Friday has come once more, which means Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson are back with Mike Hosking to Wrap the Week that Was. 

They discussed the Warriors’ upcoming clash against the Roosters, those stuck in the Middle East, and took a trip down memory lane. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Friday has come once more, which means Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson are back with Mike Hosking to Wrap the Week that Was.&nbsp;
They discussed the Warriors’ upcoming clash against the Roosters, those stuck in the Middle East, and took a trip down memory lane.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE &nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Wrapping the Week with Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson: Warriors, Middle East, and a trip down memory lane

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1bd7efbe-e1ce-4edf-b66d-b404014eb909/transcript

A bloke called Roman Gofman could be the key to all this. 

Gofman is the incoming Director of Mossad. 

If you believe the story about the war, Netanyahu got the intel that the heavyweights in Iran would all be in the same room on that fateful Saturday. So, if there was ever a time to strike this was it. 

Netanyahu convinced Trump. 

Netanyahu was advised by Gofman, who also believed that if you hit them hard they would fall over, and quickly, and regime change would be complete. 

They were all wrong and badly so. That’s why in the initial video Trump told the people of Iran the country would be theirs to take. 

It clearly isn't. 

You can ask the question, I guess, if Gofman was that wrong on Iran, is he still the bloke to run Mossad? 

If they didn’t see the regime not falling over, they also didn’t see the Strait of Hormuz becoming the cluster it has. 

The IMF report yesterday laid bare just how globally significant this excursion has become and how much pressure goes back onto the shoulders of Trump, who will singularly be held responsible for a global recession if a deal isn't cut. 

Talks look promising and I'm convinced a deal will be done. What sort of deal? Who knows. 

Israel, who really should be held as responsible as Trump but won't be, will hold direct talks with Lebanon. 

In positive news it seems the country is trying to disassociate themselves from Hezbollah. That may well become a thing, which if you dovetail the Iran/America deal, and that involves no more sponsorship of proxies, could it be that globally Hezbollah are toast along with the Houthis and maybe even Hamas? 

Scott Bessent, who appears from the more normal part of the White House, was rolled out yesterday to remind us of the big picture. This war, the talks, the IMF report and the mess is but a moment in time that will vanish if Iran gets stripped of the ability to blow the planet up. 

Which brings us back to the original question and intent: was getting nuclear out of Iran a good idea and would it be worth it? 

I still think as a theory, yes, and a lot of the world would agree. 

But that hasn’t happened yet and the brains that’s started it —Gofman, Netanyahu, and Trump— don't have the same international standing as they did six weeks ago. 

A bloke called Roman Gofman could be the key to all this.&nbsp;
Gofman is the incoming Director of Mossad.&nbsp;
If you believe the story about the war, Netanyahu got the intel that the heavyweights in Iran would all be in the same room on that fateful Saturday. So, if there was ever a time to strike this was it.&nbsp;
Netanyahu convinced Trump.&nbsp;
Netanyahu was advised by Gofman, who also believed that if you hit them hard they would fall over, and quickly, and regime change would be complete.&nbsp;
They were all wrong and badly so. That’s why in the initial video Trump told the people of Iran the country would be theirs to take.&nbsp;
It clearly isn't.&nbsp;
You can ask the question, I guess, if Gofman was that wrong on Iran, is he still the bloke to run Mossad?&nbsp;
If they didn’t see the regime not falling over, they also didn’t see the Strait of Hormuz becoming the cluster it has.&nbsp;
The IMF report yesterday laid bare just how globally significant this excursion has become and how much pressure goes back onto the shoulders of Trump, who will singularly be held responsible for a global recession if a deal isn't cut.&nbsp;
Talks look promising and I'm convinced a deal will be done. What sort of deal? Who knows.&nbsp;
Israel, who really should be held as responsible as Trump but won't be, will hold direct talks with Lebanon.&nbsp;
In positive news it seems the country is trying to disassociate themselves from Hezbollah. That may well become a thing, which if you dovetail the Iran/America deal, and that involves no more sponsorship of proxies, could it be that globally Hezbollah are toast along with the Houthis and maybe even Hamas?&nbsp;
Scott Bessent, who appears from the more normal part of the White House, was rolled out yesterday to remind us of the big picture. This war, the talks, the IMF report and the mess is but a moment in time that will vanish if Iran gets stripped of the ability to blow the planet up.&nbsp;
Which brings us back to the original question and intent: was getting nuclear out of Iran a good idea and would it be worth it?&nbsp;
I still think as a theory, yes, and a lot of the world would agree.&nbsp;
But that hasn’t happened yet and the brains that’s started it —Gofman, Netanyahu, and Trump— don't have the same international standing as they did six weeks ago.&nbsp;

Mike's Minute: The key player in this war

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/569646e2-5723-4fb7-a2f8-b42f0170ede1/transcript

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all. 

  

The war: 6/10 

Mark my words, this is closer to the end than many think. Round two of talks, a squeeze on the Strait – the Iranians are about to capitulate.  

  

Moana Pasifika: 4/10 

In a competition already lacking sparkle, this can't have helped. And also, perhaps a lesson in starting something for the right reasons, not ideological ones.  

  

The Crusaders' horses: 3/10 

That's a 30-year legacy we will miss.  

  

Ema Aitken: 7/10 

Pleased she wasn’t booted, but nor should she have been. What a storm in a bone china, Northern Club teacup.  

  

The BSA: 7/10 

Can't wait to see the back of them. Good luck and good night.  

  

LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW 

At the end of each week, Mike Hosking takes you through the big-ticket items and lets you know what he makes of it all.&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/richard-arnold-us-correspondent-on-the-negotiations-between-iran-and-the-us-resignations/">The war: 6/10</a>&nbsp;
Mark my words, this is closer to the end than many think. Round two of talks, a squeeze on the Strait – the Iranians are about to capitulate. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/debbie-sorensen-moana-pasifika-ceo-on-the-league-exiting-super-rugby-at-the-end-of-the-season/">Moana Pasifika: 4/10</a>&nbsp;
In a competition already lacking sparkle, this can't have helped. And also, perhaps a lesson in starting something for the right reasons, not ideological ones. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Crusaders' horses: 3/10&nbsp;
That's a 30-year legacy we will miss. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
Ema Aitken: 7/10&nbsp;
Pleased she wasn’t booted, but nor should she have been. What a storm in a bone china, Northern Club teacup. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
The BSA: 7/10&nbsp;
Can't wait to see the back of them. Good luck and good night. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE FOR MIKE HOSKING'S FULL WEEK IN REVIEW&nbsp;

Mark the Week: The Aitken case was a storm in a bone china, Northern Club teacup

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0307e81a-3b75-48f1-90cf-b42e0170d30e/transcript

Not a lot of coverage has been given to the failed appeal by Tony Gibson. 

He was the head of the Port of Auckland, a worker died and he was charged under health and safety and found guilty. 

It was the Health and Safety at Work Act of 2015, and he was the first person of a large operation to be charged and found guilty under it. 

This in no way takes away from the tragedy and seriousness of the accident. 

But the question for us all though, is can you reasonably hold a single person responsible in a company where so many people, if you were looking to cast a wide net, potentially could also be responsible? 

And if you can, what sort of chilling effect does that have around the running of large companies in which you can potentially be held to account for Lord knows what? 

The court found he had overall responsibility, which in theory is not unfair. It’s the buck-stops-at-the-top argument. 

But what about the board? What is the point in having management and managerial responsibility if it all eventually gets sheeted back up top? 

In a business where safety is a key aspect of operation, you presumably have people and groups, or committees, that operate procedures and rules. 

What level, if any, of responsibility do they hold, or share? 

Can one person really be held to account for the singular accident, on one day, in one incident, in a company of hundreds, or potentially thousands? 

And if you answer 'yes', as the court seems to have, then how does a CEO change the way they approach the running of that business? 

Are they risk averse? Do they take longer to make decisions? Does progress get slowed as we guess, second guess, then guess one more time just in case? 

Do you overspend or invest in areas "just in case"? How much sleep do you lose doing all this? 

If the rules around being on a board are increasingly arduous, and they are, is making life as a CEO harder, productive? 

Or is finding a single person culpable for any event in the workplace an easy out, of a complex problem allowing everyone else to wash their hands? 

Not a lot of coverage has been given to the failed appeal by Tony Gibson.&nbsp;
He was the head of the Port of Auckland, a worker died and he was charged under health and safety and found guilty.&nbsp;
It was the Health and Safety at Work Act of 2015, and he was the first person of a large operation to be charged and found guilty under it.&nbsp;
This in no way takes away from the tragedy and seriousness of the accident.&nbsp;
But the question for us all though, is can you reasonably hold a single person responsible in a company where so many people, if you were looking to cast a wide net, potentially could also be responsible?&nbsp;
And if you can, what sort of chilling effect does that have around the running of large companies in which you can potentially be held to account for Lord knows what?&nbsp;
The court found he had overall responsibility, which in theory is not unfair. It’s the buck-stops-at-the-top argument.&nbsp;
But what about the board? What is the point in having management and managerial responsibility if it all eventually gets sheeted back up top?&nbsp;
In a business where safety is a key aspect of operation, you presumably have people and groups, or committees, that operate procedures and rules.&nbsp;
What level, if any, of responsibility do they hold, or share?&nbsp;
Can one person really be held to account for the singular accident, on one day, in one incident, in a company of hundreds, or potentially thousands?&nbsp;
And if you answer 'yes', as the court seems to have, then how does a CEO change the way they approach the running of that business?&nbsp;
Are they risk averse? Do they take longer to make decisions? Does progress get slowed as we guess, second guess, then guess one more time just in case?&nbsp;
Do you overspend or invest in areas "just in case"? How much sleep do you lose doing all this?&nbsp;
If the rules around being on a board are increasingly arduous, and they are, is making life as a CEO harder, productive?&nbsp;
Or is finding a single person culpable for any event in the workplace an easy out, of a complex problem allowing everyone else to wash their hands?&nbsp;

Mike's Minute: Is the boss responsible for a death in a major company?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/af676c32-316b-469c-89f5-b42e016eabdc/transcript

Wrapping the Week with Kate Hawkesby and Tim Wilson: Warriors, Middle East, and a trip down memory lane

In 1 playlist(s)

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips