February 9, 2025 • 15 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Monday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) No Matter Where You're From/No, Seriously, Everyone Gets a House/Who's In Charge Here?/Feeding Kids Is So Hard/Wall of Infamy
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk dB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay, there, welcome to the Rewrap for Monday. All the
best bits from the Mic Hosking breakfast on News Talks.
It be in a sillier package. I am Glen Hant today,
Circle Housing. Just how much of this stuff do we need?
How New Zealand that's all sort of now right, it's
all fixed up and it's going great. The school lunch
(00:45):
agony continues. Who would have guessed it was so hard,
just trying to get some lunch, and Mike asked for
advice on what's put up on his wall. But before
any event, hey, foreign investors, come on in, come on,
hey have a house if you want.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Prime Minister speech yesterday afternoon to what I assume was
a business audience. I couldn't see it as I watched
it live. It was well received. As my point, another
piece of tangible evidence that we are at last trying
to get this place moving economically again. The Nomad Visa
Digital Nomad announcement the other day was of a similar vane,
but a mile too late. Sixty plus countries, of course,
have a similar scheme already. And to be honest, if
(01:27):
you're on holiday, think about this. I mean you open
your laptop right. Are you a visitor or are you
a digital nomad. Yesterday's golden visa is not a minute
too soon for a couple of reasons. One the settings
from the last government bordering on an economic crime. Prior
to COVID, investors brought in money to the value of billions.
Post the changes made by Labor. The Prime Minister told
us it was about seventy million. It's a joke. It's
(01:48):
almost as though they hated being successful. Two simplified categories
if you've missed it, five million over three years for
a risk of your investment, ten million over five for
a safer one and two. The other reason we needed
to move is it's likely Peter Dutton in Australia is
going to reintroduce a golden visa. There little of any
requirements outside the money he stands. Of course, AHAs decent
(02:09):
chants on being the Prime Minister in a couple of
months time. We simply have to be competitive, which is
why we have also dropped the language test, not as
the Prime Minister point it out, because no one can
speak English because they can. It's because we look arrogant
and childlike in making people who want to improve the
country sit a test. This isn't school, it's real world business.
The next move and given our talk with Winston Peters
(02:30):
on the program Friday, I am convinced the speculation that
is rife is right. The next step is housing. Not
everyone who invests wants or needs to live here. But
the Prime Minister's speech contained the thought that once you
take the plunge, opportunities arise. It might be you like
the place. It might be you have more money, more ideas.
It might be you want to hang around for a while.
To do that, you need to buy a house. The
(02:52):
foreign band then becomes absurd. Stand by for the change
to that policy, and like these other moves, not a
moment too.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
So you just know that there are certain parts of
the media out there just waiting, eagly, poised to pounce
on any undesirable thingner that comes in here and exploits
these new rules once they come in, and then we'll
have to talk about it even more. Can't wait, it's
(03:19):
rerap right. So you were getting a lot of stats
with the older around the social housing. How much of
it there is, how much it costs, how much some
of the houses are worth. Are we sort of looking
at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, the
social house at the bottom of the cliff, and maybe
they need a sort of a batch at the top.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
One of the areas that didn't seem to get addressed
last week in that big social housing reset is when
does it stop? Think about it? How big does social
housing have to get? I mean, just how many people
does the state need to house? When does it end
or does it never end? How big is that social net?
One hundred and seventy ish thousand people are in social housing,
(03:59):
huge numbers, one hundred and seventy thousand. There's a queue
of twenty thousand, so let's call it a couple of
one hundred thousand people want social housing? Why how come
is it the criteria that's soft? Can anyone get a
social house? See? Part of the Labour government problem was
the ideology that once you got one, you didn't have
to leave. So that met a couple of things. One
(04:20):
you set up a system of bludging, and two because
of the bludg is you need more houses. But surely
there must be limits based on population. I mean, there's
only five million of us. For goodness sake, a couple
of million work. We got one hundred and forty thousand
ish jobless. As we found out last week, there are
far too many beneficiaries. The ratios I would have thought
must be easy enough to work out based on other
countries comparisons. In other words, certain percentages of any given
(04:41):
population will be jobless or cads or at school or
retired and so on. In that population, a certain percentage
on average will need social housing. Are we worse than others?
Seems like we are a department with two hundred plus
houses worth over two million dollars each. Is a department
with a shed load of property. Are those alone are
worth half a billion dollars? They're building fifteen hundred more houses,
(05:04):
and you can argue about the location and the price.
But what about the demand. Why don't we talk about
the run? Why does so many people actually need a
government house? What is it in their lives that they
can't afford a house? Labor never thought it was a nissue. Obviously,
you simply build anywhere you like forever and increase the
debt to do so, and good on this government for
reworking that into something more fiscally sensible, but it still
doesn't address what looks like a swamp where no one
(05:26):
knows where the bottoms.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Is the answer to send these people who need the
SOCO houses overseas, get them citizenships somewhere ouse, then they
can move back here as a foreigner, and then we'll
get them a house. Is that what's happening? That sounds
a bit convoluted now that I will get throughout now
rerap more strange goings on and Health New Zealand, the
(05:54):
most behemoth of all big bureaucracies, keeps behemoth thing on.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
How many farewell parties do you think Marjorie app is
going to have two or three? How much are they
going to cost? Anyway, so we got the good news Friday.
You notice it was Friday, You know, in the middle
of a long weekend. You notice on Friday it just
Marjorie decides that they need different leadership. The different leaderships
one hundred percent right on that it is time. Is
Health New Zealand is at a point in the reset
where a different leadership approach is required to take us
(06:21):
fort shees one hundred percent correct. The type of leadership
is called competency, so we'll have some competency hopefully, and
she can go off and do whatever she's going to do.
She was going in June anyway because a contract was up,
but clearly the pressure got too much, so presumably the
farewell parties. Now let me ask you this next question.
Fun Array. We're in a scrap with a health department
(06:42):
over fluoridation. So before Ashley left Health and Helen became
the boss of Health, he issued an edict and he
said there are certain councils around the country you must
put and Taroon's had the scrap you must put fluoride
in the water. And he's entitled to do that under
the law. He is entitled to issue an edict and
the council must follow suit. The council got together in
fung Array and they went and they had a vote
(07:05):
and they decided they weren't going to do it, to
which point mister Farti, who runs Health Director General of
Health says it was an offense under the Health Act
of nineteen fifty six for a local authority to contravene
a direct or a direction from the Health Department. So
my question is this if you have the law behind you.
(07:27):
Why are we even having this discussion? Why is it
the council gets to give your middle finger to somebody
who has the law behind them. How is it we're
even having this conversation if they say you do it,
do it? And how is it you get away with that?
And how long does this go for? And how much
money and time has wasted?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
All of that? So hang on, who's in charge? I'm
really confused about who's in charge of health? It seems
to keep changing all the time. Is anybody in charge
or is everybody in charge? Well, what's going on? And
surely the council isn't in charge? Surely we can all
(08:02):
agree on that. What's happening? The rewrap right now? If
you thought that we weren't going to be talking about
school lunches this week, a idiot.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
My great hope last week and I articulated it was
the whining around school lunches would stop. I agreed with everybody.
If you are not delivering on time, there's something wrong
with that. And the contracts a contract and you pay
big money and you've got to deliver on time. But
apart from that, the business of accessing it and being
a bit colder, a bit the wrong color or the
wrong shape, or whatever the case may be. I thought,
when does the wine is stopping yet? I hear this yesterday?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So we get essentially about nine hundred and fifty dollars
a week to help pay for the wages of people
to do that distribution. Based on last week, it cost
me about fifteen hundred bucks last week in wages, and
so we're about five hundred and forty five hundred and
fifty bucks short per week in terms of the real
cost to me of distributing those lunches.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Right, So we're talking about now distribution. Last week we're
talking about the difficulty of breaking the cellophane and getting
into the lunches. But presumably if we can get past that,
we then need to distribute them. And I'm thinking, listening
to something, what the hell's distribution of a school lunch?
A van pulls up and drops off some lunches, and
you go, kids, lunch is here, and they go grab
a lunch. That's Born Collyer, by the way, who's one
of the Unionsi's on this program periodically. Nice guy he
(09:16):
employs at his school. As it turns out, this is
the distribution of lunches. He employs for four hours a day,
five people. So he employs twenty hours a day of
labor just to distribute lunch. Now, what is distributing a lunch?
(09:37):
If a van pulls up with some lunches and drops
them off, how is it you need five people for
four hours each and every day. In other words, one
hundred hours of labor a week to distribute lunch. When
I would have thought, call me old fashioned, you'd say, kids,
lunch is here. The kids come along, go to the pile,
grab a lunch and move on.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Are they experts trained and breaking cellar phone? Perhaps?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Could be that, But then they've got the cleanup. Now
call me once again old fashioned. You either one, if
you want to cycle, you take it back to the
original spot where presumably the contractor comes back and picks
it up to recycle another day. Or you I don't
know what's the other thing you do? Oh, that's right,
put it in the bin. Why do you need five
people for one hundred hours a week? This is just
one school to distribute.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Lunches, derick, And they have been it's good. Well, of
course they don't have been.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
So you take it. You take it back to the recycling,
don't you how hard is it to distribute lunch and
get it? Am? I have I gone mad?
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Could they not a point? I don't know? Some kids
as lunch monitors.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Just like the old days.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, because I've seen the recall, that sort
of stuff happened a lot, you know, like you there
was kids who were on traffic you know, they're traffic
crossing duty, and that meant that was quite good because
it means you got to leave class quarter of an
hour early, go and hit your lollipop sign, you know,
(11:06):
pe monitors to give out the p year. Did they
not have any of that anymore? Is that all against
human rights or something? Probably? Probably yes?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
The re wrap.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Right, let's finish up with a little bit of home
decoration advice for the Hosking hawksby Household.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Can I ask for your advice? We had on our
for a while there. We had several African juju hats
on our walls at home, and Katie went through a
period where she bought I think it was three African
juju hat and she came home and announced they were art,
which of course they're not.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Sking.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Can you just explain exactly what it is.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
It's a very large I mean on a wall, it
would be a meter and a bit in circumference, made
of feathers. If you take it off the wall and
stick it on your head, it sort of falls on
your head like a hat. It's I suppose pretty Anyway,
she announced that they weren't so they hung on our walls.
We somehow managed to get rid of a couple of them.
(12:06):
And the last one was there and one of the
kids is moving into another flat, and he said, we
need something bohemian to hang on the walls. Do you
have anything bohemian? The first thing I thought it was
an African juju hat, so I said the juju hat,
get the hell out of here.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
To me an African juju.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
I didn't want to explain that to him. He's young man,
he's moving into a flat. Let's not make it complicated. Glynn. Also,
I got some crap off the wall, so I've now
got a gap. I also read over the weekend Barry
Humphrey's estate this week is selling some of his stuff.
So here's my question. This is a Christie's and I'm
going to buy something, and this is my question to you.
So he was an artist, not a particularly good one,
(12:44):
but an enthusiast. Do I buy one of his pictures
that he painted? So I've got a Barry Humphreys painting,
or also in the sale are pictures of him, some
by moderately famous people. So do I buy a picture
of Barry Humphries buy somebody else that doesn't Bury Humphreyes,
Or do I buy a Barry humphreyes that is a
(13:05):
Barry Humphrey. So when you come to my house and
look at the wall, you go, My word, what's that?
I say to Barry Humphreyes, You go, Really, I didn't
know you painted?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
So this is basically a wall of cancelable material. Is
that what you're talking about?
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Well, I don't know, but I've always because no one's
a bigger fan.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I'm still not very comfortable about the African juju hats
to be pivod.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
I could have given you one if you come to
me earlier. I could have happily given you one now
and now Barry Humphries. Yeah, no one's a bigger fan
of Barry Humphries than me.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, so yeah, so.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Do I automatic It's a simple question. Do I buy
a picture of him by somebody else, or do I
buy a painting he did that you might not know
it was from him, and to be blunt, really blunt,
not that good a picture.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Actually, Sam next to me makes a very good point
in my right here, who's what difference doesn't make because
nobody's ever going to come around and see it.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Anyway, I'll be there, though, I'll be there. You can
buy glasses, day mead and glasses genuine.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
I was really hoping that dame in their head perhaps
no collected her own, or a selection of juju hats.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Or a dayid an address. Anyway, it's all, it's it's
it's this week. I'm super exciting.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Actually, I've now decided it would be quite cool to
have a wall of infamy if you like, like a
autographed photo of Louis c. K a cocktail napkin Bill
Cosby once used, perhaps just a complete box seat of
Kevin Spacey movies. Yeah, could you? You'd be canceled for that,
(14:38):
wouldn't you if you had a wall like that in
your house? Probably? I hope I'm not going to be
canceled for even suggesting it. It was a joke. It's
a satire. It's well sarcasm or irony, or a little
dose of each. See you back here again for your
daily dose tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
For more from news Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with wherever you
go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk dB. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio Rewrap.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Okay, there, welcome to the Rewrap for Monday. All the
best bits from the Mic Hosking breakfast on News Talks.
It be in a sillier package. I am Glen Hant today,
Circle Housing. Just how much of this stuff do we need?
How New Zealand that's all sort of now right, it's
all fixed up and it's going great. The school lunch
(00:45):
agony continues. Who would have guessed it was so hard,
just trying to get some lunch, and Mike asked for
advice on what's put up on his wall. But before
any event, hey, foreign investors, come on in, come on,
hey have a house if you want.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Prime Minister speech yesterday afternoon to what I assume was
a business audience. I couldn't see it as I watched
it live. It was well received. As my point, another
piece of tangible evidence that we are at last trying
to get this place moving economically again. The Nomad Visa
Digital Nomad announcement the other day was of a similar vane,
but a mile too late. Sixty plus countries, of course,
have a similar scheme already. And to be honest, if
(01:27):
you're on holiday, think about this. I mean you open
your laptop right. Are you a visitor or are you
a digital nomad. Yesterday's golden visa is not a minute
too soon for a couple of reasons. One the settings
from the last government bordering on an economic crime. Prior
to COVID, investors brought in money to the value of billions.
Post the changes made by Labor. The Prime Minister told
us it was about seventy million. It's a joke. It's
(01:48):
almost as though they hated being successful. Two simplified categories
if you've missed it, five million over three years for
a risk of your investment, ten million over five for
a safer one and two. The other reason we needed
to move is it's likely Peter Dutton in Australia is
going to reintroduce a golden visa. There little of any
requirements outside the money he stands. Of course, AHAs decent
(02:09):
chants on being the Prime Minister in a couple of
months time. We simply have to be competitive, which is
why we have also dropped the language test, not as
the Prime Minister point it out, because no one can
speak English because they can. It's because we look arrogant
and childlike in making people who want to improve the
country sit a test. This isn't school, it's real world business.
The next move and given our talk with Winston Peters
(02:30):
on the program Friday, I am convinced the speculation that
is rife is right. The next step is housing. Not
everyone who invests wants or needs to live here. But
the Prime Minister's speech contained the thought that once you
take the plunge, opportunities arise. It might be you like
the place. It might be you have more money, more ideas.
It might be you want to hang around for a while.
To do that, you need to buy a house. The
(02:52):
foreign band then becomes absurd. Stand by for the change
to that policy, and like these other moves, not a
moment too.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
So you just know that there are certain parts of
the media out there just waiting, eagly, poised to pounce
on any undesirable thingner that comes in here and exploits
these new rules once they come in, and then we'll
have to talk about it even more. Can't wait, it's
(03:19):
rerap right. So you were getting a lot of stats
with the older around the social housing. How much of
it there is, how much it costs, how much some
of the houses are worth. Are we sort of looking
at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, the
social house at the bottom of the cliff, and maybe
they need a sort of a batch at the top.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
One of the areas that didn't seem to get addressed
last week in that big social housing reset is when
does it stop? Think about it? How big does social
housing have to get? I mean, just how many people
does the state need to house? When does it end
or does it never end? How big is that social net?
One hundred and seventy ish thousand people are in social housing,
(03:59):
huge numbers, one hundred and seventy thousand. There's a queue
of twenty thousand, so let's call it a couple of
one hundred thousand people want social housing? Why how come
is it the criteria that's soft? Can anyone get a
social house? See? Part of the Labour government problem was
the ideology that once you got one, you didn't have
to leave. So that met a couple of things. One
(04:20):
you set up a system of bludging, and two because
of the bludg is you need more houses. But surely
there must be limits based on population. I mean, there's
only five million of us. For goodness sake, a couple
of million work. We got one hundred and forty thousand
ish jobless. As we found out last week, there are
far too many beneficiaries. The ratios I would have thought
must be easy enough to work out based on other
countries comparisons. In other words, certain percentages of any given
(04:41):
population will be jobless or cads or at school or
retired and so on. In that population, a certain percentage
on average will need social housing. Are we worse than others?
Seems like we are a department with two hundred plus
houses worth over two million dollars each. Is a department
with a shed load of property. Are those alone are
worth half a billion dollars? They're building fifteen hundred more houses,
(05:04):
and you can argue about the location and the price.
But what about the demand. Why don't we talk about
the run? Why does so many people actually need a
government house? What is it in their lives that they
can't afford a house? Labor never thought it was a nissue. Obviously,
you simply build anywhere you like forever and increase the
debt to do so, and good on this government for
reworking that into something more fiscally sensible, but it still
doesn't address what looks like a swamp where no one
(05:26):
knows where the bottoms.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Is the answer to send these people who need the
SOCO houses overseas, get them citizenships somewhere ouse, then they
can move back here as a foreigner, and then we'll
get them a house. Is that what's happening? That sounds
a bit convoluted now that I will get throughout now
rerap more strange goings on and Health New Zealand, the
(05:54):
most behemoth of all big bureaucracies, keeps behemoth thing on.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
How many farewell parties do you think Marjorie app is
going to have two or three? How much are they
going to cost? Anyway, so we got the good news Friday.
You notice it was Friday, You know, in the middle
of a long weekend. You notice on Friday it just
Marjorie decides that they need different leadership. The different leaderships
one hundred percent right on that it is time. Is
Health New Zealand is at a point in the reset
where a different leadership approach is required to take us
(06:21):
fort shees one hundred percent correct. The type of leadership
is called competency, so we'll have some competency hopefully, and
she can go off and do whatever she's going to do.
She was going in June anyway because a contract was up,
but clearly the pressure got too much, so presumably the
farewell parties. Now let me ask you this next question.
Fun Array. We're in a scrap with a health department
(06:42):
over fluoridation. So before Ashley left Health and Helen became
the boss of Health, he issued an edict and he
said there are certain councils around the country you must
put and Taroon's had the scrap you must put fluoride
in the water. And he's entitled to do that under
the law. He is entitled to issue an edict and
the council must follow suit. The council got together in
fung Array and they went and they had a vote
(07:05):
and they decided they weren't going to do it, to
which point mister Farti, who runs Health Director General of
Health says it was an offense under the Health Act
of nineteen fifty six for a local authority to contravene
a direct or a direction from the Health Department. So
my question is this if you have the law behind you.
(07:27):
Why are we even having this discussion? Why is it
the council gets to give your middle finger to somebody
who has the law behind them. How is it we're
even having this conversation if they say you do it,
do it? And how is it you get away with that?
And how long does this go for? And how much
money and time has wasted?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
All of that? So hang on, who's in charge? I'm
really confused about who's in charge of health? It seems
to keep changing all the time. Is anybody in charge
or is everybody in charge? Well, what's going on? And
surely the council isn't in charge? Surely we can all
(08:02):
agree on that. What's happening? The rewrap right now? If
you thought that we weren't going to be talking about
school lunches this week, a idiot.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
My great hope last week and I articulated it was
the whining around school lunches would stop. I agreed with everybody.
If you are not delivering on time, there's something wrong
with that. And the contracts a contract and you pay
big money and you've got to deliver on time. But
apart from that, the business of accessing it and being
a bit colder, a bit the wrong color or the
wrong shape, or whatever the case may be. I thought,
when does the wine is stopping yet? I hear this yesterday?
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So we get essentially about nine hundred and fifty dollars
a week to help pay for the wages of people
to do that distribution. Based on last week, it cost
me about fifteen hundred bucks last week in wages, and
so we're about five hundred and forty five hundred and
fifty bucks short per week in terms of the real
cost to me of distributing those lunches.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Right, So we're talking about now distribution. Last week we're
talking about the difficulty of breaking the cellophane and getting
into the lunches. But presumably if we can get past that,
we then need to distribute them. And I'm thinking, listening
to something, what the hell's distribution of a school lunch?
A van pulls up and drops off some lunches, and
you go, kids, lunch is here, and they go grab
a lunch. That's Born Collyer, by the way, who's one
of the Unionsi's on this program periodically. Nice guy he
(09:16):
employs at his school. As it turns out, this is
the distribution of lunches. He employs for four hours a day,
five people. So he employs twenty hours a day of
labor just to distribute lunch. Now, what is distributing a lunch?
(09:37):
If a van pulls up with some lunches and drops
them off, how is it you need five people for
four hours each and every day. In other words, one
hundred hours of labor a week to distribute lunch. When
I would have thought, call me old fashioned, you'd say, kids,
lunch is here. The kids come along, go to the pile,
grab a lunch and move on.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Are they experts trained and breaking cellar phone? Perhaps?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Could be that, But then they've got the cleanup. Now
call me once again old fashioned. You either one, if
you want to cycle, you take it back to the
original spot where presumably the contractor comes back and picks
it up to recycle another day. Or you I don't
know what's the other thing you do? Oh, that's right,
put it in the bin. Why do you need five
people for one hundred hours a week? This is just
one school to distribute.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Lunches, derick, And they have been it's good. Well, of
course they don't have been.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
So you take it. You take it back to the recycling,
don't you how hard is it to distribute lunch and
get it? Am? I have I gone mad?
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Could they not a point? I don't know? Some kids
as lunch monitors.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Just like the old days.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, because I've seen the recall, that sort
of stuff happened a lot, you know, like you there
was kids who were on traffic you know, they're traffic
crossing duty, and that meant that was quite good because
it means you got to leave class quarter of an
hour early, go and hit your lollipop sign, you know,
(11:06):
pe monitors to give out the p year. Did they
not have any of that anymore? Is that all against
human rights or something? Probably? Probably yes?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
The re wrap.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Right, let's finish up with a little bit of home
decoration advice for the Hosking hawksby Household.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Can I ask for your advice? We had on our
for a while there. We had several African juju hats
on our walls at home, and Katie went through a
period where she bought I think it was three African
juju hat and she came home and announced they were art,
which of course they're not.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Sking.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Can you just explain exactly what it is.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
It's a very large I mean on a wall, it
would be a meter and a bit in circumference, made
of feathers. If you take it off the wall and
stick it on your head, it sort of falls on
your head like a hat. It's I suppose pretty Anyway,
she announced that they weren't so they hung on our walls.
We somehow managed to get rid of a couple of them.
(12:06):
And the last one was there and one of the
kids is moving into another flat, and he said, we
need something bohemian to hang on the walls. Do you
have anything bohemian? The first thing I thought it was
an African juju hat, so I said the juju hat,
get the hell out of here.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
To me an African juju.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
I didn't want to explain that to him. He's young man,
he's moving into a flat. Let's not make it complicated. Glynn. Also,
I got some crap off the wall, so I've now
got a gap. I also read over the weekend Barry
Humphrey's estate this week is selling some of his stuff.
So here's my question. This is a Christie's and I'm
going to buy something, and this is my question to you.
So he was an artist, not a particularly good one,
(12:44):
but an enthusiast. Do I buy one of his pictures
that he painted? So I've got a Barry Humphreys painting,
or also in the sale are pictures of him, some
by moderately famous people. So do I buy a picture
of Barry Humphries buy somebody else that doesn't Bury Humphreyes,
Or do I buy a Barry humphreyes that is a
(13:05):
Barry Humphrey. So when you come to my house and
look at the wall, you go, My word, what's that?
I say to Barry Humphreyes, You go, Really, I didn't
know you painted?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
So this is basically a wall of cancelable material. Is
that what you're talking about?
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Well, I don't know, but I've always because no one's
a bigger fan.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I'm still not very comfortable about the African juju hats
to be pivod.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
I could have given you one if you come to
me earlier. I could have happily given you one now
and now Barry Humphries. Yeah, no one's a bigger fan
of Barry Humphries than me.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, so yeah, so.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Do I automatic It's a simple question. Do I buy
a picture of him by somebody else, or do I
buy a painting he did that you might not know
it was from him, and to be blunt, really blunt,
not that good a picture.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Actually, Sam next to me makes a very good point
in my right here, who's what difference doesn't make because
nobody's ever going to come around and see it.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Anyway, I'll be there, though, I'll be there. You can
buy glasses, day mead and glasses genuine.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
I was really hoping that dame in their head perhaps
no collected her own, or a selection of juju hats.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Or a dayid an address. Anyway, it's all, it's it's
it's this week. I'm super exciting.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Actually, I've now decided it would be quite cool to
have a wall of infamy if you like, like a
autographed photo of Louis c. K a cocktail napkin Bill
Cosby once used, perhaps just a complete box seat of
Kevin Spacey movies. Yeah, could you? You'd be canceled for that,
(14:38):
wouldn't you if you had a wall like that in
your house? Probably? I hope I'm not going to be
canceled for even suggesting it. It was a joke. It's
a satire. It's well sarcasm or irony, or a little
dose of each. See you back here again for your
daily dose tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
For more from news Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with wherever you
go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.