October 22, 2024 • 13 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Tuesday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) ...But Is it Justice?/Ooo Wellington, You're In Big Trouble Now/Crazy Take On Lollies
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.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Used Talk said be you Talk said Hello, my beautiful beanies,
and welcome to the bean for Wednesday. First with yesterday's news,
I am Glen Hard and we are looking back at Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
So Wellington they have.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Been very naughty and they're going to have somebody looking
after them now they've sent the babysitter. What does Marcus
think of a New Zealand lollies? This something to look
forward to at the end of the podcast. But our
first up, our three strikes is getting even more three strikey.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
This is great news.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Apparently we're just going to be able to lock people
up forever just for looking at people the wrong way
and testing.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Three strikes update for you this morning, Nicole McKee's put
out a statement. The government's basically lowering the threshold you
have to meet in order to be hit with the
new three strikes law. Originally, for the law to kick in,
for you to get a strike, you had to commit
a crime with a prison sentence of twenty four months
or more and it was the same for each of
(01:24):
the three strikes strike one, two, and three. Now it's
being lowered to just twelve months for the first offense,
So basically more criminals will be captured by the first strike,
and if they go on to commit more serious crimes,
it could mean they're locked up for good, or there's
an increase in their minimum sentence. It's taking away the
power from the judges and the discretion that they have.
(01:46):
They say the law doesn't work, this three strikes law,
because we have had it before. It's not proven to
reduce offending or reoffending. It's not right. It doesn't rehabilitate criminals.
And yet somehow I don't mind it. If you can't
sort yourself out after warnings one and two, then why
would you miraculously stop offending after the third warning? You
(02:07):
probably wouldn't. So wouldn't we all be better off if
that serious violent repeat offender was rather than living next
door to you in jail.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Of course, it would be great if they didn't offend
any times. Maybe could we look into stopping that from happening. No,
we're just going to wait for them to do it
three times and then O gay.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
News talk ze Bean.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Yeah, I mean, it's a nice, tidy, fun thing.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
To say, isn't it three strikes and you're at boom
very tidy?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Does Carrie love it?
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So?
Speaker 6 (02:45):
Act, who is the party that supported it when it
was first introduced by the Key government in twenty ten,
is unapologetic and says three strike sends a signal to
violent offenders that New Zealanders won't tolerate repeated violent and
sexual offending. According to Act, the average three strikes offender
(03:07):
has seventy five convictions, So to even get within the
realm of having three strikes, supply you have to have
seventy five previous convictions, not just appearances in court. This
is where you have been found guilty. Under the previous regime,
(03:31):
only twenty four people were sentenced to a third strike,
so it's not being used willy nilly. The total number
of people's sentenced to a first, second, or third strike
accounted for just one percent of the people sentenced in
our courts. They were the worst of the worst. These
offenders leave behind a long list of victims, some of
(03:53):
whom will never recover from the trauma. So I'm okay
about that seventy five previous convictions for violent and sexual offending.
Yet I don't care about your rehab. I actually do
feel safer. So if your surveyors or your questionnaire takers
(04:17):
would like to ask me, I'll tell them I don't
care if prisoner rehabilitation is negatively effective, because after seventy
five convictions, it's going to take a seismic shift within
the individual, not a prison program to rehabilitate them.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I'm good, yeah, I mean, obviously there's always going to
be outliars and you know, sensational cases that you know,
people will get hold of and make a big thing
about it, like curious is it's you know, it's one
percent of the cases or.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Something at the moment. So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Maybe I'm just being lefty liberal about this, and I think,
but lefty liberal about this? Talk Sid, I mean, but
lefty liberal about this.
Speaker 7 (05:05):
Heither do you think Sensible Sentence and Trust has done?
The re search today found out of those twenty five
under the EXIST, under the new law as proposed, only
seven would end up. Only seven of the twenty five
would end up on a third strike. Today, after the
beefing up, eight would end up on a third strike.
So it's been beefed up so that it goes from
(05:27):
seven to eight on a third strike. I mean, that's
hardly beefing up right now. I don't know why Nicole McKee,
who's relevant minister here, is persevering with the softly softly approach.
It's bizarre to me. She knows that the public wants
her to go hard. Her email and box has been
flooded with people telling her to go hard as predicted,
(05:47):
which is why she's ended up beefing it up. I
don't think the government will be able to maintain the
line that it's got at the moment and keep on
going soft on this. That tough on crime approach is
one of the strongest points of difference that they have
with the previous labor government, and it's actually worth preserving
that point of difference because it's what we want. The
public want bad people locked up behind bars, punished so
they're not in the community earning us. There is nothing
(06:09):
wrong with us wanting that it's not bad to punish
bad people, right And if you don't want to punish
bad people, just have a look at the last lot
last labor government and the outgoing Police Commissioner Andrew Costa
and see whether that's an exercise worth repeating. So again.
As I say, I would not be surprised if Nicole
McKee has to come back to the table and beef
(06:31):
this up again.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I don't like the way that the Heather's looking at
all the facts here, other than just going through the
sensational headline.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
That's not very fun of it.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And then you know you had Mike hosking problem about
how the majority of the legal community is against three
strike altogether and what would they know. It's not like
they're dealing with these people day and day out. Hang on, right,
Wellington has been sent to the naughty chair or out
(07:09):
to the quote room to have a good hard think
about what they've done or something.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Anyway, there's an observer. Is that going to sort it out?
Speaker 8 (07:16):
It is an interesting set up on Wellington, isn't it?
Because Central Wellington is very different from the rest of it.
I mean it's it's the capital of New Zealand, it's
the kible of government. There's people in a very different
employment then the city surrounding your upper hearts and your life.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
It's a unique electorate, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Wellington's it is it's distorted.
Speaker 9 (07:36):
It's quite distorted due to the fact of the high
level of income, low level of low level, cost of
housing relative to income, and Wellington and the concentration of
left wing academia in the city, and it creates a look,
it's created a toxic soup or gas role for.
Speaker 10 (07:53):
One of a better word, where the ingredients aren't aren't
meant to accompany each other. You've got the wrong flavors
mixing together and the result that you get is an
edible pile of rubbish.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
On love And the analogies from the callers, these are great.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
It's really painting the picture. A lave a casse role
per fan of cast Rob, not a toxic Cassie.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
You can't you can't an ingredients and they just keep
it simple, you know, just stick with the one broth,
don't get mixed up on it. But Mark, I'm going
to play devil's advocate here that you know, whether you
like this council or not, they were voted in and
they got the most votes, which meant Tory got the
maural tya and they all got their jobs. And just
(08:35):
because we don't like the direction that they took, does
that really mean that we can turf them all out?
Or is that just inevitable that that you have to
wait three years. Yep, we made a mistake. In three years,
we're gonna have to live through it and when we
get to that time we'll kick them out.
Speaker 9 (08:50):
Well, I think we're lucky in the fact that the
Minister of Local Government is actually our recall election, which
is what he's done here. He's effectively said, look, children,
we're going to put the dolls in the room and
you're going to have to behave one more at city
councilor actually said on another show this is this is
this is juvenility you're dealing with you. He said, if
they put an observer on, people will behave in a
(09:12):
performative manner to get attention.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
That's right, It's increasing, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I mean, isn't the thing that you're supposed to do
is take Wellington off them and make them sit in
a room without it and see how they like it
without it until they say sorry, isn't that what you're
supposed to do?
Speaker 5 (09:31):
News talk? Has it been?
Speaker 2 (09:33):
I'm going to finish up here with a lolly, which
Wellington will not get.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Unless they do a bit of job in his ill
lollies this time though.
Speaker 11 (09:42):
A Dunedin based dental Awareness startup has questioned whether it's
responsible for in New Zealand to hand out lollies on flights,
claiming they could be contributing to the concerning state of
Kiwi's teeth. You will have an opinion on this. You
might want to ring up and say things like go
(10:02):
won't go broke, PC gone made sugar police, what next?
You can say all the Yeah, you can say all
those things. However, I just want to say, and I'm
desperate to hear your opinions on this.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Ah.
Speaker 11 (10:26):
I never know how to phrase what I'm going to say.
I think that the significance of the lollies to air
New Zealand has become too big. I mean, for God's sake,
(10:48):
they are the world's most unexciting, boring lollies you've ever
tried in your life, and they've sworn around and they
hold them over you. They send kids down the aisles
with all the kids, let's get a kid, or you
go down like they're holy the Crown Jewels. I'm sick
(11:10):
of the sweets. If I was running in New Zealand,
how come they've never developed their own sweets like a
fijoa flavor, a Kiwi fruit flavor, something a Manukah and
think capit the ice cream go on with some really
amazing flavors, and then you could buy those sweets elsewhere
(11:31):
in shops and they could become their own brand. You
would need to make them yourselves. You could in fact
have got some boutique lolly manufactured to make them and
ready made a song and dance about them. But those
same turgid lollies forever. If you're going to stick with them,
make a thing about them, make it become a big deal,
(11:52):
really celebrate it. Get some kind of Peter Gordon or
some chef to develop their own ones. Every year have
battles which one should go, which one should stay? And
should we get rid of passion fruit and bring in
karma he flower? Should we get rid of the karma
he FLEs and bring in a fijoa and hawks by
apple mix? They could do so much with the sweet.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
They didn't have the black ones there for a while,
didn't They Were they boison berry or something? What's comma,
he flower?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I've never heard of that.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Look at, I'm going to look that up after the podcast.
I mean, well, I think he's kind of is he
sort of missed the point of them. I mean the
reason they give them out is so you can sack
them so your ears don't pop while you land. And
it's always disappointing when you're on a not Onion Easiland
flight and you don't give a lolly and then you've
got to did you bring your own lollies?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
No?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
How are you gonna make your ears pop? I don't know, problem,
isn't it? So that's for the tooth pacat thing. Come on,
how many flights are you going on with? You have
a lot of flights before you give yourself a hole
in your tooth or a pool upid genus.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
I am bleon.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
That was my controversial take on dentistry and flying perhaps
and confectionary.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
I'll see you veack here again tomorrow with more heart takes.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Right now, News Talkers Talkings it 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 iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk said b
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Used Talk said be you Talk said Hello, my beautiful beanies,
and welcome to the bean for Wednesday. First with yesterday's news,
I am Glen Hard and we are looking back at Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
So Wellington they have.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Been very naughty and they're going to have somebody looking
after them now they've sent the babysitter. What does Marcus
think of a New Zealand lollies? This something to look
forward to at the end of the podcast. But our
first up, our three strikes is getting even more three strikey.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
This is great news.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Apparently we're just going to be able to lock people
up forever just for looking at people the wrong way
and testing.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Three strikes update for you this morning, Nicole McKee's put
out a statement. The government's basically lowering the threshold you
have to meet in order to be hit with the
new three strikes law. Originally, for the law to kick in,
for you to get a strike, you had to commit
a crime with a prison sentence of twenty four months
or more and it was the same for each of
(01:24):
the three strikes strike one, two, and three. Now it's
being lowered to just twelve months for the first offense,
So basically more criminals will be captured by the first strike,
and if they go on to commit more serious crimes,
it could mean they're locked up for good, or there's
an increase in their minimum sentence. It's taking away the
power from the judges and the discretion that they have.
(01:46):
They say the law doesn't work, this three strikes law,
because we have had it before. It's not proven to
reduce offending or reoffending. It's not right. It doesn't rehabilitate criminals.
And yet somehow I don't mind it. If you can't
sort yourself out after warnings one and two, then why
would you miraculously stop offending after the third warning? You
(02:07):
probably wouldn't. So wouldn't we all be better off if
that serious violent repeat offender was rather than living next
door to you in jail.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Of course, it would be great if they didn't offend
any times. Maybe could we look into stopping that from happening. No,
we're just going to wait for them to do it
three times and then O gay.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
News talk ze Bean.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Yeah, I mean, it's a nice, tidy, fun thing.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
To say, isn't it three strikes and you're at boom
very tidy?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Does Carrie love it?
Speaker 5 (02:45):
So?
Speaker 6 (02:45):
Act, who is the party that supported it when it
was first introduced by the Key government in twenty ten,
is unapologetic and says three strike sends a signal to
violent offenders that New Zealanders won't tolerate repeated violent and
sexual offending. According to Act, the average three strikes offender
(03:07):
has seventy five convictions, So to even get within the
realm of having three strikes, supply you have to have
seventy five previous convictions, not just appearances in court. This
is where you have been found guilty. Under the previous regime,
(03:31):
only twenty four people were sentenced to a third strike,
so it's not being used willy nilly. The total number
of people's sentenced to a first, second, or third strike
accounted for just one percent of the people sentenced in
our courts. They were the worst of the worst. These
offenders leave behind a long list of victims, some of
(03:53):
whom will never recover from the trauma. So I'm okay
about that seventy five previous convictions for violent and sexual offending.
Yet I don't care about your rehab. I actually do
feel safer. So if your surveyors or your questionnaire takers
(04:17):
would like to ask me, I'll tell them I don't
care if prisoner rehabilitation is negatively effective, because after seventy
five convictions, it's going to take a seismic shift within
the individual, not a prison program to rehabilitate them.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I'm good, yeah, I mean, obviously there's always going to
be outliars and you know, sensational cases that you know,
people will get hold of and make a big thing
about it, like curious is it's you know, it's one
percent of the cases or.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Something at the moment. So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Maybe I'm just being lefty liberal about this, and I think,
but lefty liberal about this? Talk Sid, I mean, but
lefty liberal about this.
Speaker 7 (05:05):
Heither do you think Sensible Sentence and Trust has done?
The re search today found out of those twenty five
under the EXIST, under the new law as proposed, only
seven would end up. Only seven of the twenty five
would end up on a third strike. Today, after the
beefing up, eight would end up on a third strike.
So it's been beefed up so that it goes from
(05:27):
seven to eight on a third strike. I mean, that's
hardly beefing up right now. I don't know why Nicole McKee,
who's relevant minister here, is persevering with the softly softly approach.
It's bizarre to me. She knows that the public wants
her to go hard. Her email and box has been
flooded with people telling her to go hard as predicted,
(05:47):
which is why she's ended up beefing it up. I
don't think the government will be able to maintain the
line that it's got at the moment and keep on
going soft on this. That tough on crime approach is
one of the strongest points of difference that they have
with the previous labor government, and it's actually worth preserving
that point of difference because it's what we want. The
public want bad people locked up behind bars, punished so
they're not in the community earning us. There is nothing
(06:09):
wrong with us wanting that it's not bad to punish
bad people, right And if you don't want to punish
bad people, just have a look at the last lot
last labor government and the outgoing Police Commissioner Andrew Costa
and see whether that's an exercise worth repeating. So again.
As I say, I would not be surprised if Nicole
McKee has to come back to the table and beef
(06:31):
this up again.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I don't like the way that the Heather's looking at
all the facts here, other than just going through the
sensational headline.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
That's not very fun of it.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And then you know you had Mike hosking problem about
how the majority of the legal community is against three
strike altogether and what would they know. It's not like
they're dealing with these people day and day out. Hang on, right,
Wellington has been sent to the naughty chair or out
(07:09):
to the quote room to have a good hard think
about what they've done or something.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Anyway, there's an observer. Is that going to sort it out?
Speaker 8 (07:16):
It is an interesting set up on Wellington, isn't it?
Because Central Wellington is very different from the rest of it.
I mean it's it's the capital of New Zealand, it's
the kible of government. There's people in a very different
employment then the city surrounding your upper hearts and your life.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
It's a unique electorate, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
Wellington's it is it's distorted.
Speaker 9 (07:36):
It's quite distorted due to the fact of the high
level of income, low level of low level, cost of
housing relative to income, and Wellington and the concentration of
left wing academia in the city, and it creates a look,
it's created a toxic soup or gas role for.
Speaker 10 (07:53):
One of a better word, where the ingredients aren't aren't
meant to accompany each other. You've got the wrong flavors
mixing together and the result that you get is an
edible pile of rubbish.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
On love And the analogies from the callers, these are great.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
It's really painting the picture. A lave a casse role
per fan of cast Rob, not a toxic Cassie.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
You can't you can't an ingredients and they just keep
it simple, you know, just stick with the one broth,
don't get mixed up on it. But Mark, I'm going
to play devil's advocate here that you know, whether you
like this council or not, they were voted in and
they got the most votes, which meant Tory got the
maural tya and they all got their jobs. And just
(08:35):
because we don't like the direction that they took, does
that really mean that we can turf them all out?
Or is that just inevitable that that you have to
wait three years. Yep, we made a mistake. In three years,
we're gonna have to live through it and when we
get to that time we'll kick them out.
Speaker 9 (08:50):
Well, I think we're lucky in the fact that the
Minister of Local Government is actually our recall election, which
is what he's done here. He's effectively said, look, children,
we're going to put the dolls in the room and
you're going to have to behave one more at city
councilor actually said on another show this is this is
this is juvenility you're dealing with you. He said, if
they put an observer on, people will behave in a
(09:12):
performative manner to get attention.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
That's right, It's increasing, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
I mean, isn't the thing that you're supposed to do
is take Wellington off them and make them sit in
a room without it and see how they like it
without it until they say sorry, isn't that what you're
supposed to do?
Speaker 5 (09:31):
News talk? Has it been?
Speaker 2 (09:33):
I'm going to finish up here with a lolly, which
Wellington will not get.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Unless they do a bit of job in his ill
lollies this time though.
Speaker 11 (09:42):
A Dunedin based dental Awareness startup has questioned whether it's
responsible for in New Zealand to hand out lollies on flights,
claiming they could be contributing to the concerning state of
Kiwi's teeth. You will have an opinion on this. You
might want to ring up and say things like go
(10:02):
won't go broke, PC gone made sugar police, what next?
You can say all the Yeah, you can say all
those things. However, I just want to say, and I'm
desperate to hear your opinions on this.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
Ah.
Speaker 11 (10:26):
I never know how to phrase what I'm going to say.
I think that the significance of the lollies to air
New Zealand has become too big. I mean, for God's sake,
(10:48):
they are the world's most unexciting, boring lollies you've ever
tried in your life, and they've sworn around and they
hold them over you. They send kids down the aisles
with all the kids, let's get a kid, or you
go down like they're holy the Crown Jewels. I'm sick
(11:10):
of the sweets. If I was running in New Zealand,
how come they've never developed their own sweets like a
fijoa flavor, a Kiwi fruit flavor, something a Manukah and
think capit the ice cream go on with some really
amazing flavors, and then you could buy those sweets elsewhere
(11:31):
in shops and they could become their own brand. You
would need to make them yourselves. You could in fact
have got some boutique lolly manufactured to make them and
ready made a song and dance about them. But those
same turgid lollies forever. If you're going to stick with them,
make a thing about them, make it become a big deal,
(11:52):
really celebrate it. Get some kind of Peter Gordon or
some chef to develop their own ones. Every year have
battles which one should go, which one should stay? And
should we get rid of passion fruit and bring in
karma he flower? Should we get rid of the karma
he FLEs and bring in a fijoa and hawks by
apple mix? They could do so much with the sweet.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
They didn't have the black ones there for a while,
didn't They Were they boison berry or something? What's comma,
he flower?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I've never heard of that.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Look at, I'm going to look that up after the podcast.
I mean, well, I think he's kind of is he
sort of missed the point of them. I mean the
reason they give them out is so you can sack
them so your ears don't pop while you land. And
it's always disappointing when you're on a not Onion Easiland
flight and you don't give a lolly and then you've
got to did you bring your own lollies?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
No?
Speaker 2 (12:47):
How are you gonna make your ears pop? I don't know, problem,
isn't it? So that's for the tooth pacat thing. Come on,
how many flights are you going on with? You have
a lot of flights before you give yourself a hole
in your tooth or a pool upid genus.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
I am bleon.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
That was my controversial take on dentistry and flying perhaps
and confectionary.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
I'll see you veack here again tomorrow with more heart takes.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Right now, News Talkers Talkings it 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 iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.