Speaker 1: Lately. Welcome to the Late Debase.
Speaker 2: Great to have your company on the Late Debate. I'm
Speaker 2: James Macpherson with Liz Storer and Caleb Bond. Coming up
Speaker 2: one of the most unusual drug busts you'll ever see.
Speaker 2: You won't believe where the smuggler hid his cocaine. We'll
Speaker 2: show you that a little later. Plus, when we look
Speaker 2: at the papers speaking of drugs, Victoria's safe drug injecting rooms.
Speaker 2: Is there such a thing? Having problems? What a surprise.
Speaker 2: Plus story in tomorrow's Australian newspaper about a very unusual
Speaker 2: court case in New South Wales where the prosecutor began
Speaker 2: by admitting he wouldn't win the case, which of course
Speaker 2: begged the question why were they there. We'll talk to
Speaker 2: you about that when we get to what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 2: But first, you know, we've done a lot of nanny
Speaker 2: state shows over the past couple of years, but this,
Speaker 2: this would have to be the silliest example of government
Speaker 2: over each I have heard in a long time. For
Speaker 2: the last nine years people have been able to go
Speaker 2: down to North Bondi Beach go for a surf on
Speaker 2: a surfboard provided for free by the Shared Board initiative
Speaker 2: Now it's a group of locals who provide refurbished surfboards
Speaker 2: for anyone to use free of charge. They just leave
Speaker 2: them on the foreshore of the beach in a particular
Speaker 2: spot and the only condition is when you've finished having
Speaker 2: a surf just bring it back and put it where
Speaker 2: you found it. And it's a great idea. I mean
Speaker 2: for people who get to the beach and think, you know,
Speaker 2: I got my son's screen, I got my hat, I
Speaker 2: got my boards, I forgot my board, doesn't matter. There's
Speaker 2: a board that you can borrow for free. Or if
Speaker 2: you live at Penrith, for instance, and you don't want
Speaker 2: to lug your board on public transport, you don't have to.
Speaker 2: You can leave your surfboard in Penrith Rock up at
Speaker 2: North Bondai and just borrowed one of these shared boards.
Speaker 2: Or if you like Caleb and you've never been on
Speaker 2: a surfboard in your life, but you think never been
Speaker 2: on a beach, that is a bit unfair.
Speaker 3: I will say I have started going to the beach, Yes,
Speaker 3: I started this year.
Speaker 1: Does this happen just this year?
Speaker 4: I've started going to the Who are you and what
Speaker 4: have you?
Speaker 5: Done with Caleb bon Have you ever serfed?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I haven't.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you could rock up at North BONDI and think,
Speaker 2: you know what, I wouldn't mind trying this out, but
Speaker 2: I don't want to put out the coin to buy
Speaker 2: a board. I might not enjoy it or be any
Speaker 2: good at it, which is highly likely to be the case.
Speaker 2: But Caleb could just borrow one of these shared boards,
Speaker 2: have a try, and if you don't like it, you
Speaker 2: just put the board back. No harm done. It's a
Speaker 2: great initiative, or at least it was until the kill
Speaker 2: Joys at Waverley Council shut it down of concerns from
Speaker 2: surf life savers about safety and public liability. Local Cam
Speaker 2: Scott said the program's been so popular with locals and
Speaker 2: visitors and we've never had any issues in the past.
Speaker 2: Other forms of surfing are still allowed, including private board hire,
Speaker 2: so I'm not sure why shared boards are being singled
Speaker 2: out as a safety risk. I understand lifeguards want to
Speaker 2: reduce the risk and that not everyone is an experienced surfer,
Speaker 2: but I've tried to minimize rescue as much as possible,
Speaker 2: including reducing the number of boards that can be used
Speaker 2: and making sure all the boards have leg ropes now.
Speaker 2: Waverley Mayor Will Nemesh said that he is committed to
Speaker 2: working out a process to address concerns regarding safety. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure what the concerns are. If someone rocks up
Speaker 2: with their own board, there's no concerns. If someone hires
Speaker 2: a board, there's no concerns. So why are there concerns
Speaker 2: over the situation where someone shares a board? Lizit that
Speaker 2: makes no sense whatsoever?
Speaker 5: Do you wanna be safe or do you wanna be free?
Speaker 4: It's the same old chestnut every single time.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter what we're talking about.
Speaker 4: It boils down to that when you've got government intervention
Speaker 4: saying we're doing something utterly ridiculous, which we are telling
Speaker 4: you is completely necessary in order to keep you safe.
Speaker 4: We're back at that exaet same square on the chess board.
Speaker 4: And to be honest, this is one of those ones
Speaker 4: where you're like, Okay, we follow your reasoning to its
Speaker 4: logical conclusion. Going into the surf alone is a safety
Speaker 4: risk and a public liability.
Speaker 1: So what on it?
Speaker 5: Because you can't.
Speaker 4: Guarantee that every single person who enters the surf knows
Speaker 4: how to swim. Indeed, that's the vast majority of the
Speaker 4: cases of drowning that we see here in Australia, or
Speaker 4: people getting caught in rips, et cetera, and so on.
Speaker 4: They're not seasoned beach goers. They don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 4: So this is nonsense reasoning. It's for the same reason
Speaker 4: that we're like, oh, okay, well everybody's got to wear
Speaker 4: a helmet the second you leave your house then because
Speaker 4: anything can happen. And then of course there's the broader
Speaker 4: question of okay, let's say that the government is responsible
Speaker 4: for your safety to what degree and at what cost,
Speaker 4: because that's how we end up with.
Speaker 5: Stuff like this.
Speaker 4: How much does it boil down to personal responsibility? If
Speaker 4: you grab a board and go into the surf, let's
Speaker 4: say that's on you.
Speaker 3: I mean, has the Waverly Council got nothing else to do?
Speaker 3: You know, you've got councils running around Sydney at the
Speaker 3: moment saying that he just jack up the rates by
Speaker 3: ninety percent because they can't get their hands on enough money.
Speaker 3: Like I think councils have got a fair bit going
Speaker 3: on at the moment. But no, the Waverley Council is
Speaker 3: going after people who want to go for a surf
Speaker 3: on a shared surfboard.
Speaker 1: I mean, why would.
Speaker 3: You try to do any nice things in this country anymore?
Speaker 1: A bloke says, you know what I think would be
Speaker 1: a good thing to.
Speaker 3: Do to restore surfboards so people who can't afford a
Speaker 3: surfboard I don't want to lag it across the city
Speaker 3: can come and have a surf at the beach. He's
Speaker 3: trying to do a good turn for people and in
Speaker 3: comes the party purpose at the council. Oh, you can't
Speaker 3: do that because there's public liability problems here.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 3: The only public liability problems I can think of are
Speaker 3: that the board I don't know snaps in the middle
Speaker 3: of the ocean or something. And then they try to
Speaker 3: soothe the bloke and say, well, you gave me an
Speaker 3: unsafe surfboard.
Speaker 1: You can get.
Speaker 3: Public liability insurance of that kind of thing. I'm sure
Speaker 3: the council, if they actually decided they would be helpful
Speaker 3: instead of inhibiting things, could go and say, look, we'll
Speaker 3: work it out.
Speaker 1: We'll sort all of this out here.
Speaker 3: Maybe the council will even sponsor it so you can
Speaker 3: have a local shed to do some work in Who
Speaker 3: knows we.
Speaker 1: Can make it a community project. No, we couldn't have that.
Speaker 3: This is the most UnAustralian example of government overreach I
Speaker 3: have seen in a long time. If you cannot go
Speaker 3: to the beach and have a surf in Australia without
Speaker 3: being interfered with by the government or a council, we
Speaker 3: have lost the plot.
Speaker 1: Seriously, what is going on.
Speaker 3: We like to think that we are a country of
Speaker 3: you know, free spirited Alaricans, and we've still got that
Speaker 3: convict culture in US. You know, we're sticking it up
Speaker 3: the pommies because we're free and we're not stuffy like them.
Speaker 3: But we are We love rules, We love being told
Speaker 3: what to do. COVID crew exactly, we were all happy.
Speaker 1: To line up. We are more.
Speaker 5: Brid We weren't and I did.
Speaker 1: Not the vast majority of people.
Speaker 3: But we are more British than the British in the
Speaker 3: way that we are happy to follow rules and want
Speaker 3: to be governed. I mean, when you have a premier
Speaker 3: like Mark mcgow and in WA who had like dictator
Speaker 3: like approval ratings of ninety one percent or something because
Speaker 3: he shut the borders, I think it proves the point
Speaker 3: we just want to be governed hard.
Speaker 2: And there's a time when we're talking about social cohesion
Speaker 2: and we've got so many problems in society. He as
Speaker 2: you said, You've got someone trying to do a nice
Speaker 2: thing to just help people enjoy themselves. It's free, it's
Speaker 2: a nice thing to do, but no council can't allow it.
Speaker 2: And when the mayor says we're committed to implementing a process,
Speaker 2: God help us. Have you ever come across a government
Speaker 2: process that made anything better?
Speaker 3: Can you imagine if someone decided they wanted to have
Speaker 3: a surf on one of these shared boards and then
Speaker 3: when they get back on the beach, light up a
Speaker 3: dart and have a beer like.
Speaker 1: That would be all the crime, all the law all.
Speaker 3: You can't have a drink on the beach, you can't
Speaker 3: have a darry on the beach, you can't have yourselvelopment.
Speaker 4: You'd of course, it just could be a simple matter
Speaker 4: of few counselors being really good mates with the people
Speaker 4: who are heading up the hiring board businesses down at Bondi.
Speaker 4: That was also a thought I had. But to the
Speaker 4: UK now, where Prime Minister Kistarma has announced that he
Speaker 4: is increasing defense spending to two point five percent of
Speaker 4: GDP by at twenty twenty seven. Now, I reckon Brits
Speaker 4: have Donald Dre Trump to thank for this little announcement,
Speaker 4: and I'll.
Speaker 5: Explain why in a bit.
Speaker 4: But certainly watching Kirs Starmer today you wouldn't have guessed it.
Speaker 6: I have long argued that in the face of ongoing
Speaker 6: and generational challenges, European countries must do more for their
Speaker 6: own defense. That is in con travertible a completely reasonable point.
Speaker 6: It is a generational challenge, of course it is, but
Speaker 6: one we must now take on.
Speaker 4: I suppose it's just a coincidence that he is echoing
Speaker 4: very much the sentiments of Trump, which Trump has shouted
Speaker 4: from the mountaintops since he ran in twoenty and sixteen.
Speaker 5: He's always considered.
Speaker 4: NATO these leech countries sucking on the tee to the
Speaker 4: United States, and he's always said, you flogs have to
Speaker 4: pull your socks up.
Speaker 5: I'm not funding this by myself.
Speaker 4: You guys have to spend more on your own defense
Speaker 4: spending if you want us to come to your aid
Speaker 4: when you're in trouble.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 4: He was just last February reminding everyone he still stands
Speaker 4: exactly the same position on the exact same issue second
Speaker 4: time round.
Speaker 7: It it was busted until I came along. I said,
Speaker 7: everybody's going to pay. They said, well, if we don't pay,
Speaker 7: are you still going to protect us? I said absolutely not.
Speaker 7: They couldn't believe the answer, and everybody you never saw
Speaker 7: more money pour in.
Speaker 4: Trump's actually demanded that NATO countries increase their defense spending
Speaker 4: to five percent of their economic output. So kirs Dama's
Speaker 4: basically just announced he's inching closer by twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 4: but still.
Speaker 5: Falling quite short.
Speaker 4: But here he is addressing the nation once again saying
Speaker 4: this is how I'm keeping Britain safe. Now.
Speaker 8: Our national security faces a critical moment. That is why
Speaker 8: we are increasing defense spending to two point five percent
Speaker 8: of GDP from April twenty to twenty seven, the biggest
Speaker 8: sustained increase since the Cold War. With my government, Britain
Speaker 8: will be secure at home and strong abroad.
Speaker 4: Secure at home, mate, you had over thirty five thousand
Speaker 4: illegals cross the channel and make their way into your
Speaker 4: country last year alone, where they've been living high on
Speaker 4: the hog on the British taxpayer pound. But what I
Speaker 4: do love about what he's doing here is he's taking
Speaker 4: the funds from foreign aid to fit the bill for
Speaker 4: this increase. And I think that is something that all
Speaker 4: Western countries should do. I think foreign aid is completely
Speaker 4: and utterly blown out and rarely does it ever actually
Speaker 4: achieve what the giving country has given it for.
Speaker 2: What do you think about the foreign aid argument, Well, well,
Speaker 2: they're spending three billion dollars a year housing illegal asylunce
Speaker 2: again through their foreign foreign aid is very low.
Speaker 3: There's an argument to be made that you have to
Speaker 3: pay a certain level of foreign aid to try and
Speaker 3: back off countries like China that spend shed loads around
Speaker 3: the Pacific nations, the Australian example. There's an argument that
Speaker 3: you have to do that to try and repel them,
Speaker 3: but then you kind of end up in a bidding
Speaker 3: war because China has infinite money. Basically we're doing in
Speaker 3: the Pacific exactly, so they say, well, we'll give them
Speaker 3: more money. So we say we've got to give them
Speaker 3: more money. I mean, you could go on and on
Speaker 3: and on and on forever when it comes to that circumstance,
Speaker 3: and perhaps when we come to those circumstances, we should
Speaker 3: be calling in the favors.
Speaker 1: Of some of our allies.
Speaker 3: But our foreign aid spend in Australia is about five
Speaker 3: billion dollars, right, I think that's what it was in.
Speaker 5: The last this financial year.
Speaker 1: But five billion dollars.
Speaker 3: Our military spending last financial year was fifty three point
Speaker 3: three billion dollars, which was two percent of GDP. So
Speaker 3: if you took that five billion away from foreign aid
Speaker 3: and added it to the defense budget, you know, that's
Speaker 3: ten percent you're adding on top, which is not an
Speaker 3: insignificant sum of money to add to it. Now, it's
Speaker 3: already forecast that we will reach two point four percent
Speaker 3: of GDP by twenty twenty seven, twenty eight, So we're
Speaker 3: all sort of heading in the same direction. But we
Speaker 3: have to be heading in that direction. I mean, we
Speaker 3: have never been in a more precara will say never
Speaker 3: is not wrong. In the last forty fifty years, we
Speaker 3: have not been in a more precarious position GOEO politically,
Speaker 3: and all the predictions from the US are that we
Speaker 3: could end up in some sort of conflict with China
Speaker 3: next decade.
Speaker 1: Right, that's not far away.
Speaker 3: We're in twenty twenty five now, twenty thirty is in
Speaker 3: five years time. Meanwhile, we're talking about having submarines and
Speaker 3: defense capability ready to go by twenty forty, which will
Speaker 3: be extremely useful. Like we should have been doing this
Speaker 3: teen years ago. It's all good and will to say, yes,
Speaker 3: we're picking up the pace now, and good, we need
Speaker 3: to do it, but let's be real, this should have
Speaker 3: happened a long time ago.
Speaker 2: And that's my criticism of Starmer's announcement. He says, you know,
Speaker 2: this is a generational challenge and we must act. So
Speaker 2: we're going to increase defense spending by two percent. Not
Speaker 2: this year, not next year, but in twenty twenty seven.
Speaker 2: It's an absolute Russia are spending five percent of their
Speaker 2: GDP on defense. Middle Eastern countries are spending five percent.
Speaker 2: We don't know what China are spending, but it's probably
Speaker 2: a lot more than five percent. And as for foreign aid,
Speaker 2: one of the best things that Western liberal democracies can
Speaker 2: do for the entire planet is to be strong so
Speaker 2: they can repel authoritarian to talitarian regimes and keep the
Speaker 2: flag of freedom flying. But the other thing I would
Speaker 2: ask Kirstama when he speaks about you know, we're going
Speaker 2: to defend Britain, tell us what is Britain these days.
Speaker 2: I mean, you're making such a mess of it, and
Speaker 2: with the amount of people you're allowing into the country
Speaker 2: and then all of the ghettoization. Is that a word, Caleb,
Speaker 2: the segregation that they are promoting through their multicultural policies.
Speaker 2: I'd just love to know what he says. We're going
Speaker 2: to defend Britain. How do you define Britain.
Speaker 3: Well, well, it's the country where the top baby name
Speaker 3: for boys now is Muhammad. I think that's probably how
Speaker 3: we define Britain.
Speaker 2: Incidentally, one more thing before we move on, said it's
Speaker 2: about two point one percent of GDP and Australia.
Speaker 3: To two percent at the moment two point four. We're
Speaker 3: heading two in twenty seven twenty.
Speaker 2: Eight, which is about what the NDIS will be worth
Speaker 2: in a couple of years. So, I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the most geopolitically, you know, risky time we've had since
Speaker 2: World War Two. And we're committed to spending more money
Speaker 2: on you know, disabilities, some of which are a little
Speaker 2: questionable and that argument has been going for some time
Speaker 2: than we are on defending our borders.
Speaker 4: So that's more valuable than foreign aid because we've got
Speaker 4: genuine Aussies in genuine need.
Speaker 5: What really gets my goat is the.
Speaker 4: Amount of money that Western countries splurge on foreign aid.
Speaker 4: In our case, as we continually laugh about, it's a
Speaker 4: lost cause because China always has deeper pockets. So in comparison,
Speaker 4: Australia is handing out like five bucks in a snag
Speaker 4: to all these countries in the Indo Pacific, being like, hey,
Speaker 4: if something bad happens, please be on our side. Also,
Speaker 4: hot take news flash. If I have to pay you
Speaker 4: to be my friend, if I have to pay you
Speaker 4: to be.
Speaker 5: My ally, you're not my ally.
Speaker 4: The entire concept of foreign aid, because we know it's
Speaker 4: never given out of the goodness of anyone's hearts.
Speaker 5: It is the form of a bribe.
Speaker 4: I am buying your loyalty, which again isn't real loyalty,
Speaker 4: is it.
Speaker 5: It's such a.
Speaker 4: Flawed concept and it cannot continue.
Speaker 5: If I could be.
Speaker 4: Ruler for a day, I would pull all foreign aid
Speaker 4: because if your country exists due to the forced donations
Speaker 4: of my country's tax payers, then maybe you shouldn't. Maybe
Speaker 4: you shouldn't if you just keep on existing at the
Speaker 4: behest of the wealthier Western countries who are in fact,
Speaker 4: weakening themselves, like you said, mac by keeping up this system.
Speaker 4: It's very strange. Pull it all and let the chips
Speaker 4: fall where they may.
Speaker 2: The only thing it's a worry is the reluctance of
Speaker 2: Western countries to sect refice in order to defend themselves.
Speaker 2: And Trumps pointed this out in Europe, right. I was
Speaker 2: really in twenty twenty three, Denmark decided to cancel one
Speaker 2: public holiday so that the poor Danes were only left
Speaker 2: with eleven public holidays instead of twelve. But they canceled
Speaker 2: one public holiday so that they could make an extra
Speaker 2: six hundred and seventy five million dollars to go towards defense.
Speaker 2: And there was uproar, you can't take away one of
Speaker 2: our public holidays.
Speaker 1: Well what do you want?
Speaker 2: Do you want a public holiday or do you want
Speaker 2: your freedom? And in the West that's up for debate
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: They may take on a laaves, but they will never
Speaker 3: picked out of public holidays. And I think you actually
Speaker 3: hit on a good point though, Liz, I reckon the
Speaker 3: best form of diplomacy we could have is to build
Speaker 3: bunning stores overseas so they can get the snags and
Speaker 3: then they've got a real taste of Australian culture.
Speaker 1: A while we're.
Speaker 3: Talking about defense, the plot thickens on this business of
Speaker 3: these Chinese warships have been floating down the east coast
Speaker 3: of Australia. Now we know, we talked about last night
Speaker 3: that last Friday they were doing live fire drills off
Speaker 3: the of Australia and we found out about that because
Speaker 3: a Virgin pilot was flying overhead and he alerted Air
Speaker 3: Services Australia will today the military has been up at
Speaker 3: senate estimates and they've corroborated that turn of events. But
Speaker 3: there's another little tidbit that has been included. That's that
Speaker 3: the New Zealand military picked up on it before our
Speaker 3: military picked up on it, even though it took them
Speaker 3: quite some time to do it. I'll give you the timeline.
Speaker 3: It was nine to fifty eight am that a Virgin
Speaker 3: pilot on Friday realized that these warships were firing about.
Speaker 3: It was at ten eighteen am that an Emirates pilot
Speaker 3: realized they were firing. It wasn't until eleven oh one
Speaker 3: that the New Zealand Army realized that they were firing
Speaker 3: and then in turn let us know. But of course
Speaker 3: we already knew because not because our military had worked
Speaker 3: it out, but because a Virgin pilot had worked it out.
Speaker 3: The other thing is that the Prime Minister last week
Speaker 3: was saying we had received noticeification that this was going
Speaker 3: to happen. Then the story became, oh well, the notification,
Speaker 3: you know, didn't come fast enough.
Speaker 1: We didn't know in time that it was going to happen.
Speaker 3: But now we keep hearing more and more this week
Speaker 3: from different outfits, the military and Air Services Australia and
Speaker 3: the New Zealand military that they were the ones who
Speaker 3: let us know.
Speaker 1: Is the Prime Minister.
Speaker 9: There were two areas of notification. One was from the
Speaker 9: New Zealand vessels that were tailing.
Speaker 2: We're cooperating.
Speaker 9: We've been monitoring the vessels in the area by both
Speaker 9: sea and by air, so that occurred and at the
Speaker 9: same time, through the channels that occur when something like
Speaker 9: this is occurring, air services got notified as well.
Speaker 3: When the occurrences are occurring, the people who see occurrences
Speaker 3: occur to tell us that it's occurred.
Speaker 1: What the hell was is he talking about there? But
Speaker 1: he's lied.
Speaker 3: He said that at the same time as the New
Speaker 3: Zealand military was telling us it was going on Air
Speaker 3: Service as Australia told us it was going on.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Nine to fifty eight am was.
Speaker 3: When Virgin phoned it through to Air Services Australia, who
Speaker 3: then told our military. It was more than an hour
Speaker 3: later at eleven oh one that the New Zealand military
Speaker 3: told us that they had seen it. It didn't happen
Speaker 3: at the same time at all. He's petered up and
Speaker 3: saying there's questions to be answered.
Speaker 10: There are really significant questions that need to be answered here.
Speaker 10: If there was an incursion across into our warders and
Speaker 10: Defense didn't know about it, or the Defense Minister didn't
Speaker 10: know about it, we need to ask those questions and
Speaker 10: they should be answered, and frankly, the Prime Minister should
Speaker 10: stand up and explain what is a very significant event
Speaker 10: and for.
Speaker 1: What it's worth.
Speaker 3: New Zealand's Defense Minister, due to the Collins it doesn't
Speaker 3: seem to be terribly perturbed by any of this.
Speaker 11: I've talked to the Chief of Defense Force this morning
Speaker 11: because I've heard that there was some report that there
Speaker 11: was some delay and we're just going to find out
Speaker 11: quite what that wash.
Speaker 3: Some reporter there might have been at Oh look, I've
Speaker 3: asked a maybe we'll find out what was going on.
Speaker 3: I mean, we talk about the fact that we need
Speaker 3: to boost our defense spending. We just don't seem to
Speaker 3: take these things with any seriousness. The Prime Minister can't
Speaker 3: get his story straight. One minute, it was you know,
Speaker 3: we had warning, Then we find out there was no warning.
Speaker 3: Then we're told that our allies warned us at the
Speaker 3: same time as the commercial pilots, which is not true.
Speaker 3: The commercial pilot's warned us at least an hour in advance.
Speaker 1: Can we not get this stuff right?
Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure what's happening here. There seem to
Speaker 2: be two possibilities. A. Anthony Albanezi is just not across
Speaker 2: the detail, and he's quite famous for that. The other
Speaker 2: possibility is Anthony Albanezi is desperate to avoid any sort
Speaker 2: of confrontation with China at all. He's desperate to avoid
Speaker 2: any circumstance in which he might have to step up
Speaker 2: and actually do what Remember Tony Abbott once said he
Speaker 2: was going to shirt frontront Vladimir Putin. Can you imagine
Speaker 2: Anthony Oldenezy's shirt fronting anybody. He's desperate to avoid that
Speaker 2: and so he just lies. And the problem with that
Speaker 2: is when you get the prime minister of the country
Speaker 2: lying to the populace about issues of national security, that's
Speaker 2: a pretty major breach of trust. And second, it signals
Speaker 2: to the Chinese keep doing this stuff because no one
Speaker 2: other than the Prime Minister of Australia itself will run
Speaker 2: cover for you.
Speaker 4: Well, I think China already knows that it can keep
Speaker 4: doing this stuff.
Speaker 5: It has occurred quite regularly.
Speaker 4: We have one of these stories at least, let's say,
Speaker 4: once every three months, and yet they get slapped on
Speaker 4: the risk for it because our politicians have to do
Speaker 4: the obligatory.
Speaker 5: Please don't do that. That wasn't very nice. And then
Speaker 5: last time.
Speaker 4: We show the Chinese spokesperson giving their version of the
Speaker 4: story to their people saying no, Australia was the aggressor
Speaker 4: in international waters.
Speaker 5: They fired flairs at us and.
Speaker 4: We were just trying to It was utter nonsense, But
Speaker 4: that is what they do, and if you read their
Speaker 4: state run media, that is all they do.
Speaker 5: And think of it.
Speaker 4: If this is the motley crew that we've got now,
Speaker 4: while China is flexing but not doing anything overtly aggressive,
Speaker 4: can you imagine if we were actually under attack, even
Speaker 4: a small attack.
Speaker 5: This would be the.
Speaker 4: Same motley crew at the helm. Goodness knows what we'd
Speaker 4: be commentating on. Then we certainly wouldn't be laughing about it,
Speaker 4: because we wouldn't have the luxury.
Speaker 3: We probably wouldn't know that the Chinese had landed in
Speaker 3: Australia until either the Aboriginal people over in wa worked
Speaker 3: out whether it be there for four days with their
Speaker 3: drones or a virgin pilot flying overhead, or maybe the
Speaker 3: New Zealand military would realize sharing.
Speaker 5: It all over X That is how we'd learn.
Speaker 4: They'd be filming it on their iPhones and we'd be
Speaker 4: like all things.
Speaker 2: Forget Anthony Albanezi, forget the New Zealand Defense Minister. Someone
Speaker 2: who's actually making a tiny bit of sense on this
Speaker 2: is Jackie Lamby.
Speaker 5: They're staying their distance.
Speaker 12: They're very scared of Tasmanian's mate.
Speaker 11: I'll tell you.
Speaker 12: Now where we have our own secrecy thing going on
Speaker 12: down here. They don't want to come anywhere, and as
Speaker 12: sure as hell doesn't want to come anywhere any of
Speaker 12: the top one. Jackie Lamby's here. I want to keep
Speaker 12: everything really calm here. This is nothing new I just
Speaker 12: want these time of people to know. The Chinese always
Speaker 12: trying to stick out their chest.
Speaker 5: You know, they're like the little boy the co wolf.
Speaker 12: They never do the right thing. So if you're going
Speaker 12: to expect to tell they're doing live firing, you know
Speaker 12: they're not mates of ours.
Speaker 2: This is what they do there, you go. They won't
Speaker 2: go near Tasmania because they wouldn't want to mess with
Speaker 2: Jackie Lamby. We just need a few more Jackie Lamby's
Speaker 2: spread across the top end in Australia. We say Calor
Speaker 2: was just you're telling.
Speaker 3: Me was the first leader of China to actually visit Tasmania.
Speaker 1: I think it was not too.
Speaker 3: Long ago, so the story might not be correct. Maybe
Speaker 3: Jackie wasn't in town.
Speaker 4: How she talks about it though, like this is nothing new,
Speaker 4: Like don't worry about it happens all the time. You know,
Speaker 4: another day and I'm a little something something from China.
Speaker 4: She said that several times, pretty.
Speaker 2: Much the safety of Tasmanians because she is there and
Speaker 2: on the job.
Speaker 1: Could just give him tazzy. It happens all the time.
Speaker 2: Let's turn our attention to more serious matters. We talked
Speaker 2: last week about a documentary aired on the BBC called
Speaker 2: Gaza How to Survive a War Zone. Now, the documentary
Speaker 2: was purportedly about how ordinary Palestinians were coping with the
Speaker 2: conflict in Gaza, and it was told through the eyes
Speaker 2: of a fourteen year old boy. Well, it was later
Speaker 2: revealed that fourteen year old boy was not just any boy,
Speaker 2: is the son of a senior Hamas government official. Remember,
Speaker 2: Hamas is a terrorist organization. So it was very difficult
Speaker 2: for the BBC to claim that this was impartial or
Speaker 2: this was a fair and balanced look at the lives
Speaker 2: of Palestinians. As I said, it was the son of
Speaker 2: a Hamas official. Well, since that revelation, there's been more
Speaker 2: controversy about this documentary put together by the BBC. It's
Speaker 2: now been revealed they deliberately and repeatedly edited interviews from
Speaker 2: Palestinians to make those Palestinians seem I don't know less,
Speaker 2: jew Haiti. Let me read to you from an investigation
Speaker 2: by the Telegraph in the UK. They write, the Telegraph
Speaker 2: can reveal that on at least five occasions when they
Speaker 2: were interviewing local Palestinians the words Yahad and Jahadi. I
Speaker 2: guess that's how you pronounce it. They're Arabic words for
Speaker 2: Jew or Jews were changed to Israel or Israeli forces,
Speaker 2: or were removed from the subtitles all together. So when
Speaker 2: Palestinians interviewed talked about the Jews, BBC changed it to
Speaker 2: read Israelis or they just removed references to Jews completely.
Speaker 2: The article goes on to say an interviewee praising Yahya Sinwa,
Speaker 2: the Hamas leader for quote jihad against the Jews, was
Speaker 2: also mistranslated as saying he was fighting Israeli forces. Now
Speaker 2: a little lesson on the nuances of Hamas speak. There's
Speaker 2: a massive difference between waging ghard against Jews and fighting
Speaker 2: Israeli forces. When you're waging g hard against Jews, it's
Speaker 2: a holy war to destroy and eradicate the Jews everywhere.
Speaker 2: So when the BBC make this little editorial decision, they're
Speaker 2: not just mistranslating somebody. They are deliberately misrepresenting the ideology
Speaker 2: of Palestinians. Palestinians, they claim, are everyday people. Here's just
Speaker 2: a little example of how the documentary was manipulated.
Speaker 5: We have a simulatum or kenje. Well, have a simulatum
Speaker 5: or Jehad.
Speaker 2: The leader of the Conservative Party, Kemy Badenoch, is now
Speaker 2: saying that this BBC documentary needs to be fully investigated
Speaker 2: to find out if any money went to Hamas. Remember
Speaker 2: BBC as the public broadcaster. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Speaker 2: When you've got the son of a senior leader and
Speaker 2: you've got such obvious edits to misrepresent what is actually
Speaker 2: going on, it makes you wonder. And she's saying the
Speaker 2: Anti Terrorism Task Force should probably have a good look
Speaker 2: at this.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't even a good job.
Speaker 3: Like that clip we showed there where in the written
Speaker 3: translation that sees.
Speaker 1: Battle instead of g had, you could hear the woman
Speaker 1: saying she had.
Speaker 3: Now, I don't know how many people don't know what
Speaker 3: the word g had means, but like it is the
Speaker 3: word example of China run interference for a terrorist organization
Speaker 3: that I've ever seen, like we saw right through that
Speaker 3: one BBC. But of course what they're trying to do
Speaker 3: is remove the religious element of the war and simply say, oh, well,
Speaker 3: you know, these are two groups of people fighting over
Speaker 3: a piece of land for no particular reason, and there
Speaker 3: have been more deaths on one side and therefore that's
Speaker 3: a bad thing. It is in so many ways a
Speaker 3: religious war. That's why they're talking about jihad. It is
Speaker 3: an ethno religious war. It is in some ways over
Speaker 3: the land. But you don't just want the land to
Speaker 3: expand your country for the hell of making your country bigger.
Speaker 3: It's because there are ancient disagreements over who has the
Speaker 3: right to that land. That is the point of why
Speaker 3: this war is going on, and that is what the
Speaker 3: BBC doesn't want to answer.
Speaker 1: I mean, the fact that they had the son of
Speaker 1: a hamas.
Speaker 3: Leader is the Hammas administr I should say, as the
Speaker 3: narrator of the thing. And they supposedly didn't know that,
Speaker 3: and then they've gone and fiddled with the translations and
Speaker 3: I don't know, no one knew that that was happening.
Speaker 3: I mean, what are we paying a public broadcast for.
Speaker 3: If I'm watching a doco on the BBC and the
Speaker 3: BBC has a history of producing excellent documentaries Louis throu etc.
Speaker 3: This is well below what you would expect of the BBC.
Speaker 3: But it would seem clear they had an agenda to
Speaker 3: run here. And Badnock has a very good point. Was
Speaker 3: there any money that changed hands? In the production of
Speaker 3: this documentary. How did you manage to get that sort
Speaker 3: of access?
Speaker 1: How did you manage to end up with the son
Speaker 1: of a hamas.
Speaker 3: Minister fronting the thing without there being some kind of Lincoln.
Speaker 2: Just one little thing to what you said. You're right,
Speaker 2: it's very religious in nature, and you said it's also
Speaker 2: about land, but the land is actually a religious issue
Speaker 2: as well. Exactly, you've got the what is it the mosque,
Speaker 2: what do they call it, the Dome of the whatever,
Speaker 2: the Dome of the Rock mosque built on top of
Speaker 2: where the ancient Jewish temple was. The whole thing is
Speaker 2: religious and as you said, they've tried to whitewash that.
Speaker 2: Denny Cohen, the BBC's former television chief, said to the
Speaker 2: Telegraph that there's clearly deep rooted prejudice within the BBC,
Speaker 2: and he accuses the BBC of seeding antisemitism in the
Speaker 2: UK with this kind of rubbish, that they're actually making
Speaker 2: things even worse and they're promoting antisemitism for a public
Speaker 2: broadcast and to be doing this is just quite outrageous.
Speaker 4: Well, when you look at the makeup of the UK
Speaker 4: now you do wander. We always bash on about how
Speaker 4: our politicians are shilling for the Muslim vote. Here in Australia,
Speaker 4: you can bet your bottom dollar they're doing the same
Speaker 4: over there.
Speaker 5: There are a massive.
Speaker 4: Muslim contingent in the UK right now and it's only growing.
Speaker 5: So you do wonder how many of those now work.
Speaker 4: For the BBC, Because when we're talking about a documentary
Speaker 4: like this, you know that this has gone through level
Speaker 4: after level of editing. How many people were involved in
Speaker 4: the production of this, How many people would have been
Speaker 4: aware of these edits, How many people would have been
Speaker 4: aware that this was the son of a, like you said,
Speaker 4: a Hamas minister, not just your average Palestinian boy running around.
Speaker 4: But I got to say, these stories, when they make
Speaker 4: it into the media and it's pretty rare, are some
Speaker 4: of my favorites because I hope that it serves to
Speaker 4: remind people that this is what the media does.
Speaker 5: This isn't a once off.
Speaker 4: This is the tip of the tip of the tip
Speaker 4: of the iceberg, Beryl. I mean it was just last
Speaker 4: year we found out our own national broadcaster had literally
Speaker 4: deliberately edited footage that they put to air in order
Speaker 4: to make it look like our soldiers had committed war
Speaker 4: crimes overseas.
Speaker 5: Wrap your head around that.
Speaker 4: I find that incredibly offensive and you should too. And
Speaker 4: do you think that's just oh, two examples plucked out
Speaker 4: of the ethor these are just the ones that we
Speaker 4: end up finding out about. Can you imagine how much
Speaker 4: of this goes on.
Speaker 5: It was just a few weeks.
Speaker 4: Ago we were talking about the fact that USAID had
Speaker 4: been busted for funding over six two hundred journals across
Speaker 4: seven hundred and seven media outlets, seven of which are
Speaker 4: they eight media outlets in Ukraine.
Speaker 5: These guys have.
Speaker 4: Fingers in so many pies and they are stewing information.
Speaker 5: All over the world like this.
Speaker 4: This happens so regularly and people are just kept in
Speaker 4: the dark. The amount of power the media has is incredible.
Speaker 2: The misrepresentation of what's happening in Gaza by the BBC
Speaker 2: is becoming almost a joke. It's that frequent. I mean
Speaker 2: recently I heard them describe the you know that you've
Speaker 2: got the exchange right, so Hamasa giving up the hostages
Speaker 2: and in exchange, there's hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, most of
Speaker 2: whom have been convicted of terrorism offenses, being released. And
Speaker 2: yet the BBC described the Palestinian prisoners as hostages, and
Speaker 2: so this just goes on and on and on, to
Speaker 2: the point that you just would not trust the BBC
Speaker 2: on anything regarding the Gazan paper, and it.
Speaker 3: Seems to be a lot of the British media in
Speaker 3: general at the moment. I think it was Channel four
Speaker 3: Good Morning Britain recently had a special on, you know,
Speaker 3: the liberation of Alschwitz, the eightieth anniversary of and they
Speaker 3: failed in the story to mention that any Jews were
Speaker 3: at our Schwitz. I mean, how on earth do you
Speaker 3: manage to do that. Some good news though, back in
Speaker 3: the US, Donald Trump has somehow managed to take a
Speaker 3: lot more questions in his first month as president then
Speaker 3: Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Did I know you've.
Speaker 3: Fallen off your seat, you dropped your cup of tea?
Speaker 3: You can't believe it's real, but it is a sorry
Speaker 3: one thousand and nine questions to be precise, Trump has
Speaker 3: asked from journals since he came to the top job,
Speaker 3: compared to one hundred and forty one from Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: We remember how those Biden press conferences used to go.
Speaker 3: It was something like this, Just when you thought it
Speaker 3: would end, it didn't. In fact, I think that one
Speaker 3: went on forever because Joe Biden forgot what was actually
Speaker 3: going on in that circumstance. But now we have Donald
Speaker 3: Trump just riffing with report as, having fun, answering their questions,
Speaker 3: no holds bard because he knows how to talk to
Speaker 3: an audience, in this instance, talking about some hats a
Speaker 3: fan had seen.
Speaker 11: You give me all of them.
Speaker 9: Look see that.
Speaker 7: Trump was right about everything.
Speaker 11: Just came in.
Speaker 7: Somebody said, I said, this was sent in by a fan.
Speaker 1: I said, I think we should make.
Speaker 7: Some of them right, but we were pretty much.
Speaker 3: You want one?
Speaker 1: Are you allowed to take away?
Speaker 7: Because he'll consider And I know him well, I'm a
Speaker 7: sort of a stiff, I said, Brian, you're not a
Speaker 7: sy He'll take other things, but not a pretty hand.
Speaker 3: All making jokes about the Gulf of Mexico being renamed
Speaker 3: the Gulf of America.
Speaker 7: I'm just admiring it. As I look at it, I'm
Speaker 7: getting terry. But I don't want you to say. Trump
Speaker 7: broke down.
Speaker 1: And started cry, how beautiful is that? Look at the shoreline,
Speaker 1: Look at that.
Speaker 3: So for all the talk of Donald Trump is an
Speaker 3: enemy of democracy. Donald Trump hates the media. Donald Trump
Speaker 3: hates journalists.
Speaker 1: He clearly has.
Speaker 3: A lot more respect and time for journalists than the
Speaker 3: previous president did because he can actually answer the questions
Speaker 3: that they have to usk.
Speaker 1: He said.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden only answered one hundred and forty one questions
Speaker 2: in his first month. That surprises me. I thought that
Speaker 2: was for his entire term. But you've got to understand
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty one questions in a month for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, one hundred and eleven of those questions were
Speaker 2: regarding what flavored ice cream he was eating at the time.
Speaker 5: Very easy.
Speaker 4: I've always said about politicians facing the press is not
Speaker 4: hard if you are the genuine article, and Trump is
Speaker 4: someone who knows himself to be the genuine article.
Speaker 5: Whether you like him or not is irrelevant. He's standing there,
Speaker 5: it's like, ask me anything. He's fearless.
Speaker 4: He just he'll come up with something or he knows
Speaker 4: the answer. So it makes sense that he's blown previous presidents,
Speaker 4: including Obama, who only took one hundred and sixty one
Speaker 4: in their inquiries over his first month in office.
Speaker 5: So it's not just the ailing.
Speaker 4: Biden that he blew out of the water. Even the
Speaker 4: great orator of Obama has also just been dwarfed in
Speaker 4: Trump shadow.
Speaker 2: The other interesting part of this is there's been a
Speaker 2: lot less White House press briefings under Trump in the
Speaker 2: first month, I think four compared to about sixteen under Biden,
Speaker 2: which just demonstrates the fact that Trump is incredibly capable
Speaker 2: and considers himself to be the best spokesperson for his administration. Biden,
Speaker 2: of course, they just tried to keep him hidden. So
Speaker 2: there you go. The enemy of democracy turns out to
Speaker 2: be the most transparent, open president that we've had in
Speaker 2: quite some time. We're going to go to a break.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we'll look at what's making news tomorrow,
Speaker 2: including a very unusual court case in the District Court
Speaker 2: of New South Wales where the prosecution begins by adminning
Speaker 2: they can't win. All of that in a moment, Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Let's take a look at what's making headlines tomorrow. We'll
Speaker 2: start with Victoria's Herald Sun newspaper, where the headline reads
Speaker 2: three sorry, violent drug addicts force government agency to move. Now,
Speaker 2: the Dan Andrews government opened a drug clinic in North
Speaker 2: Richmond back in twenty eighteen, and they had a four
Speaker 2: year trial, after which they decided to make it permanent.
Speaker 2: The problem, of course, was it was right next to
Speaker 2: a primary school. Well, get a look at what's happened,
Speaker 2: it says, in a major embarrassment for the Allen government,
Speaker 2: a state agency is moving out of its Richmond office
Speaker 2: after repeated cases of staff being subjected to physical assaults
Speaker 2: and verbal abuse from users of the nearby drug injecting room. So,
Speaker 2: of course parents at the local school, which is just
Speaker 2: thirty meters from the drug injecting room, are saying, we've
Speaker 2: been banging on about this since twenty eighteen. Why would
Speaker 2: you put this near a school? Here, you've got government
Speaker 2: workers saying they can't put up with the drug addicts
Speaker 2: and the rubbish that's going on nearby. Back in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one, there was a dead body found near the
Speaker 2: school after somebody overdosed. There's constant drug paraphernalia left all
Speaker 2: over the place. This would seem to confirm everything that
Speaker 2: those Richmond residents were worried about. If it's not good
Speaker 2: enough for government workers, how on earth is it good
Speaker 2: enough for primary school kids.
Speaker 3: Well, and you know it's all good for the public
Speaker 3: servants who can just up and go somewhere else. Through
Speaker 3: In a bit of trouble if you're the school right
Speaker 3: and to think that it wasn't Allen, it was Daniel Andrews.
Speaker 3: But this government wanted to put another injecting room on
Speaker 3: Flinders Street in the city, opposite Flinders Street Station. What
Speaker 3: do they think would have happened then? I mean that
Speaker 3: end of Elizabeth Street. That the intersection of Elizabeth Street
Speaker 3: and Flinders Street is bad enough as it is, with
Speaker 3: drunkards and dragged up people and whatever, homeless people hanging around,
Speaker 3: walking around, shouting, abusing people.
Speaker 1: And carrying on.
Speaker 3: That is bad enough as it is without saying, oh,
Speaker 3: We're going to put another injecting room up the road.
Speaker 3: If these public servants can't hack it in Richmond, how
Speaker 3: do you reckon? The workers of the Melbourne CBD.
Speaker 1: Would have been able to hack it if the government
Speaker 1: got their way.
Speaker 3: Indeed, seriously, let's go to the St Alien tomorrow where
Speaker 3: it doesn't get much better.
Speaker 1: This is a bizarre story. Why are we here, judge
Speaker 1: asked prosecutor.
Speaker 3: Who admits he can't win a new South Wales Crown
Speaker 3: Prosecutor told the District Court in an opening address that
Speaker 3: the case had no prospect of success. In an extraordinary
Speaker 3: admission that prompted the judge to offer the prosecutor the
Speaker 3: chance to seek advice from the private bar before proceeding.
Speaker 3: In a devastating blow to the state's prosecution office, the
Speaker 3: prosecutor said the prosecution could not exclude the possibility.
Speaker 1: That there was a reasonable excuse for the.
Speaker 3: Alleged crime, and therefore there was no hope for a conviction.
Speaker 3: Asked by District Court Judge Andrew Golfax, how do you
Speaker 3: win the matter.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor replied, we don't.
Speaker 3: Judge went on to ask, then why are we here?
Speaker 3: I mean, there is enough real crime going on in
Speaker 3: the world without the DPP off to court to run
Speaker 3: cases where the prosecutor can see they don't have.
Speaker 1: A chance of conviction.
Speaker 3: This is public money being spent running cases that will
Speaker 3: come to nought.
Speaker 1: Why are we doing this?
Speaker 2: Is there almost a case for the defendant to then
Speaker 2: sue the DPP or so, I don't know, harassment through
Speaker 2: all of this trouble and landing him in court when
Speaker 2: they acknowledge they haven't got a hope in hell of winning.
Speaker 2: Although the punishment maybe exactly, I reckon the defendant will
Speaker 2: be a little upset if you wouldn't want to have
Speaker 2: paid your defense lawyer a whole lot of money only
Speaker 2: to find the prosecution are going to defend me. I
Speaker 2: should never have engaged the defense.
Speaker 3: But the prosecutor opened by saying that the defendant was
Speaker 3: a man of good character.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not the way to start a cases.
Speaker 4: It's money well spent by the taxpayer.
Speaker 5: If more money well spent, it.
Speaker 2: Could have just been the prosecutors con used thought for
Speaker 2: a second he was the defense.
Speaker 3: Because I've been doing a review into all this stuff.
Speaker 3: They found eleven cases where prosecution guidelines had not been
Speaker 3: adhere to.
Speaker 1: Seriously, it is an absolute joke.
Speaker 3: They call it a justice system. It's not a justice system.
Speaker 3: If this is the way they are behaving, speaking of justice,
Speaker 3: someone wants some sacrificial LAMB said to le Sue law firm.
Speaker 3: We talked about this last night, but there's been an
Speaker 3: update over at Slater and Gordon. The executive who says
Speaker 3: she was falsely accused of sending a malicious quote unquote
Speaker 3: email to Slater and Gordon's staff is expected to take
Speaker 3: legal action against the top tier law firm after it
Speaker 3: allowed the crisis to escalate despite clear early indications the
Speaker 3: email had been manipulated. This was the former interim Chief
Speaker 3: People Officer, Mari Ruitz Matheson, who was implicated in having
Speaker 3: sent out this email that included everyone's review details and pays,
Speaker 3: so that went out over the weekends to everyone at
Speaker 3: Slade and Gordon could look at everyone else's pay.
Speaker 1: She says she didn't do it.
Speaker 3: Now she's thinking of suing a law firm because it's
Speaker 3: all gone to crap.
Speaker 1: I mean, this just gets better and better.
Speaker 3: Who would have thought that the goings on of a
Speaker 3: law firm in Sydney could beat almost any other story
Speaker 3: going around at the moment for entertainment.
Speaker 1: This is true entertainment.
Speaker 2: It sounds like it's got a few more twists and
Speaker 2: turns to go before that story runs out of gas.
Speaker 2: It's going to be interesting to watch it.
Speaker 4: They need to make an episode of Suits where this happens.
Speaker 5: There's some swanky law firm.
Speaker 4: Then everyone gets an email and finds out what everyone's
Speaker 4: learning before we go to a break to the Voice
Speaker 4: of Tasmania. The Mercury plug in two fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 4: Grants of up to fifty thousand are now available to businesses,
Speaker 4: community groups and local government agencies for the installation of
Speaker 4: public electric vehicle charging infrastructure as the Tasmanian government seeks
Speaker 4: to accommodate growing demand for evs. Really, really, is the
Speaker 4: demand really growing for evs? Can you show us the
Speaker 4: numbers on that, because they're not getting back to us.
Speaker 5: But how do you like this? Fifty grand?
Speaker 4: So they would still have to fork out for the
Speaker 4: actual charger, but the installation, one assumes would be.
Speaker 5: Covered off by this. I looked up how much it.
Speaker 4: Is to install a public EV charger in Australia and
Speaker 4: the interweb says somewhere between forty thousand and one hundred
Speaker 4: thousand dollars.
Speaker 5: And that's just the installation.
Speaker 1: That is extraordinary.
Speaker 3: To put in a charger for an electric car cost
Speaker 3: that amount of money. We wonder why people aren't buying
Speaker 3: these things. Oh, it's the panacea, it'll save the planet,
Speaker 3: but it'll seem you broke in the meantime. I just
Speaker 3: cannot get over that it would cost that much money
Speaker 3: to put a plug in the ground, and.
Speaker 2: When you consider how inefficient they are. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can charge one car for what does it take to
Speaker 2: charge a vehicle twenty minutes twenty thirty minutes. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: not a good use of money. We're going to go
Speaker 2: to break. When we come back. The most unusual drug
Speaker 2: bust that we've come across for quite a while, we'll
Speaker 2: show you out went down in just a moment. Okay,
Speaker 2: I think we've found the most unusual drug bust of
Speaker 2: the year already. It's only February, but I'm calling it, Caleb.
Speaker 1: This is it might be the most unusual in a
Speaker 1: long time. Remember cocaine.
Speaker 3: Cassie, another great Adelaidian who tried to smuggle all that
Speaker 3: cocaine out of Columbia stuffed into headphones. She said, we're
Speaker 3: going to be gifts at her wedding party. Well, this
Speaker 3: bloke has given her a serious run for her money.
Speaker 1: Take a look.
Speaker 3: He was caught by Columbian authorities with cocaine. You can
Speaker 3: see they're packed up into small bags in a two
Speaker 3: pay attached to his head.
Speaker 1: Quite clearly.
Speaker 3: He has walked through the scanner and they've gone, hmmm,
Speaker 3: something strange going on here, and they found that the
Speaker 3: forty year old man had two hundred and twenty grams
Speaker 3: of cocaine stuffed into his hair. That would be worth
Speaker 3: upwards of fifty five thousand dollars here in Australia. But
Speaker 3: the authorities have actually deemed that this is a specific
Speaker 3: kind of device. They described it as a Naco wig,
Speaker 3: So it is.
Speaker 2: Now a thing.
Speaker 3: There is now a thing stuffing cocaine in your hair
Speaker 3: and putting it on. And I would have thought, James,
Speaker 3: you would be a prime candidate for that kind of
Speaker 3: job with your hairline.
Speaker 2: I thought that comment might come kind of interestingly watching
Speaker 2: that vision, I reckon he was more concerned about being
Speaker 2: exposed a hairline on the drugs, because the moment they
Speaker 2: took the wig off and got the drugs, he mediately
Speaker 2: put his cap back on. That was the thing he
Speaker 2: was worried about.
Speaker 1: To cover my shame.
Speaker 4: Before we leave you tonight, if you're a fan of
Speaker 4: fantasy weddings, have we got one for the history books.
Speaker 4: This couple decided that they would have a Lord of
Speaker 4: the Rings wedding, but it got the groom off to
Speaker 4: a terrible start with his in laws.
Speaker 5: Oh direct directly quote him.
Speaker 4: He said, I decided that as the groom, I would
Speaker 4: fully commit to the role of a midie for Lord
Speaker 4: Shakespearean style Old English for the entire day. Her mom
Speaker 4: pulled me aside mid reception, her mom being the mother
Speaker 4: of the bride, and asked me to just talk normal.
Speaker 4: He recounted, I told her verily, I know not of
Speaker 4: what thou doth speak. At the end of the night,
Speaker 4: my new father in law came up to me, said
Speaker 4: I had embarrassed the family and made a.
Speaker 5: Joke out of the wedding.
Speaker 4: Right after the guy though, if you're gonna pick a
Speaker 4: themed wedding, you've got to commit to it. This guy
Speaker 4: just wasn't letting a letting up.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, that's all we've got time for, but stick around.
Speaker 2: Coming up is the Reader Penney Show. Good Night,