July 8, 2025 • 14 mins
FIRST WITH YESTERDAY'S NEWS (highlights from Tuesday on Newstalk ZB) Everything, Apparently/That's All Crime Solved Then/The Ole Stadium Conversation/Is Uber Still a Thing?
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, said b
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Used Talk said, be you talk.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hello, my beautiful beanies, and welcome to the bean for Wednesday.
First with yesterday's news, I am van Hart, and we
are looking back at Tuesday the idea of mandatory sentencing
or minimum sentences for certain crimes.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
How are we feeling about that? The orphaned stadium is
all go?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I hang on and would you be an uber driver?
But before any of that, Ah, this COVID inquiry, I
just love rehashing COVID.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Were thinking about the COVID times. Don't you question?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Should Jacinda don come home in the year before the
World Commission into our COVID response. I think she should.
I could understand though if she doesn't, because just as
she became the symbol of our successful response to the pandemic,
which we rewarded with a supermajority and Labour's second term,
she also then became the symbol of everything that we
did wrong. And there's a significant number of people who
have been weaponized against the former Prime minister because of
(01:19):
the things they resent and they want a holding too account.
They want a Nuremberg trial, as you heard from my text.
They want fines, they want jail, but they won't get
that even if she did come back. This is an
inquiry about COVID to understand everything they got wrong as
well as everything they got right. Now, I'm sure you Cinderaduin,
even if her conscience is completely clear, she would be
worried about the consequences of coming home and being at
(01:41):
the front of this investigation, for her family, for her
personal safety, for her own mental health. And the feeling
is that she won't. You can read between the lines
in the recent Women's Weekly interview that home is not
on the raindar. But remember, she will not escape the inquiry.
No one will. There's enough people being called to give
us the full and frank dissection of everything that happened
(02:02):
at the beginning of this decade, and that is important
because there will be another pandemic one day. So anyway,
let's get into it with or without former Prime Minister
just I.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Think one of the big questions, as far as I'm concerned,
is at pandemic accepting all the time and we just
don't react to them this way.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Was this one really as bad as they told us
it was at the time.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I guess that that's the ultimate question, isn't it. As
Andrew said, there there will be other pandemics, and there
probably are pandemic accepting at the moment that we've maybe
not taken quite as much notice of.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I don't know, news talk Bean, I've probably got all
that wrong. It probably was really bad.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I like I keep saying, I've just sort of repressed
the whole thing, the sort of two two and a
half years where life was just so weird, blanked it out.
I think Jane quite can't quite let it go, though
she wants to, certainly wants to cinder herdurn to come
back and face the news if I think. But I
think Matt Heath actually makes quite a good point here,
(03:13):
asked quite a good question.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
What would you do just?
Speaker 5 (03:16):
I mean, this is kind of off topic, Jane, from
what we're talking about and the moral obligation for an
next prime minister to come and talk to a royal inquiry,
But what do you think just you know a couple
of things that you would have done different? And of
course we're looking back. In the heat of the moment,
people are going to make mistakes, But looking back now,
because that's what the Royal Inquiry is about. So you know,
the core purpose is to strengthen our response for future pandemics.
(03:39):
So what do you think could have been done different?
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Jane?
Speaker 6 (03:41):
Honestly, just about everything, I mean, completely ruined the children's education.
I would say they're not draw at year one NTA one.
They have to do that. There's a lot of children
that would have been disappointed. The rest of them would
have been absolutely thrilled to get it for nothing. Well,
that doesn't help in this years, in the next years exams,
(04:03):
that won't help them when they go to the university
or to try to get into building and all the
other things that I mean, anything they wished to do.
They were part of that year that was given it,
which meant them lazy, and they got lazy. And you
won't hear anything else out of me from that. It
was just the way that she'd say, God with our lives.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (04:25):
I think if you called Jane, yeah, yeah, and you
made that very clear. And look, there'll be a lot
of people feeling as Jane feels. Clearly it hit her
on a personal level.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I wonder if the Expreme Minister believes that she could
prove to someone like Jane by talking to the Royal
Inquiry and show why the decisions were made.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
Absolutely, I think that would go a long way. And
you talk about apology, I don't know about apologies, but
absolutely explaining and giving the context.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
Every step of the way why you made this decision
while people say, well, look look what it's done to
education in our country. Yep, you know, look what it's
done to you know, our economy, all these kind of things.
An answer every question and this is why we did it,
this is why we had to do it at that point.
Speaker 7 (05:10):
I want to see that the thought processes because, as
you said before, when and it was a situation that
was unprecedented and I hate that word, but it was
around the world. There was confusion about what was the
right way forward, but there were no mistakes made. But
to front up and say we got it wrong, but
here's why we made that decision at the time I
think would go some way to not alleviating or offering
(05:33):
an apology, but an explanation is the very least that
should be offered here.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Yeah, So when somebody asked what would you do differently?
I don't is it acceptable to answer just about everything.
That's not really an answer, is it. So you didn't
like it, but if you were in charge anyway, I'm
(06:00):
sure they'll get that all sorted out and we'll never
see the like of it ever again.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Hooray you talk said them.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So I'm the broad topic of people wanting the government
to fix everything.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
For them is mandatory sentences for certain crimes?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Is that The answer is that, you know, does that
stop people doing crimes? Knowing that if you do this crime,
this is definitely what you're going away for The.
Speaker 8 (06:24):
Couple who murdered four year old Ashton Creswell, they were
jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of
them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them
staged storm. That's all you have to do. When you're
a baby murderer, you you just shut up that feral
(06:48):
tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy.
So they were the police's hands are tied. So they
were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have
done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove
either way one of them because both of them were
(07:09):
protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges
of neglect and so for murdering that little boy and
then staying stum, his mother and name only got three
years and the partner got four years for basically torturing
(07:34):
a child. So many children are being tortured right now,
tortured and killed, and for that you get three years
and four years. Is it any wonder why the government
is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples
among thousands, thousands and thousands of why the government has
(08:00):
to interfere with the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Very rarely is the general public apprized of every single
detail of a trial of a case.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And you know.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
There's an appeal system as well. Obviously if it's thought
that the you know, the judges, it's complicated, isn't it.
I just I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Everything's complicated and sometimes we don't have all the facts.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But once again, I'm sure the government's got our best
interest in that, and they'll fix everything and it will
be way better, and that as soon as mandatory sentencing
comes in, all the chrome will stop.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Hooray.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Having a bit cynical today, when well, I've just been
around a While I've seen some things like people talking
about building a new stadium in Auckland.
Speaker 9 (09:03):
It's not every day that a bunch of rich people
turn up on your doorstep offering to fund three hundred
million dollar gold plated sporting facility and seated arena in
your largest city at no cost to currently broke rate
and taxpayers. It's much needed. Everybody knows that we're sporting
mad country. We need it for the health, the fitness, everything.
We had a few proposals in alongside this expensive butt
(09:26):
funded one. Council was doing its thing, you know, asking
for feedback, then feedback on feedback, and consulting up the wazu.
You know what they do, just council being counsel. Then today,
before council has even made a decision, the gift horse
pulls the proposal. They're withdrawing their plans and funding, and
(09:48):
we're left with a chunk of central city land and
no money. I have no insider information here. I'm going
based purely off what they have put out in.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Their press release.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
And they say this despite our deep commitment and experience
the process of delivering a project on public land in
Auckland has presented unique challenges with the extended timelines and complexities,
we have regretfully withdrawn our proposal. These guys have done
big projects before. It's Bill Foley, for goodness sakes. You know,
(10:25):
they've delivered big stadiums before. They've delivered BMO Stadium in
Los Angeles. But here in Auckland, not too hard now.
To me, that sounds a little bit like council plus
you know, public land plus consultation plus ebe consultation plus
consultation up the wazoo. Too hard, basket, That's what it
(10:45):
sounds like to me. But I'm just reading between the lines.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Now.
Speaker 9 (10:50):
There is a chance these guys got a better offer,
or ran the numbers again and the numbers no longer worked,
or something else, in which case shame on them for
not being upfront about it but taking it face value.
In the case of the now failed Auckland Arena, the
shame appears to be on us.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Just playing Devil's advocate for a minute.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
I know.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Certainly, my regular host on the Breakfast show, Mike Asking,
often loves to misquote the Field of Dreams movie and
say words along the lines of build it and they
will come. Of course, that's not the line from the
movie build it and he will come as actually what
he says in the movie. But anyway, he often talks
(11:35):
about that with things like stadium, stadia.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Whatever, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
And then they did that in North Harbor with the
North Harbor Stadium, And yet that seems seems to be
some sort of consternation that people aren't really going to
things there.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
It's in a certain amount of difficulty. I understand.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
I mean, it's still there, but yeah, I don't think
it's been the raging success that it was initially going
to be touted to be. So you do have to
be a little bit careful about these things. Still, I'm
sure we probably do need one, and if we had one,
it would be great.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Great news talk.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Has it been finally, and this is a question that
I actually was thinking about in the weekend.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
I'll let Marcus ask it first.
Speaker 10 (12:23):
Just a question to you if you are an Uber
driver or an Uber eats driver, And I'm unsure if
they people same people do both, because every time I've
been in an Uber it doesn't smell foodie, or maybe
they put them in the boot. So I wouldn't mind
knowing the lie of the land of being an uber
driver in twenty twenty five, if you worked at one
of those, how's it working out for you? Because three
(12:45):
or four years back people said it was dire when
the price of guess was high and no one was
going out because the economy had tanked, when it's still tanked.
I'm just curious to know, if you are an uber driver,
if that's working out for you, is it are you
being treated well? Is it a pleasant kind of a
(13:10):
thing to do. I wouldn't mind your information about that.
Although I'm not thinking of becoming an uber driver. Although
I didn't give it a glancing thought, I think it
would be quite funny.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
I'm not convinced.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Had a couple of took a couple of ubers when
I was in Wellington for the weekend too, and from
and to the airport. Had one good driver, you know,
gave him a tip on the app. He talked just
to write amount. I know you can book a silent
one now. I don't know that you just want to
(13:48):
sit in silence to you, but you also don't want
your air talked off. And meanwhile, the one back to
the airport, we were being picked out at the hotel.
We had two small suitcases. In fact, one was actually
just a Kevin Berg size. He popped the boot and
stayed in the car. I mean, I'm not expecting silver service.
(14:08):
But and then sort of the same thing when we
got to the airport as well. I mean, I'm totally
capable of getting my suitcases in and out of his boot,
but I would have just thought, just to protect the boot,
you might want to have some kind of hand and
getting the suitcases in and out, but maybe not. I
guess that's not what you're paying for. I didn't give
(14:29):
them a tip, finel Ena. There are still erbers.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
I mean you can.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Still catching them, so somebody must think that they're all right.
I am a glen Hart.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
That was.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
A news Talk, said Bean of cynicism today. So that's
pretty usual though, isn't it. We'll see you back here
again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Used Talks doorsid Bean. For more from news Talk, Said b.
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iart Radio.
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk, said b
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Used Talk said, be you talk.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Hello, my beautiful beanies, and welcome to the bean for Wednesday.
First with yesterday's news, I am van Hart, and we
are looking back at Tuesday the idea of mandatory sentencing
or minimum sentences for certain crimes.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
How are we feeling about that? The orphaned stadium is
all go?
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I hang on and would you be an uber driver?
But before any of that, Ah, this COVID inquiry, I
just love rehashing COVID.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Were thinking about the COVID times. Don't you question?
Speaker 4 (00:56):
Should Jacinda don come home in the year before the
World Commission into our COVID response. I think she should.
I could understand though if she doesn't, because just as
she became the symbol of our successful response to the pandemic,
which we rewarded with a supermajority and Labour's second term,
she also then became the symbol of everything that we
did wrong. And there's a significant number of people who
have been weaponized against the former Prime minister because of
(01:19):
the things they resent and they want a holding too account.
They want a Nuremberg trial, as you heard from my text.
They want fines, they want jail, but they won't get
that even if she did come back. This is an
inquiry about COVID to understand everything they got wrong as
well as everything they got right. Now, I'm sure you Cinderaduin,
even if her conscience is completely clear, she would be
worried about the consequences of coming home and being at
(01:41):
the front of this investigation, for her family, for her
personal safety, for her own mental health. And the feeling
is that she won't. You can read between the lines
in the recent Women's Weekly interview that home is not
on the raindar. But remember, she will not escape the inquiry.
No one will. There's enough people being called to give
us the full and frank dissection of everything that happened
(02:02):
at the beginning of this decade, and that is important
because there will be another pandemic one day. So anyway,
let's get into it with or without former Prime Minister
just I.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Think one of the big questions, as far as I'm concerned,
is at pandemic accepting all the time and we just
don't react to them this way.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Was this one really as bad as they told us
it was at the time.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
I guess that that's the ultimate question, isn't it. As
Andrew said, there there will be other pandemics, and there
probably are pandemic accepting at the moment that we've maybe
not taken quite as much notice of.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
I don't know, news talk Bean, I've probably got all
that wrong. It probably was really bad.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
I like I keep saying, I've just sort of repressed
the whole thing, the sort of two two and a
half years where life was just so weird, blanked it out.
I think Jane quite can't quite let it go, though
she wants to, certainly wants to cinder herdurn to come
back and face the news if I think. But I
think Matt Heath actually makes quite a good point here,
(03:13):
asked quite a good question.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
What would you do just?
Speaker 5 (03:16):
I mean, this is kind of off topic, Jane, from
what we're talking about and the moral obligation for an
next prime minister to come and talk to a royal inquiry,
But what do you think just you know a couple
of things that you would have done different? And of
course we're looking back. In the heat of the moment,
people are going to make mistakes, But looking back now,
because that's what the Royal Inquiry is about. So you know,
the core purpose is to strengthen our response for future pandemics.
(03:39):
So what do you think could have been done different?
Speaker 3 (03:41):
Jane?
Speaker 6 (03:41):
Honestly, just about everything, I mean, completely ruined the children's education.
I would say they're not draw at year one NTA one.
They have to do that. There's a lot of children
that would have been disappointed. The rest of them would
have been absolutely thrilled to get it for nothing. Well,
that doesn't help in this years, in the next years exams,
(04:03):
that won't help them when they go to the university
or to try to get into building and all the
other things that I mean, anything they wished to do.
They were part of that year that was given it,
which meant them lazy, and they got lazy. And you
won't hear anything else out of me from that. It
was just the way that she'd say, God with our lives.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (04:25):
I think if you called Jane, yeah, yeah, and you
made that very clear. And look, there'll be a lot
of people feeling as Jane feels. Clearly it hit her
on a personal level.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I wonder if the Expreme Minister believes that she could
prove to someone like Jane by talking to the Royal
Inquiry and show why the decisions were made.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
Absolutely, I think that would go a long way. And
you talk about apology, I don't know about apologies, but
absolutely explaining and giving the context.
Speaker 5 (04:53):
Every step of the way why you made this decision
while people say, well, look look what it's done to
education in our country. Yep, you know, look what it's
done to you know, our economy, all these kind of things.
An answer every question and this is why we did it,
this is why we had to do it at that point.
Speaker 7 (05:10):
I want to see that the thought processes because, as
you said before, when and it was a situation that
was unprecedented and I hate that word, but it was
around the world. There was confusion about what was the
right way forward, but there were no mistakes made. But
to front up and say we got it wrong, but
here's why we made that decision at the time I
think would go some way to not alleviating or offering
(05:33):
an apology, but an explanation is the very least that
should be offered here.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Yeah, So when somebody asked what would you do differently?
I don't is it acceptable to answer just about everything.
That's not really an answer, is it. So you didn't
like it, but if you were in charge anyway, I'm
(06:00):
sure they'll get that all sorted out and we'll never
see the like of it ever again.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Hooray you talk said them.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So I'm the broad topic of people wanting the government
to fix everything.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
For them is mandatory sentences for certain crimes?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Is that The answer is that, you know, does that
stop people doing crimes? Knowing that if you do this crime,
this is definitely what you're going away for The.
Speaker 8 (06:24):
Couple who murdered four year old Ashton Creswell, they were
jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of
them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them
staged storm. That's all you have to do. When you're
a baby murderer, you you just shut up that feral
(06:48):
tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy.
So they were the police's hands are tied. So they
were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have
done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove
either way one of them because both of them were
(07:09):
protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges
of neglect and so for murdering that little boy and
then staying stum, his mother and name only got three
years and the partner got four years for basically torturing
(07:34):
a child. So many children are being tortured right now,
tortured and killed, and for that you get three years
and four years. Is it any wonder why the government
is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples
among thousands, thousands and thousands of why the government has
(08:00):
to interfere with the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Very rarely is the general public apprized of every single
detail of a trial of a case.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And you know.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
There's an appeal system as well. Obviously if it's thought
that the you know, the judges, it's complicated, isn't it.
I just I don't.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Everything's complicated and sometimes we don't have all the facts.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But once again, I'm sure the government's got our best
interest in that, and they'll fix everything and it will
be way better, and that as soon as mandatory sentencing
comes in, all the chrome will stop.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Hooray.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Having a bit cynical today, when well, I've just been
around a While I've seen some things like people talking
about building a new stadium in Auckland.
Speaker 9 (09:03):
It's not every day that a bunch of rich people
turn up on your doorstep offering to fund three hundred
million dollar gold plated sporting facility and seated arena in
your largest city at no cost to currently broke rate
and taxpayers. It's much needed. Everybody knows that we're sporting
mad country. We need it for the health, the fitness, everything.
We had a few proposals in alongside this expensive butt
(09:26):
funded one. Council was doing its thing, you know, asking
for feedback, then feedback on feedback, and consulting up the wazu.
You know what they do, just council being counsel. Then today,
before council has even made a decision, the gift horse
pulls the proposal. They're withdrawing their plans and funding, and
(09:48):
we're left with a chunk of central city land and
no money. I have no insider information here. I'm going
based purely off what they have put out in.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
Their press release.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
And they say this despite our deep commitment and experience
the process of delivering a project on public land in
Auckland has presented unique challenges with the extended timelines and complexities,
we have regretfully withdrawn our proposal. These guys have done
big projects before. It's Bill Foley, for goodness sakes. You know,
(10:25):
they've delivered big stadiums before. They've delivered BMO Stadium in
Los Angeles. But here in Auckland, not too hard now.
To me, that sounds a little bit like council plus
you know, public land plus consultation plus ebe consultation plus
consultation up the wazoo. Too hard, basket, That's what it
(10:45):
sounds like to me. But I'm just reading between the lines.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Now.
Speaker 9 (10:50):
There is a chance these guys got a better offer,
or ran the numbers again and the numbers no longer worked,
or something else, in which case shame on them for
not being upfront about it but taking it face value.
In the case of the now failed Auckland Arena, the
shame appears to be on us.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Just playing Devil's advocate for a minute.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
I know.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Certainly, my regular host on the Breakfast show, Mike Asking,
often loves to misquote the Field of Dreams movie and
say words along the lines of build it and they
will come. Of course, that's not the line from the
movie build it and he will come as actually what
he says in the movie. But anyway, he often talks
(11:35):
about that with things like stadium, stadia.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
Whatever, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
And then they did that in North Harbor with the
North Harbor Stadium, And yet that seems seems to be
some sort of consternation that people aren't really going to
things there.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
It's in a certain amount of difficulty. I understand.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
I mean, it's still there, but yeah, I don't think
it's been the raging success that it was initially going
to be touted to be. So you do have to
be a little bit careful about these things. Still, I'm
sure we probably do need one, and if we had one,
it would be great.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Great news talk.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Has it been finally, and this is a question that
I actually was thinking about in the weekend.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
I'll let Marcus ask it first.
Speaker 10 (12:23):
Just a question to you if you are an Uber
driver or an Uber eats driver, And I'm unsure if
they people same people do both, because every time I've
been in an Uber it doesn't smell foodie, or maybe
they put them in the boot. So I wouldn't mind
knowing the lie of the land of being an uber
driver in twenty twenty five, if you worked at one
of those, how's it working out for you? Because three
(12:45):
or four years back people said it was dire when
the price of guess was high and no one was
going out because the economy had tanked, when it's still tanked.
I'm just curious to know, if you are an uber driver,
if that's working out for you, is it are you
being treated well? Is it a pleasant kind of a
(13:10):
thing to do. I wouldn't mind your information about that.
Although I'm not thinking of becoming an uber driver. Although
I didn't give it a glancing thought, I think it
would be quite funny.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
I'm not convinced.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Had a couple of took a couple of ubers when
I was in Wellington for the weekend too, and from
and to the airport. Had one good driver, you know,
gave him a tip on the app. He talked just
to write amount. I know you can book a silent
one now. I don't know that you just want to
(13:48):
sit in silence to you, but you also don't want
your air talked off. And meanwhile, the one back to
the airport, we were being picked out at the hotel.
We had two small suitcases. In fact, one was actually
just a Kevin Berg size. He popped the boot and
stayed in the car. I mean, I'm not expecting silver service.
(14:08):
But and then sort of the same thing when we
got to the airport as well. I mean, I'm totally
capable of getting my suitcases in and out of his boot,
but I would have just thought, just to protect the boot,
you might want to have some kind of hand and
getting the suitcases in and out, but maybe not. I
guess that's not what you're paying for. I didn't give
(14:29):
them a tip, finel Ena. There are still erbers.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
I mean you can.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Still catching them, so somebody must think that they're all right.
I am a glen Hart.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
That was.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
A news Talk, said Bean of cynicism today. So that's
pretty usual though, isn't it. We'll see you back here
again tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Used Talks doorsid Bean. For more from news Talk, Said b.
Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows
with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iart Radio.
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.