Speaker 1: Lately, General Man, welcome the Late Base.
Speaker 2: It's great to have your company on the Late Debate.
Speaker 2: James Macpherson with Liz Stauer and Caleb Bond. If you
Speaker 2: ever wondered what happens to those birds that get stuck
Speaker 2: in shopping centers, Well we've found out what happens. Someone's
Speaker 2: come up with a genius plan to freedom. We'll show
Speaker 2: you that later. It's a good news story. Plus, when
Speaker 2: we look at the papers and Ossie Olympian facing drug
Speaker 2: chargers and Australian researchers have solved at least part of
Speaker 2: the puzzle of autism. Will bring you that story as well.
Speaker 2: That's from tomorrow's Australian newspaper. But first spy chiefs warned
Speaker 2: us this week that the domestic terror threat has been
Speaker 2: raised from likely to probable. Moreover, they warned that if
Speaker 2: an attack came, it would likely come from a young
Speaker 2: person who'd been radicalized online. So with those warnings still
Speaker 2: ringing in our ears, this story from the Adelaide Advertiser
Speaker 2: got our attention today. The headline reads boy fourteen freed
Speaker 2: on bail after allegedly using school computers to access extremist material.
Speaker 2: Now this boy was arrested two weeks ago by counter
Speaker 2: terrorism agents for allegedly using a school computer to access
Speaker 2: extremist material, information on explosives and information on how to
Speaker 2: engage in a terrorist act. Prosecutors said they opposed bail,
Speaker 2: but were willing to consider home detention provided the boy
Speaker 2: had no access at all to devices by which he
Speaker 2: might be able to access the Internet. Here's what the
Speaker 2: prosecutors told the court. They said, the foundation for asking
Speaker 2: for home detention is the protection of the community. There's
Speaker 2: a concern in relation to communication that's been sent from
Speaker 2: who he alleges the youth in relation to suggestions or threats,
Speaker 2: which coupled with the allegations before the court, pose a
Speaker 2: real risk to the safety of the community. They show
Speaker 2: a willingness to perform certain acts. Home detention is a
Speaker 2: necessary condition to alleviate that risk to the community. So
Speaker 2: the prosecution was pretty clear. But the magistrate, Ellison Adair
Speaker 2: agreed not just to home attention but also to allowing
Speaker 2: the fourteen year old boy to go back to school
Speaker 2: and to access school computers while at school. Now, remember
Speaker 2: it's alleged that he got information on terrorist acts from
Speaker 2: those school computers. Now, bearing in mind we're dealing with
Speaker 2: allegations and their allegations concerning a child who the court
Speaker 2: heard has the mental ability of a grade three year
Speaker 2: old child. The kid is fourteen. Putting all that to
Speaker 2: one side for a moment, You've got to ask how
Speaker 2: this court decision reflects the concerns of our spy agencies
Speaker 2: who've warned us a terror threat from a young person
Speaker 2: radicalized online is probable. How the court decision reflects concerns
Speaker 2: of the community in light of those warnings, and what
Speaker 2: does it say to fam and school children who are
Speaker 2: at that school. Remember it was just three months ago
Speaker 2: in Perth that a sixteen year old school student was
Speaker 2: shot dead by police when he attempted a ghardy attack
Speaker 2: on someone at Bunnings. It was only after that we
Speaker 2: learned that boy had been at school whilst on a
Speaker 2: watch list and undergoing a deradicalization program. So with all
Speaker 2: of that in light, Caleb, this seems like a really
Speaker 2: strange decision to me.
Speaker 3: You'd have to say the decision of the magistrate is
Speaker 3: out of line with community expectations and it would be
Speaker 3: one thing to say that he's on home detention and
Speaker 3: that means he is at home one hundred percent of
Speaker 3: the time, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that,
Speaker 3: because it's a spot that you know, in terms of
Speaker 3: youth detention, that could be used for someone who has
Speaker 3: actually committed a violent crime or some such but to
Speaker 3: allow the kid to go back to school when he
Speaker 3: is alleged to have been accessing extremist material on school computers.
Speaker 3: If you were the parent of another child at that school,
Speaker 3: you'd be saying, hang on a minute, do I really
Speaker 3: want my kid going to school with another kid who
Speaker 3: has potentially been radicalized and allegedly has been accessing extremist
Speaker 3: material at school. You'd be worried about what your child
Speaker 3: might be exposed to going to school with that kid,
Speaker 3: especially if they are in the same class. And of course,
Speaker 3: when it comes to these matters involving children, we can't
Speaker 3: tell you their names. That's automatically suppressed under the law.
Speaker 3: So it's quite possible that you, as a parent wouldn't
Speaker 3: know the identity or you most probably don't know the
Speaker 3: identity of the child that is alleged to have done this,
Speaker 3: so you don't know whether he is in your kid's
Speaker 3: class or is in the class next door, or whether
Speaker 3: they're interacting in.
Speaker 1: The school yard, etc. I would be really.
Speaker 3: Uncomfortable as a parent sending my kid back to that
Speaker 3: school knowing that was there, and it just cannot be
Speaker 3: careful enough in these cases.
Speaker 1: Why let him go back to school?
Speaker 3: Other ways he can access education, He can learn from home,
Speaker 3: We were doing that for a long time. He could
Speaker 3: be home schooled, He can access all sorts of services.
Speaker 3: Why must he be allowed to go back to interact
Speaker 3: with other kids?
Speaker 4: I do not get it, indeed, and from another angle,
Speaker 4: why was he able to access this on school computers?
Speaker 4: Kids shouldn't be able to access how to put together explosives,
Speaker 4: which we know was information that he had in hand,
Speaker 4: any more than they should be able to access pornography.
Speaker 4: When we're talking about school tablets, school computers, school computer
Speaker 4: devices of any kind, you can buy software net nanny
Speaker 4: type stuff that makes these computers useless if that's the
Speaker 4: kind of stuff that you're trying to look up. So
Speaker 4: my first thought upon reading this story was, how was
Speaker 4: this even possible? We know many schools do put those
Speaker 4: kinds of measures in place, especially those that allow students
Speaker 4: to take away tablets. They will get a year tablet,
Speaker 4: and that is their tablet or year.
Speaker 5: It's not like they get to take it.
Speaker 4: Home and then just do whatever they like in their
Speaker 4: spare time. No, it's a school tablet and it is
Speaker 4: programmed as such and therefore is useless if you want
Speaker 4: to be doing anything untoward. So this school seems to
Speaker 4: have been quite negligent in that respect. There's nothing I
Speaker 4: read on this case today that indicated that this kid
Speaker 4: had any access to it at home or on any
Speaker 4: other devices. So where does the liability, the culpability of
Speaker 4: the school come into this. And secondly, it really does
Speaker 4: highlight what we were discussing last time.
Speaker 5: This made headlines with.
Speaker 4: Regard to the police saying yes about radicalization of younger
Speaker 4: people online, but particularly those who do have mental incapacities,
Speaker 4: those who may be experiencing autism, etc. They are particularly
Speaker 4: vulnervulnerable to this kind of stuff online. There you see
Speaker 4: it in broad daylight. This kid, who has the mental
Speaker 4: comprehension of someone in year three has fallen foul. Just
Speaker 4: as they warned, these particular kids are increasingly more vulnerable
Speaker 4: than any of the others.
Speaker 2: It just biggs belief to me that a magistrate who
Speaker 2: would have seen the press conference we all saw with
Speaker 2: Asier Mike Burgess talking about the threat, Anthony Albernzi speaking
Speaker 2: about it. I mean, we all watched it. We all
Speaker 2: took note. It's a magistrate that far removed from the
Speaker 2: rest of the community and the things that people are
Speaker 2: talking about at work and discussing and watching on TV,
Speaker 2: that they just live in a bubble, completely removed and
Speaker 2: devoid of any comprehension of what most people are concerned about.
Speaker 2: This defies any rationale, particularly in light of the fact
Speaker 2: it's just a couple of days after we got this warning.
Speaker 3: And this is I mean, we come back to this
Speaker 3: so many times, right where decisions of the judiciary just
Speaker 3: seem to be completely out of kill her with the
Speaker 3: messages coming from law enforcement and government and the two
Speaker 3: have to work hand in hand, Like you know, in
Speaker 3: this case, it would have been so easy to simply say, yes,
Speaker 3: he can have the home detention, but no, he's not
Speaker 3: going to go to school. He can learn, access school
Speaker 3: curriculum whatever at home. We don't want him near other kids,
Speaker 3: and you need the judiciary to come to the table
Speaker 3: on that stuff. I mean, can you imagine Mike Burgess
Speaker 3: and the South Australian Police, the Police Commision of Grant Stevens,
Speaker 3: the state government, the federal government, or tearing their hair
Speaker 3: out going my god, we've just raised the likelihood of
Speaker 3: there being a terror attack in this country to probable,
Speaker 3: which means it is just as likely to happen as
Speaker 3: not happened. It's a fifty to fifty situation. Now we're
Speaker 3: trying to crack down on this. And then the judiciary goes, now,
Speaker 3: that's fine. A kid who is alleged to be accessing
Speaker 3: extremist material is allowed to go back and interact with
Speaker 3: all the kids who were around him when he was
Speaker 3: a ledge accessing that extremist material, Like it just seems
Speaker 3: as plain as the nose on your face. But time
Speaker 3: and again the judiciary just makes what seemed to be
Speaker 3: stupid decisions that work against the public interest.
Speaker 4: And Adelaide's got another very serious case pending. Just yesterday,
Speaker 4: a twenty seven year old UNI student pleaded not guilty,
Speaker 4: but there's a lot of proof that he is in
Speaker 4: fact guilty. Of course, this will player in court to
Speaker 4: twenty two firearm of fences and one count of planning
Speaker 4: an active terrorism and the kind of guns ammo. Even
Speaker 4: certain things that one mixes to make bombs that they
Speaker 4: found on his property were absolutely hair raising. So you'd
Speaker 4: think again, Adelaide, just within days of each other, the
Speaker 4: magistrate would just be a bit like, is there something
Speaker 4: in the water in Adelaide. Let's take this very seriously
Speaker 4: and again just act in line with community expectations.
Speaker 5: Is that too much to ask?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 4: Where Kamala Harris has chosen her VP pick, all the
Speaker 4: speculation is over, ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure you're on
Speaker 4: the edge of your seats. Not And the man's name
Speaker 4: is Tim Waltz. He is the governor of Minnesota. And
Speaker 4: unlike most VP picks, where a presidential nominee is looking
Speaker 4: for someone who's complimentary but a little bit different, Kamala
Speaker 4: Harris seems to have just picked a white male version
Speaker 4: of herself. He is also a big fan of socialism.
Speaker 5: Here he is telling you so.
Speaker 6: But we can get out there, reach out, make the case,
Speaker 6: and for one thing, don't ever shy away from mark
Speaker 6: progressive values. One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness.
Speaker 4: Neighborliness the regime that's responsible for the deaths of over
Speaker 4: ninety four million people worldwide, and that's a conservative estimate.
Speaker 4: This guy just calls it progressive values. It's just neighborliness.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, you might.
Speaker 1: Have to eat your neighbor at some point of socialism.
Speaker 5: That would be very neighborly. Indeed, you can need me
Speaker 5: to survive longer.
Speaker 3: First, two little boys are being locked away in the
Speaker 3: basement tonight.
Speaker 5: The animals are the first to go.
Speaker 4: But this guy, you may remember him from back in
Speaker 4: the day of the Black Lives Matter riots.
Speaker 5: Now we talk about.
Speaker 4: These all the time here, but for Americans, they were
Speaker 4: the worst riots the nation had seen in decades.
Speaker 5: Now we know Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4: Was very busy at the time, backing in a bailout
Speaker 4: fund for the rioters who were looting and mobbing their
Speaker 4: way throughout the country. Here was Tim Waltz as the
Speaker 4: governor of Minnesota.
Speaker 5: Addressing his people, saying, you.
Speaker 4: Know what, this is just what happens when there's not
Speaker 4: enough equality in our society.
Speaker 5: And you know what, maybe it's a good thing.
Speaker 4: While he's talking, there's just the footage on your right,
Speaker 4: which is the vestiges that were left in the wake
Speaker 4: of these rioters in his state of Minnesota.
Speaker 6: A society that does not put equity and inclusion at
Speaker 6: the center of it is certainly going to eventually come
Speaker 6: to the places where we're at. This is a moment
Speaker 6: of inflection. It's a moment of real change. It's a
Speaker 6: moment that those folks who are out there demanding this
Speaker 6: are not going to take a commission or a report.
Speaker 6: They're going to want fundamental change. And that is what
Speaker 6: I think. That's one of the exciting things. In the
Speaker 6: midst of all this. You can feel a sense of
Speaker 6: optimism coming back.
Speaker 4: You can feel a sense of feeling optimism.
Speaker 5: Baby.
Speaker 4: Check out this image of a police station in the
Speaker 4: middle of Minneapolis being burned to the ground.
Speaker 5: Check out the mob.
Speaker 4: These were the kind of rioters in the capital of
Speaker 4: his state. And that is what the governor told his people. Oh,
Speaker 4: you can just feel the positivity. Change is coming, Isn't
Speaker 4: it wonderful? And we all know where this guy stands
Speaker 4: on immigration. He's no better than failed borders are Mala
Speaker 4: Harris herself. Here he is signing into legislation drivers' licenses
Speaker 4: for illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: It's done.
Speaker 7: A packed room at the Saint Paul Armory erupted after
Speaker 7: the governor's signature made driver's license for all the law
Speaker 7: of the land.
Speaker 4: So while she's facilitating over ten million illegal aliens just
Speaker 4: pouring across the Mexican border, he is making sure that
Speaker 4: they can drive around the country like any national great teamwork, you.
Speaker 5: Two, this is going to be a blast.
Speaker 4: And of course you wouldn't be a progressive governor, would
Speaker 4: you unless you looked at your state flag and said,
Speaker 4: we need to make a change.
Speaker 5: This isn't inclusive enough.
Speaker 4: And that's exactly what Tim Waltz did earlier this year.
Speaker 8: All right, ready, well wait a minute.
Speaker 5: There, that's better, except that it's not better.
Speaker 4: I mean, that is an objectively ugly flag. Can you
Speaker 4: imagine all the Minnesota's being like, I'm sorry, that was
Speaker 4: so bright and colorful.
Speaker 5: It looked like some sort of seal.
Speaker 4: And he gets up and replaces that this is the
Speaker 4: big new feel of his dei flag for the state.
Speaker 5: It's objectively ugly.
Speaker 3: Will you remember the Westboro Baptist Church and one of
Speaker 3: their sayings, if we are to slightly change it, God
Speaker 3: hates flags.
Speaker 1: Well, he certainly hate that one. I reckon.
Speaker 3: I mean, seriously, what is Kamala Harris thinking like she
Speaker 3: had in Shapiro. Josh Shapiro sure a reasonable newbie in
Speaker 3: terms of his political career. He was only elected governor
Speaker 3: last year, but he ticked a lot of boxes. If
Speaker 3: you're trying to present a product to the American people
Speaker 3: that says, you know, we're not a radical left outfit here,
Speaker 3: because we know her record. We know that she was,
Speaker 3: as has been described many times, the most liberal senator
Speaker 3: in the United States. And so if you want people
Speaker 3: to come out and vote for you, because of course
Speaker 3: voting not being compulsory in the US, you have to
Speaker 3: give everyone some kind of encouragement to come and choose you.
Speaker 3: And that might simply be that I don't want Donald
Speaker 3: Trump to win, so I'm going to go and vote
Speaker 3: for Kamala and her pick for VP to make sure
Speaker 3: they get over the line to stop Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 3: you may well be a very moderate voter, you may
Speaker 3: even be a Republican never Trumper, But then when you
Speaker 3: look at what you're getting here, which is two radicals,
Speaker 3: why would you do it? The only reason I can
Speaker 3: think of that she didn't pick Shapiro, who is more
Speaker 3: moderate than her, is because he is Jewish and he
Speaker 3: has voiced his support for Israel, which would have caused
Speaker 3: her some grief in the left of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: But also you look at traditionally Jewish people, particularly large
Speaker 3: Jewish donors in the United States, have been Democrats, So
Speaker 3: it would have been a great play to that section
Speaker 3: of the Democratic Party. It would have been a more
Speaker 3: moderate candidate who helps, you know, wash her craziness away
Speaker 3: a little bit, in the same way that Trump picked
Speaker 3: Pence because he was a much more middle of the
Speaker 3: road choice, and ways picked Vance because you know, he's
Speaker 3: not quite Donald Trump company, plays to the working class base,
Speaker 3: et cetera. She's not picked anyone here in Waltz that
Speaker 3: seems to add anything to her campaign.
Speaker 1: I don't get it.
Speaker 2: I think it's kind of hilarious. I mean, of all people,
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris picked a stale, pale mate. I mean, she
Speaker 2: spent the last couple of weeks bagging out white males
Speaker 2: across America for being Republicans typically, and then she goes
Speaker 2: and choose Well.
Speaker 3: You know, it's often said that women just want to
Speaker 3: hear the same thing said back to them in a
Speaker 3: deeper voice.
Speaker 1: Well, that's exactly what he'll be able to do. You're
Speaker 1: not sure and say what she wants here a.
Speaker 4: Great for me, and I'd be like, do you have
Speaker 4: any original thought with.
Speaker 2: Regards image we showed of the Minnesota police station on fire.
Speaker 2: There was an interview with Tim Wilson's wife where she
Speaker 2: talked about how during the BLM riots, she made sure
Speaker 2: that the house's windows were open so the fumes of
Speaker 2: the fires from the riots could come into the house
Speaker 2: and they could connect with what was happening in the streets.
Speaker 2: This was a pivotal moment in America's history. That's kind
Speaker 2: of sick. The report is that Kamala Harris chose this
Speaker 2: guy because they had good rapport, So it wasn't really
Speaker 2: about his policies or what he could add. She just
Speaker 2: felt like he was a good guy. I guess he
Speaker 2: was the only one who she felt would agree with
Speaker 2: him on everything. That might show how stupid he is.
Speaker 2: But you've now got presented to the American people laughable
Speaker 2: and affable. That's your options. And he's about as affable
Speaker 2: as Karl Marx. He makes Bernie Sanders look look positively moderate.
Speaker 2: This guys so left leaning. This would be about the
Speaker 2: most left leaning ticket America's probably ever been presented.
Speaker 7: With.
Speaker 1: It's quite incredible.
Speaker 3: And of course what you've been hearing from the Democrats
Speaker 3: is that jd. Vance is apparently crazy and he's mad
Speaker 3: and all this.
Speaker 5: Sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: Right, So the Trump campaign has taken that and gone, well,
Speaker 3: you think jd Vance is man? Just take a look
Speaker 3: at this Waltz bloke. They put this out quick smart.
Speaker 7: It could be weirder if the signing a bill into
Speaker 7: law that requires schools to stop tampons in boys' bathrooms,
Speaker 7: or weirder than signing legislation allowing miners to receive sex
Speaker 7: change operations. Try electing the man who signed those bills
Speaker 7: vice president of the United States. Enter chief weirdo Tim
Speaker 7: Wallas as governor of Minnesota. Wall supported legislation, but in
Speaker 7: dangers miners, hurts women, and puts radical ideology ahead of
Speaker 7: common sense. Now Kamala wants Walls to enforce those laws on.
Speaker 5: A national scale.
Speaker 7: Tim Walls too weird, too.
Speaker 3: Radical, beautiful, And I reckon this could well kill her
Speaker 3: chances of gaining the presidency because you know, all the
Speaker 3: polling and all the momentum she's gained behind her by
Speaker 3: being anyone but Biden has been all going in the right.
Speaker 1: Direction for her.
Speaker 3: But I think the close see you get to November
Speaker 3: and as some of that support starts to wear off,
Speaker 3: the wind that she's getting behind her now and they
Speaker 3: can continue to run. Now, Democrats, the Republicans should just
Speaker 3: run on. This is a really radical option for president
Speaker 3: and vice president. Forget about the personal attacks now. Don't
Speaker 3: go after Kamala personally, because you don't have to just
Speaker 3: attack her and Waltz on their record and what they
Speaker 3: could possibly do to America. And I think it's put
Speaker 3: Trump potentially back in front again in one fell swoop.
Speaker 2: And funny thing about that ad about Walt's being weird
Speaker 2: is that one of the reasons the Democrats really liked
Speaker 2: Waltz is apparently he was the one who came up
Speaker 2: with the idea of calling JD. Vance weird, which all
Speaker 2: the Democrats have embraced. It's gone right through mainstream media.
Speaker 2: So he came up with the term weird for Vance.
Speaker 2: Now it's been turned around and used on him because
Speaker 2: he is so extreme. And you're right, Trump doesn't need
Speaker 2: to exaggerate how bad he is, don't need to be hysterical.
Speaker 2: Leave that for Kamala. They simply need to point out
Speaker 2: his record, which as we said, is extremely left.
Speaker 4: Leading, and even prior to entering politics, this guy when
Speaker 4: he ran for governor in twenty eighteen, he previously served
Speaker 4: in the military, so of course they always lean on that,
Speaker 4: I'm such a patren I served.
Speaker 5: In the.
Speaker 4: Ministry, he wants to serve in the ministry, and now
Speaker 4: he gets to. But the Minnesota National Guard leaders in
Speaker 4: twenty eighteen then wrote a letter and paid for it
Speaker 4: to be published in the state rags so that everyone could.
Speaker 5: Read that this guy was a liar.
Speaker 4: He had lied about his rank, he'd quit everything that
Speaker 4: he'd signed up to. Normally, if you sign up for service,
Speaker 4: there's a certain amount of years they're supposed to get
Speaker 4: out of you, so that the taxpayer's investment in training
Speaker 4: you up sending you here and there, putting a house,
Speaker 4: giving you a house to live in, etc.
Speaker 5: And so on while you're being trained.
Speaker 4: Well, then you're in the military for a certain amount
Speaker 4: of time, so everyone gets their money's worth out of you. Basically,
Speaker 4: this guy didn't finish a single thing, and not only that,
Speaker 4: when he found out his unit was going to be
Speaker 4: deployed to Iraq.
Speaker 5: He quit.
Speaker 4: He quit, and left his whole unit hanging because he'd
Speaker 4: been given an honorary. The leaders made it very clear
Speaker 4: in their letter he never earned this position, but he
Speaker 4: did hold a rather senior rank.
Speaker 5: So he pulls the plug. His whole unit.
Speaker 4: Is just like, Okay, we've got no leader and we're
Speaker 4: supposed to be going to.
Speaker 5: Iraq like this guy.
Speaker 4: If all the Trump campaign does is focus on that
Speaker 4: this guy is a deserter, he doesn't finish what he started.
Speaker 4: He didn't serve our country with distinction, that alone is
Speaker 4: enough to get every patriot in America to just be like,
Speaker 4: this guy is the scum of the earth.
Speaker 5: Who does that?
Speaker 4: And especially given how much the Trump camp really revere
Speaker 4: their military, really look after their military, and the Biden
Speaker 4: administration already has a terrible record here. We've heard from veterans'
Speaker 4: families who have lost someone overseas. We didn't get a
Speaker 4: phone call. I was there alone receiving his body back
Speaker 4: into the country. He wasn't honored by anyone, heard single.
Speaker 1: Troop under his presidens.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Meanwhile, those that he does speak to, he claims that
Speaker 4: he lost his son Bo also while.
Speaker 5: He was away in deployment.
Speaker 4: Bo tragically died of cancer, but of course Biden's either
Speaker 4: unaware of that or lying. So that alone is just
Speaker 4: such a fun fact for the Trump campaign to run
Speaker 4: with and just be like this.
Speaker 5: Blokes a joke.
Speaker 2: I mean, you compare that with JD. Evans, who served
Speaker 2: with distinction in Iraq. So the debate between the two
Speaker 2: potential vps is going to be very interesting to watch
Speaker 2: because JD. Vance won't take it back.
Speaker 3: With yeah, yeah, and Advance is a great debate. Yes,
Speaker 3: So that'll be a lot of fun. But just on
Speaker 3: a slightly less serious note, It's been pointed out by
Speaker 3: a lot of people on x that he looks like
Speaker 3: weirdly Australian, And someone pointed out today if you take
Speaker 3: a look at this post and this image of him,
Speaker 3: that he looks like the last five prime ministers of
Speaker 3: Australia all morphed into.
Speaker 1: One, and you can kind of see it there.
Speaker 3: You can see a bit of Schomo, you can see
Speaker 3: a bit of turn Bullet.
Speaker 1: It's just as all of you, a little bit of
Speaker 1: all of them in there. The weirdest thing to know,
Speaker 1: I know, I know, but he.
Speaker 2: Does like he looked maybe Scott Morrison, but I can't
Speaker 2: see Julia Gillard there at all.
Speaker 1: Oh, well, we'll leave that to one.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I will off out of the five.
Speaker 1: He may identify as Julia Gillard.
Speaker 3: Who knows, but he just kind of looks like you'd
Speaker 3: expect him to be one of the dads at a
Speaker 3: barbecue or something. And I know that works well in Australia,
Speaker 3: but I'm not sure people look for that so much
Speaker 3: in the United States. Sticking in the United States, Elon Musk,
Speaker 3: of course, is the proprietor of X, which used to
Speaker 3: be twittery bought a few years ago, has now launched
Speaker 3: a legal case against a number of former advertisers and
Speaker 3: the Global Alliance for Responsible Media because he is suggesting
Speaker 3: or alleging that they basically got together, And this is
Speaker 3: stuff that came out of a US House of Rips
Speaker 3: judiciary committee finding that they got together and essentially worked
Speaker 3: to boycott and encourage advertisers to boycott X and a
Speaker 3: number of other outlets, including Rumble, which is now joining
Speaker 3: in on this case, to deprive them of income. Essentially,
Speaker 3: so go and spend your advertising dollars with other media
Speaker 3: companies because we don't like X. We don't like the
Speaker 3: fact that Elon Musk has taken a radical View, for instance,
Speaker 3: on free speech, had said, well, we are the public square.
Speaker 3: We should allow all forms of speech to be shared here.
Speaker 3: And now that is of course claimed. And we'll get
Speaker 3: into this again a little further into the show. To
Speaker 3: be dangerous in some way, because how dare you be
Speaker 3: able to find out what's actually going on in the
Speaker 3: world without it being censored. This is what the CEO
Speaker 3: of Twitter or ex as it now is, Linda Yakarino,
Speaker 3: had to say about the case.
Speaker 9: These organizations targeted our company, and you are users. The
Speaker 9: evidence and facts are on our side. They conspire to
Speaker 9: boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future.
Speaker 9: That puts your global town square, the one place that
Speaker 9: you can express yourself freely and openly, at long term risk.
Speaker 9: People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted.
Speaker 9: No small group of people should be able to monopolize
Speaker 9: what gets monetized. This group is no match for the
Speaker 9: power of our users, all of you, the very same
Speaker 9: users that have driven usage of X to all time highs.
Speaker 3: Muscul City is declaring war on these companies and the
Speaker 3: global lives for responsible media.
Speaker 1: But I got to say, I find the whole thing a.
Speaker 3: Bit odd, and you know, I mean, we're talking about
Speaker 3: laws in the United States, and the cases they run
Speaker 3: over there are odd quite frequently.
Speaker 1: But surely it is the right.
Speaker 3: Of a private company an advertiser to choose where they
Speaker 3: do or do not spend their money, their advertising money,
Speaker 3: on whatever basis they damn will like.
Speaker 1: Now, Musk and any.
Speaker 3: Other media proprietor or social media proprietor is then well
Speaker 3: within their rights to criticize someone for pulling their advertising
Speaker 3: spend because they've decided that, you know, it's not a
Speaker 3: socially conscious outfit to be spending their money with. And
Speaker 3: Musk himself had previously said I think it was about
Speaker 3: Disney when they were talking about pulling advertising money that
Speaker 3: they should go f themselves.
Speaker 1: Surely that's just.
Speaker 3: The right of a private company to choose where it
Speaker 3: spends its money. Why should that be a cord case.
Speaker 2: I guess the problem is we're still trying to figure
Speaker 2: out what social media is right. And I mean, X
Speaker 2: is the place where most people are now getting their news.
Speaker 2: And if you want conservative news in particular, or you
Speaker 2: just want news that's not filtered by the ideology of
Speaker 2: a particular organization, X is the place to get it.
Speaker 2: So global companies that want globalism and don't want people
Speaker 2: talking about sovereign borders or any of the things that
Speaker 2: conservatives talk about, particularly Elon Musk lately, will get to
Speaker 2: his comments on what's happening in the UK in a moment.
Speaker 2: Then it's in your interests to try and shut down
Speaker 2: any discussion. So it's not so much they're boycotting a
Speaker 2: particular company I ex but they're really, as was explained
Speaker 2: by the X CEO, they're trying to shut down any
Speaker 2: and all discussion around conservative what some might call right
Speaker 2: wing thinking.
Speaker 4: Also, I think the suit is more about the fact
Speaker 4: that these got guys got together, and she says earlier
Speaker 4: in that clip illegally conspired to bring down X by
Speaker 4: doing this. So this wasn't like a oh, I'm boycotting
Speaker 4: this brand of chocolate because they use coco from a
Speaker 4: country that still uses slaves to farm it. This was
Speaker 4: a you, you and you were all very powerful companies.
Speaker 4: We are getting together to organize ourselves such that we
Speaker 4: are no longer advertising with this platform, and we are
Speaker 4: doing it with an end to see its demise.
Speaker 1: But why should that be illegal?
Speaker 3: I just don't understand in a free market why that
Speaker 3: should be illegal. So there's a group called Sleeping Giants,
Speaker 3: and at the risk of inflaming them again because we
Speaker 3: haven't heard from them for a while, but they spent
Speaker 3: a lot of time organizing boycotts against News Corp And
Speaker 3: Sky News and whatever, by getting people to write off
Speaker 3: to advertisers and say you must of advertising with these
Speaker 3: companies because we don't believe in their ethos, and they
Speaker 3: had some success in doing that. There were certain advertisers
Speaker 3: who did pull out, and we should then be able
Speaker 3: to criticize them until the cows come home for doing
Speaker 3: so and say to you, as these are the people
Speaker 3: you shouldn't spend your money with because they have pulled
Speaker 3: their money away from us because they don't like your views,
Speaker 3: they're coming after you. That's essentially what it's about. But surely,
Speaker 3: in a free market, even if a bunch of advertisers
Speaker 3: get together and say we're going to act as a group,
Speaker 3: why should they not be allowed to do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like me walking into the boardroom.
Speaker 3: Of an organization of which i'm a member or I'm
Speaker 3: on the board of and saying I don't like the chairman,
Speaker 3: and I'm going to organize all of my fellow committee
Speaker 3: members board members to ouse the chairman because I don't
Speaker 3: like him. If I can convince all the other board
Speaker 3: members to do that with me, then I'm just doing
Speaker 3: good business, aren't I.
Speaker 5: I do take your point.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, should there there not be
Speaker 4: protections in place?
Speaker 1: I mean force them, no, no, because then what.
Speaker 4: We're talking about when it comes to x N Rumble,
Speaker 4: who by the way, has joined this suit because they've
Speaker 4: also had people gang up on them, try to get
Speaker 4: them demonetized, and just what we're talking.
Speaker 2: About, you can coached other media organizations that experienced the
Speaker 2: same thing to get on board as well, so this
Speaker 2: class action could grow because what.
Speaker 4: We're talking about now is at the crux of a
Speaker 4: culture war, and unless conservatives have more money, and looking
Speaker 4: at the state of the world, we most certainly don't,
Speaker 4: and unless conservatives have more influence, which again I don't
Speaker 4: think we do. We've got the likes of Elon Musk's
Speaker 4: absolute legends who are putting billions of their own dollars
Speaker 4: on the line in order to prevail in the face
Speaker 4: of this onslaught that we are seeing of leftist ideology,
Speaker 4: censoring everybody else, shutting down everybody else, even if you're
Speaker 4: in the UK, knocking on your door and telling you
Speaker 4: you're under arrest for something you.
Speaker 5: Post it on Facebook.
Speaker 4: So in this current culture war, I think he is
Speaker 4: bringing a very important case because if left to the
Speaker 4: likes of the corporates.
Speaker 5: How many do we have on our side? And it
Speaker 5: would be only a matter of time.
Speaker 4: Before X ceased to exist and was completely demonetized Rumble,
Speaker 4: which is.
Speaker 5: Where everyone who's been kicked.
Speaker 4: Off YouTube then goes to to make podcasts to talk
Speaker 4: to their followers to push out information much like they
Speaker 4: do on X because it's not censored, it's a free
Speaker 4: speech platform. These guys would cease to exist. That's why
Speaker 4: they're calling it now while they still have money in
Speaker 4: the bank and they're able to fight their case.
Speaker 5: But this is going to be an incredibly.
Speaker 4: Important case because while I take your point regarding the
Speaker 4: free market, and I'm very much a free market girl,
Speaker 4: yay the free market, what we have here is a
Speaker 4: culture war that is simply going to mean that if
Speaker 4: they win in this respect, and it is perfectly legal
Speaker 4: for you to get together with all your corporate mats
Speaker 4: and mates and make my life as a platform or
Speaker 4: as an individual literally impossible. I can't make money anymore.
Speaker 4: I'm just gonna have to go flip Burgers. Then that
Speaker 4: means the eradication of X. That means the eradication of
Speaker 4: rumble off the face of the earth. And people can't
Speaker 4: overestimate their importance the amount of stuff that we learn
Speaker 4: on X, just because everyday citizens are experiencing their lives,
Speaker 4: posting videos, stuff that none of the media is covering
Speaker 4: except for here on Sky News.
Speaker 5: But it is so important, it is so important.
Speaker 4: So if we're just to leave this to the cultural
Speaker 4: are and say, oh well it's free, Margaret, you guys
Speaker 4: can just team up and start ruining every.
Speaker 5: Platform you don't like.
Speaker 4: I mean these companies that we're talking about, CVS Health,
Speaker 4: which is a massive, massive pharmacy chain in the US,
Speaker 4: Mars All your Chocolates, your m and MS.
Speaker 5: Those are all Mars, Allstead and Unilever.
Speaker 4: These are massive companies, and I'm sure there's more in
Speaker 4: this cohort.
Speaker 5: If those guys can.
Speaker 4: Just team up and then do anybody out of business
Speaker 4: that they want to, is that a free market or
Speaker 4: is that just corporate tyranny, stomping on everyone that they
Speaker 4: disagree with.
Speaker 3: In some ways, the free market we've created by making
Speaker 3: those companies so powerful, isn't it.
Speaker 1: But but I would say, in return.
Speaker 3: Boycott them like we do the counter boycott boycott them
Speaker 3: as well. And we saw it actually worked a bit
Speaker 3: with bud Light, Like people started pulling bud Light out
Speaker 3: of them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Like you know, we've actually got a.
Speaker 3: Mobilize in a real way conservatives, and choose where we
Speaker 3: spend our dollar as well.
Speaker 1: The left is very good at.
Speaker 3: It, and we let the left do it a lot,
Speaker 3: and we're reticent to do that.
Speaker 1: I think we should choose where we spend our dollar
Speaker 1: a lot more wisely too.
Speaker 5: I agree.
Speaker 4: But this is this is going to be an incredibly
Speaker 4: important case. And thank God that the people with the
Speaker 4: big bucks are bringing it because none of us can
Speaker 4: afford to and we desperately need them.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Elon Musk is certainly not intimidated. He continues to speak
Speaker 2: outarticularly on what's happening in the UK right now, much
Speaker 2: to the.
Speaker 1: Frustration of the elites.
Speaker 2: It all started when Elon Musk said that what we're
Speaker 2: seeing with rioting in the UK was inevitable and that
Speaker 2: civil war is probably likely because of unchecked immigration. For that, Kostama,
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister, they all attacked Elon
Speaker 2: Musk and said he should pull his head in. But
Speaker 2: he hasn't have look at some of the stuff he's
Speaker 2: been posting. Just recently he posted this image of three
Speaker 2: people convicted of different crimes but got vastly different punishments.
Speaker 2: I think we've got the image ready to show you.
Speaker 2: Here we go. On the left, you've got someone Musk
Speaker 2: says made a racist comment got fifteen weeks jail. In
Speaker 2: the middle someone who sold anti immigration stickers and for
Speaker 2: that got twenty four months in prison. And on the
Speaker 2: far right, someone who repeatedly RPD a twelve year old
Speaker 2: girl and got a two year suspended sentence, doing one
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty hours community service with no prison time.
Speaker 2: Asking what the hell is going on? Help listen to
Speaker 2: a BBC editor who slammed Elon Musk and said, what
Speaker 2: right does this guy have to speak to our prime minister?
Speaker 10: Is extraordinary for the boss of a big US tech
Speaker 10: fone to be publicly confronting the British Prime Minister.
Speaker 5: Like this over Home affairs. Issues.
Speaker 10: You know, it's difficult to imagine Apples, Tim kok or
Speaker 10: met As Mark Zuckerberg doing something similar. And what we've
Speaker 10: seen Musk do is he hasn't directly incited violence. He
Speaker 10: didn't explode like we might see Donald Trump do, but
Speaker 10: he didn't call for calm either, and lots of people
Speaker 10: are saying that because he's so influential that his actions
Speaker 10: are potentially quite dangerous. What he did, as we've just heard,
Speaker 10: is to echo arguments that we've seen from the far right,
Speaker 10: including claims that there's a two tier policing system in
Speaker 10: the UK and that immigrant criminals are treated less harshly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the elites inact terrible policies and then blame
Speaker 2: anybody who notices. You can bit if musks views aligned
Speaker 2: with the BBC, there would have been no complaint at all.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come back,
Speaker 2: look what's making news tomorrow, including an Australian Olympian on
Speaker 2: drug chargers that's coming up in a moment. Welcome back.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to tomorrow's papers and Liz the
Speaker 2: Adelaide Advertiser's got a good news Olympic story and a
Speaker 2: not so good news Olympics.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the good news story is the fourteen year old
Speaker 4: that's bringing home gold for skating.
Speaker 5: The headline reads, all I want is a duck. Apparently
Speaker 5: that is what her parents had promised.
Speaker 4: Her if she brought home gold, so she can't wait
Speaker 4: to have a pet duck. But in some far more
Speaker 4: serious news, Ozzie hockey striker has been nabbed in Paris
Speaker 4: for allegedly buying drugs. His name is Tom Craig and
Speaker 4: while many people have never heard of him, they've all
Speaker 4: heard of him now A rest of a cocher barah,
Speaker 4: thanks for trying to make it funny, Tyser. Australian men's
Speaker 4: hockey player Tom Craig has been arrested for allegedly buying
Speaker 4: cocaine on the streets of Paris. The twenty eight year
Speaker 4: old Kookaburra's striker had left a team function on Tuesday
Speaker 4: night and was arrested fifteen minutes later.
Speaker 5: This is such a shame.
Speaker 4: It's one of those stories that really takes away from
Speaker 4: all the hype and the awesomeness of the Games and
Speaker 4: how incredibly no country in the world is doing better
Speaker 4: than us when it comes to metals.
Speaker 5: Per capita like we are killing it.
Speaker 3: I think Queensland as a state alone actually beats a
Speaker 3: lot of countries on a per yea the entire countries
Speaker 3: on a per capita basis. And I heard someone the
Speaker 3: other day pointing out that because the Fox Girls, of
Speaker 3: course are from Penrith, that Penrith has three gold meddles
Speaker 3: and that beats a lot of countries as well.
Speaker 5: Are we doing We've seen some.
Speaker 4: Reels on Instagram and other places of.
Speaker 5: People remarking on this and just being like, what are
Speaker 5: they feeding them?
Speaker 3: In a.
Speaker 4: Ridiculous you guys don't belong there on the metal tally
Speaker 4: might we fixed?
Speaker 1: Does the job?
Speaker 5: Certainly?
Speaker 2: This story is that the Kooka Bar has performed well
Speaker 2: below expectations, crashing out in the quarter finals as did
Speaker 2: our women.
Speaker 1: If only he had taken the coke before he competed.
Speaker 2: Allegedly, team he's gone out the hay them.
Speaker 5: You can't say that.
Speaker 1: Look, the Chinese are probably doping, you know what?
Speaker 2: The hell of minutes after he's left the team dinner.
Speaker 2: Allegedly police have seen him doing this deal. But I mean,
Speaker 2: you say people haven't heard of him, but he's quite
Speaker 2: a decorated Olympian. He's got a Commonwealth gold medal, Commonth
Speaker 2: Games medal. I've never got silver from the Tokyo Olympics.
Speaker 2: He's one of the key strikers from the Cooker BoNT
Speaker 2: and now.
Speaker 5: Were remembered as a coke head.
Speaker 3: And this is the thing, right, The reality here is
Speaker 3: that he is not I am sure he is not
Speaker 3: the only person who has allegedly gone and bought some
Speaker 3: cocaine during the duration of this Olympics. Right, He's just
Speaker 3: the one that happened to get be caught and arrested
Speaker 3: for doing so.
Speaker 4: And you wonder if it's because as the as the
Speaker 4: article stipulate, it was after leaving a team function, have
Speaker 4: they had a few maybe trying to cheer themselves up
Speaker 4: after that?
Speaker 3: And this is so hard when we talk about we
Speaker 3: took about in the AFL. We've talked extensively about the
Speaker 3: drug problems there for instance, right, and how that was
Speaker 3: covered up almost systemically by the AFL. It is not
Speaker 3: a foreign concept that sports people who you know, out
Speaker 3: having a bit of fun and some of whom may
Speaker 3: earn good money, can afford to buy such drugs as cocaine.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that mister Craig is not the only person
Speaker 3: who could possibly be implicated in the consumption of cocaine.
Speaker 1: During these Olympics.
Speaker 3: He was just the unfortunate one who got nabbed by
Speaker 3: the coppers. And like for him, the real punishment, because
Speaker 3: he's not been charged with anything at this point.
Speaker 1: Now, the real punishment is the embarrassment, because he's now
Speaker 1: going to have this over his head for the rest
Speaker 1: of his career, however long that may be. I suspect people.
Speaker 3: Will forget about it pretty quickly, but it will always
Speaker 3: just sort of sit there as a bit of a
Speaker 3: black mark that, you know, they had a reasonably ordinary
Speaker 3: Olympic campaign and then it got capped off by being
Speaker 3: arrested for allegedly bark hope.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: It was an alleged gram of cocaine and according to
Speaker 2: the report in Tomorrow's Australian, it's as little as a
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty dollars fine. So if it's happened,
Speaker 2: it's alleged. If it's happened, it's a small indiscretion. As
Speaker 2: you say, the public embarrassment would be far worse than
Speaker 2: any punishment.
Speaker 4: Papers should have done him a solid and just left
Speaker 4: it out of the.
Speaker 5: Happening.
Speaker 3: We know Liz has a sort of Laise Fair approach
Speaker 3: to drugs. Sometimes she always talks about how she supports
Speaker 3: the legalization of cannabis.
Speaker 5: Can wead a two very different not.
Speaker 3: Suggesting that Lizz is a user herself, not a lars
Speaker 3: a fair approach to drugs. Let's go to the Australian Now,
Speaker 3: where it sees onto a far more serious story. Warning
Speaker 3: on hashtag me to redo, presumption of innocence must and
Speaker 3: Australia's peak legal body is challenging a movement to reshape
Speaker 3: the administration of rape trials in the wake of me too,
Speaker 3: declaring that the presumption of innocence and the rule of
Speaker 3: law must remain sacricant as the country's Law Reform Commission
Speaker 3: looks to overhaul legal frameworks governing sexual violence. And good
Speaker 3: on them for coming out and saying it, because you
Speaker 3: cannot afford to water down the law and the presumption
Speaker 3: of innocence in any way. And I know there are
Speaker 3: all these stats about how few actual sexual assaults result
Speaker 3: in someone being charged, and then the number of them
Speaker 3: that actually result in a conviction is even lower.
Speaker 1: But the principle is very simple.
Speaker 3: That it is much better to have ten guilty men
Speaker 3: walk free than to have one innocent man locked up.
Speaker 3: That's how the justice system is meant to operate, and
Speaker 3: it is how it should always operate. I understand that
Speaker 3: may be difficult for victims to swallow, or alleged victims
Speaker 3: to swallow, but there is a very good reason that
Speaker 3: the meeting of justice or the meeting of justice is
Speaker 3: not put in the hands of victims because you'd never
Speaker 3: see an end to the punishment and what they would
Speaker 3: like to have done, and that is not justice.
Speaker 2: And it's right that we're being more caring and concerning
Speaker 2: about people who are alleged victims and trying to look
Speaker 2: after their welfare. They've taken steps in the court to
Speaker 2: make sure that as they give evidence they're not re traumatized.
Speaker 2: All those things are right and proper, But as you say,
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, the integrity of the
Speaker 2: justice system demands that the burden of proof is on
Speaker 2: the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: It has to be.
Speaker 3: Let's go to another story on the front of the
Speaker 3: Odds tomorrow. Very interesting this one. Autism detectives link plastic
Speaker 3: chemical in mother's womb to spectrum disorder. This is an
Speaker 3: exclusive from Natasha Robinson, their Health editor. Boys with lower
Speaker 3: levels of a key brain enzyme who are born to
Speaker 3: mothers with higher levels of plastic chemicals in their wombs
Speaker 3: are six times more likely to develop autism by the
Speaker 3: time they are a teenager. A world first Australian study
Speaker 3: has found. The study has been going on for a
Speaker 3: decade at the Flory Institute and one of the researchers
Speaker 3: sees here quote BPA, that is the particular chemical can
Speaker 3: disrupt hormone controlled male fetal brain development in several ways,
Speaker 3: including silencing this key enzyme and I'm not going to
Speaker 3: pronounce it because i don't want to blug it up
Speaker 3: that controls neuro hormones and is especially important in fetal
Speaker 3: male brain development. One of the other co authors is
Speaker 3: this appears to be part of the autism puzzle. And
Speaker 3: once again when we talk about the fact that we're
Speaker 3: world leading in terms of the Olympics, once again we
Speaker 3: are world leading in terms of our medical research. The
Speaker 3: findings here are very interesting and hopefully can become part
Speaker 3: of the question, the rising question as to why we
Speaker 3: have so many children A with autism and B I'm
Speaker 3: going to say being diagnosed with autism, because I tend
Speaker 3: to think there may be a bit of overdiagnosis going
Speaker 3: on as well.
Speaker 1: But as a world first bit of research, this is
Speaker 1: a huge.
Speaker 2: Breakthrough that they are emphasizing the fact. They're not saying
Speaker 2: this is the cause. They're saying it's a.
Speaker 1: Fact links and number factors.
Speaker 2: But I mean, this study has been ten years in
Speaker 2: the making, about seventeen hundred children. They're followed over ten
Speaker 2: years to get these results, which will have implications right
Speaker 2: around the world.
Speaker 5: I love stories like this. I love stories like this.
Speaker 5: Everyone who knows me knows I can talk.
Speaker 4: Underwater about prefas, about forever chemra calls about microplastics, which
Speaker 4: is essentially exactly what these researchers are talking about. It's
Speaker 4: in your food, it's in your water, and to say
Speaker 4: that it's not affecting us as humans is utterly ridiculous.
Speaker 4: So hats off to these researchers. The US estimates that
Speaker 4: it spends over two hundred and fifty billion dollars a
Speaker 4: year on healthcare due to the side effects of the
Speaker 4: amount of microplastics, the amount of pfas people have in
Speaker 4: their system.
Speaker 5: We are not.
Speaker 4: Supposed to be consuming these things as humans, and once
Speaker 4: again the government does nothing in terms of cutting down
Speaker 4: on people who are creating these foods as well as
Speaker 4: products that humans are using and ingesting microplastics, ingesting these
Speaker 4: chemicals on a daily basis. Of course, it has these
Speaker 4: kinds of effects and I love it when these links
Speaker 4: are established so people can go, oh, hang on a minute,
Speaker 4: maybe we should do something about this.
Speaker 5: Yeah, good call.
Speaker 2: We're going to go to a break. When we come
Speaker 2: back on a totally light note. What happens to birds
Speaker 2: caught in shopping centers?
Speaker 5: How do they get out?
Speaker 2: Will show you in a second. I was at Macquari
Speaker 2: shopping center today with my son and as we're walking through,
Speaker 2: we saw a bird flying through the shopping center. You
Speaker 2: often see that, and I've never really wondered how do
Speaker 2: they get out? But more importantly how do they get sorry,
Speaker 2: how do they get in? But more importantly how do
Speaker 2: they get out? Well, there's a mel And wildlife rescuer,
Speaker 2: Nigel Williamson who goes around, whether it's Bunnings or Kmart
Speaker 2: or in this shopping center rescuing birds.
Speaker 5: Have a look. I just found the.
Speaker 11: Other three three sea gulls with the d net set up.
Speaker 11: I've caught one already, and I think we're just about
Speaker 11: to get another one. Come on, mate, walk in. We've
Speaker 11: been trying to get two at the one time. I
Speaker 11: think we just might get that one. Ne They say
Speaker 11: two out of three ain't bad.
Speaker 5: Well I think five out of eight ain't bad.
Speaker 11: Hoff you go, fella, come on, off you go, and
Speaker 11: off you go as well. I have a tame one.
Speaker 11: Go on, off you gay sitting on my armluffy gay.
Speaker 2: See that's why I never buy chips at the food
Speaker 2: court in my local shopping center, because there's too many seagulls.
Speaker 3: Y we've been hang on, isn't at the answer? Why
Speaker 3: do you need to trap them? Just go and get
Speaker 3: some chips and then slowly leave the seagull to the
Speaker 3: front door.
Speaker 5: Work perfectly.
Speaker 1: Come on, what do we need all this trap stuff for?
Speaker 1: Surely it's easier.
Speaker 5: I give Nigel his dues.
Speaker 4: I mean, the guy's doing the bird's a good turn.
Speaker 4: Tell you who's not doing anyone a good turn? A
Speaker 4: rat White franchise. They thought they were doing a very
Speaker 4: good deed here. They started up a tenant of the
Speaker 4: month award. Okay, and to qualify in their own words.
Speaker 5: They say, you must always pay.
Speaker 4: Your rent in time, Your home must be well presented
Speaker 4: and be a pleasure to deal with, ie a pleasure
Speaker 4: to deal with as a tenant, as a human being.
Speaker 4: And so they give out this tenant award. Everyone thinks
Speaker 4: it's a great idea, except that nobody thinks it's a
Speaker 4: great idea, and they get absolutely slammed on social media.
Speaker 5: Here's a few of the comments.
Speaker 4: A Tenant of the Month award, What is next a
Speaker 4: leash and a collar? Another one wrote, only a real
Speaker 4: estate would think it's acceptable to do this. It's called degrading.
Speaker 4: It's been called highly patronizing. Nobody appreciated this gesture, what
Speaker 4: so wet for?
Speaker 2: It was a pretty low bar, like pay your rent
Speaker 2: and be a nice person, and for that you get
Speaker 2: an award. What does that say about everyone else who's renting.
Speaker 3: That didn't go I'd be so embarrassed to see my
Speaker 3: face pop up as the that's
Speaker 2: It from us, A good night stick around, though Retepenny
Speaker 2: show is coming right up in I'm just a moment