Latest / The Morning Edition / The royals have a rich history of lawsuits, but Andrew’s action is different

Transcript

The royals have a rich history of lawsuits, but Andrew’s action is different · The Morning Edition

0:07
S1: There's been big news from the UK overnight with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor,
0:11
S1: formerly known as Prince Andrew, launching legal action against police
0:15
S1: over his arrest in relation to the Epstein files. Not
0:20
S1: since the 1649 trial of King Charles the First has
0:24
S1: a British royal mounted a legal challenge of this magnitude.
0:27
S1: According to the UK Telegraph, which broke the bombshell story.
0:31
S1: I'm Bevan Shields, filling in for Samantha Salinger. Morris. And
0:35
S1: you're listening to Morning Edition. From The Age and The
0:38
S1: Sydney Morning Herald, today's guest is culture editor at large
0:43
S1: and our local royal expert, Michael Idato. Michael, first up,
0:48
S1: can you give us a bit more context to this news?
0:52
S1: What is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor claiming police got wrong with his
0:56
S1: arrest back in February this year?
0:59
S2: So essentially, he's lodged a judicial review in connection to
1:03
S2: the search warrants, which were the documents that allowed the
1:06
S2: Thames Valley Police to raid his home on the Sandringham
1:10
S2: estate and his former home at Royal Lodge in Windsor. Now, Windsor, obviously,
1:14
S2: is Windsor Castle, which is a royal residence. Sandringham is
1:17
S2: a private property owned by the royal family, essentially was
1:21
S2: owned by the Queen. It's now owned by King Charles.
1:24
S2: So the legal question really is whether or not the
1:28
S2: Thames Valley Police correctly executed those warrants. It's a little
1:33
S2: bit of a legal kind of glitchy thing. It's not
1:36
S2: a grand lawsuit in the celebrity sense, but I suspect
1:40
S2: we're on a mission of sort of exoneration here. He's
1:44
S2: basically questioning the validity and the legal correctness that the
1:48
S2: searches took place. You know, I think this is at
1:52
S2: first blush, it looks like an exercise in trying. I mean,
1:55
S2: I don't know that winning back the PR war is
1:58
S2: realistically any part of this except in, you know, the
2:02
S2: most deluded of imaginations. But it's essentially an exercise in
2:07
S2: kind of trying to recast the validity of the police,
2:11
S2: kind of dragging him into it. It's revenge for humiliation,
2:15
S2: I imagine.
2:16
S1: And looking forward to getting to that before we do.
2:18
S1: Let's just remind listeners a little bit of the history
2:21
S1: here so they may remember that this arrest occurred on
2:26
S1: Andrew 66th birthday, which was quite something. He was questioned
2:30
S1: for almost 12 hours. He was then released, and there
2:33
S1: was that shocking photo of him in the back of
2:36
S1: a car looking like a stunned mullet after his release.
2:38
S1: But just remind everyone what his connection is to Jeffrey
2:43
S1: Epstein and this whole sordid saga. Michael.
2:46
S2: So Jeffrey Epstein, obviously is the American billionaire who was
2:50
S2: the center of a sex trafficking ring. It's been obviously
2:54
S2: a dominant story in global news. It's also been a
2:57
S2: huge story in American politics, and the sort of tendrils
3:01
S2: reached out internationally in a number of various ways, one
3:04
S2: of the most tangible of which was to Prince Andrew,
3:07
S2: who was in Jeffrey Epstein's social orbit. And according to
3:11
S2: a lawsuit. And the allegations was one of the powerful
3:15
S2: people for whom Jeffrey Epstein trafficked young women, specifically in
3:21
S2: Prince Andrew's case, Virginia Giuffre, whose story is a well-documented story.
3:26
S2: So Prince Andrew was introduced to Epstein via Ghislaine Maxwell,
3:30
S2: who was a British, I suppose you would say, socialite.
3:33
S2: Their friendship was documented publicly. They were photographed together critically.
3:38
S2: They were photographed together two years after Epstein had been
3:43
S2: convicted as a sex offender. So in essence, the you know,
3:47
S2: I stepped away or we were not close at the
3:49
S2: time of the scandal, defense was pretty weak. And that
3:53
S2: really aggressively drew Andrew into the story. And of course,
3:57
S2: then kind of made the royal family, the British royal family,
4:00
S2: the subject of a kind of parallel scandal to the
4:03
S2: wider Epstein scandal.
4:06
S1: So is there really a legal issue here over his arrest, or,
4:10
S1: as you perhaps suggest, is this more about the former
4:15
S1: prince's reputation and some grand plan to try to rehabilitate that?
4:21
S2: Look, I mean, the lawsuit itself is really asking a
4:24
S2: judge to determine whether the police action in relation to
4:28
S2: the search warrants, the execution of those warrants was, you know, appropriate.
4:32
S2: Whether it falls in the correct jurisdiction. It feels like
4:35
S2: a they're arguing over a legal technicality. And I think
4:40
S2: maybe the revealing nature of that is, given the wobbly
4:44
S2: nature of kind of arguing, legal technicality, it's sort of
4:47
S2: hard to work out how it might go, except that
4:50
S2: I can only see because there's no exoneration to be
4:53
S2: found here. This is not a lawsuit that will salvage
4:57
S2: the story for Andrew. It won't repair anything that's that's happened.
5:01
S2: It won't kind of. It cannot be declared innocent of
5:04
S2: anything really in relation to this. But I think if
5:07
S2: you ask yourself what value might exist in a headline
5:11
S2: that says Prince Andrew wins lawsuit over police versus police
5:15
S2: over unlawful Epstein raid, all of that language in a headline.
5:20
S2: In an era where really, most people only see the
5:22
S2: headline potentially is beneficial to him, perhaps that it might
5:26
S2: be an opportunity for them to imagine they can sort
5:30
S2: of recast the police as acting excessively, which by implication,
5:35
S2: suggests that he was undeserving of the excessive kind of
5:40
S2: hand in the way, the manner in which those warrants
5:43
S2: were executed, and as a roll of the dice in
5:45
S2: a court. Maybe there's a legal argument to say that
5:48
S2: the risk of losing is worth rolling the dice on
5:52
S2: the chance that you might get the win.
5:54
S1: And look, this is jumping ten steps ahead. And we
5:58
S1: should note that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has denied any wrongdoing and
6:03
S1: he's yet to be charged. But is this also a
6:08
S1: potential mechanism to avoid something as serious as a charge
6:12
S1: down the line?
6:14
S2: I think so. Well, I think certainly if I mean,
6:16
S2: I'm not a lawyer, but if I take my 650
6:20
S2: seasons of Law and Order as some sort of qualification,
6:24
S2: I'm fairly certain that if I'm certainly watching a lot
6:27
S2: of legal stuff, there is a sense, perhaps, that if
6:31
S2: material is obtained unlawfully with a warrant, that material becomes
6:38
S2: inadmissible in court. I think that's a kind of generally
6:41
S2: held legal idea. And again, I'm not reading anyone's mind here,
6:45
S2: but yeah, it's a valid question to say that certainly
6:47
S2: either another court case could delay anything subsequent, but also
6:52
S2: if material obtained in the process of executing those warrants.
6:56
S2: If those warrants are declared to have been executed invalidly
6:59
S2: that material is potentially in legal jeopardy. So there could
7:02
S2: be a multitude of of games kind of being played
7:05
S2: in the room here.
7:07
S1: Now, Michael, I want you to put your history buff
7:09
S1: hat on because this is big news in the ongoing
7:12
S1: Epstein scandal. But but what about in the context of history?
7:16
S1: What sort of legal precedent exists for royals suing public institutions?
7:23
S2: Well, it's quite a weird one because there is, in fact,
7:25
S2: a really, really rich history of royals suing the media.
7:29
S2: You know, all the way back to 1911, King George
7:32
S2: V famously sued a journalist called Edward Mylius for criminal
7:36
S2: libel because he'd written a story that defamed the king
7:39
S2: by a legend alleging that he had been a bigamist.
7:42
S2: Mylius went to jail. And, of course, in our recent history,
7:45
S2: there are many examples. Viscount Linley sued, I think, in
7:48
S2: the 90s or the later, maybe the 90s over a pub,
7:51
S2: a pub brawl kind of headline. Diana famously sued for
7:55
S2: Jim photos and privacy intrusions. William and Kate have sued
7:59
S2: over topless images taken of her in Europe. And of course,
8:02
S2: Harry and Meghan most recently have been embroiled in a
8:04
S2: series of legal fights with media outlets. The police isn't
8:08
S2: entirely more complicated thing. There is not really, I think,
8:11
S2: a precedent for the royal family suing the police. This
8:16
S2: feels very big in that sense. There is, though, a
8:20
S2: really complicated 12 months, let's say, or two years in
8:23
S2: the relationship between the police and the royal family. And
8:27
S2: I would throw into that Harry and Meghan and their
8:30
S2: fight over access to the Royal Protection Unit, which is
8:33
S2: an arm of the Metropolitan Police that has obviously involved
8:37
S2: a lot of tense conversations on every side. In May
8:40
S2: this year, five police from the Royal Protection Squad were
8:43
S2: actually banned from were removed from Kensington Palace and banned
8:47
S2: from working in the Royal Protection Squad because of sort
8:50
S2: of some behind the scenes tensions. There was improper language.
8:53
S2: There was a complaint. One of them was said to
8:56
S2: have referred to Kensington Palace as being full of little Hitlers,
8:59
S2: which I think we would take to mean. Minor royals
9:03
S2: who are very difficult to work with, is probably the
9:05
S2: best way to translate that phrase into English. Uh, so
9:10
S2: there is a there is obviously a tension that exists,
9:13
S2: but I think we are certainly in in new territory
9:17
S2: when the royal family are suing the police force who
9:20
S2: have themselves an arm of their operation, which is dedicated
9:24
S2: to the protection of the royal family.
9:27
S1: And in simple terms, what's at stake now for Andrew here,
9:30
S1: win or lose, with this challenge?
9:33
S2: Well, I don't think there's anything to win in the
9:35
S2: sense of the wider Epstein story. I think his reputation
9:38
S2: is destroyed. His relationship with the royal family is very
9:42
S2: formally severed. And there are sort of there are some
9:45
S2: sort of weird layers about that. Essentially, he's been booted
9:47
S2: out of his royal residence. He's never going to go
9:50
S2: back to that. He will never get one back. He's
9:53
S2: living on the Sandringham Estate, which means he's essentially on
9:56
S2: royal private property as opposed to Royal Public Property means
10:00
S2: he's sort of off the grid in terms of trying
10:02
S2: to hold the institutional accountable for where he lives. He's
10:06
S2: living at the personal cost of his brother, basically. Um,
10:10
S2: in terms of he has, for all intents and purposes,
10:13
S2: lost his titles. Now we can dive into technicalities here,
10:17
S2: and I can explain why as the son of a queen,
10:19
S2: he is still technically a prince, and that because there
10:23
S2: is no act of Parliament that was created to remove
10:26
S2: the ducal title as part of the Desecration of Titles Act.
10:30
S2: He technically remains a Duke. So really, what's a what's
10:34
S2: a piece of paperwork? We sort of live. We live
10:37
S2: in a world where maybe so much of the royal
10:39
S2: world is pantomime in quality and performative that what King
10:44
S2: Charles did, which is issue letters patent, which basically means
10:48
S2: issuing a written statement which is in effect an instrument
10:52
S2: of law or a declaration of an instrument of law
10:55
S2: in which he says, no royal title, no royal style,
10:59
S2: no His Royal Highness. Maybe that's enough. In 2026, if
11:03
S2: you'd asked a lawyer a century ago, they would have
11:06
S2: said an act of Parliament is required to enact that
11:09
S2: punishment in 2026. Maybe we're just taking, you know, the
11:13
S2: lazy approach, but in real terms there is not much
11:17
S2: to recover except perhaps a positive headline and and a
11:21
S2: win against a police force that I imagine he suspects
11:25
S2: acted deliberately and maliciously to humiliate him on his birthday
11:30
S2: in the most blunt and, you know, kind of in
11:33
S2: front of the cameras kind of way.
11:38
S1: After the break.
11:39
S2: It's a pantomime, a fiction in a way that is
11:42
S2: full of villains and heroes and princesses and kings and
11:45
S2: heroines and, you know, fights. There are certainly good guys
11:48
S2: and bad guys.
11:56
S1: So Andrew's older brother, King Charles, seems to be doing
12:01
S1: a pretty good job. Have we seen any evidence that
12:04
S1: the scandal surrounding Andrew, and also the return of Harry
12:08
S1: and Meghan to the UK, has damaged the King in
12:11
S1: any way? Or perhaps, has it had the opposite effect,
12:14
S1: where Charles's benefited from a bit of a sympathy factor?
12:18
S1: Because everyone has complicated families?
12:21
S2: Look, I think so, and I think the history of
12:24
S2: the royal family's life as it's lived in the on
12:28
S2: the front pages of newspapers probably, you know, articulates both
12:33
S2: cases really clearly. It is a universe of it's a
12:37
S2: it's a pantomime, a fiction in a way that is
12:40
S2: full of villains and heroes and princesses and kings and
12:43
S2: heroines and, you know, fights. There are certainly good guys
12:47
S2: and bad guys. And I think the history of the
12:49
S2: Royal family's relationship with the press means that when there
12:52
S2: is a really awful scandal that seems to overwhelm them,
12:56
S2: there is always a perception that the public's sympathy will
13:00
S2: will be part of their reaction in this particular case,
13:03
S2: much in the same way that when Princess Diana and
13:06
S2: Prince then Prince Charles were fighting in the press, if
13:09
S2: the headline was very damaging to Charles and Diana was
13:13
S2: perceptibly the architect of that, he got a great deal
13:16
S2: of sympathy. But similarly, when he was seen to speak
13:19
S2: against her, she also was a subject of sympathy. So
13:22
S2: I think to some extent, our loyalties kind of we
13:25
S2: take sides as often as I suspect, you know, Australians
13:29
S2: decide that they love the Sydney Swans. You know, when
13:31
S2: they're doing well, everyone's there when they're not doing well,
13:34
S2: everyone seems to be somewhere else. Might be the best
13:36
S2: way to sort of spin it critically. I think there
13:39
S2: is a generational because there's a whole bunch of things
13:42
S2: happening at once. We are living in a generational change
13:44
S2: for that institution. Clearly, Prince William's attitude to this is
13:50
S2: much more hardline than his father's, though I suspect it's
13:53
S2: probably safe to say the King doesn't want Andrew back.
13:55
S2: But I think William very much doesn't want Andrew anywhere.
13:59
S1: Just explain that, Michael, because that is such a fascinating
14:02
S1: element here. Maybe even the real power on this one
14:06
S1: rests with William, right, who just cannot seem to stomach
14:09
S1: Andrew and seems to view him as quite toxic to
14:13
S1: the monarchy.
14:13
S2: Look, I think there's absolutely a sort of shift in
14:17
S2: terms of how they react now. Charles is a really
14:20
S2: good example I think would happily cut Andrew, but somewhat
14:24
S2: has inherited his mother's intentions in this moment, which is
14:29
S2: that she obviously wanted Andrew looked after she you know,
14:34
S2: there's a whole bunch of reasons why I think Charles
14:36
S2: Power has been chipped away in this situation around him.
14:39
S2: William doesn't have the same sort of skin in the game,
14:42
S2: and I think very much sees these sorts of scandals
14:46
S2: as a real kind of a, you know, a know,
14:49
S2: a kind of albatross around the neck of what he
14:51
S2: probably interprets more clearly than his father as a modern
14:55
S2: social media monarchy. You know, I think William interprets this
14:59
S2: in terms of how he sees it on his phone.
15:02
S2: And I don't think Charles interacts with the outside world
15:05
S2: in quite the same way. So William's encounters with the
15:09
S2: immediate fallout, his his ability to listen to the loudest
15:13
S2: of the anger in the room by virtue of a
15:16
S2: clearly a much stronger relationship with modern portable technology, social media.
15:20
S2: The mobile phone means that William is probably just keyed
15:23
S2: into this more clearly, and I think has a much harder,
15:27
S2: clearer determination to cut Andrew out. The sort of Implicational
15:33
S2: next step, though, is that what happens now? You have
15:36
S2: a young. You will have a young monarchy soon with
15:40
S2: less hands on deck than the old monarchy, but all
15:43
S2: the same jobs to do. You don't have Harry and Meghan.
15:46
S2: No one seems to want them back either for different reasons.
15:50
S2: And that means suddenly you have questions around, are Princess
15:53
S2: Beatrice and Princess Eugenie potentially members of that younger working
15:58
S2: royal family? How do they inherit the scandal of their father?
16:02
S2: Are they bystanders? Is it fair to lump them in
16:05
S2: with him? There's a whole bunch of questions that they
16:08
S2: have to ask, and I suspect they will find the
16:11
S2: answers only by taking the temperature of the population at large.
16:16
S2: Because I think, as with many things in life, it
16:20
S2: only endures so long as we collectively give it the
16:23
S2: will to endure. And I think as immutable and eternal
16:27
S2: as monarchies imagine themselves to be. They're terribly, terribly fragile
16:32
S2: things in the room when someone has the smell of revolution.
16:35
S2: So it's a, you know, it's I think William understands
16:38
S2: that better than anyone in the picture.
16:41
S1: Michael, a quick left field question. What why do royals
16:44
S1: seem to be so uniquely vulnerable to these kind of scandals.
16:49
S1: Explain that for us.
16:50
S2: I think there's a you know, because we're really dealing
16:54
S2: with this is a universe of the ultra rich. So
16:56
S2: we're talking about these people who sort of live at
16:58
S2: the top strata of society, but they are all not billionaires.
17:03
S2: They are all not quite the same. So in people
17:06
S2: like Epstein, you have this limitless wealth, private planes, a
17:11
S2: life of luxury, but a sort of crass commercial illegitimacy
17:15
S2: in which they sort of crave, you know, they want
17:18
S2: to belong, they want to they want a sense of power.
17:21
S2: In royal families, you sort of have almost the opposite,
17:24
S2: which is there are all of these big institutional assets.
17:27
S2: There are palaces and crown jewels. But the truth is
17:31
S2: those things are really government assets. They don't belong physically
17:35
S2: to anybody. So as often as you have, you know,
17:39
S2: people in royal families walking into rooms wearing priceless jewelry,
17:43
S2: the truth is, many of them don't have an awful
17:45
S2: lot of ready cash in their purses. And there's a
17:48
S2: sort of strange amalgam here, much like I suspect if
17:51
S2: you ever watch Downton Abbey, one of the set up
17:54
S2: elements of Downton Abbey was the idea that the aristocracy
17:57
S2: itself was struggling because they just had no money. And
18:00
S2: so all of a sudden, all of these Earl of
18:02
S2: Grantham types found American wives who were heiresses to great
18:06
S2: American fortunes, because what they married was the title and
18:10
S2: the estate that was, for all intents and purposes, penniless,
18:13
S2: with all of this limitless American money that kind of
18:16
S2: gave them the cash injection that they craved to live
18:19
S2: to live an amazing life. Because if you're Fergie or
18:22
S2: if you're, you know, a member of a royal family,
18:24
S2: you've got a castle, but you can't necessarily hop straight
18:27
S2: onto a private jet. Now, in that sense, that's why
18:31
S2: minor members of royal families who don't have a lot
18:34
S2: of ready cash are attracted to the next passing billionaire
18:37
S2: who's got a private jet and an island and can
18:40
S2: take them wherever they please. You know, parallel to this
18:43
S2: scandal with Prince Andrew, the Norwegian royal family has actually
18:47
S2: been dealing with a similar scandal, which is that then
18:51
S2: Crown Princess Mette-marit of Norway, now Queen. As of a
18:55
S2: few weeks ago, Queen Mette-marit of Norway. She was friends
18:58
S2: with Epstein between 2011 and 2014 for very much the
19:02
S2: same reasons, which is that Epstein has a lifestyle and
19:06
S2: a private jet, and these folks just have a castle
19:10
S2: and a box full of jewels that they don't own
19:12
S2: and they can't sell. So these strange marriages of need
19:16
S2: and gift open up this crazy universe where anyone who's
19:21
S2: a little needy, you know, ends up in really bad company.
19:25
S1: I have to say, only Michael Idato could get references
19:28
S1: to Downton Abbey and the Sydney Swans in the one podcast.
19:32
S1: Well done Michael. Final question. What what do you think
19:36
S1: the late Queen would make of this recent development?
19:40
S2: Look, I mean, you know, it's how do we define
19:45
S2: a question like that, I suppose we would imagine you
19:48
S2: would hope to imagine with great disapproval, which is that
19:52
S2: she was, in the end and at her core, a
19:55
S2: very fine woman of great reputation and by all accounts,
20:00
S2: great character. So you have to imagine that she would
20:03
S2: look at this aghast. There are two, probably two contexts
20:07
S2: running around that. One of them is that Prince Andrew
20:09
S2: was her favorite child. And to some extent, I suppose
20:13
S2: much of these many of these problems we've inherited because
20:17
S2: of the indulgences she gave him, she famously gave him
20:21
S2: more latitude for misbehaviour than any of the other children
20:25
S2: we are dealing with, really. In 2026, a grown man
20:28
S2: who still, by all reports, has a tantrum if the
20:32
S2: teddy bears on his bed are not put back in
20:35
S2: the correct position when the bed is made. Now that's
20:38
S2: a you know, this is who we're talking about in
20:41
S2: a way. You can also look at the way she
20:43
S2: handled Harry and Meghan and their behavior, which was to
20:46
S2: understand that you're either in or you're out. There is
20:49
S2: no there's no maybes here and there's no half measures.
20:52
S2: So the Queen very clearly brought that barrier down hard,
20:57
S2: because the moment Harry and Meghan were not committed to
21:00
S2: the institution, they became a liability. And the best thing
21:04
S2: to do at that point was to cut it off,
21:05
S2: because I think she understood more than anybody that in
21:08
S2: the end, the only other three people who mattered in
21:12
S2: the room were when she was alive Prince Charles, Prince William,
21:16
S2: Prince George, which are in her mind the future line,
21:20
S2: to quote The Crown, the famous TV series Nothing matters
21:23
S2: in the end to The Crown but The Crown. There
21:26
S2: is one other postscript I will give her, which is
21:30
S2: she was also famous for an extraordinary level of self-analysis,
21:34
S2: and by that I mean she was not a woman
21:37
S2: who was afraid to acknowledge the shortcomings in how she
21:41
S2: executed her powers. Queen. So you'd have to imagine she
21:45
S2: would be very comfortable pointing out the shortcomings in other
21:48
S2: members of the royal family like Prince Andrew. But as
21:51
S2: she did at times with Prince Charles, and also very
21:53
S2: much when she was alive, Princess Diana, you know, in
21:56
S2: the 1960s, the Queen delayed very famously going to the
21:59
S2: Aberfan mine disaster in Wales that, you know, she then
22:02
S2: came to see as the single greatest failure. The single
22:06
S2: greatest regret of her reign was not acting more quickly
22:09
S2: to go to those people as their queen. And she
22:13
S2: really famously, in her annus horribilis speech, which we sort
22:16
S2: of remember because everyone hated the royal family at that point.
22:19
S2: The Diana and Charles divorce was going on. It was
22:22
S2: all over the headlines. The Windsor Castle fire had taken place,
22:25
S2: and she essentially said that that year was her annus horribilis.
22:28
S2: But one of the pieces of that speech that is
22:31
S2: often forgotten is that in it, she said the monarchy
22:34
S2: was not above or beyond reproach, that public scrutiny was important,
22:39
S2: and that no institution should be free from challenge in
22:42
S2: that way, and that criticism should act as an engine
22:45
S2: for change. So I think you would have to imagine
22:48
S2: that if the Queen was alive, she would probably act
22:53
S2: decisively to cut Andrew, and her sole focus would be
22:57
S2: on the rehabilitation and the repair of the institution for
23:01
S2: what she would have imagined to be the many generations
23:04
S2: to come.
23:05
S1: Well, Michael, it's been a pleasure having a member of
23:09
S1: journalistic royalty on the podcast today. Thank you for your time.
23:14
S2: It's a pleasure being here always.
23:27
S1: In other news, today, organized crime groups are using AI
23:31
S1: to streamline their global drug trafficking operations and create fake documents, identities,
23:37
S1: and business records. The Australian arm of embattled consultancy KPMG
23:43
S1: is considering seeking up to 100 million in loans from
23:47
S1: the global wing of the firm as it battles with
23:50
S1: the fallout from a whistleblower scandal that has cost it
23:52
S1: several marquee clients. And the word breakthrough is being whispered
23:57
S1: by dementia researchers. After the approval of two drugs by
24:01
S1: the Therapeutic Goods Administration and approval of a new dementia
24:05
S1: screening blood test. You can read more@theage.com.au or sm.com.au. Today's
24:14
S1: episode was produced by Kea Wong. Our executive producer is
24:19
S1: Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy
24:23
S1: and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow The
24:27
S1: Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple
24:30
S1: or Spotify. Thanks for listening.