Speaker 1: Wait, gentlemen, welcome to the late Places.
Speaker 2: Good evening and welcome to the show. I'm Liz Storian.
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you're here joining me this evening is
Speaker 2: mister kel Richards and Joe Hildebrand, so you know you're
Speaker 2: in for a good time.
Speaker 3: Rime contributor contributors here payable.
Speaker 2: Coming up in the papers tonight, a Victorian Council has
Speaker 2: decided that they are going to embrace Australia Day again.
Speaker 2: Miracles do happen, ladies and gentlemen, and Australia's most senior
Speaker 2: public servant defending the fact that under Labor they've added
Speaker 2: thirty six thousand places to the public servant in less
Speaker 2: than four years. You'll laugh out loud when you hear
Speaker 2: his justification for this, and last, but not least, a
Speaker 2: crocodile has been found in a laundry in the Northern Territory,
Speaker 2: because you know it's the Northern Territory. But first, tonight
Speaker 2: we know that Labour's obsession with net zero means that
Speaker 2: they will justify anything in the name of cutting down emissions,
Speaker 2: you name it, They're on the case. And today we
Speaker 2: discover that this also extends to our health sector. Yes,
Speaker 2: we're told that healthcare accounts for roughly five percent of
Speaker 2: global emissions, with most major developed countries committing to decarbonizing
Speaker 2: the sector. The details remain scarce as to how you'd
Speaker 2: pull this off, of course, because how on earth are
Speaker 2: you going to decarbonize a sector on which people rely
Speaker 2: literally not only for their quality of life but to
Speaker 2: keep living well. That's not stopping the labor government. We
Speaker 2: read in the Daily Telegraph today the alben Easy government
Speaker 2: has committed to releasing a healthcare system decarbonization roadmap in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, but researchers have warned there are potentially
Speaker 2: hidden costs right through the healthcare supply chain. Yes, we
Speaker 2: can imagine so. According to analysis by the Menzies Research Center,
Speaker 2: switching a majority of Australian asthma sufferers to more environmentally
Speaker 2: friendly inhala's alone would cost taxpayers and patients more than
Speaker 2: AE hundred million extra annually. What are these new inhalers
Speaker 2: going to do? Are they going to be made of cardboard?
Speaker 2: What are people supposed to do? The article goes on
Speaker 2: to detail, thanks to this research done by MENSIS, that
Speaker 2: even if they changed half of the fifteen million Inhaler's
Speaker 2: purchased annually here in Australia to the more expensive, lesser
Speaker 2: emissions in Haler's. That alone would cost one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty four million dollars. But of course that's just going
Speaker 2: to be labor playing with more subsidies, more of our
Speaker 2: taxpayer dollars, just handing them out like freebies. Joe, we
Speaker 2: have to have lost our minds when we're talking about
Speaker 2: not only this, but they're talking about we've got to
Speaker 2: reduce the emissions patients and doctors use up visiting each other.
Speaker 3: I think I think if there was any area that
Speaker 3: you were going to make exempt from carbon reduction targets,
Speaker 3: it would probably be life saving medical care. I think
Speaker 3: maybe that's I say, you know what, we'll just focus
Speaker 3: on the cars. We'll just go with the evs. Well,
Speaker 3: you know, we'll get a solar powered client. Your doctors,
Speaker 3: you just do whatever it takes. You can just I mean,
Speaker 3: paper straws are bad enough. Imagine a paper venal and
Speaker 3: that's not going to get soggy. Come man, I think
Speaker 3: this is crazy. I think it is one of those things.
Speaker 3: I was reminded of an event I went to many
Speaker 3: many years ago, and I'm very worthy of and fantastic
Speaker 3: event about raising money for or basically community housing and
Speaker 3: extremely low cost housing for people. And they were trying
Speaker 3: to raise money to put solar power solar panels on
Speaker 3: the roof so that the electricity bill would be cheaper
Speaker 3: for the and I kind of just thought, you sort
Speaker 3: of get like, I could see it makes sense. I
Speaker 3: could see it sort of was going to be cheaper
Speaker 3: and everything. But this didn't look like a homelessness initiative anymore.
Speaker 3: It looked like something else. And I feel like this
Speaker 3: doesn't look like a healthcare initiative anymore. It looks like
Speaker 3: something else. I think, just leave. Let healthcare do whatever
Speaker 3: it has to do to care for people's health. The
Speaker 3: clues in the name kind of.
Speaker 2: A sension go.
Speaker 3: If you want to decarbonize other economies transport, you know,
Speaker 3: fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: They won't stop.
Speaker 2: They won't for sake of just five percent of global emissions.
Speaker 2: This is nonsense, and there is no way to do
Speaker 2: it without making healthcare less affordable.
Speaker 1: And possibly less efficient. That worries me.
Speaker 4: I've got to say, as an asthmatic, I've got to
Speaker 4: tell you ventilin is not destroying the global climate. Right
Speaker 4: you can. They're tiny, little inhalers. You take minute, little puffs,
Speaker 4: and they'll find something which they think is fractionally better.
Speaker 4: My worry is it will be fractionally less efficient. So
Speaker 4: there'll be some asthmatic shall be lying on their bed gasping,
Speaker 4: and people will be saying, no, no, it's all right.
Speaker 4: You're gasping, but you're good because you're saving the planet.
Speaker 1: You're a wonderful person.
Speaker 3: They'll be emitting let's co I too.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, when they die, you find people will admit
Speaker 4: very little co too.
Speaker 2: Dead people don't admit any.
Speaker 4: That's just this is ridiculous. I mean, they actually lied
Speaker 4: to us. They said we're only coming after fossil fuels.
Speaker 4: They're getting after fossil fuels. So now they're turning to
Speaker 4: crippling farming, crippling long distance transportation, crippling manufacturing, crippling the
Speaker 4: healthcare sector. What it amounts to. I think now this
Speaker 4: is just me being Okay, this is serious. This is
Speaker 4: philosophy stuff. This is idolatry. This is worshiping the creation
Speaker 4: instead of the creator, and it's any level of worship
Speaker 4: up to and including human sacrifice. Whatever we need to
Speaker 4: do to make the climate safe. If a few people
Speaker 4: have to die, a few people have to be uncomfortable,
Speaker 4: that's okay.
Speaker 2: Are I always said of this agenda, it is essentially
Speaker 2: very anti human. Humans are being made to suffer, but
Speaker 2: being told whatever the suffering, whether it's energy prices, whatever
Speaker 2: the suffering, whatever form it takes, it's justified because we're
Speaker 2: saving the planet. I mean, I could not believe reading
Speaker 2: in the government's National Health and Climate Strategy today they
Speaker 2: highlight the need to reduce staff travel and consider emissions
Speaker 2: from patient and visitor travel. How are you going to
Speaker 2: do that without affecting health outcomes? What are we going
Speaker 2: to have zoom calls now for the buzz patients reveal?
Speaker 3: As was revealed just a couple of weeks ago, even
Speaker 3: Australia's climate change ambassador doesn't seem to have been able
Speaker 3: to resist taking overseas trips on araplanes. They never practiced,
Speaker 3: so I'm pretty sure that you know, if they can't,
Speaker 3: if it's essential for them to have face to face
Speaker 3: on it. I'm pretty sure it's essential for doctors to
Speaker 3: have face to face on it. But again, I don't
Speaker 3: think it's this great conspiracy that I don't think it's
Speaker 3: any human I mean, there's no there's no liberal planet,
Speaker 3: there are no human.
Speaker 1: Mind.
Speaker 3: But you, well, you have to you have to find
Speaker 3: a balance. And I know that's very difficult for some
Speaker 3: people to accept, but you have to find a balance
Speaker 3: and say, right, yes, we do.
Speaker 2: Would you agree that this isn't finding a balance?
Speaker 3: That's right? This is exactly what I said, Like, why
Speaker 3: why go after and a sector which is absolutely non
Speaker 3: negotiably vital for human survival, for human health i e.
Speaker 3: The healthcare sector when it is a tiny tiny amount
Speaker 3: of the system, And why not go after the far homes,
Speaker 3: you know, the big industrial stuff. And again we I've
Speaker 3: even said we still need to do that in a
Speaker 3: way that doesn't sacrifice people. On the ultra of ideology
Speaker 3: that would make sure we're replacement.
Speaker 1: They are still going after people.
Speaker 4: If you put up power costs, it is old agg
Speaker 4: pensioners who don't eat their homes in winter.
Speaker 1: It is people who end up paying the prices. People
Speaker 1: is suffer. So it's basically cruel in the end, and
Speaker 1: they don't.
Speaker 2: The large amount of these policies don't actually affect the
Speaker 2: planet in a great way. We can talk about evs,
Speaker 2: we can talk about solar panels. Are they really better
Speaker 2: for the environment. No, when you boil it down, they're not.
Speaker 2: I've always said of this agenda. Once you realize that
Speaker 2: you are the carbon they really want to reduce, it
Speaker 2: starts adding up all these crazy policies. It starts making sense.
Speaker 3: Let's get on to a nice, positive, cheery topic.
Speaker 5: To Queensland now, where you would not believe this story
Speaker 5: if it weren't in the news. Today we learn that
Speaker 5: over three hundred vials of deadly pathogens have gone missing
Speaker 5: from a lad in Queensland. And get this, this actually
Speaker 5: happened in August of last.
Speaker 2: Year, and nobody told us. We don't even We still
Speaker 2: don't know where these vials are.
Speaker 3: Plus side, nobody's dead.
Speaker 2: But you know, so far so good, So far so good.
Speaker 2: Nobody panics, so far, so good. But this has made
Speaker 2: international headlines. As Fox News rights, the government has instructed
Speaker 2: Queensland Health Australia's Public Health Department.
Speaker 3: Understand itzation how it's actually just how it works, or
Speaker 3: does Queensland's Public Health to.
Speaker 2: Launch an investigation into what's being described as a major
Speaker 2: historical breach of biosecurity protocols. According to the online media statement.
Speaker 2: It was reported that three hundred and twenty three vials
Speaker 2: of multiple infectious viruses, including hendravirus, lysa virus, which contains
Speaker 2: rabies virus by the way, enters virus, went missing from
Speaker 2: Queensland's Public Health virology laboratory. Say that twice fast in
Speaker 2: August twenty twenty three. Now the government says it doesn't
Speaker 2: know whether these infectious samples were stolen or destroyed, but
Speaker 2: it does say, quote there is no evidence of risk
Speaker 2: to the community, and quote so you don't know where
Speaker 2: they are. They could be safely binned somewhere. Maybe they
Speaker 2: were destroyed, hence nobody panic. Or it could be you
Speaker 2: don't know where they are or how they went missing,
Speaker 2: whether they've potentially stolen. But you're just telling everyone there's
Speaker 2: no risk to the community. These two things do not
Speaker 2: go hand in handcap.
Speaker 4: And it's not three of these vals, it's three hundred
Speaker 4: and twenty three of these vals. I read this and
Speaker 4: I thought it's a black market for this stuff. This
Speaker 4: is bizarre. I did work out that biosecurity for Queensland.
Speaker 4: We can't take fruit across the border. But if you're
Speaker 4: carrying little vials of highly infections.
Speaker 3: That's perfectly all right.
Speaker 1: We're not worried about that sort of thing. So it's
Speaker 1: just so many They call this a major historical breach
Speaker 1: in bios security protocols.
Speaker 3: You reckon just a little bit. I think if if
Speaker 3: there was going to be a mass kind of wu
Speaker 3: Han style outbreak of deadly virus as well, I think
Speaker 3: we wouldn't know about it by now. So if I
Speaker 3: was a betting man, which I am actually so I'm
Speaker 3: happy a bet, then I would put it on someone
Speaker 3: has actually destroyed them, but they haven't done that paperwork.
Speaker 2: Just put their hand up and say, yeah, okay, nobody panic.
Speaker 2: I destroyed them.
Speaker 3: Because it's Stephen Miles's Queensland. The place isn't absolutely you know.
Speaker 2: That means you can get.
Speaker 4: They're in the back of a fruge somewhere and let's
Speaker 4: watched the paperwork.
Speaker 3: That's right, that's right.
Speaker 2: Someone keep an ordered.
Speaker 3: Again. I'm not this is I don't run the joint.
Speaker 3: I don't run the joint. I love the fact that
Speaker 3: Fox News just assumes that Queensland Health is Australia's public
Speaker 3: health department, like all of Australia's nations, which is all
Speaker 3: most Americans would think. I think, oh yeah, it's just
Speaker 3: a giant thing. Everyone's going around in thongs, in board
Speaker 3: shorts and there's a bench there in kangaroos they run.
Speaker 4: Around with ba We do need to say to the viewers,
Speaker 4: if you feel a strange sort of a twinge, go
Speaker 4: and check it out. I'd be part of the vials
Speaker 4: that turned up at your place. Can I say there
Speaker 4: are there are? Actually, I mean we laugh about that,
Speaker 4: but there are some serious things happening in England. The
Speaker 4: Spectator which is a great magazine. I am a columnist
Speaker 4: for the Spectator of Australia, so I speak in a
Speaker 4: completely unbiased way. There was great magazine. Now the editor
Speaker 4: is Michael Gove. He replaced Fraiser Nelson, who was the
Speaker 4: editor until recently. They published online an article about Nikola Sturgeon,
Speaker 4: who was the Chief Minister of Scotland for a long time,
Speaker 4: and just in passing the author referred to a transgender
Speaker 4: person as a man pretending to be a woman. Well,
Speaker 4: they got very upset about that. The press watchdog is accused,
Speaker 4: has accused these people and produced a chilling effect on
Speaker 4: free speech. According to the editor Michael Gove. The blog
Speaker 4: has just taken over. So the idea that this man
Speaker 4: was not allowed to express in the article his view,
Speaker 4: this was a man claiming to be a woman. There
Speaker 4: is in England something called a gender recognition panel, and
Speaker 4: in twenty eighteen this person went to the gender that's
Speaker 4: the person gender recognition panel and officially got recognized as
Speaker 4: being a woman. Why didn't they have a chromosome recognition
Speaker 4: panel so that you were checked to being.
Speaker 1: Xx a woman or x Y a man. And if
Speaker 1: an x Y.
Speaker 4: Person wants to dress and live as an XX person,
Speaker 4: they can do that as a free country. But part
Speaker 4: of being a free countries you have free speech, which
Speaker 4: means we're allowed to say this is an x Y
Speaker 4: person who likes to live as an EX person. We're
Speaker 4: allowed to say that because that's what's actually going on.
Speaker 1: Except in Britain.
Speaker 4: It's quite frightening the implication for free speech.
Speaker 1: I would have.
Speaker 2: Thought absolutely, And of course it's not ipsoce's role to
Speaker 2: dictate freedom of speech issues. They're basically in the UK.
Speaker 2: They're our version of Akma, who pulls up anyone in
Speaker 2: the Australian communications and media space on any untruth or
Speaker 2: if you're breaking a certain part of their code, but
Speaker 2: it's not their job to enforce ideology, which is what
Speaker 2: IPSACE basically the UK version of AKMA is doing here,
Speaker 2: and it sends it does send a chilling message. I
Speaker 2: think guys, going forward, you're not allowed to acknowledge biological reality.
Speaker 3: Now, no, I think people I think people should be
Speaker 3: I mean, I think a whole bunch of people should
Speaker 3: probably just get over it. But I think, you know,
Speaker 3: I think people should be able to say, I identify
Speaker 3: as a woman, and that's that she looks perfectly womanly
Speaker 3: to me. And you know, even if she didn't, she
Speaker 3: could say that I want to be a woman and
Speaker 3: that's how I feel, and that's how I'd like to
Speaker 3: be addressed, Okay, whatever. People should have that individual freedom,
Speaker 3: but again I.
Speaker 2: Bet they don't have the freedom everybody else.
Speaker 3: But I do think where it does cross the line,
Speaker 3: I think is when you are saying, when you're basically saying, right, well,
Speaker 3: these are my pronouns. Now, everyone in the world has
Speaker 3: to tell me theirs or it's a hate crime. And
Speaker 3: the more chilling extension of that is that anyone who
Speaker 3: questions it is therefore actionable under the law and can
Speaker 3: actually be censored and told no, you can't say that.
Speaker 2: And that's what this president says. Then they breach the
Speaker 2: editor's code of practice. So going forward, anyone who's writing
Speaker 2: anything in the UK will have breached the same code
Speaker 2: if they don't.
Speaker 3: And even if people think that that is acceptable or whatever,
Speaker 3: then what happens when, for example, you go into satire.
Speaker 3: What happens when you know people are taking the mickey
Speaker 3: out of people, and people take the mickey out of
Speaker 3: people for all sorts of different personal attributes. Do you
Speaker 3: then start going after comedians like I don't know, Raygun
Speaker 3: did never forget because you know, imagine that scene in
Speaker 3: the Life of bran And where the People's Front of
Speaker 3: Judea are not to be confused with the gd in
Speaker 3: People's Front are sitting there and there's a woman who
Speaker 3: says that I demand the right this is I demand
Speaker 3: the right to go into the arena and be fed
Speaker 3: to the lions, just like all the men do. And
Speaker 3: they said, okay, well you can have that right, you
Speaker 3: know in you go, you know, be fed to lunch.
Speaker 3: I know, I don't want to be fed to the lions.
Speaker 3: I just want the right to be fed to the lions,
Speaker 3: and again it's very, very funny. There was also a
Speaker 3: big trans skit in that as well, where one of
Speaker 3: them suddenly identified as a woman and said that I
Speaker 3: would I would like to be what I want to
Speaker 3: want to I want to be a woman, and I
Speaker 3: want to have babies, And the John Cleese character says, what,
Speaker 3: you can't have babies. You don't have a womb, and
Speaker 3: they all sit down and say all right, all right,
Speaker 3: and they vote on another resolution taking the piece out
Speaker 3: of all these socialist collectives that sprung up in the seventies,
Speaker 3: said all right, we all agree that you have the
Speaker 3: right to have babies, even though you can't have babies.
Speaker 3: Now again, if you were to say that under these laws,
Speaker 3: I am pretty sure that you would run foul of them.
Speaker 3: And therefore the UK untacting the long way home. I apologize,
Speaker 3: but that UK has just found a way to kill
Speaker 3: off Monty Python, its greatest comedy export. Well done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it's absolutely insufferable this journal. Gareth Roberts was
Speaker 2: simply exercising his rights to freedom of speech, expressing what
Speaker 2: I dare say the vast majority of us still believe
Speaker 2: is a simple biological reality. No very few among us
Speaker 2: believes that a piece of paper can make your woman.
Speaker 2: It cannot magically get rid of a y chromosome. So
Speaker 2: good Lucke where they're going forward.
Speaker 3: Whether that's true or not. The point is, should you
Speaker 3: be able to say something that is wrong stupid?
Speaker 4: True, you can't get rid of a y chromosome. But
Speaker 4: there's there's even more. What's interesting is this is not
Speaker 4: just happening in England. It's happening in America. In America,
Speaker 4: they've actually got the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech.
Speaker 4: So when there was an attempt by the State Department
Speaker 4: to circumvent the First Amendment, they had to be really
Speaker 4: devious about it and.
Speaker 1: Work out their way to get around it.
Speaker 4: They set up a thing called the Global Engagement Center,
Speaker 4: just that wonderful.
Speaker 1: Maeration is never in the name, and they.
Speaker 4: Funded something called the Global Disinformation Index, which was a
Speaker 4: British organization which then contacted advertisers and told them not
Speaker 4: to advertise on websites that were conservative. So by having
Speaker 4: several links in the chain, you could get around the
Speaker 4: First Amendment. So everyone, it seems, trying to cut down
Speaker 4: on freedom of speech these days. That's what's under attack.
Speaker 4: That's really important. That's what we need to defend, isn't it?
Speaker 2: One hundred percent? And now the Biden admin the State
Speaker 2: Department is scuffling to get rid of the GOEC because
Speaker 2: they know, come the Trump term is going to be
Speaker 2: one of the first things to get turfed. It's previously
Speaker 2: been funded to the tune of one hundred million dollars
Speaker 2: censoring Americans speech online, and they've decided, well, we're not
Speaker 2: going to renew that one hundred million dollars fully upcoming year.
Speaker 3: Now it could joined by a lifetime's worth of environmentally
Speaker 3: friendly vential and in highlands for that money.
Speaker 2: Now, the history of the GOEC is actually quite curious.
Speaker 2: It did start out as legit, as explained by Mike
Speaker 2: Benns he's a former Trump State Department official on the
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan podcast. Originally, here is what the GEC started
Speaker 2: out as.
Speaker 6: So this idea that that isis was recruiting on Facebook
Speaker 6: and Twitter. Gave a license to the State Department to
Speaker 6: create this thing called the Global Engagement Center, which was
Speaker 6: really the first official censorship capacity in the US government.
Speaker 6: It predated the DHS stuff that would come along in
Speaker 6: the Trump and the Trump era, and this gave the
Speaker 6: State Department the direct back channel, the direct coordinating capacity
Speaker 6: with all the social media companies to tell them about ISIS,
Speaker 6: ISIS accounts, ISIS narratives that we're trending. Suddenly, the State
Speaker 6: Department is a real time heat map of everyone who
Speaker 6: is likely to be or hits a certain confidence level
Speaker 6: being suspected to support ISIS.
Speaker 2: That was from twenty fourteen to twenty and sixteen. Very
Speaker 2: legit organization, you'd think, but many of these things start
Speaker 2: out that way. But in twenty sixteen, Rick Stengel, who
Speaker 2: put the thing together and was running it, had a
Speaker 2: massive change of heart. Here's Mike Ben's again talking about
Speaker 2: what Rick decided once Trump came to office.
Speaker 6: When Trump won the election in twenty sixteen, he became
Speaker 6: convinced that actually the First Amendment was a mistake. He
Speaker 6: actually openly advocated in the Washington Post in an op
Speaker 6: ed that we effectively end the First Amendment, that we
Speaker 6: copycat Europe's laws, and then he wrote a whole book
Speaker 6: on it. This is the guy who started affectively the
Speaker 6: country's first censorship center. In twenty sixteen, the Global Engagement
Speaker 6: Center pivoted from being counter terrorism to counterpopulism. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 6: they were afraid that social media rising all these right
Speaker 6: wing populist parties to power would effectively collapse the entire
Speaker 6: rules based international order unless there was international censorship, and
Speaker 6: they talked about that quite openly in twenty seventeen in
Speaker 6: as they were creating this whole censorship infrastructure.
Speaker 2: Now Concerto conservative outlets The Daily Wire, the Federalist, and
Speaker 2: the Texas State are currently suing the DEEC, So it'll
Speaker 2: be interesting to know what happens with that now that
Speaker 2: they're kind of going under. It was revealed in early
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three last year that they had in fact
Speaker 2: been depriving several of these outfits of money because they
Speaker 2: use these online platforms to post things, get subscribers. For
Speaker 2: the amount of viewers you get, the platform then pays
Speaker 2: you money. So it was demonetizing anyone it deemed as
Speaker 2: being conservative or far right. We know how much they
Speaker 2: love to use that. Elon Musk tweeted in February of
Speaker 2: last year, the worst offender in US government censorship and
Speaker 2: media manipulation is an obscure agency called GEC. He did
Speaker 2: a follow up tweet to that saying they are a
Speaker 2: threat to our democracy. Well that's the line they fed
Speaker 2: the media about me. They had knives out for anyone
Speaker 2: who wasn't subscribing to their way of thinking. Now, I
Speaker 2: would love to think that we'd see something similar in
Speaker 2: Australia with regards to America. Seems to be ditching a
Speaker 2: lot of these policies, a lot of these agencies, even
Speaker 2: before Trump's made it into the Indeed, and yet the
Speaker 2: alban Easy government, as we know, due to previous bills
Speaker 2: it's tried to get up one successfully isn't of the
Speaker 2: same mind as kel.
Speaker 4: No. This man, Mike Bens that we saw with Joe
Speaker 4: Rogan is the CEO of an organization called FFO Foundation
Speaker 4: for Freedom Online. Because the place where they start with
Speaker 4: censorship is online. That's where they say, oh, well this
Speaker 4: is doing stuff which is disturbing the children, and anyone
Speaker 4: can pick it up and it's really dangerous. And that
Speaker 4: once your censorship starts, it starts online. And the worry
Speaker 4: is it won't stop there, it will keep going. Well,
Speaker 4: we've successfully got rid of this stuff online, now we
Speaker 4: can start looking at newspapers and magazines and radio and
Speaker 4: television and everything else. Any censorship anywhere is a worry.
Speaker 4: I think the under sixteen thing was a mistake. I
Speaker 4: know there are people who won't a group, and I
Speaker 4: think it was a mistake. And the attempt to bring
Speaker 4: in the Disinformation Misinformation Bill basically says is a government
Speaker 4: saying we will determine what is true what is false.
Speaker 4: But the whole premise is wrong because there are lot
Speaker 4: two categories. There are at least four categories. There's true, false, disputed,
Speaker 4: and opinion. And what they're attempting to do is to
Speaker 4: pretend there's nothing disputed and there's nothing that's opinion. It's
Speaker 4: either simple true or simple false, and will say which
Speaker 4: one it is.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is based on a lie.
Speaker 4: The whole thing is a delusion, and it makes it
Speaker 4: incredibly dangerous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially in the age where it's not opinion versus
Speaker 2: opinion anymore, in the twenty first century, it's facts versus facts,
Speaker 2: and that is completely deadly when it comes to discussion
Speaker 2: on any topic.
Speaker 3: I think that is true. I think you've got a
Speaker 3: world which is so polarized and when there is so
Speaker 3: much information and so much media that you can basically
Speaker 3: can construct an entirely parallel universe that is backed up
Speaker 3: and supported by a whole bunch of evidence, the whole
Speaker 3: bunch of facts that is completely in direct opposition to
Speaker 3: another parallel universe that someone has made an equally convincing
Speaker 3: case for. And we've seen even with things like were
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's rallies absolutely chocolate block full of crowds or
Speaker 3: were they half empty? And again you have people showing
Speaker 3: different images from different times trying to argue their points.
Speaker 4: That just means it's disputed. It doesn't mean there's not
Speaker 4: a truth. The truth is the truth. I was reading
Speaker 4: a philosopher, You're true truth is what is the curse?
Speaker 1: That's the truth.
Speaker 3: Because then they say, well, we're just going to not
Speaker 3: allow things that aren't true. We're simply going to say
Speaker 3: only allow things.
Speaker 4: You know, We're going to pretend there's nothing which is disputed.
Speaker 4: We won't allow any dispute, we won't debate the facts.
Speaker 3: If you believe in free speech, you have to accept
Speaker 3: the fact that people are going to believe too. Diametrically.
Speaker 3: I could say to you it is an absolute fact.
Speaker 3: It is an absolute truth that God exists right now. Obviously,
Speaker 3: there are plenty of people going to say there's actually,
Speaker 3: in fact, no evidence that is not true, or some
Speaker 3: people might say it's disputed or whatever, but that's.
Speaker 1: Not what it's about. But they're not saying that.
Speaker 4: They're saying, we won't have disputes about anything. We will
Speaker 4: just say either that's true or that's full.
Speaker 2: And everything else is disinformation.
Speaker 4: Everything else is this information. They won't allow that debate.
Speaker 3: That you're saying that there are absolute truths. There are
Speaker 3: things that are absolutely true and things that are That
Speaker 3: is what they're saying. You are falling into their trap.
Speaker 1: No, i'm not.
Speaker 4: I'm giving you the Alan White, great British philosopher. I
Speaker 4: wrote a book on truth. It's an excellent how things are,
Speaker 4: How things are is what truth is. Now sometimes that's really.
Speaker 2: Hang on, there is objective.
Speaker 4: Hang on, No, there is no No, it's very simple
Speaker 4: how things are with simple things, it's really easy. It's
Speaker 4: either raining outside at the moment where it's not how
Speaker 4: things are as the truth. The problem is knowing how
Speaker 4: things are, and that means there's a big disputed debatable area. No,
Speaker 4: there's no doubt about truth. There is a there is
Speaker 4: an absolute reality, which is how things are. Finding out
Speaker 4: what it is and understanding what it is and agreeing
Speaker 4: what it is is hard. But there is such a
Speaker 4: thing as truth. It's how things are. People who reject
Speaker 4: that concept are just going mad in the lush.
Speaker 3: And that is exactly what their position isn't allow anything
Speaker 3: in between. That's right. If it's if you're saying something
Speaker 3: that's not true, that's dangerous and that could lead to
Speaker 3: catastrophic consequences. Therefore we will we will not allow things
Speaker 3: that aren't true. That's that's exactly their argument.
Speaker 2: That's how they get to discign the narrative. But we
Speaker 2: haven't seen the end of the GEC because while they're
Speaker 2: not renewing the funding, diversing those staff members different agencies,
Speaker 2: different bureaus within the next administration. So good luck Trumpers
Speaker 2: for ferreting those guys out wherever they end up next.
Speaker 3: We're housing them, that's what they call it in the
Speaker 3: TV industry. Right, No, Ray is still a valued member
Speaker 3: of the member of the network. We're just going to
Speaker 3: put him over here.
Speaker 4: He'll be at home, because most public servants in America
Speaker 4: are not actually going into the office.
Speaker 3: Right, Let's go something nice and light and bright, because
Speaker 3: we do like to mix it up. On this show. Indeed,
Speaker 3: the spite of horrific anity centertory attacks throughout Australia, which
Speaker 3: just that was that I should that's exactly right. I've
Speaker 3: got sense it for that. And just when you thought
Speaker 3: they got a batter they could with the fire bombing
Speaker 3: of a synagogue and they're pursuing the suspects obviously over that.
Speaker 3: There was another outbreak in Sydney which I think has
Speaker 3: really and in this case cars were firebombed and houses
Speaker 3: were also damaged, and there has been this incredible I
Speaker 3: think there's been a sort of collective awakening among Australians
Speaker 3: generally who didn't realize just how ferocious this was and
Speaker 3: just how hero and anti Semiticism is once it gets going.
Speaker 3: And I think and I like to think that the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister has understood this. But here's a report from
Speaker 3: scott and News car set on fire and buildings vandalized
Speaker 3: with anti Semitic slurs in Malara as Sydney Jewish community
Speaker 3: attacked again. And I did read that some of those
Speaker 3: buildings bractually homes and residences. And how's this there's another
Speaker 3: bit of graffiti in Sydney. We can pull it up.
Speaker 3: It says, quote unquote Hitler was right. That's very interesting,
Speaker 3: but this didn't seem to provide enough of a clue
Speaker 3: for lovely chap Chris Taylor from ABC, who wasn't quite
Speaker 3: sure if these were anti semitical. And I mean, from
Speaker 3: what I remember, Hitler thought things that were mostly they
Speaker 3: were pretty anti jew I think history lastly, but I
Speaker 3: think quite a bit of an anti Semite. And so
Speaker 3: if he was right, maybe that's a he was right
Speaker 3: about transport infrastructure. Anyway, This is Chris Taylor talking to
Speaker 3: Premier Chris Mins on the ABC about this.
Speaker 7: Just on your wording in your statements this morning, what's
Speaker 7: your reasoning for branding the attack anti Semitic and not
Speaker 7: anti Israel? How do you make a distinction?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think we would have to be willful
Speaker 2: at this point to turn a blind eye to that
Speaker 2: sequence of event and suggested to anything other than an
Speaker 2: anti Semitic attack.
Speaker 7: So if you're calling it anti Semitic rather than just
Speaker 7: a political anti Israel statement, what you've been in public
Speaker 7: life a long time, would you say anti Semitism is
Speaker 7: at an all time high in your experience?
Speaker 3: Yes, I would, I swear to God that pause is
Speaker 3: one of the greatest pieces of radio I have ever
Speaker 3: heard of. Our life is actually asking me this, yes, yes,
Speaker 3: and Christ's love the boke. It's anti Semitic, by the way,
Speaker 3: not anti Semitic keepers. That's just semantics though, and I'm
Speaker 3: an anti semantic. But again I do find it, and
Speaker 3: again not having Christale who's a great boat. But I
Speaker 3: think it is. I think there there are still some
Speaker 3: people who are actually struggling to understand that what they
Speaker 3: or people they talked to thought was just you know,
Speaker 3: anti Zionism or anti Israel, is actually just anti jew
Speaker 3: And I think the scales are coming down.
Speaker 4: They're now working out that anti Israel and anti Semitic
Speaker 4: are not the same thing. I mean, for what happened
Speaker 4: in the import interesting it is for what happened in
Speaker 4: Marlara to be anti Israel, they had to assume was
Speaker 4: playing a role in the war between Gaza and Israel.
Speaker 1: Willara is not playing a role. It's got nothing to
Speaker 1: do with that.
Speaker 4: The only reason they chose Willara is because there's a
Speaker 4: big Jewish population. In other words, it's not anti Israel,
Speaker 4: it's anti Jewish. It's Jewish hatred. It's hatred of the
Speaker 4: Jewish people.
Speaker 3: But the problem is that those two things coalesce so
Speaker 3: that you have people who say that they're and again
Speaker 3: I know you're calling this out, say oh no, I'm
Speaker 3: not atly Jewish, un just anti zion Israeli those two
Speaker 3: things more.
Speaker 2: Again, Nvyentai, what Bibi Netanya who is doing? And I
Speaker 2: know hardcore Zionist jew maked In Bondai, who have absolutely
Speaker 2: hated for as long as I can remember, especially since
Speaker 2: October seven.
Speaker 3: And the majority of Israelis.
Speaker 2: Sins indeed, and we know that he's wildly unpopular in
Speaker 2: his own country. So I think it is an important
Speaker 2: distinction to say you can be anti what is going
Speaker 2: on in that part of the world right now without
Speaker 2: being anti Semitic. And it's bb who's really put his
Speaker 2: foot in that, because he has said very recently to
Speaker 2: be anti Israel is to be anti Semitic.
Speaker 3: That's a very but the problem but the problem is
Speaker 3: proven right by these acts. The problem is that these
Speaker 3: acts are being perpetrated, suppose.
Speaker 2: Perpetrated with the cause of pales and.
Speaker 3: That's right, and they and they are using the cause
Speaker 3: of Palestine and the cause of anti Israel activism to
Speaker 3: target not Israel, but Jews.
Speaker 2: Amitic.
Speaker 4: I wrote the word column about this, arguing that people
Speaker 4: who are really anti Semitic, who when you finally get
Speaker 4: them with a drink or two in them and they're
Speaker 4: having a start talking about well it's rich Jewish bankers
Speaker 4: who control the world. They're really anti Semitic. They've always
Speaker 4: used code to hide that. They don't want to say it,
Speaker 4: so at one stage they call themselves anti Israel rather
Speaker 4: than andy Semittic, and now they'll use the expression I'm
Speaker 4: pro Palestine, but addie, Israel and pro Palestine are code
Speaker 4: words that actually mean I hate Jews. That's what they mean,
Speaker 4: I think, and I think the language is simply intended
Speaker 4: to be deceptive.
Speaker 2: Well, you wouldn't think that someone who went to this
Speaker 2: effort of going to on cliff and putting this piece
Speaker 2: of graffiti up would have at least done their homework
Speaker 2: as to how to spell Israel. In case you missed it,
Speaker 2: here's the graphic. My goodness, how can you be filled
Speaker 2: with so much hatred and yet you can't even spell
Speaker 2: out the name of your desired victim properly? I mean,
Speaker 2: who are these flogs? It really points to someone who's
Speaker 2: quite uneducated.
Speaker 4: We'll now move to discussing the new south Well state
Speaker 4: education to pro.
Speaker 3: University education.
Speaker 2: Comment on that should have got Mens to comment on that,
Speaker 2: although of course there's no proof that whoever did it
Speaker 2: was educated here in New South Wales. So Men's is
Speaker 2: off the hook on this one.
Speaker 3: He's off the hook on everything. He's awesome. He should
Speaker 3: be wearing a blue spandex suit with a big, biggest fan.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you someone who someone else who means has
Speaker 3: no truck with. That's noodle arm. Little measly upper middle
Speaker 3: class activists who are probably all vegan. They're floating around
Speaker 3: the Castle Harbor. There has been and this is the thing.
Speaker 3: I don't know why we can't seem to just throw
Speaker 3: the book at these guys, possibly because they're so depleted
Speaker 3: from iron from their vegan diet. If we threw the
Speaker 3: book at them, it could potentially be fatal.
Speaker 2: I'd be more than happy to throw the book regardless.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe we could throw a pamphlet at the risk
Speaker 3: I just sort of blow them over. But this is
Speaker 3: an incredible story, the convictions and all these activists who
Speaker 3: blocked the biggest coalport in Australia, the one at Newcastle.
Speaker 3: They have been dropped for Newcastle protesting Katherine Cock. And
Speaker 3: this is, by the way, just saying this is a
Speaker 3: multicultural smager's board of offenders here.
Speaker 2: I mean, you think we do love diversit.
Speaker 3: It's absolutely fantastic these guys. They're all for multiculture, they're
Speaker 3: all for you know people, and they represent the true Australia.
Speaker 3: It's not like they're a bunch of snot nosed over
Speaker 3: privileged white kids from university. Let's just go over there.
Speaker 3: Let's just go back to their names again.
Speaker 4: We have Catherine Cock, Catherine Cock, Kimberly Cross.
Speaker 3: Croxford, Tony Sterei and Caitlin McMahon. I don't think any
Speaker 3: of them are from banks Town, but I bet they're
Speaker 3: pro Palace.
Speaker 4: Convictions were quashed and their fines have been removed on
Speaker 4: the basis that they genuinely believe there's a climate crisis,
Speaker 4: there's an emergency, and they were acting out of their
Speaker 4: beliefs in order to save humanity and save the planet.
Speaker 4: Can I offer you three simple I know this is
Speaker 4: not the place to have belonged debate, but three really
Speaker 4: short propositions. Climate change is normal, always happened Secondly, politicians
Speaker 4: can't change the global climate. Thirdly, human beings are adaptable,
Speaker 4: will adapt to anything. Therefore, relax, nothing to panic about,
Speaker 4: no emergency. That's where we'll get to in ten or
Speaker 4: twenty years from now, when people will say, oh, there
Speaker 4: was nothing to worry about. It was a big hoax.
Speaker 4: When we get to that point, this judge is going
Speaker 4: to look really dumb because he said, to these people,
Speaker 4: believe the hoax. They're nice people, they were sincere, they
Speaker 4: were actually acting on the hoax they believed in.
Speaker 1: Therefore we should let them off.
Speaker 2: On your parades.
Speaker 1: Calvil.
Speaker 2: But I think in ten to twenty years we'll all
Speaker 2: have attached to us our missions clocker for the day
Speaker 2: and things.
Speaker 3: All be that.
Speaker 2: That is how quickly they are putting processes in place.
Speaker 2: So these guys did get really hard fines and time
Speaker 2: you name it. And then this judge comes in and
Speaker 2: lets them off on appeal on conditional release orders, which
Speaker 2: means basically absolutely nothing as long as they don't reoffend
Speaker 2: with it. The amount of time of the conditional Relaseow
Speaker 2: where do we even have these hardcore laws When we
Speaker 2: all get excited about them and they all get off
Speaker 2: with nothing more than a slap on the rest stationed
Speaker 2: will be back with a croc in a laundry. You
Speaker 2: can't miss that welcome back. Let's get stuck into the papers.
Speaker 2: We're bringing you tomorrow's news tonight. Therefore it's quite exclusive,
Speaker 2: isn't it, Joe, You've got.
Speaker 3: Certainly is the Canberra Time unlocked, the key to time
Speaker 3: travel here on the lake, debate lives and yes the camera.
Speaker 3: Time's my favorite tabloid newspaper with their weird, weird quote
Speaker 3: marks that look like something that got rejected by Lego ninjago.
Speaker 3: Their main story is APS growing slower than the population.
Speaker 3: This is obviously someone's quote. And who's quote is it? Well,
Speaker 3: it's the head of the APS the Australia. It's all okay,
Speaker 3: lovely man.
Speaker 4: Remind people APS means it's thrown in public service because
Speaker 4: the big announcement is there are the bureaucratch are not
Speaker 4: increasing faster than the population.
Speaker 3: Being fast enough? Col is what they're saying, not enough.
Speaker 3: So the country's most senior public servant has defended the
Speaker 3: size of the federal public service in a bold end
Speaker 3: of years speech. That's bold, bold from a public servant.
Speaker 3: That's pretty good bold end of year speech. I would
Speaker 3: say it's pretty bold, made of the brink of an
Speaker 3: election campaign in which the Coalition will attack a thirty
Speaker 3: six thousand place increase under labor. In an address titled
Speaker 3: and I'm not sure if this was wise quote who
Speaker 3: needs a public service? Cabinet Secretary Privates and Cabinet Secretary
Speaker 3: Glynn Davis alluded to a brewing debate about the size
Speaker 3: of the bureaucracy and reassured public servants that their work
Speaker 3: quote is honorable and necessary. Before they were sitting rocking,
Speaker 3: why am I doing this? Purpose cheap mandar has come
Speaker 3: out and says your work is honorable and necessary, and
Speaker 3: they've got fantastic Oh it's four fifty five. I better
Speaker 3: be off there. I just love this, but all these
Speaker 3: poor public servants. So we're going through an existential identity crisis,
Speaker 3: and he's come out like a hero. I said that
Speaker 3: Christian should be wearing a giant reds on his chest.
Speaker 3: I think Glynn Davis perhaps is the true hero that
Speaker 3: Gotham needs right now. But this is the best thing
Speaker 3: is that thought, Okay, we've got this, got this yarn
Speaker 3: about how I'm going to say that there aren't enough
Speaker 3: public servants and we need more, and they're all doing
Speaker 3: a fantastic job. In fact, they're honorable and necessary. I
Speaker 3: wonder which newspaper we should give it to the camera
Speaker 3: time I don't have our back. That is good medium.
Speaker 2: They will run this like it's a legit story. And
Speaker 2: we are all justified. Thirty six thousand new places in
Speaker 2: the public service in the space of less than four
Speaker 2: years of an alban Easy government. Are you that incompetent
Speaker 2: that you needed that many more people to do exactly
Speaker 2: the same jobs that the former government was doing. It
Speaker 2: was just last month kel that we learned one in
Speaker 2: five Australians is a public servant. One in five working
Speaker 2: people in Australia work for the government. That is a
Speaker 2: mind blowing stack.
Speaker 4: Every time we talk about this group of people. The
Speaker 4: key so that everyone understands what's going on. We don't
Speaker 4: call them public servants.
Speaker 1: We call them bureaucrats.
Speaker 2: Where's the servant?
Speaker 4: I'll just tell you by that we have the Originally,
Speaker 4: originally the expression public servants applied to convicts.
Speaker 1: So that's how it began in the idea on hundreds.
Speaker 4: Now, if you're in Newcastle, of course, you've probably been
Speaker 4: kicked out of.
Speaker 1: Where you're renting, haven't you?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: According to the Newcastle Herald.
Speaker 2: Absolutely such such a nuance segue I missed at kel
Speaker 2: thank you to the front page of the Newcastle Herald.
Speaker 2: Like in no grounds evictions, a Hunter rent advocacy service
Speaker 2: has reported a whopping forty two percent increase in inquiries
Speaker 2: from tenants victed for no reason ahead of new legislation
Speaker 2: banning no grounds evictions coming into effect. Wow, who could
Speaker 2: have seen this coming? So the government, being landlords shortsighted
Speaker 2: as a mole, advertises the fact we're going to create
Speaker 2: legislation which means owners can no longer do no fault,
Speaker 2: no fault, no grounds, no grounds evictions, and then everyone
Speaker 2: turns around and says, well, I'll get my no grounds
Speaker 2: evictions out of the way. Good luck finding another rental
Speaker 2: in this blood sport market. Who could have seen this coming?
Speaker 3: Joe, Well, obviously the landlords have seen it coming. But
Speaker 3: it is interesting. But because it shows that there were
Speaker 3: landlords who were planning to do this, they have done
Speaker 3: that now ahead of time.
Speaker 2: Well, now their hands have been fault.
Speaker 3: Because they yeah, but that's because they know they won't
Speaker 3: be able to do it afterwards. So it means that
Speaker 3: every tenant who is in that and it's only you know,
Speaker 3: forty two So it's not a huge amount, but please,
Speaker 3: it's but it is, but it is.
Speaker 2: Huge amount. I believe you have forty two percent burns
Speaker 2: to your body if you'll be laying us.
Speaker 3: No, it's not, it's not forty two percent of the Okay, okay, firstly.
Speaker 2: There's not one quieries.
Speaker 3: I know five people, and one in five people are
Speaker 3: not bureaucrats. One in five people work for the government.
Speaker 3: That includes cops, teachers, nurses, anyone age care workers. But
Speaker 3: just to clarify that they're not bureaucrats. And to this,
Speaker 3: it is a forty two percent increase in inquiries from
Speaker 3: tenants evicted for no given reasons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is what I read.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, it's not like forty two percent
Speaker 3: of tenants have been a victored.
Speaker 2: If you're really willing say, there's a lot of inquiries.
Speaker 3: It's a lot of it. It's a lot of inquiries.
Speaker 3: But again, that shows that this is working. It shows
Speaker 3: that landlords are paying attention and that tenants are aware
Speaker 3: that they may have.
Speaker 4: As always Joe puts the really good spin on it,
Speaker 4: and it's not nearly as bad as it sounds.
Speaker 1: And if you want some really.
Speaker 4: Good news, you need to go to Melbourne's Herald Son
Speaker 4: where they've got a nice story on the front page
Speaker 4: that says advance Australia Day. The City of Greater Geelong,
Speaker 4: which is one of Victoria's largest councils, has voted to
Speaker 4: embrace Australia Day again, putting pressure on Melbourne's Lord Mayor
Speaker 4: to support celebrating our national day. For a big council
Speaker 4: to get behind this when all the little councils run
Speaker 4: by the Greens are opposed to us. See, they want
Speaker 4: us the Greens want us to be ashamed of a settlement,
Speaker 4: so they don't want us to celebrate the day on
Speaker 4: when the first settlement happened. Well, Joe Long has said,
Speaker 4: blow that for a joke. It's our national Day, that's
Speaker 4: when the first settlement happened. We're going to celebrate it.
Speaker 4: And it does put pressure on Melbourne's Lord Mayor. Now,
Speaker 4: in case you've forgot, Melbourne's Lord Mayor is Nicholas Reese,
Speaker 4: known and loved by Fox by Sky News Jennifer our viewers.
Speaker 4: We've seen him off and we agree with Nellie.
Speaker 2: He says, I'd say so.
Speaker 1: Nicholas reached.
Speaker 4: Brees is now under pressure to get Melbourne behind Austroy today.
Speaker 1: Will he do it? Stay tuned for the next episode.
Speaker 3: We live in Melbourne. I would say absolutely not. Now
Speaker 3: I just get all the good ones and I've just
Speaker 3: gotten lucky again. The NT News a great newspaper and
Speaker 3: this is just in a little top left hand corner
Speaker 3: there you can see it says it all good, page
Speaker 3: three yarn. And if you get a crock on the
Speaker 3: front page. By the way, rule of the NT News
Speaker 3: is you have to buy the newsroom a case. That's
Speaker 3: literally a genuine rule. So they've got the flock and
Speaker 3: they've got the croc on the front page. Croc shock
Speaker 3: in laundry tells you everything you need to know. There
Speaker 3: was a crock, it was in the laundry and the
Speaker 3: guy got a shot.
Speaker 4: Just tell you one other thing in detail, have massively
Speaker 4: higher sales every time there's a crocodile on the front page,
Speaker 4: because every tourist buys a copy as a souvenir.
Speaker 2: Absolutely would be in a Northern Territory paper if they
Speaker 2: wasn't a Croc on the front page. We all love it.
Speaker 2: But before we leave you for the next out break,
Speaker 2: the Mercury has a happy story. You would remember the
Speaker 2: ongoing saga of Mona's Lady's Lounge well after winning their
Speaker 2: legal battle against a distruntled male patron. Remember the bloke
Speaker 2: he was like, how dare you not give me entry
Speaker 2: into the Lady's Lounge simply because I'm a male? He
Speaker 2: wasn't even trying to be trans No, he wanted access
Speaker 2: because he'd paid for a ticket. Mona's Lady's Lounge has
Speaker 2: reopened for a last hurrah one month after winning their
Speaker 2: case in court. Absolutely love it, as they should. The
Speaker 2: amount of drama that went into this was so appreciated.
Speaker 2: Do you remember this lady and all her entourage like dancing.
Speaker 3: Into a brilliance. So the idea of it, for people
Speaker 3: who haven't heard the story, is that they got a
Speaker 3: Picasso I think it was, and then they put it
Speaker 3: into an area of the art gallery.
Speaker 2: Munch actually turned out not to be an original, that's.
Speaker 3: Right, and said ladies only allowed in there. And guy
Speaker 3: got upset, so hey, why aren't we allowed in there?
Speaker 3: And started remonstrating, and then it ended up taking it
Speaker 3: to court, and it turned out that that was the
Speaker 3: actual artwork, was a piece of performance art to show
Speaker 3: men what it felt like to be excluded.
Speaker 2: You were supposed to feel how ladies have felt. So there,
Speaker 2: you were really in the ladies lounge. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 2: We'll be back soon with Biden's latest blunder. Yes. Madami
Speaker 2: is a US based company that offers a tech platform
Speaker 2: for beauty and wellness. The irony is about to be
Speaker 2: made clear. They do a survey for all their employees
Speaker 2: just testing people's stress levels. How stressed are you at work?
Speaker 2: And all the employees take part in this survey, as
Speaker 2: you do when your boss sends you something that you
Speaker 2: must complete. Before they knew it, they had received an
Speaker 2: email from the boss over a hundred of them saying
Speaker 2: thus recently, we conducted a survey to understand your feeling
Speaker 2: about stress at work. Many of you shared your concerns,
Speaker 2: which we deeply value and respect as a company committed
Speaker 2: to fostering a healthy and supportive work environment. We have
Speaker 2: carefully considered the feedback to ensure that no one remains
Speaker 2: stressed at work. We have made the difficult decision to
Speaker 2: part ways with employees who indicated significant stress. This decision
Speaker 2: is effective immediately and impacted employees will receive further details separately.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your contributions, Best regards, After which one
Speaker 2: of the fired employees took to Twitter to tell the
Speaker 2: world about this. She said, what's happening at Yes, madame?
Speaker 2: First you conduct a random survey and then fire us
Speaker 2: overnight because we're feeling stressed.
Speaker 8: And not just me you, one hundred other people have
Speaker 8: been fired too hashtag mass firing. The moral of the
Speaker 8: story is, when your boss sends you a survey, don't
Speaker 8: do it. They always say it's anonymous, but is.
Speaker 3: It really Also, maybe if you're replying to it so
Speaker 3: they say I can't handle working here, your boss thinks
Speaker 3: maybe we'll get the right.
Speaker 2: Maybe it was a buntible choice. Maybe it felt really innocuate.
Speaker 3: That's how stressed would you feel working for a wellness platform?
Speaker 3: Not stressed at all, quite stressed, very stressed.
Speaker 2: I've got to go.
Speaker 4: And pointed out this, and someone who must be getting
Speaker 4: a little stressed about losing his job, as Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: He's about to go and we will miss him because
Speaker 4: we will miss the marvelous moments when the telling propter
Speaker 4: failed like this.
Speaker 9: And you know one of the things that's going on here,
Speaker 9: they just turned off, like I'm going to go vote.
Speaker 3: I lost the electrician here.
Speaker 9: Anyway, One of the things we found is that you
Speaker 9: know where we invented this semi the computer chip size
Speaker 9: and tipping the little finger.
Speaker 4: So people have been saying, what's he going to do
Speaker 4: when he leaves the White House? Now, what other presidents
Speaker 4: have done is they've earned a small on the speaking circuit.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton was.
Speaker 4: Charging three hundred dollars for a one hour talk. They said,
Speaker 4: he can't do that. He'll never get onto the speaking circuit.
Speaker 4: I've worked out, yes, he will. As a comedy act.
Speaker 4: See Joe lose the plot, see the teleprompter fil see
Speaker 4: him forget what he's talking about?
Speaker 1: Oh you?
Speaker 8: He said the electricity has failed, while all.
Speaker 2: The lights are still on and his microphone is working. Well,
Speaker 2: that's a wrap from us this evening, but stay tuned
Speaker 2: for the read of Hanah. He showed