Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the French President's demands for a halt on arms deliveries to Israel for use in Gaza is a "disgrace". He says "Israel will win with or without their support". 

UK and Europe correspondent Gavin Grey says it came as a surprise since France is known to be a supporter of Israel. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the French President's demands for a halt on arms deliveries to Israel for use in Gaza is a "disgrace". He says "Israel will win with or without their support".&nbsp;
UK and Europe correspondent Gavin Grey says it came as a surprise since France is known to be a supporter of Israel.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

Early Edition with Ryan Bridge

Gavin Grey: UK and Europe correspondent on French demands for halt on Israeli arms deliveries

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/84e325a7-ca81-4a36-bb48-b202000fbf04/transcript

Why? It's the question we all want answered this morning. But what we'll get is a bunch of speculation.

The first most important question has been answered. Is the crew safe? Yes. Thankfully.

And by the sounds of it, it's thanks in large part to help from others, the decision to abandon ship and a dose of good luck.

Some of the crew spent five hours in life rafts battling the conditions to make it to shore. One capsized before getting there.

But we have so many questions. How come? We've just lost our first Navy vessel since WWII worth $100 million. Up in smoke.

Why did the Manawanui hit a reef? Was it human error? Was it mechanical failure? What happened on the bridge in the moments leading up to the collision? Where was the officer of the watch?

Were there no alarms sounding? Was it the weather? Why was it surveying so close to a known reef at night? Why did it catch fire?

We so far have zero answers. We know the sea was rough and the wind was strong, but that's about it.

The Navy and the Minister both say wait for a Court of Inquiry. But is that good enough? Surely they have some idea of what went wrong by now. What's the harm in the public knowing what they know? Can we not handle the truth?

We've been here before. Remember the Interislander grounding? There were crickets till New Zealand First started tweeting.

We learnt from the Northland pylon debacle that officials pretty much know straight away what went wrong, but we wait for inquiries and reports and courts to tell us the truth months later.

This is more media management than investigation integrity.

The problem with this strategy is the void gets filled with a bunch of speculation rather than facts, at least as established thus far.

And a little bit of accurate info is surely better than a whole bunch of the opposite.

Why? It's the question we all want answered this morning. But what we'll get is a bunch of speculation.
The first most important question has been answered. Is the crew safe?&nbsp;Yes. Thankfully.
And by the sounds of it, it's thanks in large part to help from others, the decision to abandon ship and a dose of good luck.
Some of the crew spent five hours in life rafts battling the conditions to make it to shore. One capsized before getting there.
But we have so many questions. How come? We've just lost our first Navy vessel since WWII worth $100 million. Up in smoke.
Why did the Manawanui hit a reef? Was it human error?&nbsp;Was it mechanical failure?&nbsp;What happened on the bridge in the moments leading up to the collision?&nbsp;Where was the officer of the watch?
Were there no alarms sounding?&nbsp;Was it the weather?&nbsp;Why was it surveying so close to a known reef at night?&nbsp;Why did it catch fire?
We so far have zero answers. We know the sea was rough and the wind was strong, but that's about it.
The Navy and the Minister both say wait for a Court of Inquiry.&nbsp;But is that good enough? Surely they have some idea of what went wrong by now. What's the harm in the public knowing what they know?&nbsp;Can we not handle the truth?
We've been here before. Remember the Interislander grounding? There were crickets till New Zealand First started tweeting.
We learnt from the Northland pylon debacle that officials pretty much know straight away what went wrong, but we wait for inquiries and reports and courts to tell us the truth months later.
This is more media management than investigation integrity.
The problem with this strategy is the void gets filled with a bunch of speculation rather than facts, at least as established thus far.
And a little bit of accurate info is surely better than a whole bunch of the opposite.

Ryan Bridge: What's the harm in the public knowing what went wrong on HMNZS Manawanui?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/077f5268-b12b-40a5-b292-b201013df4a8/transcript

Belief the Government's fast-track list will reap more benefits than environmental problems.

The Government's listed 149 projects for its Fast Track Approvals Bill - including nine mining projects.

The Bill still needs to go before the Environment Committee, then each project will be assessed by an expert panel.

Straterra chief executive Josie Vidal told Ryan Bridge the previous system fixated on the environment — but now it considers the economic effects as well.

She says New Zealand needs to rely on science, technology and facts — not emotion.

LISTEN ABOVE

Belief the Government's fast-track list will reap more benefits than environmental problems.
The Government's listed 149 projects for its Fast Track Approvals Bill - including nine mining projects.
The Bill still needs to go before the Environment Committee, then each project will be assessed by an expert panel.
Straterra chief executive Josie Vidal told Ryan Bridge the previous system fixated on the environment — but now it considers the economic effects as well.
She says New Zealand needs to rely on science, technology and facts — not emotion.
LISTEN ABOVE

Josie Vidal: Straterra chief executive says fast-track list will reap more benefits than environmental problems

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e46ec21a-dfed-4a2e-a551-b2010136be38/transcript

Cameron Munster has vehemently denied biting Penrith’s Paul Alamoti as the Melbourne five-eighth nervously awaits the outcome of the NRL’s match review committee.

Munster will find out on Monday morning if he has been charged by the NRL after he was accused of biting Alamoti in the final 10 minutes of the Storm’s 14-6 grand final defeat on Sunday.

The Melbourne five-eighth was tackled by Alamoti as he attempted to lead his team upfield and the Penrith centre’s arm came across Munster’s face.

Replays were unclear if Munster bit down on Alamoti’s arm.

Referee Ashley Klein initially let play continue before halting the game and placing Munster on report.

“It can’t be certain, it’s on report,” Klein said.

“They [the match review committee] will deal with it later ... I just saw saliva.”

On the field, Munster was insistent he did not bite Alamoti and told reporters after the match “there was nothing in it”.

“I spoke to Ash about the allegation and he pretty much just told me that if someone alleges a certain thing, they have to put a report and it’s up to the judiciary,” Munster said.

“But honestly there’s nothing in it ... So I’m very confident I’ll get off.”

Munster was wearing a mouthguard during the game and said after years of pushing the boundaries, he was a reformed character.

“He [Alamoti] said he felt pressure and I said I didn’t bite him. That’s footy … I’ve got nothing to worry about,” Munster said.

“I’ve done a lot of silly things in the game and put my hand up for it. But I can put my hand on my heart there’s definitely nothing.

“I put my hand up with certain things that I definitely do in games and I’m a very honest person.

“I can definitely put my hand on my heart with everything I’ve spoken about and [say] there was no malice or even trying to bite.

“So I’m pretty disappointed, I’m trying to get that all of those grubby little incidents out of my game that I’ve obviously done in the previous years.”

Regardless of his belief that he is innocent, Munster’s fate is now at the mercy of the MRC.

St George Illawarra’s Kyle Flanagan received a five-match ban for biting earlier this season.

Alamoti, meanwhile, declined to expand on his on-field claim as he savoured his maiden NRL premiership.

“Whatever happens on the field, stays on the field, we’ll leave it at that,” Alamoti said.

“I’ve just won a premiership so that is the last thing on my mind, I’m worried about partying.”

- by George Clarke, AAP

Andrew Alderson: Cameron Munster denies biting Paul Alamoti as NRL match review looms

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/34effdc7-28a2-44d4-9b0d-b201012feaee/transcript

Gavin Grey: UK and Europe correspondent on French demands for halt on Israeli arms deliveries

In 1 playlist(s)

Early Edition with Ryan Bridge

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips