Today on Politics Wednesday National’s Mark Mitchell and Labour’s Duncan Webb joined Mike Hosking to dig into some of the biggest political topics of the week thus far.
Darleen Tana is still undecided as to whether she’ll resign from Parliament.
She has resigned from the Green Party, which is urging her to quit Parliament after a report on her knowledge of alleged migrant exploitation at her husband's business.
Tana told 1News that if she hasn’t decided whether she’ll resign from Parliament by Sunday, she'll likely be sitting come Tuesday.
Labour’s Duncan Webb told Mike Hosking that she should pack her bags.
He said she came in on the Green’s ticket, and since the Greens don’t want her, she shouldn’t be an MP anymore.
“Leave with dignity, find something else to do.”
National’s Mark Mitchell agreed, telling Mike Hosking that Webb summed it up very well.
He said that Green co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has handled the situation quite well considering their party’s vehement opposition to the waka jumping bill and the difficult situation they’re in.
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):
For Politics Wednesday. Mark Mitchell's with us along with Duncan Web.
Good morning to both of you. Now, Dunk and I
believe this is your first time ever on the program.
Is that would this be immediately a political highlight for you?
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
So let's wait and find out, right, Let's see how
we go.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Well, a lot of it's see the balls, a lot
of it's in your court. So I mean, you know,
all I can do is wish you the very best
with it. Let's start with us while I start with you, Duncan,
Darlene Taner, what's your advice to her?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Pack your bags? Yeah, I mean, she wasn't voted and
as an electorate MP, no one actually voted for her.
She came in on the Green ticket. The Greens don't
want her. She shouldn't be an MP anymore. It's pretty
it's actually pretty simple. She's got no mandate and the
Greens have thrown her out and they're entitled to do that.
Had she been an electorate IMP, it might have been
(00:50):
a little bit different. But at the end of the day,
no one voted for her. You know, leave with dignity,
find something else to do.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
What's your advice to Chloe then these have the walker
jumping if she has to.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Use it, well, they've got themselves in a spot right
because they've fiercely opposed the waker jumping legislation before. Chloe
hasn't been front and center of that, and there has
been a significant change in leadership with her coming in.
But you've got to look ask at the Greens if
you know, only a couple of years ago, they were
(01:23):
screaming blue murder that this was a cravesty, and all
of a sudden they're dipping into the back pocket and
getting out the walker jumping legislation exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
So what's your advice, Mike?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yeah, Look, Duncan summed it up very well as a lawyer. Look,
I think she should have gone. I think she should
design for executive reasons that Duncan has outlined, and I
actually think, to be honest with you, I think Chloe's handled
quite well. But they are in a difficult position around
the what we Jumping bill without a doubt because they
were so vehement in their opposition to that.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
How has she handled it well? When one she hasn't
released the report or anything close to it, and b
she hasn't invoked the answer that she could have if
she wanted to invoke the answer.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I think just initially, like she was very clear
about when she came out and sort of dealt with
the issue in her own comms. But yes, I agree
with you is there's got to be a level of
transparency around that. There's been a commitment to releasing the
report or at least part of the report, so you
know the expectations that has to happen now. But they
look they are in a difficult place without a doubt,
(02:28):
turn to the party she chooses to stay or they're
talking about maybe she could join the party, Mary Party.
I think that they're going to have. The only option
over to them is too in fact that what could
jumping bill all right?
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Second issue for you, dunk and then is the business
of Shane Jones and the dinner in the West Coast,
the sniff test, whether it should have been in the
ministerial diary, the fact that wasn't. Then it was, then
it was last minute, then it wasn't. Do we have
a scandal here or not?
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Oh well it smells it smells dodgy to me. The
lack of transparency is a real concern and the idea,
as you say, you know, it wasn't in the diary,
and then it was it was last minute. Oh no,
my officials organized it four days before. He knew he
was going to have dinner with those people. At some
point he certainly knew that he had dinner with them.
(03:14):
And then for it not to appear in the diary,
you know, And it's really important who who it was.
It wasn't some minor person with a grit. These are
mining lobbyists and they've got something to say and they
want to influence one of the ministers who has the
most power and respect of this and to suggest it was,
(03:34):
you know, it was just a few beers in a stake,
just doesn't cut it.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
What do you reckon, Mike, There's an old sign that's
conspiracy or cockup, and it's normally a cockup. And this
is I bet Josie's already come out and said yet,
but it should have been in the diary. The diary
has been corrected, you know. But to be honest with that,
lab will be trying to make some sort of conspiracy
out of it that they know very well that it's
(04:00):
moving place. When you're a minister in terms of meetings
and things that can happen often on the run. I've
been out of the office for three days around the country,
things crop up. So as long as it gets in
the diary and it's recorded, which it has to be
ministerial accountability. But I think that absolutely it would be
more a cock up and expiracy.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Do you is it says here in the email that
was sent out from his office to the people to
the dinner, It says, this is an informal dinner and
it would be appreciated if you could pick up your
share of the costs of you attend. Is that standard practice?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Mark? I don't know. I mean, I think it's probably
a good practice for stating very clearly that the minister
and the text Park is not going to be picking
up the ted if they want to take up the
offer of a meeting. It's probably It's not something that
I've probably done in emails, but you know, in some
ways it's probably a good idea and making it very
clear that test was not picking up the tear.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
What about you, Duncan, when you invited all those consultants
on light rail, did you pay well? Do they pay?
Speaker 3 (04:58):
What happened there wasn't a big one for having fancy dinners.
But actually, as I understand it, it's pretty common too
if you ever dinner, like particularly an informal one, not
come some state occasion to say, oh look at you
know you pick up pay your own way. I mean
it is a good thing because the taxpayer doesn't want
to be paying dinners of ministers in their mates as
(05:18):
they meet and talk about minding Duncan.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Early feedback from the text You interested in feedback? You
go on, okay, well here in his first reecoming and
more of Duncan. Mike much better. Mike Duncan's far better
than Ginny Kicker to the touch is Duncan. We'b actually
from the Labor Party seems to actually answer your question
straighten with some knowledge. Surely not from the left.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
There you go, Oh, I see, I said it was
going to be a disaster. I'm going to get thrown
out of the Labor corcuse that.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
We're a bigger caucus. Put it that way. Hey, Mark,
can I criticize you on this retail crime thing that
you announced while I was on holiday last week? Oh,
he's just dropped off. He's gone. How convenient did he
drop off? When I used guys can I criticize you. No,
he's back with us, Mark you with us.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Sorry, yes, sorry, I'm driving to a podkin. I explained
to Sean that I just said to keep moving because
I'm reading the police. They like boys of details for Sorry.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
About that nowherries at all. Well, I was going to say,
this advisory group on retail crime that you announced while
I was away on holiday two years to come up
with ideas on crime, give me a break. What's that about.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, it's just the reality is we felt was we
felt that was really important to give the people that
are queue the hammers the hits. They have a threat
and formal relationship with the government. They can do a
whole lot of worker and policy stuff, and you know,
with throwing the kitchen sink and everything we can at
getting on top of the barn and crime. I've got
an important voice. Sonny Kelsher himself has put so much
(06:47):
energy in his own time into being a strong voice
and eificate and a lot of work policy as well.
I just think that's a very good move.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah, no, Sonny Kusher is a very good move. But
he's already got the ideas because he's been banging on
about it. For years, So it just it looks like
a pass a government move whereby your set up a
committee for two years, you get your biggest critic to
head it. So he shuts up and he's on board,
and it looks like a jack up.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
No.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Look, there's certainly no expectation that he can't criticize and
hold the government to account. In fact, that's part of
the role of this board is to do exactly that.
And I think that yes, he has developed some good
policy that needs a lot of refine. It needs a
lot of work because we're in a really difficult sensitive areas,
but we have to do something, and we felt that
it was really important that people are getting hammers put
(07:31):
through the head on front line. They've actually recognized and
actually got a formal way to engage with the government.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Can you criticize it, Duncan? I mean it sets up
I mean the story yesterday retailers, the impact of more
officers on patrol in the Auckland CBD, it seems to
be working well.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
The working group Redail Crime is tough, right, we learned that,
we learned it the hard way. Setting up a two
year working group isn't actually addressing the issue. Itself and
a two year timeline. I mean it must be. It's
almost insulting to the retailers, right, say, hang around, we'll
get some advice in two years time and get back
to you. What I mean, very heads to.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Well, it's not it's not it's not a too long,
it's not two years timeline because of advice, and advice
will be coming and working straight away. And I just
think if you get out there and you talk to
the retailers, they will be very clear with you, and
they'll tell you they support this, especially the shopkeepers are
on the front line. Go and talk to people who
of course had a hammer fut through us. You know,
(08:30):
a few weeks ago you're telling you police supportive of this.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
We certainly agree. We certainly agree that the voice victims
and the people who are on the receiving end of
these crimes is really important. But a working group is
you know, we're we're skeptical, but you know, good luck
if it makes progress, that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But I'm I'm not sure why you skiptical moving groups
because you've put a bit of.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Well yeah yeah, but I'm skeptical, Mike, and I never
set up a working group in my life.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
No, So I guess we'll just have to prove that
this is actually a very prove move in terms of
formalizing our a lationship with to come up with the people.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
But it's just really it's really unclear what particular policing
or just ae strategies this working group has to come
up with. Yes, the voice is victims is important, but
you know what, do you think, what are they going
to come? Don't diminish, don't demostic, capability to develop policies,
don't and.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
They development a question. I mean, we know what the
problem with retail crime is. Sonny Kershel has been on
this program dozens of times. He's got the answers, you know,
use the power of arrest, give security guards more power,
all of those sort of things. It's not like we're,
you know, in a science lab trying to find some
sort of solution. We know what the solutions are. Get tougher,
put people in jail, cracked down.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Let's let's with the police and portfolio. And that's exactly
what I'm doing. But there's a lot of rooks to
be done around working working with the retail sector, with
the security industry. There's a lot of work to be
done around legislation in policy and they need to be
part of it in a formal lifeoice as part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Duncan have you read Richard Prebble's article in the Herald
this morning?
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I haven't managed to read that. You have to give
me a synopsis.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Okay. The headline is can Barbara Edmonds save labor? Question mark?
What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Can she?
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Oh? It's fantastic and she's got an amazing ability to
capture things in a nutshell. She's got huge skills around
the finance portfolio. But you know, the job of putting
labor back into government as a job for every single MVM.
We've all got a job to do. It's a team effort, right,
But Barbara's going to do a fantastic job.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
It is premised on the idea you need to shovel
hipkins along the way. What do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (10:44):
I think Chippy's doing a great job. He's understood that
we lost the last election. We've got to have a reset.
And you know, one of the challenges now is that
we're not coming out and saying here's the answers one, two, three,
because we've been told that we didn't have the answers
and we've got to find new ones. So that's what
we're all doing. We're all traveling around the country talking
to people and developing new policies which are going to
(11:06):
address these big issues that we've been talking about.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Hey, listen, I appreciate your time very much. Duncan, Mark,
you're in that particular part of the world. Have you
got more announcements coming today and mes kpe Wairoa or
all of that or what.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
No, I'm down with Pokey. I'm meeting with you. We
leaders and meet but on first meetings with the police
because we had the Mungol mob turn and roll into
town a few weeks ago and the police ran a
very good operation and made sure that they let the
town know that the police are running the place. I've
got the Mungol mob because the last time they did it,
schools were closed and there's all sorts of evics. So
I'm going to say thank you to thank you to
them for the work that they're doing in.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
The world at East can't you can't argue with the
fact he doesn't get out and about Mark Mitchell. Duncan
Webb politis Wednesday for more from the Mic asking Breakfast,
Listen live to news talks it'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
For Politics Wednesday. Mark Mitchell's with us along with Duncan Web.
Good morning to both of you. Now, Dunk and I
believe this is your first time ever on the program.
Is that would this be immediately a political highlight for you?
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
So let's wait and find out, right, Let's see how
we go.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Well, a lot of it's see the balls, a lot
of it's in your court. So I mean, you know,
all I can do is wish you the very best
with it. Let's start with us while I start with you, Duncan,
Darlene Taner, what's your advice to her?
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Pack your bags? Yeah, I mean, she wasn't voted and
as an electorate MP, no one actually voted for her.
She came in on the Green ticket. The Greens don't
want her. She shouldn't be an MP anymore. It's pretty
it's actually pretty simple. She's got no mandate and the
Greens have thrown her out and they're entitled to do that.
Had she been an electorate IMP, it might have been
(00:50):
a little bit different. But at the end of the day,
no one voted for her. You know, leave with dignity,
find something else to do.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
What's your advice to Chloe then these have the walker
jumping if she has to.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Use it, well, they've got themselves in a spot right
because they've fiercely opposed the waker jumping legislation before. Chloe
hasn't been front and center of that, and there has
been a significant change in leadership with her coming in.
But you've got to look ask at the Greens if
you know, only a couple of years ago, they were
(01:23):
screaming blue murder that this was a cravesty, and all
of a sudden they're dipping into the back pocket and
getting out the walker jumping legislation exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
So what's your advice, Mike?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yeah, Look, Duncan summed it up very well as a lawyer. Look,
I think she should have gone. I think she should
design for executive reasons that Duncan has outlined, and I
actually think, to be honest with you, I think Chloe's handled
quite well. But they are in a difficult position around
the what we Jumping bill without a doubt because they
were so vehement in their opposition to that.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
How has she handled it well? When one she hasn't
released the report or anything close to it, and b
she hasn't invoked the answer that she could have if
she wanted to invoke the answer.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I think just initially, like she was very clear
about when she came out and sort of dealt with
the issue in her own comms. But yes, I agree
with you is there's got to be a level of
transparency around that. There's been a commitment to releasing the
report or at least part of the report, so you
know the expectations that has to happen now. But they
look they are in a difficult place without a doubt,
(02:28):
turn to the party she chooses to stay or they're
talking about maybe she could join the party, Mary Party.
I think that they're going to have. The only option
over to them is too in fact that what could
jumping bill all right?
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Second issue for you, dunk and then is the business
of Shane Jones and the dinner in the West Coast,
the sniff test, whether it should have been in the
ministerial diary, the fact that wasn't. Then it was, then
it was last minute, then it wasn't. Do we have
a scandal here or not?
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Oh well it smells it smells dodgy to me. The
lack of transparency is a real concern and the idea,
as you say, you know, it wasn't in the diary,
and then it was it was last minute. Oh no,
my officials organized it four days before. He knew he
was going to have dinner with those people. At some
point he certainly knew that he had dinner with them.
(03:14):
And then for it not to appear in the diary,
you know, And it's really important who who it was.
It wasn't some minor person with a grit. These are
mining lobbyists and they've got something to say and they
want to influence one of the ministers who has the
most power and respect of this and to suggest it was,
(03:34):
you know, it was just a few beers in a stake,
just doesn't cut it.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
What do you reckon, Mike, There's an old sign that's
conspiracy or cockup, and it's normally a cockup. And this
is I bet Josie's already come out and said yet,
but it should have been in the diary. The diary
has been corrected, you know. But to be honest with that,
lab will be trying to make some sort of conspiracy
out of it that they know very well that it's
(04:00):
moving place. When you're a minister in terms of meetings
and things that can happen often on the run. I've
been out of the office for three days around the country,
things crop up. So as long as it gets in
the diary and it's recorded, which it has to be
ministerial accountability. But I think that absolutely it would be
more a cock up and expiracy.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Do you is it says here in the email that
was sent out from his office to the people to
the dinner, It says, this is an informal dinner and
it would be appreciated if you could pick up your
share of the costs of you attend. Is that standard practice?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Mark? I don't know. I mean, I think it's probably
a good practice for stating very clearly that the minister
and the text Park is not going to be picking
up the ted if they want to take up the
offer of a meeting. It's probably It's not something that
I've probably done in emails, but you know, in some
ways it's probably a good idea and making it very
clear that test was not picking up the tear.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
What about you, Duncan, when you invited all those consultants
on light rail, did you pay well? Do they pay?
Speaker 3 (04:58):
What happened there wasn't a big one for having fancy dinners.
But actually, as I understand it, it's pretty common too
if you ever dinner, like particularly an informal one, not
come some state occasion to say, oh look at you
know you pick up pay your own way. I mean
it is a good thing because the taxpayer doesn't want
to be paying dinners of ministers in their mates as
(05:18):
they meet and talk about minding Duncan.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Early feedback from the text You interested in feedback? You
go on, okay, well here in his first reecoming and
more of Duncan. Mike much better. Mike Duncan's far better
than Ginny Kicker to the touch is Duncan. We'b actually
from the Labor Party seems to actually answer your question
straighten with some knowledge. Surely not from the left.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
There you go, Oh, I see, I said it was
going to be a disaster. I'm going to get thrown
out of the Labor corcuse that.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
We're a bigger caucus. Put it that way. Hey, Mark,
can I criticize you on this retail crime thing that
you announced while I was on holiday last week? Oh,
he's just dropped off. He's gone. How convenient did he
drop off? When I used guys can I criticize you. No,
he's back with us, Mark you with us.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Sorry, yes, sorry, I'm driving to a podkin. I explained
to Sean that I just said to keep moving because
I'm reading the police. They like boys of details for Sorry.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
About that nowherries at all. Well, I was going to say,
this advisory group on retail crime that you announced while
I was away on holiday two years to come up
with ideas on crime, give me a break. What's that about.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, it's just the reality is we felt was we
felt that was really important to give the people that
are queue the hammers the hits. They have a threat
and formal relationship with the government. They can do a
whole lot of worker and policy stuff, and you know,
with throwing the kitchen sink and everything we can at
getting on top of the barn and crime. I've got
an important voice. Sonny Kelsher himself has put so much
(06:47):
energy in his own time into being a strong voice
and eificate and a lot of work policy as well.
I just think that's a very good move.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Yeah, no, Sonny Kusher is a very good move. But
he's already got the ideas because he's been banging on
about it. For years, So it just it looks like
a pass a government move whereby your set up a
committee for two years, you get your biggest critic to
head it. So he shuts up and he's on board,
and it looks like a jack up.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
No.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Look, there's certainly no expectation that he can't criticize and
hold the government to account. In fact, that's part of
the role of this board is to do exactly that.
And I think that yes, he has developed some good
policy that needs a lot of refine. It needs a
lot of work because we're in a really difficult sensitive areas,
but we have to do something, and we felt that
it was really important that people are getting hammers put
(07:31):
through the head on front line. They've actually recognized and
actually got a formal way to engage with the government.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Can you criticize it, Duncan? I mean it sets up
I mean the story yesterday retailers, the impact of more
officers on patrol in the Auckland CBD, it seems to
be working well.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
The working group Redail Crime is tough, right, we learned that,
we learned it the hard way. Setting up a two
year working group isn't actually addressing the issue. Itself and
a two year timeline. I mean it must be. It's
almost insulting to the retailers, right, say, hang around, we'll
get some advice in two years time and get back
to you. What I mean, very heads to.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Well, it's not it's not it's not a too long,
it's not two years timeline because of advice, and advice
will be coming and working straight away. And I just
think if you get out there and you talk to
the retailers, they will be very clear with you, and
they'll tell you they support this, especially the shopkeepers are
on the front line. Go and talk to people who
of course had a hammer fut through us. You know,
(08:30):
a few weeks ago you're telling you police supportive of this.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
We certainly agree. We certainly agree that the voice victims
and the people who are on the receiving end of
these crimes is really important. But a working group is
you know, we're we're skeptical, but you know, good luck
if it makes progress, that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But I'm I'm not sure why you skiptical moving groups
because you've put a bit of.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Well yeah yeah, but I'm skeptical, Mike, and I never
set up a working group in my life.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
No, So I guess we'll just have to prove that
this is actually a very prove move in terms of
formalizing our a lationship with to come up with the people.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
But it's just really it's really unclear what particular policing
or just ae strategies this working group has to come
up with. Yes, the voice is victims is important, but
you know what, do you think, what are they going
to come? Don't diminish, don't demostic, capability to develop policies,
don't and.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
They development a question. I mean, we know what the
problem with retail crime is. Sonny Kershel has been on
this program dozens of times. He's got the answers, you know,
use the power of arrest, give security guards more power,
all of those sort of things. It's not like we're,
you know, in a science lab trying to find some
sort of solution. We know what the solutions are. Get tougher,
put people in jail, cracked down.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Let's let's with the police and portfolio. And that's exactly
what I'm doing. But there's a lot of rooks to
be done around working working with the retail sector, with
the security industry. There's a lot of work to be
done around legislation in policy and they need to be
part of it in a formal lifeoice as part of it.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Duncan have you read Richard Prebble's article in the Herald
this morning?
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I haven't managed to read that. You have to give
me a synopsis.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Okay. The headline is can Barbara Edmonds save labor? Question mark?
What do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Can she?
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Oh? It's fantastic and she's got an amazing ability to
capture things in a nutshell. She's got huge skills around
the finance portfolio. But you know, the job of putting
labor back into government as a job for every single MVM.
We've all got a job to do. It's a team effort, right,
But Barbara's going to do a fantastic job.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
It is premised on the idea you need to shovel
hipkins along the way. What do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (10:44):
I think Chippy's doing a great job. He's understood that
we lost the last election. We've got to have a reset.
And you know, one of the challenges now is that
we're not coming out and saying here's the answers one, two, three,
because we've been told that we didn't have the answers
and we've got to find new ones. So that's what
we're all doing. We're all traveling around the country talking
to people and developing new policies which are going to
(11:06):
address these big issues that we've been talking about.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Hey, listen, I appreciate your time very much. Duncan, Mark,
you're in that particular part of the world. Have you
got more announcements coming today and mes kpe Wairoa or
all of that or what.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
No, I'm down with Pokey. I'm meeting with you. We
leaders and meet but on first meetings with the police
because we had the Mungol mob turn and roll into
town a few weeks ago and the police ran a
very good operation and made sure that they let the
town know that the police are running the place. I've
got the Mungol mob because the last time they did it,
schools were closed and there's all sorts of evics. So
I'm going to say thank you to thank you to
them for the work that they're doing in.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
The world at East can't you can't argue with the
fact he doesn't get out and about Mark Mitchell. Duncan
Webb politis Wednesday for more from the Mic asking Breakfast,
Listen live to news talks it'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.