WEBVTT - Why is Bruce Lehrmann suing media outlets?

0:00:01.080 --> 0:00:03.400
<v Speaker 1>My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda

0:00:03.640 --> 0:00:08.400
<v Speaker 1>Bungelung Cargoton woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges

0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:10.639
<v Speaker 1>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:00:10.680 --> 0:00:14.240
<v Speaker 1>Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres

0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:17.159
<v Speaker 1>Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the

0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:19.960
<v Speaker 1>first peoples of these countries, both past and present.

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:28.320
<v Speaker 2>Good morning, and welcome to the Daily os. It's Thursday,

0:00:28.360 --> 0:00:31.640
<v Speaker 2>the twenty third of November. I'm Sam, I'm Zara. Former

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:34.440
<v Speaker 2>Liberal staffer Bruce Lhermon has been in the news over

0:00:34.479 --> 0:00:38.160
<v Speaker 2>the last two years for a variety of reasons. This week,

0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:40.720
<v Speaker 2>he's back in the news because he's suing some media

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:44.720
<v Speaker 2>alllets for defamation, including the ABC Channel ten and its

0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:46.200
<v Speaker 2>journalist Lisa Wilkinson.

0:00:46.840 --> 0:00:50.199
<v Speaker 3>Now, before we go any further in explaining this story,

0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.160
<v Speaker 3>I do want to note, as we have in previous episodes,

0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:56.480
<v Speaker 3>that tda's editor is Billy FitzSimons, who is the daughter

0:00:56.600 --> 0:01:00.600
<v Speaker 3>of Lisa Wilkinson. Billy has had no editorial side or

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:03.480
<v Speaker 3>involvement with this story or any posts that we've made

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:04.920
<v Speaker 3>about this story's developments.

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:08.360
<v Speaker 2>Lehmann settled his case with the ABC yesterday morning, but

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:10.480
<v Speaker 2>the case against Channel ten continues.

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 3>We'll explain how we got here and explain what happens

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:17.440
<v Speaker 3>next in today's Peak Dive. But Sam, what's making headlines.

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:20.520
<v Speaker 2>Israel and Hamas have agreed to a four day cease

0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 2>fire in exchange for fifty hostages. The deal was broken

0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:27.399
<v Speaker 2>by the US and Qatar and announced by Israeli Prime

0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 2>Minister Benjamin Netna, who after a meeting of Israel's war

0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:34.120
<v Speaker 2>cabinet yesterday, this would be the longest pause in violence

0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 2>in the region since the seventh of October. All of

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.320
<v Speaker 2>the hostages will be women and children. It's also been

0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:43.679
<v Speaker 2>widely reported, though not announced, by Benjamin Nanna, who in

0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 2>his initial statement, that one hundred and fifty Palaestinian prisoners

0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 2>will be released from Israeli prisons.

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:53.200
<v Speaker 3>The government's new online Safety plan will make social media

0:01:53.240 --> 0:01:56.720
<v Speaker 3>platforms more accountable when it comes to protecting children from

0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 3>harmful content. The plan also includes stronger agcatulations around the

0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:04.240
<v Speaker 3>use of AI and deep fakes. In an address to

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:08.240
<v Speaker 3>the Press Club yesterday, Communications Minister Michelle Roland so the

0:02:08.280 --> 0:02:12.440
<v Speaker 3>government will invest further in developing age verification Technologies.

0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 2>The CEO of Binance, which is the largest cryptocurrency exchange

0:02:17.080 --> 0:02:19.960
<v Speaker 2>in the world, has stepped down after pleading guilty to

0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:24.239
<v Speaker 2>failing to implement anti money laundering measures on the trading site.

0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:28.080
<v Speaker 2>Shanpeng Zhao acknowledged the company did not implement monitoring for

0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 2>suspicious activity on the site. He's agreed to pay a

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 2>settlement of over four billion US dollars that's around six

0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:37.960
<v Speaker 2>point one billion Australian And.

0:02:37.880 --> 0:02:40.920
<v Speaker 3>The good news. Ozzie gymnast Georgia Godwin has had a

0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:43.359
<v Speaker 3>gymnastics move named after her.

0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:44.360
<v Speaker 2>What's it called Zara?

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 3>The Godwin has been officially recognized by the International Gymnastics Federation.

0:02:49.720 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 3>The move involves a three hundred and sixty degree turn

0:02:52.200 --> 0:02:55.720
<v Speaker 3>in a handstand on the uneven bars. The Olympic gymnasts

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:59.079
<v Speaker 3>performed the Godwin at the federation's World Cup Challenge in June.

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 2>If there was the what would it be sitting down?

0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>All right?

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 3>So, in order to understand the case brought by Bruce Lehman,

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:14.000
<v Speaker 3>which came to trial yesterday, I do think that we

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:15.440
<v Speaker 3>need to rewind quite a bit.

0:03:15.760 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So let's take it all the way back to

0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 2>the fifteenth of February twenty twenty one, and that was

0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 2>the day that an article was published on news dot

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:25.359
<v Speaker 2>com Today U and aired on Channel tens The Project

0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 2>by Lisa Wilkinson about these allegations made by a Liberal staffer,

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:32.400
<v Speaker 2>Brittany Higgins, that she'd been raped at Parliament House by

0:03:32.400 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 2>somebody who at that time was described in the piece

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 2>as a senior male colleague. Now, we later found out

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:40.480
<v Speaker 2>that that person's name was Bruce Lherman, and he was

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:43.720
<v Speaker 2>named in August of twenty twenty one, and he was

0:03:43.800 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 2>charged with rape and has maintained his innocence in that case.

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:50.000
<v Speaker 2>There was a rape trial in the Act last year

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 2>that failed due to Duram misconduct and a retrial was abandoned.

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 3>Okay, so that trial came to an end. Yeah, we

0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:00.800
<v Speaker 3>actually have spoken about Bruce Lehmon since that time, but

0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 3>that's to do with a separate criminal case that's being

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:07.680
<v Speaker 3>brought in Queensland. So putting that aside for a moment,

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:11.280
<v Speaker 3>what is this case that we're speaking about, the specific

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:13.360
<v Speaker 3>defamation case. What's that about?

0:04:13.480 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 2>Well, I find the best way to kind of split

0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:17.839
<v Speaker 2>this up is thinking of it as criminal and civil.

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:20.599
<v Speaker 2>And so today we're talking about this civil case. And

0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:23.600
<v Speaker 2>so this year, in February, two years after the initial

0:04:23.640 --> 0:04:27.000
<v Speaker 2>allegations were made in the media, Brice Lehman announced he

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:29.839
<v Speaker 2>was suing News dot com TODAYU, the ABC and Channel

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:30.680
<v Speaker 2>ten for defamation.

0:04:31.000 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 3>And we know that there was the News dot com

0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:36.200
<v Speaker 3>dot Au article, the Samantha made an article, and that

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 3>there was the Channel ten Project interview. How did the

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:41.160
<v Speaker 3>ABC get brought into this defamation proceeding?

0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:44.160
<v Speaker 2>So the ABC's involvement comes due to a speech that

0:04:44.440 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 2>Higgins did with the twenty twenty one Australian of the

0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:50.920
<v Speaker 2>Year and survivor of sexual assault, Grace Tame. That speech

0:04:51.000 --> 0:04:53.400
<v Speaker 2>was aired in February of twenty twenty two on the

0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 2>National Broadcaster, and Lehman's claim was that this address quote

0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:00.280
<v Speaker 2>gave gravitas and credence to the assertion that he had

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:04.240
<v Speaker 2>raped her, and that the ABC, in broadcasting that address

0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 2>caused him reputational damage by broadcasting it during a time

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:11.160
<v Speaker 2>where the court case was still going to happen. Now,

0:05:11.200 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 2>just as things got kicked off yesterday morning in court

0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:16.840
<v Speaker 2>in Sydney, the ABC and Bruce Lehman announced that they'd

0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.800
<v Speaker 2>reached a settlement and News dot Com Dot U have

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:22.880
<v Speaker 2>previously announced they've reached a settlement with Lemon. They announced

0:05:22.880 --> 0:05:24.040
<v Speaker 2>that in May of this year.

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 3>Well, sorry, before you go on, what does a settlement mean.

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:30.560
<v Speaker 2>It basically means when the two parties get together outside

0:05:30.920 --> 0:05:33.880
<v Speaker 2>of a courtroom in front of a judge and reach

0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 2>an agreement to stop proceedings, normally in exchange for money,

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:39.159
<v Speaker 2>but it can also be in exchange for, you know,

0:05:39.200 --> 0:05:41.640
<v Speaker 2>an apology or some sort of other offer.

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:43.800
<v Speaker 3>Do we know in this case what it's been.

0:05:43.839 --> 0:05:47.159
<v Speaker 2>I haven't seen any figures or details specified, and normally

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 2>it's pretty standard that they're not specified.

0:05:49.400 --> 0:05:52.039
<v Speaker 3>Okay, So there were settlements with the ABC yesterday and

0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:54.880
<v Speaker 3>with news dot com dot Au. But that leaves one

0:05:55.240 --> 0:05:59.479
<v Speaker 3>news outlet, Channel ten, that Bruce Lehman was still bringing

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 3>a deafa MA case against and that brings us, I

0:06:02.480 --> 0:06:04.080
<v Speaker 3>presume to yesterday exactly.

0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:07.039
<v Speaker 2>And the core of Bruce Lehmon's argument is that he

0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:11.120
<v Speaker 2>was recognizable in that initial project story, despite the fact

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:14.039
<v Speaker 2>that he wasn't actually named in that story, but because

0:06:14.080 --> 0:06:17.160
<v Speaker 2>he says he was recognizable, it was defamatory to air

0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:20.760
<v Speaker 2>those allegations against him, which had not and have not

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:22.080
<v Speaker 2>ever been proven in court.

0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:26.320
<v Speaker 3>Defamatory is one of those words that we use certainly

0:06:26.440 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 3>in media and are aware of quite a lot. But

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 3>can you just walk us through what are Bruce Lehmon's

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:33.160
<v Speaker 3>lawyers actually alleging here?

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:34.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think to kind of answer that, you need

0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:38.560
<v Speaker 2>to take a deeper dive into what defamation is itself.

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:43.480
<v Speaker 2>And defamation is basically balancing our right to freedom of speech,

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:45.560
<v Speaker 2>so our right to say whatever we want in whatever

0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:48.440
<v Speaker 2>public forum and whatever blog or TV show we want,

0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:53.440
<v Speaker 2>with the idea of protecting somebody's reputation. And the general

0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:56.479
<v Speaker 2>principle that lies behind defamation is that you shouldn't really

0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 2>be able to say things that harm someone's career, someone's

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:03.120
<v Speaker 2>personal standing, or their relationships, or any other aspects of

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:06.359
<v Speaker 2>their life if that thing that you're saying is naturally true.

0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 2>And so what Bruce Lehman's arguing here is that the

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:13.000
<v Speaker 2>allegations aired against him had an impact on his life

0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:16.440
<v Speaker 2>that he's now seeking reparations for that he is now

0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:20.440
<v Speaker 2>seeking to repair. And those allegations aired have never been

0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:21.080
<v Speaker 2>proven in court.

0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:24.040
<v Speaker 3>And so then what happens if you are found guilty

0:07:24.400 --> 0:07:25.160
<v Speaker 3>of defamation?

0:07:25.400 --> 0:07:27.320
<v Speaker 2>So remember I said at the top that it's a

0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:31.160
<v Speaker 2>civil case, not a criminal case. There's different implications if

0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 2>you're found guilty in a civil case or a criminal case.

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:36.280
<v Speaker 2>If you're found guilty in a criminal case, you're then

0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 2>punished by the law in terms of a criminal code

0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 2>and the various criminal acts that exist in legislation. So

0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:44.720
<v Speaker 2>they can be everything there from a good behavior bonds

0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 2>to a probation period all the way through to a

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:47.560
<v Speaker 2>prison sentence.

0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 3>Okay, don't get too legally on us.

0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:53.200
<v Speaker 2>Sorry, I do feel like I'm lecturing a legal studies class.

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:55.440
<v Speaker 2>I try and keep it grounded in this case. So

0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:57.720
<v Speaker 2>for this case, we're talking about a civil.

0:07:57.400 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 3>Matter, which is distinct from a criminal matter.

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and in a civil case it can often lead

0:08:02.400 --> 0:08:05.440
<v Speaker 2>to monetary punishment enforced by a court, and it also can,

0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 2>as I mentioned before, in the settlement context, it can

0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:09.520
<v Speaker 2>lead to, you know, an apology or some sort of

0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 2>other act. The burden of proof is also different in

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 2>both a criminal and civil context, and that's really important explain.

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:19.000
<v Speaker 2>So if you're in a criminal context, let's say you've

0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:23.360
<v Speaker 2>been charged with robbery of a corner shop and you're

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 2>standing in front of a judge, it's the prosecutor's job

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:30.040
<v Speaker 2>to prove to the jury that you did that robbery

0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 2>beyond a reasonable doubt. And beyond a reasonable doubt means

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:36.679
<v Speaker 2>that if you look at all the evidence presented, the

0:08:36.800 --> 0:08:40.719
<v Speaker 2>jury should be absolutely sure that you did that robbery. Now,

0:08:40.720 --> 0:08:43.880
<v Speaker 2>if you're being sued in a civil case like the

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:46.640
<v Speaker 2>one that we have playing out in this story, the

0:08:46.679 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 2>burden of proof is called the balance of probabilities, and

0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 2>what that means is that in the eye of any

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:55.920
<v Speaker 2>random person walking along the street, you more likely than

0:08:55.960 --> 0:08:59.200
<v Speaker 2>not defames that person, and so there's kind of a

0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:02.160
<v Speaker 2>little bit of room for doubt allowed. And so we

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 2>say that the balance of probabilities in a civil case

0:09:05.040 --> 0:09:07.600
<v Speaker 2>is lower. And then the next part of my legal

0:09:07.720 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 2>lecture is how do you work out how much to

0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:12.640
<v Speaker 2>pay somebody if you indeed have found that they have

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:15.480
<v Speaker 2>been defamed. And there's a couple of ways to calculate that.

0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:18.560
<v Speaker 2>One is, let's say that they've got a job and

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:22.800
<v Speaker 2>they lose that job because of your defamatory claim. Then

0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 2>you might be awarded the salary that you no longer

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:27.080
<v Speaker 2>are getting because you lost that job because of this

0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:31.080
<v Speaker 2>claim that was defamatory. So that's one way to calculate

0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:33.640
<v Speaker 2>damages the kind of loss of income and the loss

0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:36.160
<v Speaker 2>of money you would have had otherwise. But the other

0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:40.440
<v Speaker 2>way to measure damages is non economic loss, and that's

0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:43.000
<v Speaker 2>a term that we give to payments that are just

0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:46.800
<v Speaker 2>kind of given because we recognize that the wrong has

0:09:46.840 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 2>been imparted on you. And so the cap to that

0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:52.640
<v Speaker 2>payment is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in Australia

0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:54.040
<v Speaker 2>and most of the circumstances.

0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:57.760
<v Speaker 3>Okay, So putting aside what it is that Lerman would

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.880
<v Speaker 3>be seeking, Yeah, what is it that Channel ten and

0:10:00.920 --> 0:10:04.360
<v Speaker 3>indeed Lisa Wilkinson's defense is likely to be to this

0:10:04.440 --> 0:10:05.520
<v Speaker 3>defamation allegation.

0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:09.800
<v Speaker 2>So there's kind of five, broadly speaking, five key ways

0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:13.760
<v Speaker 2>that you can defend a defamation claim. And in the

0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:16.480
<v Speaker 2>case that we're talking about today and the defense that

0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:20.679
<v Speaker 2>Channel ten and Lisa Wilkinson have reportedly taken, is this

0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:24.319
<v Speaker 2>idea of the truth defense, and what that basically means,

0:10:24.600 --> 0:10:26.840
<v Speaker 2>they're going to say that they cannot make a defamatory

0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:30.400
<v Speaker 2>claim if the claim they're making is true. So if

0:10:30.440 --> 0:10:33.520
<v Speaker 2>I say, Zara, you're really mean, and you assume me

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:37.160
<v Speaker 2>for defamation, and I can prove truthfully that you are

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:40.920
<v Speaker 2>really mean, then my claim is not defamatory. And this

0:10:41.280 --> 0:10:44.040
<v Speaker 2>was a defense used in another high profile case earlier

0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:46.480
<v Speaker 2>this year. Because it was the defense used in the

0:10:46.480 --> 0:10:49.160
<v Speaker 2>Ben Robert Smith and My Newspapers.

0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:51.120
<v Speaker 3>Case, I was going to say, we have covered this

0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:51.480
<v Speaker 3>quite a.

0:10:51.480 --> 0:10:54.240
<v Speaker 2>Bit exactly, and we'll put a link to that episode

0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:57.400
<v Speaker 2>as well in today's show notes and so in practice

0:10:57.480 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 2>in this case, if Wilkinson and Channel ten do rely

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:03.120
<v Speaker 2>on the truth defense, they're going to need to prove

0:11:03.240 --> 0:11:06.320
<v Speaker 2>to the judge that the Higgins allegations that they aired

0:11:06.480 --> 0:11:09.880
<v Speaker 2>were true. Now, Higgins herself said earlier this year she

0:11:09.920 --> 0:11:13.040
<v Speaker 2>would be prepared to appear as a witness for the defense,

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:16.000
<v Speaker 2>so four Channel ten and Lisa Wilkinson if it was required.

0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:18.760
<v Speaker 3>Whether or not Higgins will appear as a witness, we

0:11:18.840 --> 0:11:21.840
<v Speaker 3>don't know, but it's certainly a trial we'll be watching

0:11:22.240 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 3>and keeping a close eye on. Will be sure to

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:27.720
<v Speaker 3>keep you updated on that as well. If this episode

0:11:27.760 --> 0:11:30.200
<v Speaker 3>has brought up anything for you, remember you can call

0:11:30.280 --> 0:11:34.800
<v Speaker 3>one eight hundred respect or lifeline. On thirteen eleven fourteen.

0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:38.240
<v Speaker 3>Thanks for listening to today's episode of The Daily OS.

0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:40.920
<v Speaker 3>We will be back again in your ears tomorrow morning.

0:11:41.040 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 3>Have a great date,