposing our vulnerability to a similar attack. They
Speaker 3: say Australian Defense force reluctance to invest in armed drones
Speaker 3: and counter drone measures means our bases are vulnerable to
Speaker 3: a similar attack. I mean, like tell us something we
Speaker 3: don't already know, but it is still terrifying to think about.
Speaker 1: We'll forget, forget about the drones coming to look at
Speaker 1: you in the nick, in the bath, or the balcony
Speaker 1: or the backyard, or whatever the case might be. I mean,
Speaker 1: we need these stats. I Meanwhile, we're talking about buying
Speaker 1: a patchy helicopters and stuff, but we are so far
Speaker 1: behind the eight ball on this stuff. Ukraine, with you know,
Speaker 1: a lot less resource is than many other countries, has
Speaker 1: just shown us how powerful these drones can be. The
Speaker 1: fact that we're not on it right now is just insane.
Speaker 6: No, Australia seriously behind the April. We'd have no hope
Speaker 6: if we're going to be attacked. And you know, the
Speaker 6: US says an attack is imminent at least of Taiwan,
Speaker 6: and what will that mean.
Speaker 1: Fust China season, You're not going to come near us,
Speaker 1: So we'll take them at their word.
Speaker 6: Hey, yes, I know they're totally reliable, especially when they
Speaker 6: have bioweapons at their disposal. But anyway, let's move on
Speaker 6: to a bit of a lighter fun story now. On
Speaker 6: the front of the Career Mail, the nurl's bowld Olympics
Speaker 6: stream This is about how the rugby league has formerly.
Speaker 5: Thrown its hat into the ring for a spot.
Speaker 6: In the twenty thirty two Brisbane Olympics and Paralympics, and
Speaker 6: touch football is the most likely form now. I mean,
Speaker 6: if breakdancing can be a sport at the Olympics, then
Speaker 6: surely in rugby league. But how many nations around the
Speaker 6: world will be able to actually compete if this was.
Speaker 4: A real I mean, isn't there a threshold?
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure there has to be an international federation
Speaker 3: for these sports before they can go into the Olympics. Like,
Speaker 3: if someone can show us the International Federation of NRL,
Speaker 3: which is an explicitly Australian and PNG sport, I'd be
Speaker 3: happy to see it.
Speaker 4: But like, yeah, I mean Zealand and New Zealand, and
Speaker 4: I think they.
Speaker 1: Might be a little bit displayed in the UK as well.
Speaker 1: But still, but you know, I reckon Peter Velandi's would
Speaker 1: make a very good case that the Rugby League Commission
Speaker 1: is indeed the global arbiter of this.
Speaker 6: If raygun can represent good, then I think I could
Speaker 6: have a go. I mean, I last played touch footy
Speaker 6: when I was in school, but you know, I'll have
Speaker 6: a crack.
Speaker 1: Let's try and export the AFL as well. You know,
Speaker 1: I want to see the mighty Adelaide Crows winning at
Speaker 1: the Olympics. How good would that be? I know Chris
Speaker 1: Kenny at the home is at home is cheering at
Speaker 1: the TV as well. And another story on the front
Speaker 1: of the Career Mail. Now, of course, the front page
Speaker 1: that you just saw of the paper is the first editions.
Speaker 1: That's what gets sent out to the country etc. And
Speaker 1: when they printed the paper at eight o'clock tonight it
Speaker 1: said Phoebe's flatmate release. The housemate of missing Queensland tenager
Speaker 1: Phoebe Bishop has been released from custody after questioning over
Speaker 1: her disappearance. But things have changed since that first edition
Speaker 1: was printed. I imagine this will be full blown on
Speaker 1: the front of the paper tomorrow. We can now tell
Speaker 1: you that James Wood and Tanika Bromley, who were the housemates,
Speaker 1: have been arrested and charged. Tonight, the police said that
Speaker 1: detectives charged the thirty four year old man and thirty
Speaker 1: three year old woman with murder in relation to the
Speaker 1: disappearance as seventeen year old Phoebe Bishop. Phoebe has not
Speaker 1: been seen or heard from since May the fifteenth. The
Speaker 1: remains of Phoebe Bishop have not been located to date.
Speaker 1: They were arrested tonight in the Bunderberg area. They've been
Speaker 1: charged with one count each of murder and two counts
Speaker 1: each of interfering with a corpse and need due to
Speaker 1: appear in Bunderberg Magistrate's Court sorry tomorrow. Moving on to
Speaker 1: the Advertiser where it says they've had their state budget
Speaker 1: in the ESA today. Debt bomb, debt bomb, you're the
Speaker 1: debt bomb. State debt will balloon to forty eight billion
Speaker 1: dollars and costs South Australian tax payers six point seven
Speaker 1: million dollars a day in interest for payments, the result
Speaker 1: of big spending budget released on Thursday. I reckon, if
Speaker 1: you work that out per head of population, you'd be
Speaker 1: on a pretty similar trajectory to Victoria, which has six
Speaker 1: odd million people and nearly two hundred million dollars of debt.
Speaker 1: I think it's about two million people in South Australia.
Speaker 1: It's not that different.
Speaker 4: You mean a labor government that can't control its spending.
Speaker 1: I'm so shocked.
Speaker 3: But finally, just quickly before we go here we go
Speaker 3: again Tasmanians, you're back to the polls. Just four hundred
Speaker 3: and thirty nine days after your last election. The liberal
Speaker 3: premiere has officially lost the confidence of the House.
Speaker 1: Oh dear, how things go down in Tazia after the break?
Speaker 1: How old is too old to be pushed around in
Speaker 1: a pram? Apparently eight and ten year olds? Can you
Speaker 1: do it? I think there are plenty of people who
Speaker 1: wish they could be for throughout it a pram too.
Speaker 1: We'll show you that more out.
Speaker 2: Of the day.
Speaker 1: Some morning, Zoe wake up and I just wish someone
Speaker 1: could push me around it. It seems if you got
Speaker 1: a Disney to push here around. I do get pushed around,
Speaker 1: just in a different way. But it seems even if
Speaker 1: a fteen year old.
Speaker 5: Even eight and ten.
Speaker 6: Now a mom in America has been hailed a hero
Speaker 6: after pushing her eight and ten year old children around
Speaker 6: in a stroller as they call them, over there pram
Speaker 6: basically around Disney World, the theme park. She said that
Speaker 6: she had to do what she had to do. This
Speaker 6: is a little bit of a clip about that.
Speaker 1: And she gave nope.
Speaker 6: Now, I know she's going to get a lot oft
Speaker 6: lack especially from YouTube, but as a mom of young
Speaker 6: children and they're not eight and ten, and I don't
Speaker 6: think I would do this, But I think it's very
Speaker 6: easy to judge before you have kids, and especially when
Speaker 6: you're taking them to a theme park which is crowded.
Speaker 6: They can run off, they can get lost, they complain,
Speaker 6: and they win about being tied.
Speaker 5: I say, do what you need to do to survive.
Speaker 3: You go, girl, But seriously, when I was eight and
Speaker 3: ten years old, I was running like five k cross
Speaker 3: country runs, Like this is the time when you're supposed
Speaker 3: to be pretty athletic, pretty mobile. The obesity rate for
Speaker 3: children in the US is almost twenty percent, and I
Speaker 3: think pushing your kids when they're perfectly able to walk
Speaker 3: is kind of just entrenching that thing.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to make her own life easier.
Speaker 1: Again, say you probably can't blame her on that count.
Speaker 1: While we're speaking about parent or everyone's favorite person, Megan
Speaker 1: Markel has for some reason or another, decided to share
Speaker 1: a video on Instagram of her trying to induce labor.
Speaker 1: Bye twerking and they are.
Speaker 10: Done. Mamma went to sit down on the flat trying
Speaker 10: to make the money back and honeys from the sw
Speaker 10: the have a marque, didn't up k and that night rain?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'll come on, come on, get into it.
Speaker 1: No no, I mean, can they just stop?
Speaker 5: No, clearly they can't. They want privacy.
Speaker 6: And then they released these videos, very carefully timed videos,
Speaker 6: just showing these intensely private moments where she's about to
Speaker 6: go into labor. I don't get it. I mean, it
Speaker 6: was supposed to be a throwback for her daughter's fourth birthday,
Speaker 6: but yet again, it's all about her.
Speaker 3: The only redeeming thing of that video is Harry has
Speaker 3: some pretty good moves. I was on a floot press,
Speaker 3: he was on beat. I loved it. But look, Disney
Speaker 3: is under fire. Obviously, remember snow White, when snow White
Speaker 3: became Hispanic.
Speaker 4: They're trying to They clearly haven't learned the lesson.
Speaker 3: Basically, they're doubling down on the weird race plots and
Speaker 3: cast this time Black Panther, the African American character, is
Speaker 3: actually white, and fans are outraged. How could Black Panther
Speaker 3: suddenly become white? This shocking and controversial new twist in
Speaker 3: the storyline is seriously dividing fans.
Speaker 6: It is based on African American culture, and it's supposed
Speaker 6: to be Black Panther's son, which I mean genetically speaking,
Speaker 6: is pretty rare, but I.
Speaker 5: Say go for it. If you can make a spanning exactly.
Speaker 1: What's good for the Goose is good for the game.
Speaker 1: Thank you for doing us tonight. Coming up and next
Speaker 1: to Ridy Panther Ship