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