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
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 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.
So Wellington they have.
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.
This is great news.
Apparently we're just going to be able to lock people up forever just for looking at people the wrong way and testing.
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 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. 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 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.
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.
News talk ze Bean.
Yeah, I mean, it's a nice, tidy, fun thing.
To say, isn't it three strikes and you're at boom very tidy?
Does Carrie love it?
So?
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 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, 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 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 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.
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.
Something at the moment. So I don't know.
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.
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 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, 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 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 this up again.
I don't like the way that the Heather's looking at all the facts here, other than just going through the sensational headline.
That's not very fun of it.
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 to the quote room to have a good hard think about what they've done or something.
Anyway, there's an observer. Is that going to sort it out?
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.
It's a unique electorate, isn't it.
Wellington's it is it's distorted.
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.
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.
On love And the analogies from the callers, these are great.
It's really painting the picture. A lave a casse role per fan of cast Rob, not a toxic Cassie.
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 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.
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 performative manner to get attention.
That's right, It's increasing, isn't it.
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?
News talk? Has it been?
I'm going to finish up here with a lolly, which Wellington will not get.
Unless they do a bit of job in his ill lollies this time though.
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 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.
Ah.
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, 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 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 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, 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.
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?
I've never heard of that.
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?
No?
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.
I am bleon.
That was my controversial take on dentistry and flying perhaps and confectionary.
I'll see you veack here again tomorrow with more heart takes.
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.