S.O.S. S.O.S. in the building Astakazungu. Hai. Hai. You took time. You took time. You look amazing. Yes, auntie. Yes, auntie. How are you feeling today is International Women's Day. Una filaji. Una fil poa. I'm happy to be a woman. I'm happy to be here. I'm happy to be celebrating International Women's Day with my fellow women. Nime furai. Is there someone precisely that you're celebrating? My mom. Oh, okay. Bila esinye kuwapa. Aha. Yes, so my mom, my sister. Yes. All my female friends, of course. And every female person I know. Now you know women in film award celebrate women only. How does that make you feel? Good. Like, yeah, we should be that big of a deal. I mean, yeah. And if people want another award for other people, they should make it. Yes. Like it's not, there's enough room for everything. So, yeah. Okay. Now, of course, Kazungu, let me ask you. You've been trending on social media for the... I didn't know it was a trend. I just thought this is small, anyway. Yeah. So, we saw a video of you. Someone took a video of you in the club having a good time.  You always tell people not to. But now you're there smoking. Oh, they said that. But I tell people not to. Do they have proof of that though? Because if they didn't submit that, then what do you mean? They didn't have their receipts. Exactly, because I thought that platform is a receipt-based platform. Yes. So, I mean. But also, you know, they said something else. They said that you lost a government job because of that photo. I didn't even know I had it. I didn't receive the confirmation that I got the job. Because, yeah, yeah. Like, how do I lose a job I don't have? No, you guys are lying on social media. No, you can't be... Really? You can't trust social media, girl. Wow. First of all, that was jokes. Like, when I am doing jokes. I mean, anyone who has followed me for a long time knows. That's even a photo I got from a series I did in 2021, I think. So, it's a very old photo. Yes. And I just thought, oh, this matches with the times. So, let's do this. Because I've posted that photo so many times. But it has never gone viral as it went like the other day. Because it was very relevant to what is going on in Kenya. So, I guess somebody out there thought, ah, this one is serious and I have seen her. No, me I have a good time. I go to the club. Hi, BND. I go to the club. I smoke shisha once in a while. I drink. I do, you know, I do a lot. Yes. Alright.  You had a stage or play. How is that going on? It's good. I mean, well, I've not done stage plays this year. But I am... Okay, is this too soon? No, it's not too soon. I am in a film, an upcoming film called It's a Free Country. We're actually crowdfunding. So, if anyone out there wants to support the movie, come through man. You can go to a Chatterbox and check out what they're doing. They've been campaigning for the crowdfunding and telling people about it. So, anyone can plug in. 50 bob, 100 bob, 10,000, 1 million katai. Come through. Come through. What's your role there? Are you like part of the cast? I'm doing a lot honestly. Oh, like you're part of the crew? And cast. Yeah, I am crew and cast. Nani di audition, please.  Is it going to be like your first official film? No, because now I was telling you about the photo that I posted for... Yeah, that was another web series. Still with Chatterbox. So, this will be my third. I was in Papashirandu a long time ago. Alright. Thank you so much for talking to us and enjoy your evening. Thank you so much.


Today we celebrate International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples have shown the world that their food and knowledge systems are sustainable and resilient. Their knowledge is based on the centuries of observation, adaptation and innovation. It has been used to build food systems and livelihoods in harmony with nature. In these food systems, Indigenous women play an essential role linked to the conservation and management of natural resources. From the Himalayas to the Arctic, from the Sahara Desert to the Amazon rainforest. Indigenous women know this ecosystem better than anyone else. They are custodians of biodiversity and hold the knowledge on the fauna and flora of each of their territories. The empowerment of the Indigenous women is an important thing for the eradication of the hunger and the monitoring of the world. For years, FLO has worked together with Indigenous peoples to advance the 2030 Agenda for Social Development. In 2020, FLO members endorsed the establishment of the Global Harbor on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems, hosted by FLO. In 2021, FLO, together with Indigenous Peoples and the Global Harbor, drafted the White Paper on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems. This document is about kids that we can learn from Indigenous Peoples' approach to food, to build resilience and sustainable agro-food systems. Furthermore, FLO, together with the partnership issue, the publication highlighting the need for government and the international community to establish an enforced policy to support the efforts of the Indigenous peoples to protect their food systems. On this International Day of the World, Indigenous peoples have been standing in solidarity with Indigenous women and Indigenous peoples. FLO calls on government, university and knowledge centers, civil society and the international community to promote and respect them and recognize the unique role Indigenous women play in the sustainability of our agro-food systems. Thank you.


Hi, I'm Steven Goldfeder and today I'll be talking about zero-knowledge subversion resistance and concrete attacks and this is joint work with Mateo Campanelli and Rosario Gennaro at City College of New York as well as Lucca Nazzardo at MDL Software Institute in Madrid. So you all know that by now, especially if you listen to Ian's talk, that snarks, which are the backbone of the Zcash protocol, amongst other things, require a trusted setup. But the question and something Ian touched on, but we'll get a little bit more into today is what could actually go wrong? So say your trust is betrayed, what actually happens in practice? In other words, what are we actually trusting? And to answer this question, we're going to take a detour into a protocol called zero-knowledge contingent payments, which is a fair exchange protocol over the Bitcoin blockchain. And we'll see a prime example of what actually went wrong in practice and try to learn some lessons from here about what can go wrong with a trusted setup. So the basic problem that zero-knowledge contingent payments tries to solve is you have a buyer and a seller, here we have Alice and Bob, and Alice says, I have some Sudoku solution or some puzzle that I want to know the solution to, but I can't figure it out. And Bobby says, okay, don't worry about it, I know the solution and I'll sell it to you and I'll pay you for, and I'll sell it to you. It's just pay me money and I'll give you the solution. And Alice says, hey, wait a second, give me the solution and then I'll pay you. So this is a trust issue. It's the classic fair exchange problem. And even though we know that there are classic results due to cleave that fair exchange in a trustless manner without a third party is impossible, we can sort of get around that with a blockchain because our blockchain can be our trusted party. So we can do a trustless fair exchange in practice. And this is what the zero-knowledge contingent payment protocol does and this protocol is due to Greg Maxwell in 2011. So let's take a look at that. As a background, we're going to need a tool called hash lock transactions, which is the main tool of this protocol, and it's very simple. Alice has some money and he can spend it with the following condition, which says, I'll pay Bobby if she reveals x such that x hashes the shot to hash to y. So Alice publishes y in the blockchain and says, hey, Bobby, you can take this money. All you need to do is show me x. And Bobby says, hey, sure, no problem. Here's x and she claims the money. And the contingent part here is that Bobby receiving the money is contingent on Alice and actually the rest of the world learning the value x. Okay, so that's the tool that we'll need. Now let's take a look at how the zero-knowledge contingent payment protocol works. So again, Alice wants to buy the solution, Bobby wants to sell it, and no one wants to move first. You have a fair exchange problem, and let's see how the protocol works. So Alice starts off with some money, Bobby starts off with the solution, Bobby takes her solution and she encrypts it, takes some key, puts it in the safe, and she sends over that cipher text to Alice. Okay, she also goes ahead and she takes the key that she used to encrypt that cipher text and she hashes it with shot two, call that y, and she sends that over to Alice as well. Okay, and now she gives Alice a zero-knowledge proof that says, hey, that cipher text that I gave you, that actually is a valid encryption of the thing that you want, meaning the solution. And also that y that I gave you is the shot two hash of the key that the solution was encrypted with. Sends over that proof to Alice. And now at this point, Alice is convinced that all that he has to learn is the preimage of y, and that's equivalent to learning the Sudoku solution that he wants, because once he has that key, or the preimage that Bobby knows, he'll be able to open up the cipher text and learn the solution. So Alice goes ahead and creates one of these hash log transactions that says, hey, tell me the preimage of y, tell me that key, and then you'll get your money. And again, this transaction is enforced by the Bitcoin blockchain. It's built into Bitcoin scripting. It's available today. And Bobby says, sure, here's the key. And now simultaneously, Bobby gets her money and Alice gets the key. But as we said, getting the key is equivalent to learning the Sudoku solution that Alice wanted. So everyone's happy, and the protocol works. Alice knows the solution, Bobby got paid, and we're done. Kind of. One thing we left unspecified is how do we actually implement this proof? We said very nice, take this proof, just prove that everything works, and great, but how do you actually do that? And the zero-knowledge contingent payment protocol was introduced by Maxwell in 2011. And the truth is at the time, it was more of a theoretical object, because we didn't really know how to implement these proofs. It was before the days of Snarks. And let's take a quick, very, very abridged history, look at the history of zero-knowledge proofs to understand what exactly the properties are you want of zero-knowledge proofs, and how they developed. So they were originally introduced in the 80s, and zero-knowledge proofs give you basically two properties. So one is a soundness property. And what this means is what I'm proving to you is actually correct. In other words, I can't give you a false proof. So in our example, Bobby needs to convince Alice that she actually encrypted a valid solution. She shouldn't be able to convince Alice of that if she did not. And the zero-knowledge property says, well, the proof shouldn't leak any data. So Bobby's giving over this proof that she knows the solution, but it should only be a proof that the solution, sorry, was encrypted. The proof shouldn't leak the data. In particular, in our example, Alice shouldn't be able to look at this proof and learn anything about the solution, other than the fact that it's encrypted in the cyberdecks that he holds. Okay. So zero-knowledge proofs, originally we talked about interactive proofs. Also in the 80s, where the introduction of non-interactive proofs, which is a one-move protocol where the prover goes ahead and just sends this proof to the verifier, and no interaction is needed. And it was shown that at least without resulting to random oracles, you need what's called a common reference string, a CRS, and this is the infamous trusted setup. So non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs require a trusted setup, trusted parameters, and someone has to perform this setup. Okay, let's jump forward to 2012, and that's when Genaro et al and GGPR paper introduced what later became to be known as ZK Snarks. And these are very efficient non-interactive arguments, where an argument is just a computationally sound proof, and they require, as do all non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs, they require a trusted setup. Okay. Great. So this is 2012, a year after Maxwell presented zero-knowledge contingent payments, but now we have a contender for something where we can actually implement the protocol. And that's actually what happened. It took a few years for the improvements we made to Snarks, for Lipsnark to be developed, and in 2016, at the financial crypto conference, Sean Bao, a member of the ZCash team, demoed the first zero-knowledge contingent payment in which he brought a Sudoku solution from a remotely participating Greg Maxwell. And this was a big deal. It was the first zero-knowledge contingent payment. But wait a second. One thing we left out was, we said that there is this trusted setup in Snarks, and who performs the trusted setup in our example? Is it Alice? Is it Bob? Is it something else? Is there an MPC? Where do these parameters come from? So this is something where Maxwell dealt with in the blog post where he announced the first successful, or was dubbed the first successful zero-knowledge contingent payment, and I quote, the GGPR12 crypto system requires a trusted setup, but for the ZKCP application, ZKCP being zero-knowledge contingent payments, this is no real limitation since the buyer can perform it. So let's take a look at what Maxwell was suggesting and what they actually implemented in practice. So here you have the buyer, Alice, in our example. He's going to create the trusted parameters, the CRS as we call them, and send those over to Bobby. Bobby now uses those parameters and sends Alice a proof. So intuitively, this kind of makes some sense, because Bobby needs to convince an audience of one that the proof is correct. Again, Bobby's the seller, Alice is the buyer, as long as Bobby convinces Alice that what he's going to buy is the right thing, no one else in the world has to deal with this. As opposed to Zcash, where you have to convince the entire world that the correctness of this setup here is a much more limited thing you need to do. So it kind of made a lot of sense that Alice should generate the parameters. This kind of makes sure that Bobby can't cheat and give a false proof. But it's kind of missing something, because true, that prevents a malicious Bobby, a malicious seller, from creating a false proof, but it doesn't present, France, a malicious Alice. In particular, a malicious Alice could break the zero knowledge property and want to learn something from the proof. And this is exactly what we did in our CCS paper from this year, where we actually implemented an attack in practice. I'm going to leave out the details of how the attack works, because it's not really appropriate for the setting, it's a little bit involved, but the structure of the attack is what's interesting, and that is Alice takes this malicious CRS, he does something a little funny, intentionally malicious, when he creates these parameters and he sends them over to Bobby. And Bobby now goes ahead, not knowing any of the better, she goes ahead and gives what she believes is a zero knowledge proof. But because of the way that Alice maliciously generated this CRS, Alice now broke the zero knowledge property and he can inspect the proof and actually learn bits of the Sudoku solution from it. And remember, the proof is exchanged in the zero knowledge contingent payment protocol well before any payment happened. So now Alice says, hey, I got the solution ready just from the proof, I'm done, abort the protocol, and never pays anyone any money. So this is a problem, this was an attack on the zero knowledge contingent payment protocol that Maxwell and Vow demonstrated, and this was due to a misuse of Snarks, whereas Snarks required a trusted setup, this was used without, in a slightly different model, which violated those assumptions. And the key takeaway here is, so there's a dual adversary model, whereas they were only considering the soundness adversary that wants to create false proofs, you also have to consider the zero knowledge adversary who wants to learn information from those proofs without paying for it in this case. And we implemented this attack in practice, it interacts with the honest paid of Sudoku seller that Ball and Maxwell released, and they are able to steal part of the solution. So again, the key takeaway is, so the GGPR or ZK Snarks, as they're known, system requires a trusted setup, and in its original presentation, that trusted setup was required for both zero knowledge and soundness. So now, at least for zero knowledge contingent payment protocols, our protocol is broken, we don't have a protocol that works, so can we fix it? And the answer is yes. There's a technique called subversion zero knowledge or subversion resistant zero knowledge, and in our CCS paper this year, we sketched how to do this, and in concurrent work that appeared in Eprint in the weeks after we released our paper, there were a bunch of papers that showed up that presented how to do a subversion zero knowledge snark. And actually, one of those papers was from the Zcash team, and it turns out that in the Zcash MPC protocol, they didn't frame it in these terms, and they didn't realize that it had applications to general subversion resistance, but they did include subversion resistance measures. So what is subversion zero knowledge? So what it does is at least, it makes it that you're no longer relying on the trusted setup for the zero knowledge property. So zero knowledge you have without any trust, the trusted setup is still required for the soundness property, meaning if you don't trust the setup or if something goes wrong, you could potentially create false proofs, but zero knowledge property is no longer relying on that trust. And in Zcash, this is really nice. So this is what they actually do in the Zcash MPC. So what would happen if the Zcash MPC was subverted? So with all those crazy setups that Ian showed us, somehow they were really subverted and everyone was working together, which I'm not suggesting happened, but in theory, what would happen if the setup was subverted? So you would be able to create false proofs, which in the context of Zcash means you could actually mint money because you just spend money that you don't have, but what you can't do is you can't break anonymity. And what that means is that you can send money to the Zcash network knowing that your anonymity is not relying on anything of the trusted setup. So even if the trusted setup went totally wrong, the anonymity, at least as offered by the zero knowledge proofs, cannot be compromised. And now that works very well for Zcash, but there's a problem. These subversion zero knowledge techniques that I've discussed, although I haven't gotten into them, they're quite expensive. What they do is they augment the CRS. They add only a few elements to it, but they also add lots and lots of checks, and these checks take a really long time. So for the ZKCP protocol, whereas Maxwell and Bow's original implementation was really quick, they did a live demo, it completed in less than a minute, when you add the subversion zero knowledge to the picture, it takes, and this is a very conservative estimate for a rather small circuit, meaning the Sudoku solution, at least 45 minutes. And the idea is that it takes a nice, elegant, quick exchange protocol and blows it up in practice. And the key difference between Zcash and ZKCP, in Zcash this is okay. So even if the protocol takes another day or another few hours, it doesn't really matter. This is a one-time setup of the system, and you can incur this cost, it actually had a great benefit that you now have unconditional zero knowledge, or zero knowledge, I'm sorry, unrelated to the setup. But with ZKCP, the buyer and the seller have to do this CRS every time, it's kind of part of the protocol itself, there's not a one-time thing, so it's a bit of a large cost to incur in practice. So the question is, can we do better? What if we don't actually need full zero knowledge from our snark? So we don't need full ZK subversion. And what I mean is there's a less, zero knowledge has a little known sibling that's a little less popular, but it's called witness and distinguishability, and it's a weaker form of zero knowledge, and what it guarantees is that, often for a zero knowledge proof or any proof, you might be able to prove the thing in different ways. You'll have what we call various witnesses, and a witness and distinguishable proof will say, you can't distinguish in between the various witnesses. I don't know if you're a prover that used this witness or that witness, and in particular what this means is, the proof is not necessarily zero knowledge, it may leak information that's common to all the witnesses, but it won't leak any information specific to a single witness. And it happens to be that getting subversion witness and distinguishability is actually really simple, with very much fewer checks and very efficiently done, and this is even presented in the original snark paper. But WI doesn't really help us, because in our example, the witness is a Sudoku solution, which is generally unique. There only is one Sudoku solution. So saying a proof can leak information that's common to all the witnesses when you only have a single witness is equivalent to saying the proof can leak the entire witness, so we actually don't gain anything. But let's see if we can switch up the protocol a little bit and leverage the fact that we can get subversion WI very simply to build a better protocol that doesn't, that we don't need to resort to using the expensive subversion zero knowledge. So here's how our protocol works. Again, it's the same problem. Alice wants to buy a Sudoku solution. Bobby wants to sell it. It's a very similar protocol, but with subtle differences. So here in the first step, while originally Bobby encrypted the Sudoku solution, Bobby doesn't do that now. She says to Alice, I'm going to encrypt the Sudoku solution or I'm going to encrypt garbage, meaning I'm going to encrypt perhaps anything in the world. But it might be a Sudoku solution. So this doesn't seem like a very useful statement and she hands Alice that Cypher text. Again, Alice doesn't know what's in there. He just knows that it might be the Sudoku solution. And now Bobby goes ahead and says, and that key that I used to encrypt whatever it was that I encrypted, I'm going to take a hash of it, but I'm not going to tell you which function I'm using. Or maybe I'll use shot two, maybe I'll use shot three. Here you go, here's why. So, so far it seems that Alice doesn't have very any really useful information. He knows he has an encryption of really just about anything and he has some hash of the key but unclear which function was even used. But we can connect this all with AWI proof. And here's what the statement that Bobby proves to Alice. And she says, hey, if that thing that I gave you, that Cypher text actually was the Sudoku solution that you wanted, then I'm proving to you that the Y that I gave you was the shot two image of the key. But if I gave you anything else in the world, if I just encrypted garbage, that's going to be shot three. And by a very reasonable assumption that shot two and shot three are what are called claw-free functions, we assume that if Alice can only know one pre-image of the function, she can't know both a shot two of Y, sorry, she can't know both a shot two image and a shot three image of Y. So, Bobby goes ahead, I'm sorry, yeah, Bobby goes ahead and sends Alice that proof. And now Alice goes ahead and uses a hash lock transaction and says, okay, I'll pay Bobby the money if she reveals a shot two pre-image of Y. And in particular, because of the proof, Alice knows that the only way that Bobby can reveal a shot two pre-image of Y is if she actually encrypted the correct Sudoku solution. So this protocol, we added some weird machinery where we're kind of switching things up. At the end of the day, it works very similar way because at the end of the day, the only way that Alice is convinced that if Bobby encrypted the solution, she will know the shot two pre-image and she'll only know Bobby will only know the shot two pre-image if she encrypted the correct solution, so it works as before. And Bobby goes ahead and says, here's the key, she gets the money and Alice gets the solution. But notice, so what are we actually doing our protocol? What was the point of all that? Now, witness and distinguishability is enough because whereas before, the only valid witness to this proof was a single Sudoku solution, so there was only one solution, so WI didn't help us very much. Now, anything in the world is a valid witness. You can literally encrypt anything and give a proof and it will go through. The point is that if you encrypt the wrong thing, the output of the function will be different, but the output of shot two and shot three are we're assuming they're not distinguishable and therefore there are many, many, many witnesses to this proof and now WI is enough. And the nice thing is, and the reason why we embarked on this path, is the protocol now completes in once again the original less than one minute. So we get the subversion resistant benefits by using a WI and a bit of a funkier protocol and we are able to save all the heavy machinery of using subversion zero knowledge. The conclusions that I'd like to give for this talk and the main takeaways, well perhaps the most important thing is you must be careful when applying cryptographic primitives and ways for which they weren't designed. So even if something seems intuitively correct, like, oh, the buyer can just do the trusted setup and everything will work just fine, you have to be very, very, very careful and in particular, if you're going to adapt a primitive for something that it's not used, you should go through the exercise, even if it seems like an exercise of utility of actually figuring out a security proof of your protocol because if that would have been done, these attacks would have fallen out. As a second conclusion, subversion zero knowledge reduces our reliance on SNARK's trusted setups and even though they're expensive, it's expensive to include subversion zero knowledge techniques. In some cases, like in Zcash, they're really, really appropriate, don't add much to the big picture in terms of cost and you get a lot of benefits, such that your zero knowledge or in Zcash, your anonymity, doesn't require any trust. And the third takeaway is witness and distinguishability is a weaker form of zero knowledge and in the ZKCP protocol, it allowed us to fix the protocol at a minimal cost and also, I didn't go through the details here, but I'll just mention that besides for just fixing the original Maxwell protocol, when you move over to our protocol, there is a whole new class of applications that are now achievable and realizable with this protocol, but I'll defer to the CCS paper for those details. Thank you very much and I'm happy to take any questions. We do have time for a question, so go ahead. Thanks a lot. So, I'm a little, can you go back to 62? Sixteen? 62? Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah, great. So, I'm a little worried here that Bobby, if she can cause Alice to burn his money by actually giving him a bogus solution. So, this is the detail that I left out of the proof, but included in the actual protocol as we implemented it as well as, and this is something that you can do on the Bitcoin blockchain, is there's basically a refund. You can pay a time lock in your transaction. It says if the money is not claimed after this amount of time, the money Alice can now claim the money back himself. In practice, I'll give the correct caveat that with the fee structure today of Bitcoin, including these transactions, even if you get a refund, there's a significant burn of money, and that's true. We're not taking fees into account, but for the basic money in the protocol, you will get a refund. Right, thanks. Sure. Any other question? So, in the original talk, I actually talked about buying physical items first, and the example was Alice was buying makeup from Bobby. Bobby is Bobby Brown, who's a makeup designer. One of the most famous female Bobby that I could find. Okay, so let's thank Stephen again. All right, and this concludes the cryptocurrency and blockchain session, and about don't go away. I'm going to, Adam Bonet is going to pick it up from here, and we're going to move to the left-hand price session. All right.


A fiery horse with a speed of light, the cloud of dust, and a hearty hyosilver, the Lone Ranger. During the years of unrest that followed the Civil War, a powerful secret organization called the Legion of the Black Arrow sprang up in the western United States. Its members were to be found everywhere, defying the law or using the law for their own purposes, working toward the ultimate goal of revolt and the foundation of a despotic empire. It was the masked rider of the planes who led the fight against this band of outlaws and traitors, and for once his great strength and courage, his daring and resourcefulness were taxed to the utmost in the cause of democracy. Return with us now to those thrilling days when the West was young. From out of the past come the thundering hoofbeats of a great horse, Silver. The Lone Ranger rides again. Lone Silver! Run the trail of the Black Arrow! Hail Silver! Hooray! The sun was setting beyond the distant hills. The wagon train under the leadership of Jeff Penrose was getting ready to make camp for the night. But before the great circle could be formed, a band of Indians swept over the rise. They seemed to be Apache from their war paint. Instantly the alarm was shouted from wagon to wagon. Instead of following their usual tactics, the Indians headed straight for the largest wagon in the train. Part of the band held off the settlers. A few of them overpowered the driver and threw him to the ground.  When the wagon was out of range, the rest of the Indians followed it. The whole engagement had lasted less than five minutes. Jeff Penrose called all the men together. Quiet down, boys. Quiet. Quiet there now. How many have been hurt? Two summers, boys, and Johnny Marsh. Bad? Johnny's done for, but we got one of the Indians that makes that score even. How about Ed?  We're going after him, aren't we, Jeff? I don't see how we can. But all our gold was in that wagon, under the false bottom and the back. It wouldn't do any good for just a few of us to go. And if we all went, we'd leave the women and young ones unprotected. What are you waiting for? No, that's Ed. Jeff, what are you standing around like this for? Why don't you go after him? That was just a raiding party, Ed. The Apache camp might be close. We wouldn't have a chance against all of them. You've got to do something. We can't leave the women folks alone. I know it's a hard thing to lose our gold, but you aren't losing any more than the rest of us. The safe thing to do is just... Don't talk to me about safe. And don't talk to me about gold. What about my boy? Your boy? That's what I said. But he was in the back of that wagon. The back of the wagon. Those savages got him prisoner. And if you ain't going after him, I am. You can't, Ed. You got a broken arm. Hey, look, Jeff, along our back trail, there's two hombres riding totes. I see them. Ready with your guns, men. All right. A white horse in a paint. An engine of the masked man. Hold your fire. They're outfalls. They must be. I said hold your fire. Most of you folks are new to the West. If you weren't, you'd know who that masked man is. Well, if he's honest, what's he wearing a mask for? That's his business. Oh, I'm telling you, we're mighty lucky to have him show up now. That's the lone ranger. Now, just stand by and let me do the talk. Denny Silver, hello, Jeff. Howdy. How do I saw the attack from the ridge? Has anyone killed? They got one of our men, and we got one of theirs. I never saw an Indian attack like it. They went straight for one wagon and drove it off. That's right. As luck would have it, that was the wagon we had all our gold stored in. Then luck had nothing to do with it, Jeff. You say one of the Indians was killed? Yeah. Where is he? Over yonder under that blanket. Take a look at him. Tell him about my boy, Jeff. Sure, Ed. Buddy Chalmers was in the back of the wagon that took Mask Man. We can't let those savages keep him prisoner. They may have been savages, but they weren't Indians. Huh? Well, sure they were. Here, you can see for yourself. That's Apache War Paint. Yes, Jeff. That still doesn't make him an Indian. His body's been stained. Ah. Look at his wrist, hon. It's a black caror. What's that? You were attacked by a band of renegade white men. They knew where your gold was, and that's all they were interested in. Shall we go after them? No, Jeff. I think Tullo and I better trail him alone. Here, Silver. Yes, Count? You go ahead and make camp. What about my boy?  That's a promise? That's a promise. Ready? Come on, Silver. Get him out, Count. The outlaw's trail crossed the rise to the west and then headed into the foothills. With the tracks of the wagon and all the horses, it was easy for Tullo to follow, even in the gathering darkness. And at last, when higher ground had been reached and the lone ranger and his faithful companion rode along the edge of a deep gully, the masked man raised his arm and a signal to stop. Down below on the gully, Tullo. Ah. Then he hit the horses from the wagon and pushed it over the edge. Ah, it's right now. Yes, but we'll take a look at it. Just a chance the boy may have been inside.  He couldn't have fit in with our plans very well. Down the bank, Silver. Get him out, Scout. Don't sign a boy, Kimosabe. No. It was a false bottom of the wagon. They ripped it up to get the gold. Where did they get all their information? Maybe they're crook and wagon train. We'll have to check on that later. There's a moon tunnel. Can you still follow the trail? Ah. You go up into the mountain. The closest spring is in Crystal Canyon. Maybe that's where gang make camp. If that's true, if their tracks lead into the canyon, we'll take the upper trail to the ridge above. Ah. That way we see camp and them not see us. That's the idea. Come on. Get him up, Scout. It's right camp. You look there. From the wash-off stain. Yes. What do we do now? I'm still looking for the boy. Come to not see him. They didn't get rid of him on the trail. Must be down there somewhere. Ah. Look. The right of the campfire. The dark shadow. Maybe that blanket roll. No, it's moving, Tutto. Rolling away from the fire. That's right. It's a boy. Must be Buddy Chalmers. Ah. Then stop him now. Pull him back.  I told his father we'd bring him back if he were alive. Now we've got to find some way to keep that promise. Oh, it'd be pretty hard. The boy comes first. The goal afterwards. What's wrong with Silver? Someone may be coming. Tutto, hurry. Check around and back. Ah. Me goal. Who's there? I got a gun left with your head. Don't try to make a move out of fire. Who are you? They used to call me tombstone. This ridge belongs to me. I don't like trespassers. You can get back to your camp and tell whoever's in charge you can't post any lookouts up here. I was just leaving. You were leaving my way. How do you mean? Take one step back. If I did that, that'd be over the edge of the cliff. Yeah. You'd get back where you'd come from pretty fast. I wouldn't be able to repeat your warning. You might be. There's ledges. You might be able to grab a hold of something on the way down. But that don't interest me much. All I want you to do is step over the edge. In a very fuse? And I open fire. I don't like outlaws. You're making a mistake. I'm not an outlaw. I don't like arguments. If you weren't gone the time I count three, I got some hot lead here to help you. One, two. All right, tunnel. We got him, baby. Good work, tunnel. I've got his gun. All right, Mr. Youwin. I didn't see your engine part there. What are you going to do now? Push me over the cliff? You said you didn't like outlaws. I don't.   I won't knuckle on it to any of your breed. We don't belong to that gang down there. I don't care what gang you belong to. We aren't outlaws. You're wearing a mask. This Sloan Ranger. Huh? Say that again, engine. This Sloan Ranger. Well, what do you know? I might have guessed it. That white horse, your mask? Oh, if there was more men like you in the West, men who got a sense of fair play and justice, I wouldn't be living like a hermit up here in this ridge. You're out to capture the gang. Is that it? I just held up a wagon train. Took all the settler's gold, and took one of the men's sons, a prisoner. A young'un? Oh, about ten, I'd say. Ah, the yellow pole cats. We want to rescue him first. And he may be able to give us some information that will help. I'll be glad to. The canyon's blind. Now it ends just beyond their campfire. That's right. And if we ride into the canyon from the north, we'd have to cover a lot of open ground. It'd be hard to get close to the camp without being seen or heard. Next impossible. On the other hand, if we do... You don't have to go any farther, Mask Man. I see what you're driving at. That cliff beyond the camp has got plenty of cover. Ah, many trees grow there. You'd like to find a trail down that to the bottom. Is there one? Yep. Wide enough for the horses? We'd need them down below. They're pretty sure footed, ain't they? Ah. And they can make it easy. You just follow me and I'll show you. I'll leave the horses here, Tutto. We must find something to draw their attention to the other side of the fire. Don't do that. How? Me sneak round there. Keep behind trees. Start to shoot at them. It might work. I can keep under cover until I'm only a few feet away from the boy. Ah. Just empty your gun and start back for the horses. Them pine boy gone plenty quick. They may be glad to get rid of him. But if they do follow us, I have a plan. It's not good. Tutto, start now. Your father sent me. Take that back, too. It's part of the code. All right. Find trail now. Start up after us. You can get away from them. We want to capture them, buddy. What's your plan? I'll explain when we get to the top. That'll be plenty soon now. Yes. There's Tombstone waiting for us near the big pine. He better keep quiet. I'm glad we don't have to look for him. Teddy, there's still a bit more. Teddy, boy, Teddy. You better not stop here alone. I've been looking over the edge. They're on their way up. Can we leave the boy with you Tombstone? What's that? We've got part of the goal. They'll try to get it back and we may be able to lead them into a trap. But I don't want to put the boy in any danger. Sure you can leave with me. I got to hide out that nobody can find. Help him down, then. He's still bound. Come on, sonny. I want to go with the mask man. You'll be safer here. I want to go with you. That's impossible, buddy. Believe me.  I'll cut your ropes here. What's your idea, mask man? Now it's fairly open country all the way down the mountain. We can let them keep us in sight and still keep out of range. Oh, well, you'll lead them. You'll leave me at Rocky Fort, and head for the wagon train. Then by the time I've led the gang to Laurel Pass, you'll have the men there waiting for us. Ah, me do it. Hurry up, Tombstone. Get the boy undercover. This way, sonny. I don't want to go with you. Hear them, Tonto. Uh-huh. Then get near top of trail. And let's go. Come on, Silver. Get him up, Scout. Oh, Silver! Hooray! The curtain falls on the first act of our Lone Ranger story. Before the next exciting scenes, please permit us to pause for just a few moments. Now to continue our story. As the Lone Ranger and Tonto neared Rocky Fort, the mask man urged Silver to greater speed. Faster, Silver. Faster. Get him up, Scout. You go this way. Outlaw, now keep up. I don't want him to see which way you're heading to see me. Uh-huh. Me turn off trail up there. By those big rocks, yes. I'm waiting here. Steady, Silver. Steady. Can't be seen near the side of the rocks. Steady, boy. We've got to wait. Here, I'll just lift this bag up so they can see it. There they are, running the band up above. Wait, Silver, wait. They aren't trying to get away, old fella. We've got to lead them to Laurel Pass. We've got to take a long time doing it. All right, boy. Now you can travel. A few of the men on the wagon train went to bed that night. They sat around a small campfire, their rifles close at hand, but hardly a word passed between them. The hours dragged on. Then suddenly, at the sound of hoof beats in the distance, they were on their feet to a man. I don't get panicky, boys. It might be the lone ranger in Tantos. There's only one horse. It's the engine. No sign of my boy. Horse gun, old fella. You don't have to tell me. They killed Buddy and they got the lone ranger. Oh, that's not right. Him and the gang to Laurel Pass. You get horse gun. Follow me. He's leading the gang to the pass. We'll have an ambush waiting for him. Where's Buddy? Have they still got him? No. We got Boy. We leave him with hermit up on ridge. Him say. Thank goodness. That's it, boys. Into the saddle. All right, Tantos. Lead the way.  You look up ahead. That's my turn. Yeah? I'm from round there. We wait here. Whatever you say, Tantos. Half your men, half signed, half this side. You hear what he says, boys? Sam, you take half of them, get on the other side of the trail. Stay on horses. Outlaw them. Let's not get way there. Get moving, boys. We've been here most half an hour, Tantos. Uh-huh. Matt's friend, make sure we get here for him to start for pass. Yeah, I suppose he would. So he's got part of the gold, huh? And they figured they can get it back from him. Matt, right. Come on, Silver. Listen. Tantos here. You all belong now. How about it, Jeff? Here comes the mask man. He'll give us the word. Ty, Kimmasami. Good work, Tantos. I'm glad you made it, Jeff. How far back are they? You can hear their horses. Wait until they all get up there. As the men from the wagon train closed in on every side, the outlaws realized there was no chance for escape. Only a few shots were fired before they threw down their guns and raised their hands to the sky. The whole gang was captured and the settlers wrote them the lone ranger quest in the leader. What's your name? What difference does that make? Answer me. Some folks call me Nick. I noticed that you're the only one who has a black arrow on his wrist. That's right. His boy just worked for me. Well, from now on he'll be out of a job. I'm up to nothing. We'll get you a yet mass, man. Yeah. You'll be making camp near Pleasantville tomorrow night and you can turn most of these men over to the sheriff there. But, uh, Nick will have to travel with you as far as Clarksville. Well, what's the idea of that? That's the first place you'll find a United States Marshal.  Yes, he is. His, uh, buddy's father around. Well, he couldn't ride hard with a broken arm. We had to leave him back with the wagons. Did you see him, Tantos? Uh-huh. Let me tell him, boy, safe. We'll leave him with hermit up on ridge. We'll be riding back there to pick him up, Jeff. The rest of the gold must be still in the camp. We'll get that, too. Well, I could send a few men with you. Oh, that won't be necessary. It's nearly daybreak. And you'll want to get the wagons rolling. We'll catch up with you. Why are you laughing? I just got it. A hermit up on the ridge. That's the richest thing I've ever heard in my life. What do you mean? So you think the kid is safe, huh? Why shouldn't he be? Well, this is one time you slipped up mass, man. That hermit.  Well, we couldn't see his face very well. A big ombre and hands like hams? That's right. And he called himself Tombstone? Yes. He did. Well, he's got a right to that name. Him not look like outlaw. Sure he don't. We know him for what he is. There ain't no outlaw in this part of the country wouldn't shoot him on sight. And the kid's safe with him. You mean he's a killer? Well, there's only one way he kills. He likes to see men go over that cliff. And he stands up there and laughs. Oh, no. He ain't no ordinary killer like me and Blackie. We got to have a reason, but Tombstone likes it. He starts staring mad. Teddy Silver. We're riding up the mountain, Stullo. Come on, Silver. I'm on the count. It's getting late. It's time to get up. Oh, hello. Has the mass man come back yet? No, not yet. There's a bucket of water over by the door.  I've cooked some biscuits. We got bacon and beans. Gosh. Smells good. Are you hungry? I sure am. Thought you might be. We're pretty high up here. And the mountain air gives you an appetite. Yeah. You live up here all by yourself, mister? My name's Tombstone. Do you, Mr. Tombstone? Yep. Isn't it awful lonely? Oh, I don't mind it. And every now and then I have a visitor like you, buddy.  Hey, son. Just use that flower sack hanging on the nail. Yeah, I'll get it for you. There. Thanks, Mr. Tombstone. Oh, come on. We'll get to work. Use it here. I'll sit by the stove. Well, pile in, buddy. That's what I aim to do. There's the sun. What? The sun. It's shining in the window. Oh, yeah. It's later than I thought. The mass man will come back, won't he? I sure he will. I couldn't understand the plan he was talking about. That's because you don't know the country. He'll come back, don't you worry. Maybe your pa will come with him. Gosh, I hope so. I'll tell you what, buddy. They'll have to ride into the canyon before they can get up here. So after you've finished eating, we'll take a walk over to the edge of the cliff. The cliff? Yeah. That way we can see them a lot sooner. Would you like to wait there? Uh-huh. All right then.  Daddy's silver. Oh, scouts. Oh, fellas. Oh, where we left them last night. Uh-huh. And their footprints. Then go that way. He talked about a hideout. Perhaps a cabin. Maybe so. Come on. Let's hope we're not too late. Get him up, scouts. Pretty up here, Mr. Tombstone. Yep. You feel like you're on top of the world. I guess you do. I guess that's why I've always liked it so much. Is that the cliff up ahead? Uh-huh. How far is it down to the canyon? Oh, you rode up from it last night with the mass man. Well, but I mean straight down. Well, it must be close to a thousand feet. Gosh. What's the matter? I don't know. I always get sort of dizzy when I'm up high. Just thinking about it makes me dizzy. You aren't scared, are you?  Shucks, no. And come on. Can't we see the entrance of the canyon from here? Well, how about it? I guess not. Nope. We've got to walk right over to the edge before we can do that. Just a tombstone. Just a second while I get my breath. No, Tutto. Eight here, not long ago. They're put for instance. Heading for the cliff, steady boy. Come on, Silver.  How do you feel now, buddy? Fine.  Sure. I wasn't scared, you know. Oh, of course you weren't. You just take my hand and we'll sort of balance each other. Yeah, that's a good idea. I can see down the canyon now. Oh, not all the way to the entrance. Are we... Are we going right to the edge? Right to the edge. Isn't... Isn't this far enough? Nope. Right to the edge. It's just a few more steps now. Can we... Can we take him sort of slow? Just as slow as you want to. Here we are. It isn't so bad, is it? Look down, buddy. I don't want to. Hey, what's that? A rope. Bags, Silver. It's a mask, man. He won't just roll together. He won't get me. Don't, mask man.  That's far enough, Silver. Now back to the edge. No, you're trying to get loose, Mr. Tombstone. What's the idea, mask man? It was just a trick, buddy. You can see my gun. Can't you, Tombstone? I see it. Gotta get away and I'll use it. All right, Silver. Here's the rope, Pillar. What's the idea of roping us? Why are you pointing that gun at Mr. Tombstone? I don't worry about it, buddy. You're going back to your father and Tombstone's going on to Clarksville. That's where he's going to live from now on. Oh. You're going along to Tonneau. Right on Scout. Yes, sir. Howdy, Tonneau. Tonneau. Well, are you going to make any trouble to him, Stone? No. No, I'm all right now. I'm glad you got here in time. Just put me somewhere where I'll be safe, where I can't ever do anything like that again. Don't worry. That's where you're going. Well, I think you'd better mount first. Right. You'll see your father in less than an hour, buddy. Let's hurry. All right, come on, Silver. Head up, Scout. Oh, there, boys. There goes a masked man and Tonneau. They're right in the head of the train. They got the hermit with them? Nope. There are just two of them. Well, here comes Jeff. We'll ask him about it. Rain up, Jeff. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. How come the masked man's leaving without the hermit, Jeff? Well, we're taking charge of Tombstone. There was a girl rode up to the camp this morning and left a message with Mrs. Summers. It was for the Lone Ranger. He just got to read it. Must have been important for the way he's high-taining it out of here. I reckon. Flash, Paul. Look at him travel. Uh-huh. Mighty fine sight, buddy. Mighty fine sight. Before you have just heard is a copyrighted feature of the Lone Ranger Incorporated.


The next item of business is an urgent question, and I call Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government for its response to the Scottish Law Commission's discussion paper on the mental element in homicide and the wider implications it has in ending the so-called rough sex defence. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. Can I thank Jamie Greene for his question and also for the constructive discussion we had once he'd been appointed to his post and also welcome to him to the role of just a spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives. We are very pleased that the Scottish Law Commission has published an extensive discussion paper on reforms to homicide law. The Scottish Government asked the Scottish Law Commission to undertake this project in light of various court judgments which recommended a fundamental study into homicide law and so it's positive to see that this progress has been made by the commission. In line with the normal processes for law commission reports, we await the commission's final report, which will be developed and informed by the responses to their initial discussion paper. I don't want obviously to pre-empt the final recommendations of the commission, but I do very much welcome their inclusion of certain aspects of homicide law for consideration for reform. This includes the commission looking at whether Scottish law needs to be made clearer in terms of the rough sex defence so-called, whether new defences in respect of those who experience domestic abuse are needed and the consideration of reforming the defence of provocation in this area of law. It's of course right that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the commission's final recommendations on these matters when they report. Jamie Greene I thank the current secretary for his response and welcome him to his new role in the challenging of times, but this much needed discussion paper effectively opens the door for the potential of changes to the law in the most serious of crimes, namely of murder and culpable homicide. The chair of the Scottish Law Commission, Lady Patton, said that she hopes that this paper will ascertain if current Scots laws truly fit for purpose in the modern era. This is a modern era that has shone a spotlight on violence against women, on coercive behaviour and redefining how a case for defence is made by those who have suffered at the hands of abuse. Can I ask the cabinet secretary, given that his predecessor, sitting a few feet away from him, previously said that it was only a perception that the defence of rough sex still exists in Scots law? If responses to the paper make it clear that it is the law itself that is deficient, not perceptions of it, will the Government commit to legislative change in this area? I thank Jamie Greene for his supplementary question. I think that that is the purpose of the report, so that we can look at what comes back from the Scottish Law Commission, not just in its interim report, but in its final report, when it has had submissions and consultation responses, including from anybody in its Parliament, which wants to respond. There is an acknowledgement that there needs to be, and that is the purpose of the report, an updating of some of the defences for homicide and murder. There is no doubt about that, and to take into account some of the points that Jamie Greene makes about gender-based violence, some of the language, some of the notions that are used. I understand and accept that point. There is some confusion over the rough sex defence, whether it is a defence in terms of a crime that is being committed, or whether it can be used not in mitigation, but certainly to reduce the charge that is made by making sure that the murder charge is not made out, if you like. It can also be used subsequent to a guilty finding in order to inform sentencing. It is very important that we have clarity on that, which is one of the things that the support seeks to do. I hope that that will be welcome, not just by Jamie Greene, but by everybody else that is interested. I agree with the cabinet secretary in the sense that there can never be any defence for gender-based sexual violence. That is something that the chamber would commit to agreeing on. The SNP manifesto ahead of the election did promise and committed to a reformed justice system. The problem is that we have an enormous backlog in our courts right now. There are nearly 38,000 cases. The forecast is that we will not clear that for at least four years. The effects and the trauma of those lengthy waiting times are clear to the victims and their families. What urgent action has the Government taken right now to clear the backlog? Will the reformed justice system finally put the needs and the rights of victims at the heart of it? Jamie Greene will know that a number of the actions that are already taken by my predecessor and the Scottish Government previously, for example, is £50 million to help to deal with that backlog, the unusual sighting of additional cases that have been taken through the system just now. He is right to say that, of course, there is a backlog, a significant one. There is one, I think, in every developed country in the world in terms of backlog in terms of the courts. However, going back to the point that he first raised about this particular report, it is important—he is right to say that there is a need for reform here—that it is taken together. That is why the Scottish Law Commission has taken a number of different aspects of the justice system and put those together. If you uproot one part of it, you can cause unintended consequences elsewhere. It is very important that they have done this comprehensive review that it is now subject to consultation. Everybody who is interested has the chance now to make their views heard. We want to do that in a way that, when we can make progress as we are doing with the backlog, we can do that in as far away as possible and take into account the much better appreciation that there is these days for the gender violence within the justice system for women and girls. I have a number of supplementaries. I ask members who are interested in asking a supplementary to please press the request to speak button. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Emma Roddick.  The We Can't Consent campaign noted that there were 60 cases across the UK where the so-called rough sex defence was used and that 40 per cent of women under 40 reported being violently assaulted during sex. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is in fact time to remove the partial defence or provocation by sexual infidelity from our law books to show them that, when it comes to the law, our law seeks to keep women safe? I would in general agree with what Pauline McNeill says. There are different things that she has mentioned there. She has mentioned consent and she has also mentioned provocation, which can be applied in different ways. I think that she is absolutely right to say that consent cannot be used if you are harming somebody in that way. Somebody has consented the old principle. I think that it was called the Volante that you volunteer to have that hand done to yourself as no defence. We have to make sure that the reforms that we carry out to the legal process reflect that. Yes, there is no question that it has been used by some people in the past. I think that the courts have exercised very keen fairness, if you like, in decision making powers in relation to whether they see that as acceptable. I do expect and I hope that the thrust of this report, not just in this one area that we are discussing just now but throughout it, will lead to an updating in very many important respects of the legal process in this area. I hope that that will be supported by the Labour party as well. The cabinet secretary will be aware that a person who kills in a jealous rage brought on by the belief that they have been cheated on can escape a murder conviction under the law as it stands. Does the cabinet secretary believe that regardless of the ultimate conclusions on the more technical aspects contained within the discussion paper, the partial defence of provocation by sexual infidelity has no place within modern Scots criminal law? Can I thank Emma Roddick for her question? I am not sure that this is the first time she has spoken in the chamber, but can I welcome her to her place as well in the chamber? Of course, at some of the points that she raised, they are similar to the ones that Pauline McNeill has just raised. It is a very important issue. I hope that members will understand that the law commission will prepare the final report with recommendations and deliver that to ministers. I do not want to pre-empt that consideration when the final report is provided. However, I think that there is a compelling case for serious consideration to be given in the specific area of reform. I look forward to seeing what people have to say in response to the discussion paper. I think that it is very likely that many people will hold the views expressed by Emma Roddick before the commission make their recommendations for reform.  I am talking about the not proven verdict, which was returned in 20 per cent of all acquittal verdicts in Scotland in 2019-20. In rape and attempted rape cases, the figure was 44 per cent. Behind those numbers are real people who suffer additional trauma from a verdict that serves no useful purpose. For the sake of future victims, surely not proven must be scrapped without any further delay. I am not sure that that was a question rather than a statement, but I would say that, of course, the SNP's manifesto committed to look at this area. I think that it is also true that it is linked fundamentally with other potential reforms of the justice system, some of which I think it may well be that the member would support. It is important that it is taken forward in a considered way. It is right that time is taken to get these things right. I understand entirely and do not disagree with the points that the member makes about the way that this is badly served, women in particular, in relation to that. However, I think that it is important that we take it forward in a considered way. To that end, I would repeat my invitation to any member, whether it is the justice spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives, the member himself or any others that want to contribute to this process, for more than willing to listen to the points that are made. For me, I want to be clear and help to protect anyone against any sexual violence, but just to be clear, Cabinet Secretary, in Scots law, there is no so-called rough sex defence. The doctrine of valenti was excluded by the celebrated case Smart v HMA 1975. The square go case, meaning that in Scotland, the claim to claim any victim consented to the act resulting in their injury or death is not a defence in itself to crimes of assault to injury, culpable homicide or murder. Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree with me that, while there is still more to be done to protect against sexual violence, our law in Scotland does not allow for the so-called rough sex defence? I thank Emma Harper for her question. It is the first time that I have heard the reference to the square go defence in terms of law, but it is a very important point, and it is similar to the one that Pauline McNeill and Emma Roddick have raised. An accused person cannot claim that a person consented to the harm caused to them, so it is right to say that there is no legitimate rough sex defence. However, it is also true to say that an accused person may seek to portray events in such a way to reduce the charge, as I mentioned from murder to culpable homicide. That is for the court to determine in a given case, and I am pleased again that the commission is looking at the sphere to see if steps are needed to make the law clearer in this regard. I will consider carefully the recommendations, but I do agree with Emma Harper that it is important to be clear what is being talked about when discussing the rough sex defence. I have previously asked the Scottish Government about the recording of data and cases that involve violence during what began as consensual sexual activity. The then justice secretary confirmed that the police and the court do not provide information on such cases that said that discussions would take place with stakeholders about how the data could be extracted. Can the cabinet secretary provide any update on related discussions and on any work that is going to be taken place to ensure that data and such cases are recorded so that we can better understand the extent of the issue? I am more than happy to provide the update to the member in writing, but given the discussions that we have just had and the reforms that are being proposed and the law commission's report, the area is going to be subject to substantially more scrutiny. I think that the fact that it should be based on relevant and up-to-date data is very important, so I am more than happy to respond to where we are just now and also to give some indication of where we intend to go in future with the collection of such data. I have long campaigned for the elimination of violence against women and girls, and the cabinet secretary will be aware of the campaigns led by my incredibly brave, determined and focused constituent Fiona Drewitt. It is vital and important that we do, and I seem to do all we can to ensure that justice is done for all victims of domestic abuse, but can the cabinet secretary advise whether the Scottish Government will commit to undertaking research in the future and whether the changes made in England have any effect in practice? I thank James Donham for his question. I also commend Fiona Drewitt's and the Emily test the works that are taken to support effective gender-based violence interventions in colleges and universities. I commend his constituent Fiona on all her efforts, in particular those that are focused on improving students' wellbeing and ensuring that victims of abuse do not blame themselves for crimes committed against them. I am aware of the work that she has done in further and higher education institutions. In respect of the changes in law in England and Wales, whereby the previous common law was placed on statute, the effect is that it is now a matter of statute that a person cannot claim a so-called rough sex defence, where as previously it was a common law practice. As the UK Government has acknowledged, that was not a new law, but as I have said, it was made clear in statute for the first time. For that reason, the new statute law is not yet enforced. It was only recently passed, but I commit to answering the member's question directly to engaging with the UK Government to understand what plans they might have to monitor and evaluate the effect of the new law. That concludes that item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 00196, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revised business programme for this week. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 144.4, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion 144, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on health recovery be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and we will suspend for a technical break.


So, Milberth, would you please share with us what was your life like before Jesus Christ, and yeah? I was raised in church my whole life, pretty much. My mom actually got baptized here in 1996 when I was in Tabernacle. So, I've known what God does. I've seen His miracles. When I was about eight years old, my father was diagnosed with leukemia in the second degree. According to doctors, my father wasn't supposed to be here today, and I think that was the first time I ever really accepted God. I was eight years old, and I was baptized and speaking in tongues. My father was actually healed. My father has been in remission for 17 years, but growing up, I always felt kind of unloved and unwanted. I was bullied a lot in school from first grade up to eighth grade, so I didn't have friends. I relied more on guy friends than girlfriends. I started getting the attention, started feeling love through the wrong things, and I had a child at the age of 17 after my parents divorced. When my father left the house, I tried to fill that void with a child, and it didn't help. I still felt alone and unwanted. I returned to a relationship I started at the age of 14 that was very abusive. I, at that time, I couldn't understand why I'd go back to him, but I always would. He'd abused me physically and mentally, but yet I was very attached. The last time he abused me, I wasn't in church. I hadn't been in church for about five years. I moved out of my mom's house when I was 18 with my daughter. I tried to go to college. It was just too hard to work full-time and raise a child on my own, and I ended up dropping out of school. I pretty much raised her by myself, and when I got back with him shortly after the abuse started, she saw all of it. I had another child with him, and the abuse continued, but I would always leave and go back, even though he had nothing to offer me. It was hard just this last time that he abused me. He wouldn't stop hitting me, and I remember crying out to God. I'm like, if you still love me, you can stop. And I hadn't spoken in tongues in years, and I started speaking in tongues as he repeatedly hit me, and he mocked me and said, your God is not real. Your God does not exist. And here comes a door, a loud knocks on the door. I had lived in this house for four years. Never once when he touched me or abused me did anyone ever come, but that day the police showed up, and if it wasn't for them, I don't know if I'd be here. And ever since then, I just felt in my heart that I needed to come back to Christ. I knew that he loved me.  And that's when I just slowly started to get away from him, and I decided to come back to church. Now, come on, you guys. Let's put our hands together for Jesus Christ in the support. Melveth, question. How did you come about this church? Somebody invited you. You saw a clip. How did you come about? And what happened at the moment when you came to the church? It was actually something that was like placed in my heart years ago. I used to come here when I was younger with my uncle, and he moved away to Texas, and I hadn't been back to this church in a while, and I would randomly look you guys up on social media, see what you guys were up to. And I just didn't have the courage to come until I reached out to Lorena. She's like a mom to me. And I told her, I'm like, hey, are you going to service? I was like, I'd like to go with you. And she said, yes, I will be there. And I came to service with her. And that same service, I really dedicated my life. Come on, guys. That is so amazing. Now, would you please share how has your life now been different since you've dedicated your life to Jesus Christ? My life now has been very good. I no longer, I pretty much hated myself because of the things that like you would do to me, the things that he would tell me about myself. I really didn't like myself and I've really come to love the person that I am. And I also the only struggle I had were my finances. Being a mom of three kids by myself, maintaining a whole household has been really hard on me, but I've managed. God has never left me. Even though I live paycheck to paycheck, he was there. I decided to go back to school and I obtained two degrees within a year and a half working full time. Come on. That is awesome. Share with us a financial breakthrough that something that the Lord did in your life through your obedience. I had been looking for a job ever since I graduated. I had interviews after interviews, second interviews, third interviews, and I was not getting anything. Three months went by nothing. I started to kind of pray like God like I need this, like not for me, but for my kids. Like I'm their supporter, like I'm all they have. And so I continued to look and I came across Pastor Todd's series called Wait Till I Get My Money Right. And I watched that and the part about tithing really touched my heart. And I said, God, how can I give you from what I don't have to give? But I said, fine. I'm going to give you what's yours and I'm sorry forever stealing from you. And I decided to start tithing and after I tithed three times, I was short on bills, but money came from here, money came from there, from such and such person, and I was able to pay my bills. And I just recently got a job. It took seven months of waiting, but this taught me so much patience, patience that I didn't have. It taught me to wait on God that His timing is perfect. Hey man, come on guys, let's put our hands together for her one more time. Such a wonderful testimony of God's mercy, of God's goodness, and of God's grace on people's lives. Milveth, you know, we're so happy for you. We are so happy. She actually comes to my home group. This girl is gold, and we have an amazing surprise for her, which she probably has no idea about. And if you please can put your hands together for this wonderful gentleman that was to dedicate myself to God. And a few months ago, the second best decision I've ever made in my life was to spend my entire time with you. Milveth, a quarter of three strings cannot be broken, and I would like to ask you in front of everybody here. Thank you guys so much. Thank you for watching this content. I know this was a blessing to you. We would like to ask you to subscribe to our channel and click on the bell on our channel so that each time we upload something you can be notified. Don't forget to share this content with your friends and family and on social media. We're so thankful to you. Better is not good enough. The best is yet to come.


91-year-old woman's visit to the doctor reveals she's been pregnant for 60 years updated five it had been an extremely hard year for 91-year-old Estella Melendez. Her husband had passed away and her health was on a quick decline. After suffering from a fall, Estella had to be taken far from her village to the nearest hospital only to discover something that would rattle her, the doctors and the world. As it turned out, she was pregnant, and there was a lot more to her story than meets the eye. 91-year-old Estella Melendez and her husband Manuel Gonzalez were living a life that many would describe as blessed. Living in the tiny Pacific coastal community of La Boca, Chile, several hours outside of the capital Santiago, they shared an inseparable bond that had carried them through an astonishing 74 years of marriage. While the two weren't exactly living it up in a mansion, the humble life they lived always managed to provide. Manuel's work as a boater and fishermen ensured that the couple would always have food on the table. However, in January of 2015, Estella's life would see some major changes on the horizon, setting off a chain of events that would result in a shocking revelation. 2015 would prove to have a very rough start for Estella. Her 74-year-old marriage would at last be broken as she'd one day wake up to find that Manuel had quietly passed on at the age of 91. Being only a year younger, Estella would struggle with the daily realities of being home alone, managing the house alone and cooking for one. After having spent three quarters of a century building a life with her soulmate, the loss must have been incalculable. They had lived through far too many experiences to quantify them all, and that included some memories better left forgotten. Up until this point, no one really knew, but the couple held close one giant regret that they wanted to take to their graves. Estella and Manuel always felt remorseful about not being able to have a family. It was something that they had both longed for, but early on, they found out that Estella was unable to conceive and get pregnant. When interviewed and asked to look back at her long life having gone by without a family to raise, Estella simply remarked, we suffered tremendously for this reason. The reason behind Estella not being able to have a baby was a mystery for decades. To make matters worse, a few years before her husband passed, Estella also discovered that she had a long-standing tumor in her uterus. However, soon that the tumor would be the least of her worries. In the year following Manuel's passing, the widowed Estella would find herself unfortunately facing a slew of medical issues. She would find that her hearing began to go rapidly and her mobility quickly dwindled. On top of this, she developed a severe case of arthritis. And things only continued to get worse after her 91st birthday. While her body was already slowing down significantly, things would change when Estella would trip and fall while tending to her home. While the fall didn't cause any permanent damage, it was an eye opener for the elderly woman and she knew that she'd have to make some changes in her life. It had become obvious to Estella that her body was giving way, as performing basic tasks alone began to require a lot of effort. She contacted her friend and pleaded for a ride to the Claudio Vicuna Hospital in San Antonio. It was no simple four blocks away to see her doctor, but would require finding someone who could take her on a journey of 40 miles. Concerned over the fall, the doctor wanted to put Estella through a full-body x-ray. At her age, the doctor knew that she really couldn't afford to take any heavy damage. It was during the x-ray process that they would discover something that would lead them deeply startled. To begin with, the doctors that had examined Estella thought that they were merely looking at something they'd already seen, a second tumor. Tumors were nothing new to her, as she'd had about with cancer back in the 1980s. However, wanting to be sure of their findings, the doctor decided to perform a second x-ray. That's when they found out that they could have been very wrong about Estella's condition. After carefully analyzing their find, they came to the conclusion that Estella had never had a tumor in the first place. What she was carrying inside of her was something far more serious than a mere tumor. The doctors had to do a double take or two each time they examined the x-ray. What they were about to reveal felt almost otherworldly. It turns out that Estella was technically pregnant. She had been carrying the remains of a long deceased fetus. However, the biggest shock came when they learned how long it had been inside of her. After studying the fetus, doctors were able to conclude that she had been pregnant with it for roughly 60 years. The news had to have come as devastating to Estella.  All the while, her unborn child was unknowingly inside of her for more than half a century. The reality of her situation shocked Estella, her doctors, and many locals in their corner of Chile. Not many people had ever heard of such a terrifying condition. And yet, as it turns out, Estella's condition wasn't as mysterious as many people might have thought. Estella's condition is called lithopedian, and it affects a small percentage of women across the world. The names of these fetuses themselves are lithopedians or stone babies. These unique specimens are the result of a fetus that begins to develop outside of a pregnant woman's womb. These kinds of fetuses are extremely risky for both mother and child, and if not handled quickly, the condition can result in the demise of both. However, if the fetus is small and undeveloped, it can be gradually absorbed into the pregnant mother's body. And yet, this wasn't the case with Estella. What doctors saw in this elderly woman was something that had scarcely been seen in modern history. If the fetus is too developed, it won't be absorbed by the mother. Rather, it calcifies in the uterus. Usually, people with a stone baby will just go into surgery and get it removed. Sadly, the doctors determined that this wouldn't be a possible route for 91-year-old Estella. Surgery wasn't something she was likely to survive. While the news wasn't encouraging, ultimately, Estella said she didn't mind, as it had remind her of her late husband. While the news of the stone baby was all around another layer of tragedy added onto an already rough time in her life, not everything the doctor told her lingered in a bad light. On one hand, Estella and her husband's biggest dream was under their noses all along, and they never had the chance to recognize it together. While that alone is very tragic, Estella dethroned a belief that it often made her feel awful throughout the majority of her life. She lived her whole life feeling like she was a bit less than everyone else. Estella had to see her sisters and friends have children, while she remained childless in a time and place where rearing children was the norm. It was an incredible revelation. And she couldn't just come home from the hospital and adjust back into her quiet life. Discovering someone who had been carrying a child for over half a century wasn't something that everyone surrounding Estella were going to graze over and ignore. As news spread to an international level, people around the world were intrigued by this elderly woman and wanted to know more about her story. Estella soon found herself at the center of a media explosion. The Washington Post, ABC, NBC and CNN all rushed over to Chile to get the elderly woman story. While most would expect to see the elderly woman burst into tears in the face of such pressure, her response was actually something that caught the watching masses completely off guard. When the world was introduced to Estella Melendez, they might have assumed that they'd be looking at someone who had been broken by the ravages of time and her odd discovery. After all, nobody can expect anyone who lost their husband of 74 years and discovered a 60-year-old fetus inside of them to be in the best state of mind. However, Estella sat before the cameras poised in calm. She clutched her cane and looked at the interviewer with very attentive eyes and spoke with elegance. Despite living through a series of tragic events, the woman appeared tough as nails and it garnered her a very unexpected response. Estella had experienced hardships that most of us will never know. Just hearing about it left people baffled and saddened. A woman named Julie summed up public opinion with her comment that's so sad, it might have actually given her husband a little joy had they found out earlier. However, the young lady's comment didn't end on that sad note. She further stated, I guess one way of looking at it is they did have a child and she carried it around with her for 60 plus years. And now since they won't remove it she still has a part of him with her. In an unusual sort of way. While many were baffled, others found the story strangely relatable. While Estella's definitely isn't a condition that's heard about on a daily basis, one can argue it's way more common than one might assume. A woman named Lauren Pearl wrote in commenting on the story and she described how her sister had also been pregnant with a stone baby in her albeit not her own one, according to doctors. Lauren explained, this happened to my sister. She had no idea until she was pregnant with my niece. It was her own twin. As crazy as it sounds it isn't super uncommon. Most people just never know. She had complications which revealed it. With that said, many are wondering what is going on with Estella today. On to the future. In her 90 plus years of life, there is no way that Estella could have imagined that she'd be at the center of a media outburst as she was. Most people get their 15 minutes of fame much earlier on in life, if they get it at all. Estella Melendez had her moment in the sun, though it was due to a strange medical condition and came in the wake of tragedy. Now in the years since her massive exposure in the press, she's managed to steer clear of headlines, retreating back into the quiet routine of daily life in her small Chilean seaside community. Turns out, this condition is super rare, occurring only 300 times in medical literature. But, it seems like several cases have taken place in close proximity like this next woman. In 2013, an elderly Colombian woman was rushed to the hospital with severe pelvic pain. After several tests and scans, lo and behold, she was told that she was carrying a 40 year old stone fetus. The 82 year old woman was clearly perplexed by the findings. She had no idea she was carrying a calcified fetus in her body for four decades. Her baby had formed in her abdomen and not her uterus, but there was no way for the body to expel the fetus so it calcified. Her immune system protected her body from this foreign object, and therefore it turned to stone. In 2019, another case of Lithopedian was reported in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She had carried a stone fetus for 22 years. Events transpired like the aforementioned women, she had abdominal pain, and had to be examined at the hospital. In both the latter cases, the fetus was removed with surgery. But seeing that it doesn't really pose a health risk, it has not always proved necessary. Luckily, surgery was successful in this case.


Okay, welcome to the wrap up session for our final hackathon of 2019. I mean, first of all, I mean, thank you for all your contributions and energy and activities over the past few days. I mean, it's not quite over for people like us in the U.S. or North America. We still have several hours left depending on which time zone you're at. But, I mean, already we've gotten some great contributions that have come in over the past few days. So I really appreciate that. So I wanted to have a quick wrap up session to summarize what we've accomplished. And then happy to answer any questions. You can post them on the chat window or just interrupt me during the presentation and you can just ask a question anytime.  I mean, it was great to have like a multiple people per topic. I think that just introduced more of the Get Lab Team members to the community. So that was great. And for people who like not only attended, but I've been looking at the counter of how many people have watched various videos. As in the past, a lot of people have watched the recordings after the session. So that's great. And still in the process of updating the hackathon page, but all the video embedded videos and all that should be up there pretty soon. Hopefully, I mean, no letter in tomorrow. But if you also want to go to the hackathon playlist, I mean, let me just go there really quick to give you an idea. So you'll see all the videos basically posted after these tutorial sessions. You can also look at videos from past events. So that's a good resource to keep in mind, even after the hackathon. So, yeah, so do take advantage of that either on the hackathon page or go straight to the YouTube playlist and you'll be able to find all the recordings there. All right, so continuing on the list of MRs. I think when we kicked it off, I said it'll be great if it can hit over 100 and I think by the end of the evening yesterday, my time in California, we already had like 73 or 74 MRs. So I was pretty confident that we're going to hit this entry mark and we were at like one of four or one of five when I checked last time. So it broke the record from the last hackathon, which I thought was a tall, tall order, but I mean, you guys all make great contributions and came through. And out of about 100, more than 30 of those were already merged as of about an hour ago. And then the contributions came not only for GitLab but GDK, Gitaly. I was happy to see a lot of people also contributing to Meltano after the tutorial session yesterday and of course to our web page as well, people finding good typos, making sure that we're using appropriate pronouns. So that was really appreciated. I'm going to capture all the MRs here on the issue on this issue here. You'll see the page here, but if I miss any of yours, I mean, please feel free to ping me. Let me know on Gitter or otherwise just let me know or straight on the MR just make sure that I captured it on this issues list. So thank you very much. And like I said earlier, the day's not quite done in North America, so I'm sure we'll have more added to the list here, but definitely appreciate what you've all done. The next page, I'm just a few logistical reminders. Again, three categories of awards, grand prize for people who has the most MRs merged second place and anybody with any like even single MRs merged will get a prize that's listed here. Just one date and time to keep in mind the MRs need to be merged about 10 or 11 days from now. So you'll have a couple of weekends if you need it. So it needs to be merged by 2300 UTC on Monday the 25th. But please let me or David know if you need any help if there if for whatever reason there are issues or or delays in getting your MRs merged please let me know and we'll try to we'll try to help you out and and see what we can do. In terms of the next hackathon for Q1 in 2020. I selected a date of 12th and 13th of February so again this should be Wednesday through Thursday. Please mark it on your calendar, but obviously I'll make announcements on various channels that we use to advertise the event like whether it's Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Reddit, Gitter and other channels. So, look for reminders and it'll be the new dates will be reflected in the hackathon pages as well. If you have any feedback or request for future events, for example, like topics or tutorial topics for the next hackathon. Please let us know. I mean one of the things I'm thinking of doing is, I think, like some of the topics that we covered in the past like get left development kid GDK probably needs a refresher. It's been one of the most popular videos that people have watched but that might be something we'll try to do. But if you have any other topic ideas or suggestions, please let me know. I think that's pretty much it for all the hackathon stuff just wanted to. I think the last hackathon during the wrap up session I talked about different contribution of recognitions that we've been doing and one of them was top annual contributors. I updated this page as of almost a month ago now on October 23. I'm going to go to that page so I can scroll through and show you what I have here. We started compiling this list of regular contributors starting last year. So you'll see the data if you scroll down from 2018 and basically we have three classes of regular contributors. Super star star and enthusiasts and enthusiasts you basically need five MR merge per year. So hopefully that's not too high ever hurdle. And I wanted to compile a list as of October like late October and late October 2019 for for the current running lists for top contributors this year. And what I've seen is that from 2018 to 2019 there's been an increase in number of regular contributors. In 2018 we had about 35 was was a number. And we so far this year we have over 50 people. So, I mean nice increase in the number of, you know, what we've been calling regular contributors.  I just wanted to point point this out and last year I mean we recognize people with different color baseball hats. I mean depending on which level that you reach and we'll try to obviously try to find something, something different, and even more interesting next year. So I wanted to direct you direct everyone to the page and encourage you to check it out and let me know if you have any questions. So I think that's it in terms of slides and contents. Not sure if folks have any questions. Let me just check the chat window and see if the people have any questions and don't see anything. Give it like a 10 more seconds for people on the on the zoom line to verbalize any questions if there aren't any I mean you obviously know how to find me on on Gitter. Or even on Twitter so I mean ping me with questions or requests and I mean thanks again for all you've done and all you can and for some people continue to do during the hackathon I really appreciate it. It's definitely look forward to this every quarter. And I'm sure I'll be talking to you in the next few months but if not, I'll see you folks again. Thank you to hackathon and in mid key one hackathon in mid February. All right, thank you for, thank you for joining and listening, and I'll talk to you folks again soon.