October 24, 2024 • 10 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union and Ali Jones from Red PR joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
The Government is looking to bring public sector performance pay back by the next financial year. Do we agree with this move?
A female passenger was stabbed to death on a bus in Onehunga last night - how concerned are we? Is this a sign people with a history of violence should be kept in jail?
More backlash against David Seymour's school lunch programme - do we think sustainable packaging should have been a concern?
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:00):
The Huddle with New Zealand Southbea's international realty, local and
global exposure like no.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Other, The Huddle of that's the evening and got Jordan
Williams of the Taxpayers Union and Alie Jones have read
pr Hello you two get a head Jordan, are you
into the performance pay?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Well, obviously from taxpayers perspective, but of course per our
public servants are already paid twenty one twenty two percent
more on average than the private sector. The problem is
is that all of the stuff has always done on top.
To address your point about quite right about if you
incentivize out puts, you get outputs. So it is you
(00:35):
want to incentivize outcomes and it's a challenge across the public.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Are you suggesting because they're already paid so much more
than the private sector, what you want to do is
drop their base pay and then put this on the top.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yeah, especially at chief executive level.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, how much would you shave off their base pay?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Well, it depends on what the generosity of the of
the performance payers, you know, I mean it's a little
bit like a contrarian view. The Taxpaars Union take as
you know, we don't we often and brew Hahara about
MP's pay because you've got no link to performance. Ever,
we've got the worst. We don't take a Swiss approach,
we pay nothing and get people philanthropping, and we don't
(01:09):
take a Singapore approach where you generally get the best
and brightest. We start to do in the middle much
better actually, in terms of the you want quality decisions,
same as the chief executives your big agencies. It doesn't
actually matter if you pay them a lot, but it's
got to be contingent on performance doing the job.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, what do you think, Allie?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Oh, I don't agree that it doesn't depend on what
you pay them. I think, you know, you pay peanuts,
you get monkeys. And I see that in local government
as well, So I think there has to be some
reflection of yeah, well, I think there needs to be
some reflection in ability, but and you know, and outputs.
But I do agree let's not be distracted by the increases.
(01:47):
They need close scrutiny, but you've got to look at
those base levels as well, which are absolutely ridiculous. At
the moment, I thought that was really interesting what Jeff
Plimmer said with regards to the gaming of it, and
I think that outputs and.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
Outcome are very similar.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
We saw it in christ Church with EQC, So you
know they had outputs or outcomes, which were how many
repairs they did and what did they do. They did
all the painting first, so that was the stuff that
showed that they were doing the work that they were doing,
and all the hard stuff got left for a decade.
Speaker 5 (02:17):
So your transparency's the key here too.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
There's got to be transparency and that will help manage
the gaming of.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
It weasonly the world in this area Aarranton. You need
the old framework from the nineties around the statements of
performance expectations and the like. That's just was is basically
now gone. And actually I think that I can't recall
the former Minister of the Public Sector that did all
the reforms at Chris Hapkins and you know, got rid
of the sort of last at a performance base. It's
(02:44):
all just gone back to sort of nineteen seventy style government.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It really has. They've lost their focus. All right, We're
going to take a break, come back very short to
talk about the attack on the bus.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty Elevated Marketing
of your home, Back.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
With the Huddle, Jordan Williams and Allie Joe's Ali. This
bus attack, right, this guy had a history of threatening people,
breaching paro, breaching his release conditions and stuff. Isn't this
a perfect example of somebody actually should have been locked
up to keep us safe.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
No, it's not black and white, Heather. You know what
does being harder on crim's mean to? What's your harder?
May not be my harder or Jordan's harder. I'm sure
there are people out there that would be happy to
have people strung up in the village square, you know,
return of the death penalty. This cannot be a one
size fits all. You know, there are mental health issues,
(03:33):
generational dysfunction, addiction, There's a whole lot of stuff that
plays into these kinds of does any criminal acts does
any of that?
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (03:42):
It does? Yes, it does matter, because.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I mean, okay, I just want to finish the sentence.
I just want to say, does any of it matter
when a woman is sitting on a bus next to
someone that she doesn't know and that someone allegedly stabs
her to death?
Speaker 5 (03:55):
Does it matters?
Speaker 4 (03:56):
If you want it does matter? If you want to
try and stop it if you think.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
That was arming him in jail?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Yeah, and what does that do to someone who's got mental.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Health she's alive.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Yeah, but that's a revenge thing. Okay, do you want
to stop from happening? Do you want.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
This to stop happening to other people or do you
want to get this person? Because if you want to
stop it happening to other people, you have to look
at why it's happening and stop it from happening.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
And UTU is a totally legitimate objective, but not.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
As a broad not as a broad brush stroke that
is not going to answer your questions. There are people
that answer the issue. There are people that are quite
happy with three meals a day and a roof over
their head in prison. So if you think that just
tarring everyone with the same brush and waking them in
jail is going to be a distance.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
I've got a rap sheet. This guy's going to problem.
We let him out the what was it threatened to Kell?
Should have got so.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Threatening to Kell last year? Should be sentenced for two
to seven years, but gets one year seven months, which
means because he's under the magic two years, he gets
let out when he's served half of it presumably served
half of it while in custody on remand therefore the
minity sentenced. He's out again.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Ye, you're making assumptions. You're making assumption probably no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
that's not even the end of it.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Alley, No, I'm not rea his release conditions. He's back
in court two weeks ago and hello bail.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
You are making assumptions, though, that this is someone who
can actually look at what's happening to them and the
and the the action that has taken against them, process
that in their brains, see that as something that has
got No, I'm not saying it's not his fault. What
I'm saying is if this person has got mental health issues,
if this person has got a problem that chucking them
in jail is not going to fix, then what the
(05:42):
hell good is chucking them in jail?
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That is fundamentally the question. What good would it be
to keep this guy in jail? It would save a
woman's life.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Yes, So what do you do about the next time
when there's someone who's got a mental health issue and.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
You chuck them in jail as well?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Are you just going to shove everyone and not actually
help people out who have got a mental health or addictionasy.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
If it's going with zychotic, he wouldn't have been convicted
last time.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Well, I don't know that. Again, we're making assumptions.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I just don't know, Alie, if arguing on behalf of
the alleged criminal is the right side of this argument.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
No, I'm arguing against an idea that I think is
so black and white and philosophically.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Blinked that it's dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
It is dangerous to tar everyone with the same brush.
Speaker 5 (06:26):
I'm not saying.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
I mean, I feel terrible for this family and for
this woman getting on a bus and traveling doing anything
you should be able to do and feel safe. But
this shoved them all in jail, and that will keep
us all safe. Stuff is just bollot.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, I think threatening to kill, you know, first, to
get between two and seven years, you should get that.
That's so I don't think particularly radical. It does demonstrate, though,
how hollow the government's talk is including exchanges to three strikes.
That this chap wouldn't have even got a strike under this,
under this new regime, and it illustrates the very reason
(07:00):
that the three strikes should be there and it's been abandoned.
Is that it should trigger on the conviction, not the sentence.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
Yes, Jordan, let me ask you this. Okay, let me
just put this to you.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
If this person went to jail and had been incarcerated
for say seven years or the full length of the sentence,
and then was released as.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They were unless they had a rap sheet first.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Okay, let me just finish.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
If someone went to jail for the period of time
that you feel that they should have gone to jail,
or that the law allows them to. But the issue
is not shoving them in jail, and that will fix
the problem. When they come out, they're back to the
addiction or they're back to the mental health and then
they go on to kill hang on, and then.
Speaker 5 (07:41):
They go and kill someone else.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
What I'm saying is, what good is shoving someone in
jail if you are not dealing with the problem that
put them there in the first place.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Let someone out for an early release. They breached the conditions,
and our system is so weak as water, We'll let
you out.
Speaker 5 (07:58):
That's not what I said to you, though.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
You point your point, Ali, and maybe I can answer
it for you.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So he is more likely if they're right, we're making
all these assumptions about him that we don't know. But
let's assume that there are these issues. Right, he is
more likely to get that assistance if he's in jail
for seven years than he is if he's in jail
for nine months, isn't he Because that's.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
I don't know what the rehabilitation and the mental health
support is like.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
This is one of the finds that Mike Mitchell has
rolled out recently, is all of this assistance for people
who are in jail, right, but he's going to get
absolutely deadly squat if he's out on the on the
streets just wandering around.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Okay, well, look, if they're going to get the support
and the help that they need while they're in prison, great,
that's a great place to it. But again I don't
know that that happens.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Okay, hey, very quickly, I want to talk about what
these complaints about David Seymour's lunch in school's program is
getting ridiculous, isn't it. It's clutching its straws. What's more
important to you is it the price? Is it being
able to roll the food out at an affordable cost
to the kids or the aluminium trade.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yeah, I mean kids starving, but you know, let them
eat cake as long as it friendly.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
What do you think, Ellie?
Speaker 5 (09:05):
No, I don't think.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
I think it shouldn't be either or I think we
should be able to feed kids. And I thought that
the beat up on the meals was ridiculous. Actually the
kids were saying, give me more. Great that that's your market.
But why should we not be leading by example here
and if they can produce something.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Although I heard your interview either, that was bizarre. It
was really weird.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
But we should be practicing what we preach and should
we should be showing kids that you can do this
in a you know, an environmentally sustainable way.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
So but I still don't know whether we are or
not after that interview, do.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You No, I have no bloody idea. I feel like
it was just a winch best for the sake of it,
which is a lot.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Of what get the free biscuit?
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, I think I get It's biscuit Thursday. So I
went and got Jordan a biscuit and what was it?
Speaker 3 (09:45):
A chit chat?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Willn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Those are good? Eh?
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Hey?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Hey, sorry sorry?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
I would love to say that I would send it
down to you. But you know what, Allie, you don't
like rubber right, you said, Alie, we have to lead
by example, So I'm not going to waste the climate
mass on sending you a chip chat you up to
buy your own. Thank you, guys, appreciate it. Jordan Williams,
Allie Jones, Hudle this evening.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news Talks it'd B from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
The Huddle with New Zealand Southbea's international realty, local and
global exposure like no.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Other, The Huddle of that's the evening and got Jordan
Williams of the Taxpayers Union and Alie Jones have read
pr Hello you two get a head Jordan, are you
into the performance pay?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Well, obviously from taxpayers perspective, but of course per our
public servants are already paid twenty one twenty two percent
more on average than the private sector. The problem is
is that all of the stuff has always done on top.
To address your point about quite right about if you
incentivize out puts, you get outputs. So it is you
(00:35):
want to incentivize outcomes and it's a challenge across the public.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Are you suggesting because they're already paid so much more
than the private sector, what you want to do is
drop their base pay and then put this on the top.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yeah, especially at chief executive level.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Yeah, how much would you shave off their base pay?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Well, it depends on what the generosity of the of
the performance payers, you know, I mean it's a little
bit like a contrarian view. The Taxpaars Union take as
you know, we don't we often and brew Hahara about
MP's pay because you've got no link to performance. Ever,
we've got the worst. We don't take a Swiss approach,
we pay nothing and get people philanthropping, and we don't
(01:09):
take a Singapore approach where you generally get the best
and brightest. We start to do in the middle much
better actually, in terms of the you want quality decisions,
same as the chief executives your big agencies. It doesn't
actually matter if you pay them a lot, but it's
got to be contingent on performance doing the job.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, what do you think, Allie?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Oh, I don't agree that it doesn't depend on what
you pay them. I think, you know, you pay peanuts,
you get monkeys. And I see that in local government
as well, So I think there has to be some
reflection of yeah, well, I think there needs to be
some reflection in ability, but and you know, and outputs.
But I do agree let's not be distracted by the increases.
(01:47):
They need close scrutiny, but you've got to look at
those base levels as well, which are absolutely ridiculous. At
the moment, I thought that was really interesting what Jeff
Plimmer said with regards to the gaming of it, and
I think that outputs and.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
Outcome are very similar.
Speaker 4 (02:01):
We saw it in christ Church with EQC, So you
know they had outputs or outcomes, which were how many
repairs they did and what did they do. They did
all the painting first, so that was the stuff that
showed that they were doing the work that they were doing,
and all the hard stuff got left for a decade.
Speaker 5 (02:17):
So your transparency's the key here too.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
There's got to be transparency and that will help manage
the gaming of.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
It weasonly the world in this area Aarranton. You need
the old framework from the nineties around the statements of
performance expectations and the like. That's just was is basically
now gone. And actually I think that I can't recall
the former Minister of the Public Sector that did all
the reforms at Chris Hapkins and you know, got rid
of the sort of last at a performance base. It's
(02:44):
all just gone back to sort of nineteen seventy style government.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
It really has. They've lost their focus. All right, We're
going to take a break, come back very short to
talk about the attack on the bus.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty Elevated Marketing
of your home, Back.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
With the Huddle, Jordan Williams and Allie Joe's Ali. This
bus attack, right, this guy had a history of threatening people,
breaching paro, breaching his release conditions and stuff. Isn't this
a perfect example of somebody actually should have been locked
up to keep us safe.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
No, it's not black and white, Heather. You know what
does being harder on crim's mean to? What's your harder?
May not be my harder or Jordan's harder. I'm sure
there are people out there that would be happy to
have people strung up in the village square, you know,
return of the death penalty. This cannot be a one
size fits all. You know, there are mental health issues,
(03:33):
generational dysfunction, addiction, There's a whole lot of stuff that
plays into these kinds of does any criminal acts does
any of that?
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (03:42):
It does? Yes, it does matter, because.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
I mean, okay, I just want to finish the sentence.
I just want to say, does any of it matter
when a woman is sitting on a bus next to
someone that she doesn't know and that someone allegedly stabs
her to death?
Speaker 5 (03:55):
Does it matters?
Speaker 4 (03:56):
If you want it does matter? If you want to
try and stop it if you think.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
That was arming him in jail?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Yeah, and what does that do to someone who's got mental.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Health she's alive.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Yeah, but that's a revenge thing. Okay, do you want
to stop from happening? Do you want.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
This to stop happening to other people or do you
want to get this person? Because if you want to
stop it happening to other people, you have to look
at why it's happening and stop it from happening.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
And UTU is a totally legitimate objective, but not.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
As a broad not as a broad brush stroke that
is not going to answer your questions. There are people
that answer the issue. There are people that are quite
happy with three meals a day and a roof over
their head in prison. So if you think that just
tarring everyone with the same brush and waking them in
jail is going to be a distance.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
I've got a rap sheet. This guy's going to problem.
We let him out the what was it threatened to Kell?
Should have got so.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Threatening to Kell last year? Should be sentenced for two
to seven years, but gets one year seven months, which
means because he's under the magic two years, he gets
let out when he's served half of it presumably served
half of it while in custody on remand therefore the
minity sentenced. He's out again.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Ye, you're making assumptions. You're making assumption probably no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
that's not even the end of it.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
Alley, No, I'm not rea his release conditions. He's back
in court two weeks ago and hello bail.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
You are making assumptions, though, that this is someone who
can actually look at what's happening to them and the
and the the action that has taken against them, process
that in their brains, see that as something that has
got No, I'm not saying it's not his fault. What
I'm saying is if this person has got mental health issues,
if this person has got a problem that chucking them
in jail is not going to fix, then what the
(05:42):
hell good is chucking them in jail?
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Thank you?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That is fundamentally the question. What good would it be
to keep this guy in jail? It would save a
woman's life.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Yes, So what do you do about the next time
when there's someone who's got a mental health issue and.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
You chuck them in jail as well?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Are you just going to shove everyone and not actually
help people out who have got a mental health or addictionasy.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
If it's going with zychotic, he wouldn't have been convicted
last time.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Well, I don't know that. Again, we're making assumptions.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I just don't know, Alie, if arguing on behalf of
the alleged criminal is the right side of this argument.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
No, I'm arguing against an idea that I think is
so black and white and philosophically.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Blinked that it's dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
It is dangerous to tar everyone with the same brush.
Speaker 5 (06:26):
I'm not saying.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
I mean, I feel terrible for this family and for
this woman getting on a bus and traveling doing anything
you should be able to do and feel safe. But
this shoved them all in jail, and that will keep
us all safe. Stuff is just bollot.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, I think threatening to kill, you know, first, to
get between two and seven years, you should get that.
That's so I don't think particularly radical. It does demonstrate, though,
how hollow the government's talk is including exchanges to three strikes.
That this chap wouldn't have even got a strike under this,
under this new regime, and it illustrates the very reason
(07:00):
that the three strikes should be there and it's been abandoned.
Is that it should trigger on the conviction, not the sentence.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
Yes, Jordan, let me ask you this. Okay, let me
just put this to you.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
If this person went to jail and had been incarcerated
for say seven years or the full length of the sentence,
and then was released as.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
They were unless they had a rap sheet first.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
Okay, let me just finish.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
If someone went to jail for the period of time
that you feel that they should have gone to jail,
or that the law allows them to. But the issue
is not shoving them in jail, and that will fix
the problem. When they come out, they're back to the
addiction or they're back to the mental health and then
they go on to kill hang on, and then.
Speaker 5 (07:41):
They go and kill someone else.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
What I'm saying is, what good is shoving someone in
jail if you are not dealing with the problem that
put them there in the first place.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Let someone out for an early release. They breached the conditions,
and our system is so weak as water, We'll let
you out.
Speaker 5 (07:58):
That's not what I said to you, though.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
You point your point, Ali, and maybe I can answer
it for you.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So he is more likely if they're right, we're making
all these assumptions about him that we don't know. But
let's assume that there are these issues. Right, he is
more likely to get that assistance if he's in jail
for seven years than he is if he's in jail
for nine months, isn't he Because that's.
Speaker 4 (08:19):
I don't know what the rehabilitation and the mental health
support is like.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
This is one of the finds that Mike Mitchell has
rolled out recently, is all of this assistance for people
who are in jail, right, but he's going to get
absolutely deadly squat if he's out on the on the
streets just wandering around.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Okay, well, look, if they're going to get the support
and the help that they need while they're in prison, great,
that's a great place to it. But again I don't
know that that happens.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Okay, hey, very quickly, I want to talk about what
these complaints about David Seymour's lunch in school's program is
getting ridiculous, isn't it. It's clutching its straws. What's more
important to you is it the price? Is it being
able to roll the food out at an affordable cost
to the kids or the aluminium trade.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yeah, I mean kids starving, but you know, let them
eat cake as long as it friendly.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
What do you think, Ellie?
Speaker 5 (09:05):
No, I don't think.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
I think it shouldn't be either or I think we
should be able to feed kids. And I thought that
the beat up on the meals was ridiculous. Actually the
kids were saying, give me more. Great that that's your market.
But why should we not be leading by example here
and if they can produce something.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Although I heard your interview either, that was bizarre. It
was really weird.
Speaker 4 (09:25):
But we should be practicing what we preach and should
we should be showing kids that you can do this
in a you know, an environmentally sustainable way.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
So but I still don't know whether we are or
not after that interview, do.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You No, I have no bloody idea. I feel like
it was just a winch best for the sake of it,
which is a lot.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Of what get the free biscuit?
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, I think I get It's biscuit Thursday. So I
went and got Jordan a biscuit and what was it?
Speaker 3 (09:45):
A chit chat?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Willn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Those are good? Eh?
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Hey?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Hey, sorry sorry?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
I would love to say that I would send it
down to you. But you know what, Allie, you don't
like rubber right, you said, Alie, we have to lead
by example, So I'm not going to waste the climate
mass on sending you a chip chat you up to
buy your own. Thank you, guys, appreciate it. Jordan Williams,
Allie Jones, Hudle this evening.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news Talks it'd B from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.