Speaker 1: General Man, welcome the late base.
Speaker 2: Well, good evening.
Speaker 3: I'm James Macpherson with Lizta and Caleb Bond. Great to
Speaker 3: have your company. We all know that Australia is becoming
Speaker 3: a highly litigious society, but of course the United States
Speaker 3: is next level. We'll talk a bit later about a
Speaker 3: woman who's swing an airline because they served her an
Speaker 3: inflight ice cream without telling her it was icy.
Speaker 2: Get to that a little later.
Speaker 3: Plus, when we look at the papers, the COVID pandemic
Speaker 3: Response report has been released. It's pretty scathing of the
Speaker 3: pandemic response, describing it as a betrayal of trust. And
Speaker 3: Anthony Albinezi is not the only labor MP receiving freebies
Speaker 3: from quantas who knew. We'll get to all of that
Speaker 3: when we look at tomorrow's newspapers, but first, the Victorian
Speaker 3: government is set to introduce major changes to its judicial
Speaker 3: system in a bid to protect complainants in domestic violence
Speaker 3: and sexual abuse cases from being re traumatized by the
Speaker 3: court's says. The proposed changes mean complainants would not be
Speaker 3: allowed to be cross examined before a trial, so instead
Speaker 3: of giving evidence at a committal hearing and then again,
Speaker 3: if the matter was deemed worthy of going to court,
Speaker 3: they would only need to give evidence at a trial.
Speaker 3: The Attorney General in Victoria, Jacqueline Symes, said survivors of
Speaker 3: sexual offenses, stalking and family violence deserve justice, not further trauma.
Speaker 3: These reforms will ease the burden of repeated testimony, helping
Speaker 3: them move through court proceedings and get on with their lives.
Speaker 3: Committal proceedings have evolved over time, she said, the need updating.
Speaker 3: That's why we're modernizing them by streamlining processes and removing
Speaker 3: the committal test now, calebn Lis, I'm sure you would
Speaker 3: agree it's a noble endeavor to try to make the
Speaker 3: court process as easy as possible, particularly for people who
Speaker 3: are later found to have been victims of things as
Speaker 3: horrific as sexual abuse. But of course we've also got
Speaker 3: a legal system that is and must continue to be
Speaker 3: based on a presumption of innocence, which would seem to
Speaker 3: be violated if you're moving an accusation straight to trial
Speaker 3: without a committal process. On top of that, procedural fairness demands,
Speaker 3: does it not that if you're accused, you should be
Speaker 3: allowed to examine the evidence against you before you find
Speaker 3: yourself on trial, and of course then there's always the
Speaker 3: matter of unintended consequences where you could end up with
Speaker 3: matters going to court that should never have gone to
Speaker 3: court in the first place, which just clogs up the
Speaker 3: courts and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money.
Speaker 3: So it's a fine idea and I think we'd all
Speaker 3: support the intention, sure, but is it really something that's
Speaker 3: workable and does it keep the integrity of the court system.
Speaker 4: Firstly, what on earth is going on in Victoria? Just
Speaker 4: last week we discovered that they are slashing the amount
Speaker 4: of children's courts in Victoria by more than half bite
Speaker 4: youth crime in Victoria being at a fourteen year high.
Speaker 4: Last night we were talking about Victorian magistrates being lectured
Speaker 4: on how to sentence a non citizen child molesta in
Speaker 4: such a way that it won't result in their deportation,
Speaker 4: And tonight we're talking about this potential new move in
Speaker 4: their courts, which, like you say, wonderful, wonderful aim. We
Speaker 4: can all get around that, but at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, this unquestionably erodes the rights of the accused.
Speaker 2: How on earth is a.
Speaker 4: Defense team supposed to put their case together without asking
Speaker 4: the necessary questions.
Speaker 2: Before trial, because if we are.
Speaker 4: Going without cross examination, that's exactly what we're talking about.
Speaker 4: And cross examination is so important also because not all
Speaker 4: accusers are entirely honest, and that's what they are at
Speaker 4: this point in the game. They are complainants. They are
Speaker 4: not victors. Nothing has been proved in a court of law.
Speaker 4: So this complainant gets to state their case and that's it,
Speaker 4: and how on earth is a judge then supposed to
Speaker 4: come to a clue as to whether this is trial worthy.
Speaker 4: This will undoubtedly also end up in more trials then,
Speaker 4: because you don't want to risk telling a potential legitimate victim, Sorry,
Speaker 4: your case doesn't sound legit enough, We're just going to
Speaker 4: clear up the courts, not send all these to trial,
Speaker 4: and well, sorry about that.
Speaker 2: You don't get your proper day in court.
Speaker 4: So whichever way you look at this, it seems to
Speaker 4: be completely ineffective.
Speaker 1: Well, Jacquelin Simes has suggested that this would help prevent trials.
Speaker 1: She says she wants fewer trials to go ahead.
Speaker 5: Now, there is one means by which this could possibly
Speaker 5: result in fewer trials, and that is that you simply
Speaker 5: plead guilty in the first instance, instead of pleading not
Speaker 5: guilty and then going to a trial. Because of course,
Speaker 5: what we're talking about here is cases that would end
Speaker 5: up at trial that haven't been tested before going there.
Speaker 5: So if you go, well, hell, I know I'm going
Speaker 5: to have to go through all this nonsense anyway, there's
Speaker 5: no chance that this might be thrown out at the
Speaker 5: committal stage. Then I'm just going to plead guilty and
Speaker 5: let's just get it over with, ill cop, whatever the
Speaker 5: damage is here, because I don't want to go through
Speaker 5: the further damage that going to a trial will cause me.
Speaker 5: The legal system, the justice system is based on a
Speaker 5: very basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, and of
Speaker 5: course it is far better for ten guilty men to
Speaker 5: go free than for one innocent man to be locked
Speaker 5: up or woman for that matter, or they them as
Speaker 5: it might be in the current circumstances. And I know
Speaker 5: that is uncomfortable for some people, and everyone feels like
Speaker 5: if they are a victim, that they ought to be
Speaker 5: vindicated by the court. But you cannot have such a
Speaker 5: system without also locking up people who ought not be there.
Speaker 5: I know it's difficult to understand, but it is the
Speaker 5: least worst option to have a system that properly tests
Speaker 5: everything and if it meets the required threshold, well yes
Speaker 5: you're off to jail and you've got the new South
Speaker 5: Wales DPP, for instance, in recent years has been accused
Speaker 5: of running rape cases in particular which they knew they
Speaker 5: had no chance of actually achieving a conviction. There have
Speaker 5: been inquiries into all of this because the DPP has
Speaker 5: wasted its time on cases that simply could not achieve
Speaker 5: a result. That's what the committal stage is for, so
Speaker 5: the court can look at it and go, hang on,
Speaker 5: we don't have enough evidence here that if it goes
Speaker 5: to trial that anything could possibly be achieved. So you
Speaker 5: end up in more public money being spent. You end
Speaker 5: up with victims potentially being left up the garden path,
Speaker 5: or alleged victims being led up the garden path and
Speaker 5: told by the DPP whatever the equivalent is in Victoria
Speaker 5: that you don't worry, They're going to plead not guilty
Speaker 5: and we'll go to trial and it'll all be hunky dory. Well,
Speaker 5: a case that could potentially have been sorted six months earlier,
Speaker 5: they'll actually have to go through the full trial stage.
Speaker 5: And then get to a decision of not guilty because
Speaker 5: they didn't have enough evidence to begin with.
Speaker 1: Tell me how that's good for victim.
Speaker 3: Back to the intention of trying to do good for victims.
Speaker 3: If they really want to do that, the better way
Speaker 3: rather than mucking around with a committal process, is up
Speaker 3: the punishments and the sentencing for those who are found
Speaker 3: guilty of domestic violence of sexual abuse, and make the
Speaker 3: sentencing reflect the community outrage and the seriousness of these crimes.
Speaker 3: If you want to support victims, do that, punish these perpetrators,
Speaker 3: do it harshly, have mandatory sentencing, and I think the
Speaker 3: community would be much more satisfied. And that's a better
Speaker 3: way to show compassion to victims. Give out proper sentence.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but as we discussed last night, that's not necessarily
Speaker 5: the first thing in the minds of the judiciary in
Speaker 5: Victoria at the moment.
Speaker 1: As Liz described before, some extraordinary.
Speaker 5: Stuff keeps coming out of that state, and of course
Speaker 5: it always seems to come out of Victoria. Now let's
Speaker 5: turn our attention to the United States. It is precisely
Speaker 5: a week until ballots will be cast over there, and
Speaker 5: I know you're waiting for it just as much as
Speaker 5: I Am Kamala Harris has realized. Despite a week ago
Speaker 5: in an interview with the NBC playing down the fact
Speaker 5: that she has a problem with male votes, she's finally
Speaker 5: realized that she does. Now. The polling at the moment
Speaker 5: shows that Harris leads with women fifty.
Speaker 1: Four percent, but it's forty two percent with.
Speaker 5: Men, whereas with Trump it is forty one percent with
Speaker 5: women and fifty five percent with men, particularly young men.
Speaker 5: And that is important because people will try to spin
Speaker 5: all of this that, oh, it's a sexist thing, that, oh,
Speaker 5: my god, men don't want to vote for a war. No,
Speaker 5: it's not about men not wanting to vote for a woman,
Speaker 5: particularly young men who've been raised in an era of
Speaker 5: equality more than anyone else who's come before them. No,
Speaker 5: they're reacting to the culture in the United States, and
Speaker 5: they can actually see through the fact that Biden has
Speaker 5: been a total disaster and Harris would be a continuation
Speaker 5: of that. But let's get back to the point. She's
Speaker 5: finally realized she has a problem. So she sits down
Speaker 5: with Gretchen Whitner, who's a governor in the United States,
Speaker 5: and trying to have just a quiet conversation in a
Speaker 5: public place.
Speaker 1: We have.
Speaker 2: Everything. They didn't realize that.
Speaker 5: All these boom mics, I didn't realize they were there.
Speaker 5: Is she genuinely the stupidest person to have run for president?
Speaker 5: That was either entirely deliberate to put some sort of
Speaker 5: message out there that, you know, the is something going
Speaker 5: on with men here. We've got to turn this around,
Speaker 5: or she is genuinely dumb.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which is worse.
Speaker 3: Straight after that clip that we show, she leans back
Speaker 3: and she says, we're drinking a beer, and then she
Speaker 3: uses an expletive, which is clearly an appeal to men
Speaker 3: to say, you know, I'm just like you guys.
Speaker 4: We're all so manly here, look at us with our
Speaker 4: beer and swear.
Speaker 3: But I mean, they do have a problem with men.
Speaker 3: Sixty percent of registered Democrats women, and half of those
Speaker 3: are college educated, and all the latest research says that
Speaker 3: college educated women are much more concerned about LGBTQ rights
Speaker 3: and about equality than men. And I went on the
Speaker 3: Democrats website. They've got a section that it says who
Speaker 3: we serve, and they've got sixteen demographics listed. I won't
Speaker 3: read them all, but here's a taste, African Americans, Americans
Speaker 3: with disabilities, Latinos, Native Americans, the LGBTQ community, young people, students, women.
Speaker 3: We can go on on sixteen different demographic groups. You
Speaker 3: know the one that is missing though, no men, no men,
Speaker 3: men not. Is that an oversight or is this libriate?
Speaker 5: They could have just used one word that encompassed all
Speaker 5: of them.
Speaker 4: Americans, Americans, sub Americans.
Speaker 2: How hard would that doo?
Speaker 4: We stand for, which is what everyone wants to hear.
Speaker 4: If someone is running for the president of your country
Speaker 4: or prime minister in our case, you just say I
Speaker 4: stand to represent all Australians.
Speaker 2: You don't want to.
Speaker 4: Hear someone being like these categories in particular. And when
Speaker 4: you look at how strongly she's leading with the female
Speaker 4: vote it's fifty four to Trump's forty two. I think
Speaker 4: it is such a sound argument for us to do
Speaker 4: away with the female vote.
Speaker 2: I know I known't hear me out.
Speaker 4: Though hear me out because across the Western world, which
Speaker 4: is basically the only places women can vote, they always
Speaker 4: side with the left. I can only speak for myself,
Speaker 4: but I'm happy to give it up with those of
Speaker 4: their main concerns. Do you think of how it would
Speaker 4: transform politics in the West if all these politicians weren't
Speaker 4: trying to appeal to these women rather than population roughly
Speaker 4: fifty presented the population to try and appeal to them
Speaker 4: with all their we care about lefty issues. I do
Speaker 4: declare that even if the suffragettes knew just how badly
Speaker 4: the right that they were fighting for wouldn't be abused
Speaker 4: in the future, and how badly it would have so
Speaker 4: many poor outcomes for the Western Empire that once was,
Speaker 4: they may not have four they may not have fought
Speaker 4: so violently. Indeed, some of them died in the pursuit
Speaker 4: of this cause. I genuinely think whenever I see these
Speaker 4: polls and it happens every single Western election where women
Speaker 4: are like, we just found all the touchy feely issues
Speaker 4: and we're going to vote for the left, I'm like,
Speaker 4: you know what, I would be more than happy to
Speaker 4: just go leave it to the men for the greater
Speaker 4: good Ian.
Speaker 1: Will she is.
Speaker 3: You know, I never know what's going to come out
Speaker 3: of your mouth, but I've got to say tonight you've
Speaker 3: totally surprised you.
Speaker 4: Specifically specifically with this election. Right, so we know the
Speaker 4: Dems ran very hard on abortion, and we've once again
Speaker 4: found out you give women the vote, their number one
Speaker 4: political concern is being able to eliminate their progeny unborn.
Speaker 2: And once again I'm just like again, I'd happily leave
Speaker 2: it to.
Speaker 4: The men, because then you have entire powerful political parties.
Speaker 4: But bending over backwards, almost running on a single issue.
Speaker 4: That's what the Dems have done this time round. It's
Speaker 4: a highly emotive issue, it's a highly controversial issue. They
Speaker 4: knew exactly what they were doing, and I do not
Speaker 4: believe given the sheer state of Kamala Harris that had
Speaker 4: not been one of the bastions, if not the bastion
Speaker 4: of the Democratic camp pain, that woman vote would not
Speaker 4: be this high.
Speaker 2: Period.
Speaker 5: Well, I can't buy too much into into the where
Speaker 5: the women should have the vote discussion, because that's no.
Speaker 1: I don't advise it away from that. I assume you
Speaker 1: identify as a woman.
Speaker 4: I just want to check I do not identify woman.
Speaker 5: But it would be the same if it was Biden
Speaker 5: still running, right, And I think to go to the
Speaker 5: women's issue thing, right, because there's there's an expectation among
Speaker 5: someone we go back to Hillary's campaign, who was it
Speaker 5: that the name escapes me. Famous feminist said, you know,
Speaker 5: any woman who doesn't support other women has a special
Speaker 5: place in hell. I can't remember who it was it
Speaker 5: was campaigning for Hillary at the time. I'm sure someone
Speaker 5: will be able to send me an email very quickly
Speaker 5: and tell me who it was. But if it was
Speaker 5: a female Republican candidate, you wouldn't see the same results
Speaker 5: in terms of the great support from women, because it's
Speaker 5: not about the woman or man thing. It's about the
Speaker 5: left right, and as you said, particularly people who have.
Speaker 1: A college education.
Speaker 5: And speaking of women for Kamala Harris, she had such
Speaker 5: a rally rally might be a stretch, but anyway, she
Speaker 5: has such a rally in Michigan.
Speaker 1: Women for Harris and Watts and have a look at
Speaker 1: the turnout.
Speaker 5: Let's get to work and get out the vote for
Speaker 5: Kamala Harris and Jim Wallace.
Speaker 1: I mean, what a ripper that is. Compare and contrast
Speaker 1: with Trump.
Speaker 5: I'm not going to talk about women for Trump if
Speaker 5: for the allegations to be believed, there are plenty of
Speaker 5: women who have been interested in Trump over the years.
Speaker 5: But I mean, you know, if that's the best she
Speaker 5: can pull in terms of if she's leading the female
Speaker 5: votes so well, and she has a woman for Harris
Speaker 5: rally and that's the best do I mean? It would
Speaker 5: seem that across the board, the enthusiasm for Harris has
Speaker 5: just died, Like in the last month, the enthusiasm has
Speaker 5: just totally gone away. All of that wind that she
Speaker 5: got behind her when she replaced Biden has disappeared, and
Speaker 5: she's in serious true.
Speaker 3: We're looking at the tiny crowd she was addressing there.
Speaker 3: It reminded me, was it just last week that she
Speaker 3: abused a Christian who dared to voice out opposition lord
Speaker 3: to her abortion policy, and she chastigated this Christian saying,
Speaker 3: I think there's a smaller meeting down the road that
Speaker 3: you can't get much smaller than Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: I don't think we've.
Speaker 4: Seen any Trump gatherings being smaller than the dam gatherings.
Speaker 4: Can you remember how small they were back into twenty
Speaker 4: twenty when Biden was running and we just kept looping
Speaker 4: footage of these tiny little get together as people going here,
Speaker 4: I go Biden. Hardly anyone showed out for him. But
Speaker 4: if you needed any further proof that the mail in
Speaker 4: ballot voting system in America is forraught.
Speaker 2: Look no further than this headline.
Speaker 4: One mail in ballot's box has been lit on fire
Speaker 4: in Oregon and another in Washington, very very blue states these.
Speaker 4: Oregon has voted Democratic in the last eight federal elections.
Speaker 4: Washington has been blue since nineteen eighty eight. So you
Speaker 4: do wonder who lit these on fire and why. But
Speaker 4: it also points to this ridiculous system, right because here
Speaker 4: in Australia we two have mail in ballots, but you.
Speaker 2: Just put them in a normal post office box.
Speaker 4: It's only in America they advertise this is a mail.
Speaker 2: In ballot box. Put all your mail in.
Speaker 4: Ballots here, enabling someone with nefarious intentions to then just
Speaker 4: drop a little flame inside. Here's what the Tomaha County
Speaker 4: Elections Division said about their fire. Fire suppressant inside the
Speaker 4: ballot box protected virtually all the ballots they reckon. Only
Speaker 4: three ballots were damaged. Voters should be assured that even
Speaker 4: if their ballots were in the affected box, their votes
Speaker 4: will be counted. But take a look at this footage
Speaker 4: of the box in Washington. Something tells me that these
Speaker 4: ballots won't be able to be counted.
Speaker 2: We're basically talking about a pile of ashes there.
Speaker 4: Washington says that potentially hundreds of ballots were burnt to
Speaker 4: a crisp Why can't these guys just come up with
Speaker 4: the same system as.
Speaker 2: Ows, where their normal.
Speaker 4: Postal mailing system is making sure these ballots arrive safely,
Speaker 4: as opposed to special postage boxes where they're like, hey,
Speaker 4: if you want to mess with the election result, mess
Speaker 4: with these boxes.
Speaker 2: You're advertising for trouble.
Speaker 3: The other strange thing about this is you can't do
Speaker 3: anything anywhere without CCTV footage capturing you, right, and yet
Speaker 3: here are these ballot boxes, which, as you rightly point out,
Speaker 3: basically is a big sign saying if you want to mess.
Speaker 1: With the election, here's where to do it.
Speaker 3: You'd think that'd have some cameras on the thing, but
Speaker 3: there's no vision, there's no footage. So it looks like
Speaker 3: these two instances are connected. It's clearly deliberate, it's nefarious,
Speaker 3: but there's no clue as to who's doing this.
Speaker 4: Or what They did find the same volvo, and no
Speaker 4: doubt that was due to CCTV footage. I'm sure whoever
Speaker 4: did this was smart enough to wear a ballet, lava
Speaker 4: or something.
Speaker 3: Confirms everything I've always thought about Volvo driver.
Speaker 2: Which is what everyone knows. That are a few Volvo drivers.
Speaker 1: My sister drives a Volved. Now we know what you're
Speaker 1: thinking your system. Hello person.
Speaker 5: I always thought Volvo drivers were boring people. I didn't
Speaker 5: think they'd have it in them.
Speaker 4: Oh, come on, classy car.
Speaker 1: Hello to Peter Gooz.
Speaker 5: If you're watching South Australian viewers will know who I'm
Speaker 5: talking about. He's been driving around in a banged out
Speaker 5: old Volve over about fifty years. But it just goes
Speaker 5: to prove how divided the United States is that you
Speaker 5: would take it upon yourself to go and set fire
Speaker 5: to other people's balance, Like it would be one thing
Speaker 5: to try and steal the box or try and break
Speaker 5: into it and take those ballot papers away, to actually
Speaker 5: set fire to it.
Speaker 1: What you're not just saying, oh, I'm.
Speaker 5: Setting fire to some voting papers. You're actually saying, I
Speaker 5: want to set fire to democracy. You are trying to
Speaker 5: subvert the system of democracy. That is what that means.
Speaker 5: And whether they meant that symbolism or not, I don't know,
Speaker 5: but it was a pretty good example of it.
Speaker 1: If that's what they meant, I mean that is I
Speaker 1: could not think of anything.
Speaker 5: Well, I probably could think of something more disgraceful, but
Speaker 5: it is hard to think of an act that is
Speaker 5: so overt in saying I want to do away with
Speaker 5: democracy then literally setting fire to ballot paper.
Speaker 4: But if that's what their intention was, why on earth
Speaker 4: would you do it in two dead blue states?
Speaker 2: They have been blue forever. Nobody is thinking that these
Speaker 2: two states are going to flip. We're talking about Oregon
Speaker 2: and Washington.
Speaker 4: So if you wanted to subvert democracy, you'd at least
Speaker 4: be smart enough to try this on in a swing state.
Speaker 1: We don't know.
Speaker 4: That's like, this is going to be the dumbest arsonist ever.
Speaker 3: The rumor online is that it's Antifa who are responsible,
Speaker 3: who have the stated goal of making America ungovernable. But
Speaker 3: no one ever argued that ANTIQUA members were smart. So
Speaker 3: there you go, speaking of no one ever arguing that
Speaker 3: such and such are smart. Let's talk about local government,
Speaker 3: which continues to provide much amusement. In South Australia, a
Speaker 3: council staffer is suing the council for workers' compensation. Now,
Speaker 3: many of us work from home, and it's.
Speaker 1: Quite a privilege.
Speaker 3: This particular council worker was working from home and at
Speaker 3: the same time minding a colleague's dog, so the council
Speaker 3: worker put up at home a little sixty centimeter metal
Speaker 3: fence to make sure the colleague's dog, which she was
Speaker 3: mining while working from home, didn't get to her rabbit
Speaker 3: at her home arrangements well, during a coffee break one morning,
Speaker 3: she tripped over the fence that she herself had erected,
Speaker 3: hurting her leg, having to go to hospital by ambulance,
Speaker 3: and now she successfully sued the council for workers' compensation.
Speaker 3: When the first hearing occurred, the insurer maintained that the
Speaker 3: erection of the pet fence across the walkway, creating a
Speaker 3: clear and unusual hazard without the council's direction or approval,
Speaker 3: meant the injury was not caused by her employment. But
Speaker 3: the woman went to the South Australian Employment Court and
Speaker 3: they found that she had created the hazard. The hazard
Speaker 3: was not known to council, and yet that did not
Speaker 3: mean that it was unrelated to her employment, because they
Speaker 3: said the council had encouraged flexible working arrangements from home
Speaker 3: and had actually said that you could take regular breaks
Speaker 3: when working at home and quote unquote enjoy time with
Speaker 3: your dog. So she tripped over a fence she'd created
Speaker 3: to enjoy time with her colleagues's dog. The council are
Speaker 3: now responsible and a compensation payout will be determined in
Speaker 3: the coming weeks. I mean, personal responsibility is completely gone now.
Speaker 3: I remember years ago a maid of mine who if
Speaker 3: I named him, you would know who this is, and
Speaker 3: he was staying it I think, at novertel and it
Speaker 3: was raining one night. He got back to the hotel,
Speaker 3: he got out of the taxi and he slipped on
Speaker 3: the driveway, hurting his ankle, and he was telling me
Speaker 3: I soon and I got to pay out for such
Speaker 3: and such, And I remember being flabbergasted that you would
Speaker 3: even I would never even thought.
Speaker 1: To have done that.
Speaker 3: I mean, it was raining, I slept in the rain
Speaker 3: exactly understood. Well, they'll be liable and it's it's all
Speaker 3: just insurance, right, But of course we all end paying
Speaker 3: through the nose every time we have to pay our
Speaker 3: own premium.
Speaker 5: I can't remember the name of the case now, but
Speaker 5: when I was a court report, you'd come across these
Speaker 5: weird sort of workers' compo cases, and the case law
Speaker 5: would always refer back to someone who would suit a
Speaker 5: supermarket for having slipped on something on the floor in there.
Speaker 5: I can't remember it's quite a famous case. But I mean,
Speaker 5: this should be the end of working from home. I've
Speaker 5: been campaigning for this for so long. This should be
Speaker 5: the nail in the coffin for working from home, because
Speaker 5: if this is to be followed through, and this sets
Speaker 5: the precedent, that means that employers are now responsible for
Speaker 5: the workplace, that being people's houses and the condition that
Speaker 5: those houses are kept in. And I put to one
Speaker 5: of our bosses earlier today that because I do.
Speaker 1: A portion of my work from home, like I come.
Speaker 5: Into the studio at night, but during the day we're
Speaker 5: working out what stories we're going to talk about, and
Speaker 5: we have phone calls and all this sort of stuff
Speaker 5: that's work I'm doing from home.
Speaker 1: So I climb up.
Speaker 5: The stairs, half pissed in the afternoon and do myself
Speaker 5: a miss day drinking.
Speaker 2: Are we out and happened?
Speaker 1: That explains a number of our phone calls. I might
Speaker 1: have had a couple of glasses as much.
Speaker 5: But anyway, if I go up the stairs and give
Speaker 5: myself above me, does that then mean that Sky News
Speaker 5: is responsible because that was an injury I sustained in
Speaker 5: my workplace. If that is seriously the precedent that is
Speaker 5: now going to be said, why would any business ever
Speaker 5: allow anyone to work from home without I don't know,
Speaker 5: seeting an ock health and safety officer out to inspect
Speaker 5: your house proper and make sure that it's up to
Speaker 5: spec It's just insane.
Speaker 4: What means this story even crazier is that she had
Speaker 4: erected this sixty centimeter fence in.
Speaker 2: The doorway off her home office just.
Speaker 4: The day before, so she put it up the day
Speaker 4: after she trips over it. So how was her workplace
Speaker 4: ever supposed to know that this had occurred? But get this,
Speaker 4: she also had neglected, at any point in her working
Speaker 4: from home tenure, to fill out the form that the
Speaker 4: employer had given her regarding the required working from home
Speaker 4: safety checklist. If you've worked from home at any point,
Speaker 4: your employer has probably required you to fill in one
Speaker 4: of these. I know during COVID I had to because
Speaker 4: that's their due diligence done. So not only has she
Speaker 4: never filled it in, but the day before she tripped
Speaker 4: over it was the day she put it up.
Speaker 2: How can they possibly be liable for this?
Speaker 4: By this line of reasoning, I could put up some
Speaker 4: sort of laser beam. I don't know, those the ones
Speaker 4: that you see in spy movies where you've got to
Speaker 4: crawl through all the lasers. Put it up in my house,
Speaker 4: be working from.
Speaker 2: Home that day.
Speaker 4: Forget I've put it up, burn myself to a crisp,
Speaker 4: and sue my employer.
Speaker 3: That is exactly what you'd expect this story. Most people
Speaker 3: would put up like a little metal fence.
Speaker 1: You put up late laser beams.
Speaker 2: I got to keep that bunny rabbit safe.
Speaker 3: When you talk about you know, you have to fill
Speaker 3: out all this working from home stuff, and we have
Speaker 3: to do it at Sky right. It takes forever. You're
Speaker 3: on your laptop and they say, you know, have you
Speaker 3: made sure your chair is ergonomically comfortable?
Speaker 2: Why on earth are we having to do all this?
Speaker 2: Now we know why.
Speaker 3: It's employers trying to protect themselves from unscrupulous employees such
Speaker 3: as you said that you would be.
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't say I would be unscrupulous.
Speaker 2: That sounds that you already are.
Speaker 1: I was just saying.
Speaker 5: I was just saying, if it ever eventuates, I just
Speaker 5: know what I can do now. James was doodling away
Speaker 5: on his piece of paper there while Liz was talking
Speaker 5: look like a pram or something, So you're already planning
Speaker 5: what you're got rammed.
Speaker 3: The other lesson from this for employers is when you're
Speaker 3: interviewing people, you really need to be careful that the
Speaker 3: kind of people you're interviewing are not the sort of
Speaker 3: people who would be likely to complain Wine Wings lead
Speaker 3: Laques shift, go legal it the first thing.
Speaker 5: Lead question, lead the questioning all interviews from now on.
Speaker 1: Do you plan on building any things in your living room?
Speaker 1: Or the memes.
Speaker 5: So now we know the circumstance under which you can
Speaker 5: get compensation.
Speaker 1: You fall over a fence that you built in your.
Speaker 5: Own home and the worker compo comes through. So people
Speaker 5: who'd like a bit more compensation of farmers down in
Speaker 5: Victoria Now we've known for a long time that there
Speaker 5: will have to be swathes of new power lines built
Speaker 5: through the middle of Victoria for an interconnector between Victoria
Speaker 5: and New South Wales in order to make the grid
Speaker 5: work with all this new renewable energy that.
Speaker 1: Is coming online.
Speaker 5: Now this has to go through the middle of Prime
Speaker 5: agricultural land, and of course farmers have been kicking up
Speaker 5: a stink, wanting to know exactly where these lines are
Speaker 5: going to go, how much of their land is going
Speaker 5: to be taken away. The Victorian government has until this
Speaker 5: point kept its secret. Now they're apparently going to make
Speaker 5: it public next week, but the Weekly Times has seen
Speaker 5: already where they are going to go and have dutifully
Speaker 5: revealed the line, which you can see on your screen there. Now,
Speaker 5: this thing will stretch two hundred and forty kilometers right,
Speaker 5: and it will be roughly seventy to eighty meters wide.
Speaker 5: So we're talking some farmers are going to have kilometers
Speaker 5: in length taken out of their land to the tune
Speaker 5: of seventy or eighty meters wide, not an insignificant part
Speaker 5: of their land that is going to be taken over
Speaker 5: by the Transmission Company of Victoria. Now, for that, they
Speaker 5: are due to be compensated to the tune of two
Speaker 5: hundred thousand dollars per kilometer over twenty five years. That
Speaker 5: equals eight thousand dollars a year. Guess what the government,
Speaker 5: the state government in Victoria, the Allen government, brings in
Speaker 5: as a result of the land tax on this land.
Speaker 5: Though they generate seventy six million dollars a year on
Speaker 5: this land, which is equal to one hundred and seventy
Speaker 5: seven thousand dollars per kilometer per year, and they are
Speaker 5: going to give these farmers are poultry eight thousand dollars
Speaker 5: a year in compensation. Well, the farmers are not having it.
Speaker 5: One of the farmers from Southland, Barry Batters, he says,
Speaker 5: we're not going to let him in. He says, everyone
Speaker 5: is going to stand at the gate and say no
Speaker 5: to TCV, that's Transmission Company Victoria. Ninety nine percent of
Speaker 5: the landholders from Bulgana to ten kilometers north of Wurronook.
Speaker 1: We're ready to join forces to block tcv's access.
Speaker 5: Will make it hard for them, he said. They're going
Speaker 5: to go, you know, old style and chain themselves to
Speaker 5: gates instead of trees.
Speaker 1: I suppose.
Speaker 5: But what a disgusting situation where people who are simply
Speaker 5: trying to run cattle and sheep and grow food and
Speaker 5: whatever keep us alive, to keep us alive and give
Speaker 5: us clothes to wear, et cetera, are going to have
Speaker 5: their land compulsorily acquired for this infrastructure that we only
Speaker 5: need because we're pursuing this crazy.
Speaker 1: Green dream of renewable energy.
Speaker 5: They'll get eight cane compensation a year and the state
Speaker 5: government gets one hundred and seventy seven k.
Speaker 1: That is a joke.
Speaker 3: The other outrageous part of this is Transmission Company Victoria
Speaker 3: are currently in the process of getting licenses to be
Speaker 3: able to take this land by force. And yet the
Speaker 3: map that we showed on screen just a moment ago
Speaker 3: has only just become public.
Speaker 2: Has all been They've only just found out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so locals have just learned this and preparations are
Speaker 3: already underway. The other thing is it's not just farmers
Speaker 3: who are being affected, but every Victorian person who pays
Speaker 3: their electricity bill. This transmission line is costing three point
Speaker 3: five billion dollars, and of course the cost of that
Speaker 3: is added to everybody's electricity bill and it's blown out
Speaker 3: of course, as everything does with renewables, and in Victoria,
Speaker 3: by another five hundred and seventy seven million dollars, So
Speaker 3: it's now up to close to four billion dollars that
Speaker 3: gets added to people's electricity bill. So everybody is losing
Speaker 3: from this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and we know it well, they now know. We
Speaker 4: just found out along with them. This effects at least
Speaker 4: one hundred and forty one different private properties elsewhere in
Speaker 4: different shires. The numbers are unknown, they haven't crunched them yet,
Speaker 4: but that is a heck of a lot of farmers
Speaker 4: who have just found out these massive swathes are going
Speaker 4: to be cut through their land if and when this
Speaker 4: application is approved. And like you say, the tcv's parent
Speaker 4: company who made this a lot more expensive by making
Speaker 4: the transmission lines how of a lot longer, that's just
Speaker 4: going to be paid off by Victorians via their electricity bills.
Speaker 4: This isn't fair on anyone at all in this equation.
Speaker 3: Well, speaking of not being fair to anyone in the equation,
Speaker 3: Tanya Plibast continues to upset everybody. In her role as
Speaker 3: Environment Minister. She's been making a decision or supposed to
Speaker 3: be making a decision on salmon farming in Tasmania, which
Speaker 3: is worth about one point three billion dollars to the state.
Speaker 3: The issue is a skate fish which is classified as
Speaker 3: endangered in Macquarie Harbor, where they do salmon farming. She's
Speaker 3: been asked to determine whether or not the skatefish is
Speaker 3: endangered or whether it's critically endangered, the difference being if
Speaker 3: it's critically endangered, then salmon farming in that harbor will
Speaker 3: be shut down. But she's just announced she's going to
Speaker 3: delay making a decision until after the federal election. She's
Speaker 3: put it off by twelve months, thereby angering everybody. The
Speaker 3: salmon farmers are upset because they've got no certainty about
Speaker 3: their future, and of course the environmentalists are upset because
Speaker 3: they're demanding something be done to save the skate semon.
Speaker 3: Tasmania Chief Executive Luke Martin said there is clearly no
Speaker 3: justification for her to string out a decision on that
Speaker 3: process any longer, and she must end this completely unfair
Speaker 3: process for our workers, their families and communities have listened
Speaker 3: to salmon farmer Adam Saltmarsh and his wife Samantha, who
Speaker 3: say they have no idea whether or not they've got
Speaker 3: a future in Tasmania waiting for Tanya Plipasek to make
Speaker 3: a decision. She doesn't want to make until after the
Speaker 3: election less it costs labor votes.
Speaker 6: This is where we always dreamt of raising our children.
Speaker 6: It's a beautiful town, it's a safe place to raise children,
Speaker 6: and they have a wonderful backyard and this is where
Speaker 6: we want to stay. We don't want to go anywhere else.
Speaker 6: We believe that the salmon and the skate can coexist together.
Speaker 1: For us to move away.
Speaker 7: To mean I'd have to move away from our kids probably,
Speaker 7: you know, to shift work, fly and fly out maybe
Speaker 7: for weeks of the time. So that means missing our
Speaker 7: kids school events growing up. You know. Yeah, it's pretty daunting.
Speaker 1: It worries us a lot.
Speaker 3: So while those families employed by the salmon industry have
Speaker 3: to sit on their hands for twelve months not knowing
Speaker 3: if they've got a future, environmentalists are unhappy as well.
Speaker 3: Bob Brown spoke to the media saying Tanya Plipasek has
Speaker 3: decided to do absolutely nothing. Sorry not Bob Bread, Bob
Speaker 3: Brown Foundation campaigner Alister Allen I should have said, he said,
Speaker 3: Tenni Plimer section has decided to do absolutely nothing. Minister
Speaker 3: pilbi Sek is ignoring her role as environment minister while
Speaker 3: we're seeing a global extinction crisis and potentially putting the
Speaker 3: decision off to someone else post federal election. This is
Speaker 3: fairly typical of labor Caleb not wanting to make decisions
Speaker 3: because they're worried about certain electoral seats and how they
Speaker 3: might be affected at the next elections. So to simply
Speaker 3: put off a decision until after the election smacks of
Speaker 3: someone who's paid to do a job deliberately not doing
Speaker 3: a job.
Speaker 5: Well, everything seems to be political in terms of the
Speaker 5: environmental decisions that Tania Pilbysik makes at the moment, because
Speaker 5: of course we can't have the Blainey gold mine because
Speaker 5: that might look bad at home in her seat and
Speaker 5: the other seats in the inner city of Sydney where
Speaker 5: they're worried about the Greens vote, And of course can't
Speaker 5: make it a decision on the other hand down in
Speaker 5: Tasmania because.
Speaker 1: It might cost labor votes.
Speaker 5: And as Paul Murray outlined in his program early, those
Speaker 5: seats in Tasmania are going to be very important to
Speaker 5: whether or not Dutton has any chance of forming a
Speaker 5: government at the next federal election. Seriously, though, I mean
Speaker 5: the more genan skate and you can have a look
Speaker 5: at this thing. Here is an ugly look and bagger,
Speaker 5: but why don't.
Speaker 1: We put the people first?
Speaker 5: Seriously, we're talking about jobs for thousands of people and
Speaker 5: we're talking about food to eat. I to be perfectly honest,
Speaker 5: couldn't care less whether the more Gan skate disappears from
Speaker 5: the harbor. Go and collect some of these critters up
Speaker 5: and go and put them in aquarium or something somewhere
Speaker 5: so that they don't that thing.
Speaker 2: Can't have that thing.
Speaker 4: Go extin we have a white quality of life would plummet.
Speaker 5: We have a way of preventing them from going extinct forever.
Speaker 1: Put them in an aquarium somewhere.
Speaker 5: But this is about jobs for Australians and food for Australian.
Speaker 2: Straight environmental less.
Speaker 4: I mean, I've got ninety nine problems, but the extinction
Speaker 4: of the skate fish certainly isn't one of them. And
Speaker 4: like you say, what person in their right mind would
Speaker 4: sacrifice salmon for whatever the heck that thing was that
Speaker 4: looked like a weird looking stingray.
Speaker 1: We're going to go to a break, but stick around.
Speaker 3: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 3: including Anthony Albanezi not the only labor mp receiving freebies
Speaker 3: from countas. That's coming up in a moment.
Speaker 2: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at what's making news tomorrow. The
Speaker 3: front page of the Australian only got two stories, but
Speaker 3: both of them are big ones, Caleb, Quantus and COVID.
Speaker 5: Let's start with a whopper, shall we COVID. Now they've
Speaker 5: got three stories.
Speaker 1: On this issue.
Speaker 5: I will run you through them, and they don't get
Speaker 5: any better. The first one says numbers did.
Speaker 1: Not reflect the full story.
Speaker 5: Australia's COVID nineteen pandemic response fixated on case numbers and
Speaker 5: lost sight of the broader mental health impacts of lockdowns
Speaker 5: and school closures, A landmark inquiry has found. Then the
Speaker 5: second story says draconian COVID nineteen measures including state lockdowns,
Speaker 5: border closures, school shutdowns and vaccine mandates were not just
Speaker 5: after the initial wave of the pandemic and fueled an
Speaker 5: erosion in trust in governments and mental health damage to children,
Speaker 5: a landmark inquiry has found. And then the third story says,
Speaker 5: across the nation's frontline workforce in health, aged care, police
Speaker 5: and paramedics, mandatory COVID nineteen immunization is a distant memory.
Speaker 1: But in Victoria, as.
Speaker 5: The summer fire season looms, dozens of unvaccinated firefighters are
Speaker 5: still banned from returning to work three years after being
Speaker 5: stood down without pay worse too, worse two worse. Now, look,
Speaker 5: the result of this inquiry was.
Speaker 1: In some way scathing.
Speaker 5: I think its certainly said that the States bagged things up,
Speaker 5: that there was no justification for much of what they did.
Speaker 5: But let us not forget that no state premiere was
Speaker 5: hauled in before this inquiry. They will face no penalty
Speaker 5: or punishment for what they did. The biggest suggestion that
Speaker 5: comes out of this inquiry is that we need a
Speaker 5: federal CDC in the event, which is like what they
Speaker 5: have in the United States, the Center for Disease Control,
Speaker 5: in the event that there is another pandemic. Now, if
Speaker 5: you read all of this, and it's saying the States
Speaker 5: bagged everything up and there was no justification for all
Speaker 5: the things that were done. The biggest problem, one of
Speaker 5: the biggest problems we had during COVID was lots of
Speaker 5: bureaucrats dictating what should or shouldn't be done.
Speaker 1: And now they say we should have a CDC.
Speaker 5: That will be the whole of bureaucrats telling us how
Speaker 5: we should run ourselves during a pandemic China.
Speaker 3: Make it make sense, well, I mean, the irony of
Speaker 3: that is that we knew what to do during a
Speaker 3: pandemic because Tony Abbott, as Healthminess, had written they dropped
Speaker 3: a pandemic plan that sat in the bottom of a
Speaker 3: draw somewhere while we seem to take our cues from
Speaker 3: the Chinese Communist Party and copy their response. The thing
Speaker 3: that I found most interesting in this report, and by
Speaker 3: the way, this report bears witness to why we need
Speaker 3: a Royal commission, because if there were that many mistakes,
Speaker 3: then state premiers, most of whom have now left office,
Speaker 3: but they should be hauled back in to explain things.
Speaker 3: But the report points out that it's fuelled a distrust
Speaker 3: of government, so next time we're in a crisis, most
Speaker 3: people will be most disinclined to believe, let alone do
Speaker 3: anything the government advises. And from a personal point of view,
Speaker 3: I well remember that first press conference where Scott Morrison
Speaker 3: as Prime Minister came on and I remember standing there,
Speaker 3: shot we're closing the borders, we're closing the airports, we're
Speaker 3: closing schools, and I said to my kids out of
Speaker 3: school immediately, because I reasoned, if it's this bad that
Speaker 3: they are going to this must be very, very bad.
Speaker 3: But after about a month and a half, I'm starting
Speaker 3: to think something doesn't add up here.
Speaker 1: And remember two weeks to flatten the curves.
Speaker 3: Do you remember the AFL they're wiping down the goalposts.
Speaker 3: Do you remember the health minister in South Australia saying
Speaker 3: if the ball is don't touch the bill.
Speaker 5: Your same public health officer who said that the only
Speaker 5: place in the world where COVID had spread on a
Speaker 5: pizza box was Adelaide exactly.
Speaker 2: We all remember Pizzagate. That was a classic.
Speaker 4: It's really interesting though, because we forget there are still
Speaker 4: workers who can't work. I mean this story about Victoria's fieries.
Speaker 4: As summer looms, they can't go back to work. We're
Speaker 4: so far behind America on this. There has been so
Speaker 4: many cases where people who were fired due to not
Speaker 4: being vaccinated, not obeying the mandates have been paid out
Speaker 4: masses of money. Just a couple of days ago. The
Speaker 4: most recent case I'm aware of in Chicago, a federal
Speaker 4: court has awarded a million dollars to each person who
Speaker 4: was fired by Chicago's state transit company for refusing to
Speaker 4: take the vacs. They said, we wanted religious exemptions for
Speaker 4: religious reasons. We did not want to take this. We
Speaker 4: were fired instead they now get a million bucks age.
Speaker 4: But this is one of many of these cases in
Speaker 4: the States, and I do wonder how far behind we
Speaker 4: are in terms of Ozzy's realizing that if they take
Speaker 4: them to task, we've had a few successes. Up in Queensland,
Speaker 4: they too could be getting really good payouts for the
Speaker 4: fact that they were cast out of their jobs by
Speaker 4: virtue of not giving into the mat.
Speaker 5: And it is no coincidence that that persists in Victoria,
Speaker 5: the most belligerent state of all, because they will not
Speaker 5: admit that they got anything wrong. And that is the
Speaker 5: problem with this inquiry and its results. Oh they got
Speaker 5: some stuff wrong, but no one who was involved in
Speaker 5: that process will come out over the next week and.
Speaker 1: Say we got it wrong.
Speaker 5: I promise you they will not, and they will get
Speaker 5: away with it because not one of them was Halding.
Speaker 2: And that's the irony, right.
Speaker 3: If you're going to produce a report that says the
Speaker 3: big problem here is you have fueled a lack of
Speaker 3: trust in government, and then you don't call for accountability
Speaker 3: from government, well then you're doing nothing to restore trust
Speaker 3: in government. And if democracy doesn't have trust, you don't
Speaker 3: have democracy. That may well prove to be the biggest
Speaker 3: ramification from the pandemic response, especially if we end up
Speaker 3: in a crisis, whether it's a pandemic or war something else.
Speaker 3: If the public don't trust what they're being told by
Speaker 3: the authorities, then you're in all sorts of troubles.
Speaker 4: Well, I can say that it didn't affect my trust
Speaker 4: in government and always rock bottom and to every rock
Speaker 4: bottom speaking.
Speaker 5: Of a roading trust in government, Let's talk about our
Speaker 5: great mate Albo Freebies, because because it says he pushed
Speaker 5: to upgrade Freebie Albanesi to corruption watchdog Anthony Alberzi has
Speaker 5: been urged by Peter Dutton to refer himself to the
Speaker 5: National Anti Corruption Commission after the Prime Minister continued to
Speaker 5: dodge claims that he asked former Quantus chief executive Allen
Speaker 5: Joyce for personal flight upgrades. I could not believe the
Speaker 5: way he conducted himself today when he was asked about
Speaker 5: all of this, trying to say, oh, you know, just
Speaker 5: Joe Aston, just trying to sell some books I haven't
Speaker 5: seen him, declared that he was a liberal star for
Speaker 5: and that he worked at Quatas, even though it's in
Speaker 5: the first line on the first page of the book
Speaker 5: that he's trying to sell you more on and he's
Speaker 5: trying to We went on about the chairman's lounge access
Speaker 5: for his son, saying it was his plus one well
Speaker 5: as you would have seen on Sharry tonight. Joe Aston
Speaker 5: pointed out that that was never ever declared and of
Speaker 5: course his partner now his Fyonce is declared, so was
Speaker 5: it ever a plus one? There are so many questions here.
Speaker 5: He won't answer it because he knows he's in the
Speaker 5: pood drinking.
Speaker 3: Anthiy Albanze rang Joe Aston and tried to procure a
Speaker 3: free copy.
Speaker 1: Of the book.
Speaker 2: Can I get a pre read?
Speaker 3: I just had to laugh at Anthony Albaneze has been
Speaker 3: urged by Peter Dutton to refer himself to the National
Speaker 3: Anti Corruption Commission. What are the chances of Ethny Albanisi saying, look,
Speaker 3: I want to refer myself. Can you just havession?
Speaker 1: I want to report myself for king k any freebies the.
Speaker 4: I don't think it's going to happen because she wanted
Speaker 4: the nice flikes to the front page of the advertiser.
Speaker 4: Now it turns out alben Easy hasn't been the only
Speaker 4: one earning some well not earning, but enjoying some sweet
Speaker 4: treats from quantas ministers took Quantus freebies after sinking Qatar
Speaker 4: flying labor Rus the splash reads, seven labor ministers and
Speaker 4: assistant ministers were gifted Quantus flight upgrades in the months
Speaker 4: after the Albanesi government blocked rival Qatar from expanding services
Speaker 4: that would have lowered airfares for all Australians. How dumb
Speaker 4: do these people think we are, or maybe the press are,
Speaker 4: that something that is so find outable is never going
Speaker 4: to make the front page splash, Like, this isn't something
Speaker 4: that you have to do all that much deep diving
Speaker 4: to discover, and now we know it's from the top down.
Speaker 4: It wasn't just elbow. They were like, heck, if he's
Speaker 4: in on it, we're in on it. Like you like
Speaker 4: to say, Caleb, it's only a rod if you're not
Speaker 4: in on it. So these guys have all been cashing
Speaker 4: in and little wonder they made sure that potential rival
Speaker 4: never got a chance.
Speaker 2: To be the rival that it could have been.
Speaker 3: You can read all about it in tomorrow's papers.
Speaker 1: It's everywhere.
Speaker 3: We're going to go to a break when we come
Speaker 3: back a woman Susann Airline after they gave her an
Speaker 3: in flight ice cream and didn't tell her it was icy.
Speaker 2: It's coming up in.
Speaker 3: Second all right, welcome back, Caleb. You've got a great
Speaker 3: story about a family who held out with their real estate.
Speaker 1: Who needs the castle when you've got this.
Speaker 5: This family in Adelaide, Salisbury in Adelaide watched all the
Speaker 5: land be developed around them and they said, no, we
Speaker 5: are not giving in. Take a look at the property
Speaker 5: that they have lived on for more than thirty years.
Speaker 5: They've had developers coming and knocking on the door and
Speaker 5: saying we want to take over this place. Literally you
Speaker 5: can see there on either side it's been developed. Housing
Speaker 5: estates have gone in and they've said, one day we're
Speaker 5: going to make shed loads of money out of this.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what happened to parents.
Speaker 5: Carc that the kids put it up for sale. They
Speaker 5: thought they'd get two point two million for it. They
Speaker 5: got five point five million for it. So there you go.
Speaker 1: If you're thinking a hold non hold on.
Speaker 4: I say, if you thought that worker's conclaim we told
Speaker 4: you about earlier was bad, check this out. A woman
Speaker 4: in the States is suing Jet Blue an American Airline
Speaker 4: because the ice cream sandwich they gave.
Speaker 1: Her was too cold.
Speaker 2: Check this out.
Speaker 4: The lawsuit argues that the sweet treat was at a
Speaker 4: temperature below what is reasonable or safe for consumption, and
Speaker 4: quanonas that's the name of the woman was not warned
Speaker 4: of the dangerously cold temperature and solid state of the
Speaker 4: ice cream sandwich she was served. This caused her to
Speaker 4: fracture one of her front teeth, and she wants some money.
Speaker 4: Stay tuned to find out whether she's actually successful.
Speaker 2: This is insane. This is insane.
Speaker 4: At what part of picking up the ice cream sandwich
Speaker 4: wouldn't you just go, maybe it's too hard for me
Speaker 4: to bite into it, or even think to be like,
Speaker 4: now that I have bitten into it, because I'm greedy
Speaker 4: and it's really hard, now I'm going to som well.
Speaker 3: I mean, you would typically hold it in your hand
Speaker 3: and that.
Speaker 1: Would tell you that it is cold. Indeed, you'd squeeze
Speaker 1: it a little bit.
Speaker 3: That would tell you it's solid, and you'd think, if
Speaker 3: I wait a moment, it will fall.
Speaker 1: But apparently you have to serve someone explain that.
Speaker 5: But this is why when you buy a cup of
Speaker 5: takeaway coffee, it's got hot written on the top of it,
Speaker 5: because some dope in the United.
Speaker 1: It's always in the United States, isn't it. They're a
Speaker 1: bit dense over these.
Speaker 2: That is a very head line.
Speaker 5: And the woman put the cup of coffee between her
Speaker 5: legs and then squeezed your legs.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to burn on my legs. It was coffee,
Speaker 1: for goodness sake.
Speaker 5: I just want to know if this woman was eating
Speaker 5: at ice cream at home as a council worker during
Speaker 5: her lunch break and she sustained that injury, would she.
Speaker 1: Be able to sue the council with her My DearS, Taylor,
Speaker 1: you would.
Speaker 3: Get a payout. That's it from us to stick around.
Speaker 3: Coming up is the readA Penny show that's up in
Speaker 3: just a moment.