Welcome to the metal voice today on the short show. We got Nazareth's own Pete Agnew. What's going on, Pete? Oh yeah, nice to see you, Jerry, nice to meet you. Yeah, great, that was going fine in this COVID-ridden country. We're coming out of it now, everybody's heard it, so. You bet. Surviving the Law, Frontier's Music, April the 15th, the new Nazareth album. This is the 24th studio album, it's kind of shocking. It's the 25th. 25th, okay. 25th, yeah. Last one was Tattooed on My Brain. So, right off the bat, what's the difference between musically that you did differently on this album compared to last album and comparing that to, let's say, the 70s peak? Well, it's a different band now for a start, but The Tattooed on My Brain was the first album that we did with this lineup, you know, with the new singer. So, you know, that was the first time sort of taking everybody's songs, taking different guys' song that we hadn't been using before, you know. This time we've all got a bit more used to each other, and it was a different sort of way, a different way of writing this time because we wrote it, and basically, I figure I've told everybody we wrote it in jail and we recorded it on parole because it was, you know, we were stuck in, we were stuck in because of the pandemic, the plague. So everybody was writing an awful lot more songs than they normally would because they weren't doing anything else. And then, of course, we didn't get to record it until because, again, all these quarantine restrictions and guys coming out in the country, you know, producers from Switzerland, their singer was out in Vienna in Austria. So, we were sending sort of files out. We were in the studio, three of us sending the files out to the singer and he was doing the stuff, you know, out in Austria. But it all worked out very well, but like I said, we recorded it differently from the last one, mainly because, just because of the circumstances, you know. I think the, in terms of the material and the content of the album, I think there's a, I think this one's a little bit darker. I mean, I think it's a bit heavier than Tadio and my brain. Tadio and my brain was a great selection of all the songs that we'd all been writing at the time. At this time, I think that there's a little bit more cohesion between the different songs written out by the different people. I think because they were all in the same jail, but there you go. So, I think there's, you know, the circumstances, again, were different. So, yeah, I think you can, there's definitely a kind of different mood on this album, you know, but I think it follows that too on my brain well because we were always, we never ever liked to put an album out the same as the one before, you know. It was even going back to, you know, the hair of the dog days, okay, we'll have another one of those priests, you know, the record company will say, well, no.  And the next one we did after that was nothing like that one. So, you know, you always try to be, yeah, a wee bit fresh for your fans. So I think in this case, I think, you know, it was a wee bit, it was quite funny actually because when we did that to my brain, we were kind of worried, you know, how the audience were going to take to a new singer, you know, replacing Dan.  But, you know, you're making an album. It's a different thing. So a wee bit different when you get to record it. But of course, well, it was great. The people loved it and they thought it was a great album, lovely. So the nervousness over that one went away and we were pleasing then. Then of course, then you get the same as every band. Can we follow that one? You know, that's the next worry, you know, because you get an album that was a really good album. I mean, it was probably, it rates up there with the best of Nazareth albums of all time. So, and that's not just coming from me. That's coming from the fans themselves, you know? Well, the comments that we were getting, it was a wee bit thing. How do we, can we follow this thing, you know? And I think we have, but it's again, but it's a different album again, you know? It's a different mood, I think that's one. Yeah, I think Carl Sundance, who is the current singer for those of the people out there who don't know, he's a current single. He was on the last album, like you mentioned. He's on this album. He's got a great voice. There's a more of a hard rock and metal feel, if you will, maybe perhaps on some of the songs, but it's always varied. Like all Nazareth albums, they're very varied. So I did enjoy that aspect of it. What do you say to, I mean, we're living in an age where, you know, the name of the band continues on and on and on. What do you say to the naysayers who's saying, are you guys still continuing? Dan's sort of retired. What do you say to the people who say, why are you continuing? I mean, what do you say to those people? Oh, basically, this is what I do. You're still an original member. I mean, that's the good news.  It's just what I do. I couldn't imagine, obviously, I couldn't imagine but tiring. And I mean, there's lots of other guys, the same as me. It was funny, you know, I get a lot of the, I get a lot of people saying things like, you know, how could you call it Nazareth? You know, because there's only one member. How I could call it Nazareth? I'll just go through a wee list of them, right? Status quo, that's just people with one member. So there's a lot of guys going to have to change their names here, right? So let's go with status quo, the Eagles, King Crimson, White Snake, Leonard Skynald, Uriah Heep, Slade, Sodom, Foruna, Foghawk, Boston, Yes, Starship, Blue Oyster Cull, Jeff Whittle, Black Oak, The Outlaw's Suite, The Animals, how can I go on Guns N' Roses? You have a whole list there in front of you. I might mention ACDC, you know, and if you want to get really tricky about it, Ian Pace is the only original member of the real deep bubble that started off. So, yeah, I can think we can call this Nazareth. I agree, I agree. After these other 40 bands change their name, I'll change the name for Nazareth as well. Your favorite, let's say, your favorite track or two off the new album? You know, I'm just getting used to this thing, Jimmy. You know what happens?   And then after a wee while, and this is just getting to that sort of stage with me now, it's been out long enough for me to actually be able to listen to it, you know, as a record, you know. So it was quite, I like, the one that hits me right away is Strange Days. I mean, I love the track, I think it is. It's a really good song, it was Lee wrote that one, and it's got a great noise, it's a great energy, and I'm very, I would say, if you were talking about a modern Nazareth, if we were, that would have been the one, you know, that I would have picked to represent it.  It's a great way to go, it's a great way to go through the album I found, you know, because I was going on it and I thought, yeah, this is good, I could skip through the whole album in 10 minutes and then you can get a kind of feel for, oh yeah, I like that one, oh yeah, yeah, I like that one, you know, so other than Strange Days, I don't really have, and I wouldn't say favorite, that's the one that sort of smacks me, as it sort of stands out as a whole production, you know, but there's other tracks on there that sound nothing like that, but things like Sweet Kiss and Siggies and Booze, and things like that, they're just a wee, they're different, they're a wee bit more, they're really different, you know? So I like all them as well, I'm still at that stage with the album, that I'm still quite open minded. Yeah, yeah, you know, it's interesting, there's a huge, for the people out there who don't remember, I guess I'm old enough to remember, but there's a huge connection with Canada and Nazareth. To the point when I was growing, to the point when I was growing up when I first heard Nazareth as a little kid, I thought that you guys were Canadian, that's how much they played you on the radio. I know, and to this day, I mean, somebody was, there was another show that was done, I think it comes at a BC, and a lady got in touch with me, and it was all the Canadian greats, Canadian great bands, and then she was telling me, you know, so she was worried to do this show, and then I'll get in touch with you. So where are you?  What are you doing over there? I said, well, I'm here, this is where we're from. And she didn't know that Nazareth were not a Canadian band, and that, you know, so, and listen, you know, I don't mind, I don't mind, Canada took us to their hearts, you know, and it was a great thing, you know, what happened with you, and the same happened with, actually, it took us by surprise at the time because we didn't know that this can con, you know, this Canadian content, we didn't know about that, which by the way, I think is a wonderful idea, I think every country should do that to give their homegrown talent a push, a do.  So Pete, just so I could tell everybody, because not only Canadians watch a show with people in North America. Oh, right. So what we have in Canada, and we still have in place, I believe, I'm not sure, but what we used to have is sort of like a 20, 30%, everything on the radio had to have Canadian content, or meaning the composer publisher had to be Canadian. So in this case, this fight tonight, which was a Joni Mitchell song from Saskatchewan, like you said, because Nazareth is from the UK or Scotland, because it was written by Joni Mitchell, it qualified as Canadian content. So we used to, Crocus, for example, American women used to play on the radio all the time, Nazareth, because of Joni Mitchell used to play on the time, because so that's just to give everybody some background of why Nazareth broke so much in Canada, and it's a great song on top of it, right? Oh yeah, it was a great version of the song. I mean, it's so funny, after we found that out, we were running about looking for a Neil Young song to do, but we didn't do that. No, what happened with that is, I remember when the day we released it in Britain, we were over in Hollywood, Carl Fabernia, or A&M's studio, we were at the record company's headquarters there, and they did a studio there, and they said, oh, Joni's on recording right now. I think she was mixing Miles of Isles or something like that at the time. And we said, they said, go and say hello, so we went, all right, so we'll go and say hello, so we went and Joni said, would you like a cup of tea or something, that would be great. And we said, listen, we've released this flight tonight today, and she said, with a rock band? And it was like, yeah, yeah, it's great. So we played it there, and she thought it was wonderful, she couldn't believe it, you know, the racket that was going on.  But it was funny because like a couple of years later, she came to tour in Britain, and she owned up in the Queen Elizabeth Halls in England in London, and she'd come on stage. She said, I'd like to start with a Nazareth song. So we thought that was quite nice. Well, as a kid growing up in Montreal, I thought, first of all, Nazareth was Canadian because you were on these compilations of Canadian albums, like a K-DAL kind of thing, because of Joni Mitchell with this flight tonight. And second of all, I forgot my train of thought there. But anyways, I thought you were Canadian growing up. We were recording... In the studio. Yes. We did three albums up there, and we did another album. We've done quite a lot of Canada, actually. We recorded an album up in Vancouver as well. We did a live album on the Pacific Coliseum in Vancouver. So we've got quite a history with Canada, actually, you know, and it's nice. Canada's been good to us, very good to us. And that's why we... Well, we still try to come and do a Canada tour every year. I mean, you can't do the whole place, obviously. It's huge, but, you know, but we do... We always come and get about 14 or 15 shows if we can, you know? In fact, we're coming over in August, hopefully. You know when I saw you live? I saw you... I saw Nazareth live when you guys opened up for Black Sabbath on the Born Again tour in Montreal. Oh! Why were you late? Like, to this day, it plagues me. So I went to see Nazareth open up for Black Sabbath on Born Again in Montreal, the Montreal Forum. And the show was delayed something like an hour and a half and nobody knew why. Do you remember? Well, that was that stupid...  I mean, that was their... You know, if anybody's seen Spinal Tak, that tap, that was what it was taking their piss out. I mean, that is incredible. They built that Stonehenge thing, and it took them about a day, two days to put that up. Before we couldn't get on stage, they still had joiners up there, banging up Stonehenge and doing this, that and that. We couldn't get... Our guys couldn't get in there to organize our equipment because of the amount of nonsense that was going on with Black Sabbath's wood crew. In fact, it was so funny because I think half of the crew got fired that night, and then they never used the set again in the whole tour. That was the first night in the tour. It was hilarious, and that's what happened.  So in fact, at one point, at one point they were discussing that we weren't going to go on because it was going to take that long to get them on, but then they would have been complaints because we did sell a few tickets ourselves as well. But that's why you were waiting.  How was that tour in general? I mean, I know Black Sabbath, I think in the States it was quite right, but Nazareth did the Canadian dates, I believe. Yeah, we did the four shows with them. I said, what happened is we were going to do a States tour, but that's what it was. We were going to do a States tour, and so we just did the four shows up in Canada. At the beginning, we did them first, and then we went to America to do the rest. And we were there for another six weeks, but the four shows we did, well, I mean, it was a bit of a, that first one was a bit of a carry on, to say the very least, but the gigs were okay. The gigs were okay. I couldn't, I must say, is I'd never, I mean, I've been out with somewhere. We're not that quiet ourselves, and I've been out with some loud bands, but I'd never, ever heard anything like that Black Sabbath thing. I couldn't believe it. We were, when they started up, we'd never seen Black Sabbath, you see, because we'd never went along to see them anywhere. And we were in the dressing, you know what that was like in Montreal, the venue? Well, we were in a dressing room, God knows how far away from the stage, underground, you know, away, away, away.  So we went up, and I thought, my God, I'd never heard anything so loud in my life then. So I didn't, you know, I don't know what they were playing, they were that loud. Did you get along with the, look, if there's a connection with Deep Purple, and of course Nazareth with Gillian, right? Oh, I very well, very well, because you know, we always, we've always gotten well with you. In fact, when, before that, I was after that, when Ian got his own, you know, when Deep Purple, when he left Deep Purple and then, and he got the Gillian band together. Well, we took him out on tour with us, as our opening band, and it was, and we got on great, and we did a long tour, and Ian was with us, he's a really good band actually, but an excellent band. And I can't remember if that was after the Sabbath, I think it was before the Sabbath thing, I can't really remember. But then actually with the, well, we did the Sabbath thing. Oh, well, basically I can remember the four gigs we played, we were in the bar with Ian every night, so you know, that sounds like a good one. I remember when that tour was announced, there were probably just as many Nazareth fans going there than Black Sabbath fans. That was a good balance, but the thing is with the, you know, when you got a couple of bands like that going on, usually the people that would come to see those bands would like both those bands anyway, you know, normally it was, it's like when we'd play with Deep Purple, you knew, you know, if you like Deep Purple, there's a fair chance of going to like Nazareth, you know, and if you're, you know, it's not like you're playing with, you know, a folk band or something like that, you know, so there was a good mixture, I thought. And I think, I don't think Black Sabbath were at, that was kind of after the peak anyway, you know, they were, you know.  No, no, they're waiting for, they're waiting for the university to come in, you're just getting in the way, you know. We can, as Dan used to say, they're sitting there going like, could you hurry up please, get off before I come off this high. What about the legacy of Nazareth, okay?  And then what is it, you guys are asked to buy Axel to perform at his wedding? Is there any truth to that? Well, he talked to Dan, you know, it was Dan. No, I don't, it wasn't Nazareth as such. He would, like, dante of someone who went along to sing Love Hurts, because, well, he was getting married to an Everly Brothers, you know, daughter. But so, yeah, it was mentioned, like, that he would like Dan to do it, but we were touring it, just, we were touring it, just, it wasn't possible, you know, or he would have went, he would have been, Dan would have went along and sung, well, I think, I think the, I think possibly the song could have lasted a bit longer than the marriage, I don't know, what are you saying?  I mean, you could tell, right? Have you had contact with Axel or Guns N' Roses over the years? Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, in the early days, obviously, they used to come to see us, but before they were huge, they used to come to our gigs in California, and so we used to see a lot of them as younger guys.  Sent the manager up to get us, and we went, we were in the studio, just outside of Prague, so we came down, and we saw that Guns N' Roses, it was a great band, by the way, I mean, it was only him from there, they were really, really good. When they eventually went on, I mean, it was, you were talking about us being an hour late in Montreal, I mean, Axel can be a day late, you know, so they went on about, I don't know, an hour or two late or something, but we weren't fussy because we were in the bar, so it was a good night, and that's the last thing we saw.  I was also reading an interview with you, like way back, where Russia and Ukraine, were like your two big markets for Nazareth, you know, people, I guess, seem to love the band there, and then you look at the situation in Russia and Ukraine now, it's just, isn't it sort of despairing in a sense, right? Well, I should have been in Russia tonight, right? Yeah, yeah, we should have been in, we should have been in Novosibirsk last night, but now the night before, and I think it was Novosibirsk tonight in Siberia, I'm not sure, Tomsk, maybe it's Tomsk. Anyway, we had, and we should have done Moscow and Ufa in Yekaterinburg in February, we had to cancel that one because of the COVID thing. But this one, and then what we had here now, in March, we're going March and into April, was the 11 Russian dates and three Ukraine dates, and in Ukraine, we should have finished this tour in about a week's time in Kyiv, in Kharkiv, and in Zaporizhia. So that's Kyiv, you all know, Kharkiv, they're flattened, and Zaporizhia is where they've got the atomic power station that they're right to be. So that's where we should have been now. The Russia and Ukraine, well, I was going to say, are still a huge market for us. I don't know, as we speak, I don't think it is. I don't know if I'll be back to any of them, but it's funny. People are still making noises. I just had an email and came into the business email yesterday from this guy telling me how ashamed we should be of ourselves for not canceling the Russian tour, and it was going like, excuse me, but we canceled it.  In fact, we were the first to cancel. We were the biggest to do that country. We were the most important band to do, but we were the first to cancel. But what happens is the promoters don't stop advertising it. So this is what happens. These guys see your name still getting advertised. They don't look at your website to see if you're advertising it. So you get accused of all sorts of stuff. I was a wee bit annoyed about that, because I mean we've got lots and lots of good friends in Russia and in Ukraine, you know? I mean, very good friends in both countries. And I'm talking to them both as we speak. I mean, I was talking to my mate in Moscow yesterday and we're talking to people in Kiev who are actually shouldering guns right now. And one of them was phoning. She was in touch from a bunker that she's been, well, they'll have been hiding and that's where they sleep, and they come out during the day. And these people are, you know, they're shouldering guns now. These people that were working with us as tour managers and interpreters and stuff. I mean, it's very, very sad, but it's doubly sad for us because it's threads of those doing it, you know?   That's right, aye. That was actually, that was funny, that one, aye. That was good, that one, because, I mean, we played, you know, we know Helix, we know all the Canadian bands, you know, Street Heart, Manny produced them and all of them did the head pins and they're all friends of ours, you know?  I mean, it was, we never released it in Canada or America that, but it was released in Europe and it was, if you go to Germany and you put on, you know, the daytime soaps, you know, the soaps, right? You'll hear Dream on at least half a dozen times in the afternoon on these things, you know? And it's a Nazareth thing. That was funny because we were playing a gig that was a good few years ago and up until then we never realised who, we knew somebody had covered it there but we couldn't remember who and our Helix would play with us at this gig and they were on before us and they came to the dressing room and said, is it okay if we play Dream on?  We'd never ever played it in Canada so what happened was the last, see what we used to play for the slow one, if you like, other than love hearts, we used to play Sunshine in Canada because that was the big, you know, walk down the aisle song, you know, and so that was our kind of slow one for the set whereas we would, in Europe when we were playing at that point of the set, we'd play Dream on, you know? So a couple of times we've been in Canada and we've played Dream on, you know, at a couple of concerts this then and people will think we're doing a cover first gig.  Well, there you go, I see a lot of people thought we wrote love hearts, I wished I had. Just the same way I used to think love hurts when it first came out as a kid, it was your song.  God, what has she done with your song? I was like, no, no, no, no, no, it's the only way around, you know, no, I think, I thought, I thought the Helix version was excellent, by the way. It's very, very good. It's a great record, it's a really great record. I guess what distinguished Nazareth to other bands who did covers, the difference between Nazareth, in my opinion, and you could comment on this, is you've managed to take a song from someone else and making your own, but making your own so much so that people believe it's actually your song.  So that means you love the record usually in the first place. But you have to kind of forget that and treat the record as if it's a demo, you know? The original record, then then say, what would we do with this?  And then you can do and make it yours and track and make it yours. I'll give you an example of something that doesn't work. We've tried other things. We've done other covers. I don't know if they were that great, but we've done other covers. We've tried them. And unless you can really change it that much, you wouldn't look at we, there's a band called Over Here, the move they were called, right? And they were huge, huge over here. And they did a song called Tiger Women, the Wild Tiger Women. And it was a great, great record.  And we were up in the studio one day, actually, and we were messing about with, you know, doing stuff and work. And I think it was when we did the playing the game up and we said, Tiger Women, that was a great one. Why don't we have that? Give or go with that. That would be great. So we went in and we played it. And we played it great. We did a good job at it. We played it great. And we sung it and everything. And then we played it back. And we thought, that's just the same as the move. I mean, it was just another version of the move. I mean, it was just the same. So completely worthless. It's worthless, you know, to us as an exercise. We had failed in making that song into something else, you know. So I think, as you used to say, you've got to get put, to make it not sound like a cover, really. You know, to make it sound as if it was yours. And of course, we're joining. I mean, it's obviously, it's easier to do that because you sit playing it on an acoustic guitar and it's, you know, obviously, as soon as you add bass, drums and electric guitars, it's gonna sound different anyway. That's not just the sound of the thing. It's their approach to it. It's getting the arrangement and the way to do it. You know, the way to do the song. And if you do that, I mean, I think that's the secret, I feel like, if there's any such thing, that's the secret of ours. Any fond memories at the studio?  It's, it's... Millions. You've polished it now.  Millions, millions. We used to, we used to, we did three albums up there. We did one in the spring, I think it was, and then we did one in the autumn and then we did one in the winter. And that was it. That was it when we went up there. There was a guy who had a tow truck company just down the road from us. And I think when we left, he retired and went and bought an island in the Bahamas or something, you know, where they made a money that he'd got a Nazareth or a corner or a car, or a snowdrift or something. So we used to, it was great. It was a great studio, and it was really handy for nipping down to Montreal if you had a night off. We used to zip down there, down to Thursdays now and again and have a yahoo. But the studio was, it was so different, you know, from, I mean, there was a lot of these studios that were, and we used to do the living studios, as we call them, out in the countryside.  And it was a great place to record. Just generally, it was like, well, we went there. It says, well, we did three albums there. What does that tell you? Well, I go by there as a pilgrimage because I'm not too far away.  And that's how you get there. And it's a small town. We got stuck there. We were in Moran Heights, where we were in there. We had a little house there. And we used to go down into Moran Heights to eat and things. But the amount of times, and when it got to that winter, the amount of times that we get stuck up there, sleeping on the couches and on the floor of the studio, we're getting snowed in. Because it used to come to, you know, you would be in working on a track. And it started snowing. You never really notice it that far, you know, at first. And then the guys would go, oh, it's starting snowing. And we would think of that. I said, no, we come from Scotland, we get snow. But we don't get snow. We don't, we get, we get out. Canadians would laugh at what we call snow, right? You know, we used to say there, the guys go, right guys, it started to snow. And then they go, it's getting big snow now.  Well, keep in mind, so Montreal has a metropolis, right? It's three million people, greater Montreal. But when you go, it's north, more nights is north of Montreal. So there's always on the countryside, the weather's more extreme, right? Oh, I, oh, I. So Montreal gets a lot of snow. But when you go up to the mountains, it gets a lot more snow. So yes. We had so many friends in Montreal back in the 70s, you know, like when we used to get, when we were touring, when we were touring in America, not even in a Canada tour or a Canadian tour. If we were touring in America, and we got a couple of days off, we used to fly up to Montreal from wherever we were down in the States. And we'd fly up, have a couple of days off up there and then fly back down to, and I'm not just saying that. I mean this, we did used to do that, right? Yeah. And did you, were you friends with Miles Goodwin in April Wine? Oh, I, Miles is, Miles is a good friend. Then the last time, actually the last time I saw Miles, just a couple of years ago, we were playing on, you know, they do this, these boat cruise things, you know, there's one goes from Florida. And we were on that one just, just before the, the year before the lock up, the lockdown thing there and April Wine were on that. So it was great.  I mean, the thing is, they used to, that April Wine, again, they did a long tour with us. We did a, we did a coast-to-coast job up in Canada and April Wine were with us. And there was a few wild nights in there. I mean, we were a bit crazier in those days. And Miles was dead. Brian Greenway too? Were you friends with Brian? Again, Brian, that's all. I said, these are, Miles and Brian are the guys that have always, always been friends. And of course, Jerry. Jerry was the drummer. Jerry, I saw Jerry, he come over to Scotland, they're just to be where they go. A couple of years ago, Jerry was, well, Jerry was one of your favorite drummers. He's a phenomenal drummer. He's moved to Kingston now, I believe. I think he's staying, he moved to Kingston Ontario a few years ago there. Maybe. Still here. But he was, he was a great drummer and a great character. They were a great band, a great band too. Oh yeah. As you see, I had a lot of drunken nights with those boys. Any last sort of words on the new album, which is coming out April 15th on Frontiers? Any last comments? And I say, I think, nice of the fans. People who have been sort of nice of the fans are gonna love it. I just, I can tell them that they're gonna love it. It's gonna be, and if, and if you're not a Nazareth fan, well, you probably won't buy it anyway. But I mean, check it out because I think it's a, it's got something to say. You know, it's definitely got something to say. It's, it's, it's very relevant and it's a, and there's a lot of it's, it's a, that's, that's today. It's very today. All right. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it very much. And it's, it's just like all Nazareth albums. It's got a little bit of everything, you know? So. And that's the cool thing about it. Except for cover. There's no covers on it. Like I was expecting a cover, but. No, but we haven't, we haven't done covers for a long, long time. You know, it's been a, it's a long, many years now since we, since we came away. I mean, it's a long, long time since we did a cover. I mean, if we, we don't, we don't avoid them. But if we, if we, if the summit came up, then we would definitely go for it. But you see, the thing is now, we've got four guys that write songs, we've got four, four songwriters. And the songs of it, I mean, the guys are all very good. What they do, you know?  There's about, there's a good 10 songs that aren't on it. Could easily have been on it, you know?  Time, you just didn't, didn't have it. And the, the shame about that kind of thing is, if a thing doesn't go on the up, well, mind you, Carl or Singer and Jimmy or guitar player both put out a solo album just before, you know, just, just before we were, well, they were doing it while we recorded that one. So a lot of the material we used in there as well, you know, that they'd written. But generally, if you don't, you know, if the songs that you write don't make it onto that album, people always say, oh, well, you can put it onto the next one. It never happens. Just very rarely happens, you know? Because by the time you get to the next one, you've written new stuff, you know, that you like better than there. And that's, that's probably a good thing. So, you know, you know what you're getting fresh. Yes, yes. And on that note, thank you so much, Pete, for being on this show. It's been a pleasure. After all these years, I finally got to speak to you from Nazareth, pick up the new album. It's going to release once again, April 15th, Surviving the Law. And hopefully there's many more years to come and many more tours. Thanks Jimmy. Thanks very much. It's been a pleasure talking to you, pal.


Hello everybody, E here. Welcome back to Thursday Theorist. Today we are talking about the Bill Hodges trilogy, starting with Mr. Mercedes. All right, first and foremost, everybody who watches these, who hasn't read all of Stephen King's books, there will be spoilers for everything. So just if you have not read all of Stephen King's books, expect that I'm going to spoil things throughout this video. Even more so than any other time. I'm going to be talking everything from Carrie all the way up to the newest one, the outsider. So if you don't, if you don't want spoilers, please click away and do not watch this. Don't be down there in the comments section. Oh my gosh, spoilers. Okay. So right off the bat, Mr. Mercedes, Stephen King decided he had done everything else. So why not try a thriller novel? Then why not try a thriller series using the same retired detective Bill Deight Rhett, William, to think Jay, no, Kermit, William Kermit Hodges. So William K Hodges or Bill Hodges as we come to know him. This first book, I gave five stars. It was so much fun. I had never read anything like it from King before. He had tried mysteries and thrillers like Omni's Last Case and I don't know about Colorado Kid, that kind of thing. He tried Noir with Joyland and I don't think he ever really hit the mark. Joyland is a terrific book, but it didn't need to be a hard case crime. I don't think. But this is finally a legitimate thriller in the likes of let's say like Harlan Corbin, what are the heck his name is, that kind of thing.  Not really the reveal, but I guess the twist and what happens to Brady's mom, that part actually, it kind of upset me. I understand how nasty and terrible she was, but I mean his life was already terrible. I mean he already has these villainous thoughts and everything and it's just something about that. It was a bit of schrodenfreude or whatever, however you want to pronounce it. That mixed with actual like holy shit, this is actually kind of sad and I think King does that very well, makes his villains sympathetic and makes you feel for them even if they are a complete and utter monster like Brady Hartfield. Here's something, now going into how it ties into the Dark Tower universe, and I'm going to go ahead and throw it in since this book, Finders Keepers and End of Watch all exist in the same universe, I'm going to throw out my theory and then I'm going to throw out a fan theory from John Greenleaf, I think your name is, that helps out with my theory. So my theory is that this is just another turn of the wheel, this is another spoke on the wheel, whatever you want to call it, because in this book Pennywise is mentioned, well it is mentioned, the movie version of it, the movie version of Christine is also mentioned. There are some other nods to things, I think I was reading over my review and I'm not sure exactly what I was talking about, but I said there was, there might even be a nod to Creek Show in here, but I can't remember for the life of me what it was. Now if you fast forward all the way ahead to the outsider, that puts this into the Dark Tower universe because of, we'll get to that in the outsider video, but the end of the outsider roots this entire series into the Dark Tower universe. Now another way that you can put it here, and I really, really like this theory, John Greenleaf in the comments section of one of my videos, John, hopefully you're watching this, please put it, say hello down there in the comments, he says technically everything Stephen King writes is Dark Tower related because Stephen King wrote himself into the Dark Tower. It's something I've never thought of, even we're on like episode 32 right now, it never even crossed my mind that you can literally tie in anything he writes just because he wrote himself into the novel. He wrote himself into the song of Susanna and I get the entire Dark Tower series as it is. I love that theory and John Greenleaf, you get all the credit for it, so please say hello everybody, thank John down there. Now as far as another soft tie-in to the King universe as a whole, there is something in King's universe where if there's some kind of trauma, whether it be emotional or physical, that ends up giving people psychic abilities. So Brady starts off with nothing, he starts off as your regular psychopath, and then by the end of the book, well by the end of the series, he ends up with the psychic ability to be able to move things, to be able to control people, that kind of thing. That is like I think the one of the only big complaints I hear from people is that he was fine while he was writing regular thriller stuff, but once he started being Stephen King, which is that that tickles me, I mean that's funny, but once he started doing Stephen King type stuff in the books, that's when people got upset and turned on him because they didn't feel that Brady needed the powers. I think it was great, I think it was a way that King was able to make the series his own instead of just making them all the other thriller fluff that's out there. So that's Mr. Mercedes, love this one, gave it five stars. Next we are doing Finders Keepers. Now this one has some loose tie-ins also, you can say that the, what's the main guy's name? Jimmy Gold or is it Morris Bellamy? I think it's Morris Bellamy. The main bad guy, this one, I didn't care too much for this book. I did enjoy the first like 150 pages of this one because I like Hodges not being there. I know that sounds funny, but I didn't like Hodges in the first book much. I loved Holly and in this one I like Holly again, but as soon as Hodges popped on screen or on page, whatever, as soon as he came back into the story, I started disliking the book. And a soft tie-in here is that there's a theory that Morris Bellamy is a twin of Annie Wilkes because you have the same, it's almost the same exact ending as misery. So you have the book on fire, all that stuff, and people have said that that ties that into the dark tower. I don't know because the only thing that really ties misery into the dark tower is one line that says it wasn't too far off the beam or something like that. So I don't think it's a hard connect, but there is a hard connect once again with this one and going back to the outsider and we'll talk about that in the outsider. I'm not talking about it now, but there is now finally a hard connect between all these books, these three books. Now the, like I said, the novel is never as good for me as it is in those first 150 pages and it kind of reminds me of the dead zone in that aspect where it starts off great and then it just progressively gets worse and worse and worse and I just stopped caring. So that's Finder's Keepers. Last but not least, sorry y'all, it is hot here in Alabama. I'm sweating up a storm. We have the final book in the Hodges trilogy, End of Watch. I've heard some people complain about the outsider because it spoils the fact that Bill Hodges dies and I do warn of spoilers for the entire series in my outsider review, but I mean literally called End of Watch. If you know anything about police procedure or police period, End of Watch is when a cop dies. I mean that's, there you go. This one, I feel the same way about this one as I do about Finder's Keepers. It is never as good until, well actually it's the exact opposite. I'll change that. It gets progressively better and the ending is the best ending of the series I feel. But again it started off so slow and so boring. I only gave it four stars. So it was dead at the beginning, unlike Finder's Keepers, which was speedy at the beginning, dead at the end. This one was dead at the beginning, speedy at the end. Now I give the entire series as a whole, kind of like The Dark Tower. I give the entire series as a whole five stars because by the end of this I actually felt for Hodges and I cried at the end that he was dead. But the reason why I felt so bad is because I felt bad for Holly. And if Holly had not been in these three books, I probably wouldn't have liked them at all. I would have gave them far lower on the run. Probably two to three stars. But because I'm a bit like Holly, if you guys could tell, I have theories about everything. I liked it more with her in it and that's one of the things that shine for me in The Outsider. But we'll get to that when we get to The Outsider. So we have two more videos for novels to do. We have Sleeping Beauties and then we have The Outsider. Those two will be done for the novels and then I'm going to take a week off before I come back with Hearts and Atlantis and then I do some other stuff just to tie up loose ends like The Colorado Kid and then I'm going to do the novella collections, well the short stories first and the novella collections and the Bachman books and then all the way at the end I will, we're going to be doing a reread of The Dark Tower starting probably next month, July or August, something like that. I'm not sure. And if you want to join that just let me know down there in the comments of this video, any video and I'll making a list, a tally. If you've already told me don't have to tell me again. So have you have any tie-ins for The Dark Tower or the King Burst that I missed myself? Leave them down in the comments section. Sorry, leave them down there in the comments section. But until next time, I have an E, you have an U. This has been another Thursday Theorist Review. I'll talk to you guys later. Bye-bye!


Hey, what's going on guys? So I was here in the office and then this guy came up to me He's like, hey, you got a package and I'm like what and then I grabbed it and this is Roblox So Roblox, tell me this box and let's open it up to see what's inside of here. Okay, so this thing has like tape Oh tape everywhere. My god. Come over here, Mike. See what's in here. Let's take this out My god a lot of trash. Oh man. What is this? Oh? Hold on. You're cleaning that up later There's a note. Okay, there's another says season season's greetings from Roblox Okay, if you're holding this little bundle of chairs because you helped make 2019 Okay, so it's just a little gift for like the holidays, which is pretty neat So as we can see they gave us this. Oh like to build a man jungle jingle edition. Oh It's pretty cool. It's cool All right, so that's pretty neat. Okay, we got that and then we have we have this box here Let's see what's inside of the box. Oh, wow, there's socks. Look at this. They're pretty cool They're like crit. Oh look. There's a despacito oof right there Despacito spider. Oh my god. Hey, these are pretty cool Now I have socks for Christmas because I ran out of socks last night. So thanks to Roblox I got some nice socks and this nice toy and this sweet letter that they sent to me in the box So thank you Roblox and shout out to Roblox for the amazing stuff


Hello, colleagues. We are now turning to the second of the workshop sessions that were introduced in our first session some time ago. This one focuses on the identification of the in-scope institutional units that are components of the TSE sector. And the task here is to identify the features that make these institutional units truly in scope. And this is not an easy task because the terminology and the features that characterize the in-scope units are sometimes difficult to determine. So just to remind you, we determined in the initial of these workshop sessions that we had identified a set of institutions as well as individual action features that are in scope of this TSE sector. And what makes them in scope conceptually and logically is that they embody three very significant conceptual notions that really differentiate them from other sectors and other institutional units and even other individual purpose activities. These three features, these three attributes are first, private-ness. They're part of the private sector. Secondly, that they are primarily embodying the idea of public purpose. So even though they're private, their purpose is public. And thirdly, the participation in them is by free will, that there's an element of volunteerism in there being part of this particular sector. The sector attracts people, workers, as well as members on the basis of free will. But these three attributes are somewhat difficult to capture in the rough and tumble world of national accounting. They're very fuzzy and they're open to all sorts of ambiguities. And so what we've had to do is to identify a set of operational criteria that will identify these entities and pull them out of the rest of the SNA system. And what makes this difficult is that these units are actually present in more than one sector of the SNA system. So that the core sector, the core SNA, does not do a very helpful job of pulling these out. We saw this in the first session where we identified that the five components, the five subsectors of the SNA system, almost all have some entities that we would identify as part of the TSE sector. And our challenge is to pull them out. So NPIs for sure are separated among all the different sectors. There are some NPIs in the non-financial corporation sector. There's some in the financial corporation sector. There's some in the government sector. And there's some in the special sector called NPIS in SNA, nonprofit institutions serving households, which was a sector that was broken out for the first time in the 1993 SNA. But the same is true of the other potential components of this TSE sector. The cooperatives and mutuals also are split among these different sectors. There are commercial nonprofits that are market producers. And there's some in the financial area, mutual insurance companies, for example. But some of those fit the criteria for the TSE sector. And as you'll hear, some of them don't. And therefore, our task is to pull out the ones that truly do belong, that truly are in scope. And the same thing, of course, is true of social enterprises. Some of them are truly have the appearance and character of market producers and for-profit companies. And others are clearly in scope of the sector by virtue of their public purpose activities. So to do this, we had to come up with operational definitions. And we came up with a definition that has five key features as differentiating the TSE sector unit entities from other entities that are in the SNA. First of all, they are organizations. Secondly, they are self-governing. That is, they have their own capability to govern themselves. Third, they are non-compulsory. That is, participation in them is not required by law, except under very special circumstances that we will discuss. Fourthly, they are private. They're part of the private sector, not the government sector. And then finally, they are total or completely or partially limited in the distribution of any profit that they might earn. And this is a very crucial component of the definition that we have to work our way through. So in order to determine whether a set of institutions really belongs in this TSE sector, we've created a set of decision trees that we have to work our way through in order to make these judgments about particular groups of organizations. And I should emphasize that this does not have to be done organization by organization. It needs to be done by groupings of organizations. And the groupings can be legally specified or specified in other ways. First, we have to ask this question, is this class of organization really an organization? Does it have the attributes of an organization? And I'll come back and we'll walk through what that means. Secondly, is it self-governing? If it's self-governing, then it can be included. If it's not self-governing, it is out of scope. Is it private? Again, yes means that it could be if it fits the other criteria, if no, it's out of scope. Similarly, is it non-compulsory? Is participation a matter of choice for people? If it's yes, yes, it can be included if no, out of scope. Finally, does it totally or significantly prohibit profit distribution? If it does have a significant distribution limit, and if it is in bylaws or if it is in the law, then it is in scope. And if it has met all the other criteria specified before, then it is out of scope. And if it is not limited in the distribution of profit in the way that we will describe, then it is out of scope. So the task of compiling the institutional units is to run through each of these tests and satisfy yourself that the unit does meet the test. And only if that set of units meets the test and all of the tests can't skip one has to meet all five, only then is it treated as part of the TSE sector satellite account. So let's look at the first one, the organization test. There are really two tests for an organization. Each one of them is a little bit complicated. Certainly the second is, the first one is, is it legally registered? Is this class of organizations legally registered? This is not the only test because there are countries in which certain of these entities are not legally registered, are not, there's no legal category for them. This has been the case in some countries for nonprofit institutions for some time, for example. And in those countries, we cannot rest our case entirely on the legal registration, we have to look beyond it. Where do we look? We asked this somewhat more complicated question, is it socially recognized as an organization? And for that, it needs to have a certain degree of permanence to it. It needs to have some structure to it in the sense of a leadership pattern. It has to have a degree of continuity to it. So if three people meet for coffee one morning at a coffee shop and have a very interesting conversation, that does not make it an organization. It has to have a little more in a way of substance to it and permanence to it than that. So once we have settled ourselves, settled the question of whether it's an organization, we can then go on to the next key criteria test, which is whether it is self-governing. And this one becomes a little more complicated with four different questions that we have to satisfy ourselves about with regard to all of the different types of organizations that would be considered in scope. Can it own assets and incur liabilities in its own right with its own authority? Secondly, could it engage in transactions with other units in its own right? These are classic SNA concepts of what is an organization and what is a self-governing organization? Thirdly, does it bear full responsibility for its operations? That is, can it be sued? Is it responsible for any debt that it takes on? And then finally, fourthly and probably most importantly, can its governing body dissolve itself on its own authority? In other words, can the organization or can the class of organizations act on its own authority to put itself out of existence? To give you an example in the United States, we have both publicly owned and operated universities and privately owned and operated universities. My own university, Johns Hopkins University, is a nonprofit institution that fits the criteria of being self-governing because our board of directors could tomorrow decide to put the university into a receivership to put it out of existence. We have laws that stipulate that any assets have to go to a similar nonprofit institution, but fundamentally the board has it on its own authority to put itself out of existence. The University of Maryland, which is in the same state as my Johns Hopkins University, it is a public university. And for the board of that university to put itself out of existence would require the approval of our state legislature because it was the legislature that created the university. And so the board does not have that authority. And so this differentiates very clearly a public institution, government owned institution from a private institution. And it's a good way to specify what is meant by this self-governing test. So the next criterion is the non compulsory test. And in this one, there is also a series of steps to be determined. And it's actually a little more tricky than the ones before. The first question is, is membership or participation required by law? You would think that the answer to this has to be no, but in this case, it can be required by law and still fit the criterion if certain other features are stipulated. One of those features is whether the entity or the class of entities is a trade union or a labor union or similar occupational association. The reason this is here is that we have many cases in many countries in which occupational associations essentially administer compulsory laws about the qualifications of the people practicing a particular occupation. This is true, for example, very frequently in the law in bar association so-called or in medical associations where the government has essentially given over to an occupational association, a nonprofit association, the responsibility of testing potential practitioners of the medical profession. So in order to practice as a doctor in a particular jurisdiction, you have to pass a test and the test is administered by this occupational association. The test is required but the association remains a nonprofit. Thirdly is practicing the trade or occupation a matter of choice. And here's how the fact that it may be required by law is reconciled with the notion of it's being an occupation that's practiced by choice. So even though the requirement to belong to the association and pass its test is enforced by law, so long as the choice to practice the occupation is truly a matter of choice then this organization can still be part of the TSE sector. And so there's a difference between the requirement to meet a standard that is administered by an association and the right to choose the occupation that one is practicing. So if your choice to be a lawyer is free and you have to pass a law board exam, the board, the association that administers that exam is still itself in scope of the TSE sector. And then finally, can members terminate membership or participation by choice? In other words, can you drop out of the association? Can you choose not to practice law and therefore not pay the dues or belong to the bar association? And as long as that is open to you, then once again the unit is non compulsory and it passes this non compulsory test. The next test is the private test, another very crucial test for entities that are in scope of this TSE sector satellite account. First test, does it have judicial authority over other units in its own right? This is in a sense the definition of what governments are. Governments are entities that have control over other units. And so if this set of units has judicial authority over other units in its own right, it's out of scope. It is thereby a public or governmental unit as opposed to a private unit. So this is the first test. And similarly, if the government appoints the members of its governing body, it is probably out of scope unless the appointees can be overruled. So these first two essentially define units that are governmental in character as opposed to private. The third one is a kind of mixed test. Does the organization receive financial support from government? The answer turns out to be yes, it can and still be included, but only under certain circumstances. And that is the circumstance that's specified in number four. Does the government provision of revenues need to control? And if the answer is yes, then it's out of scope. But the receipt of financial support from government does not itself kick the entity or type of entity out of the TSE sector satellite account. It is still in scope of the satellite account. And this has been an area of some confusion within the SNA because it used to be that the SNA defined government control as government funding or significant government funding. But in the 2008 SNA, this was very significantly revised and the receipt of government funding was no longer a criterion that through a set of entities out of the TSE sector or out of the nonprofit sector and put it into the governmental sector. So if the unit can refuse government funding, or if the government funding does not yield control of the organization's policy, and if the organization can dissolve itself under its own authority, if it meets all of those criteria then it is in scope. And if it misses those criteria, then it is out of scope. So the unit is private when it's not controlled by government, even if it gets funding from government. It is out of the sector if it exercises jurisdiction and authority over other units, or if the government controls the board and controls the organization as a consequence. But financing alone does not render it out of the sector. And there are many points of confusion about this particular test. And so in the manual, we have specified this a little more clearly. There are certain units that are out of scope by convention in the SNA. These may be known to you. They are out of scope of the TSE sector because they are by convention governmental units, even though they have a degree of independence from the central government. This of course involves central government agencies like the various ministries of the government. It also includes the central bank, even when the central bank may have certain degree of autonomy from the central government. It includes all of you in the statistics office. Even when you have a certain degree of independence yourselves, the statistics office is treated by convention in the SNA as part of the government and not a private entity. Similarly with local government agencies, with intergovernmental bodies, and even with government run pension funds that are themselves operating with a degree of independence. These are all by convention in the SNA already identified as governmental units. And then there are some other units that may be hybrid. There may be some public ones and also some private ones. This is certainly true of educational institutions as I indicated. It's also frequently true of healthcare providers like hospitals. In some countries we have both private hospitals and public hospitals. Social assistance providers, political parties, even some foundations can be considered, have the attributes of being governmental institutions. And so what's required is that each of these has to be tested for government control to make sure that they meet the criteria that were spelled out in that previous slide. And the same is true of labor unions, of professional associations like the medical association that I mentioned, business associations, youth organizations, and even in some countries that have their own state religion, religious organizations. So these are not automatically governmental but they have to pass muster and therefore there has to be a careful review of their characteristics to see whether or not they do meet the privatism test. The next test and is the last one is in many respects the most significant. This is the profit distribution test and it comes in two parts. The first part asked a question of whether the unit is a market or a non-market producer. A market producer in SNA as you know is a unit that receives the bulk of it's the majority of its income from the sale of goods and services at market prices. This is the stipulation of what a market producer is. And if the entity or the class of entities is a non-market producer, that is if it does not sell the majority of its output at market prices, then it goes into what in SNA is called the end-pish sector, the non-profit institution serving household sector. These are non-market entities. They do not generate profit obviously and they do not generate income from the market. They are non-profit institution serving households. If you're on the other hand a market producer, if you're set of organizations you're examining are market producers, they still may be part of the TSE sector if they meet the other characteristics and if particularly they meet the limited profit distribution characteristic. So we have to take a look at that criterion. And for this we have stipulated a whole variety of features that have to be tested. First of all, is there evidence in the bylaws or other material of the organization that it has a significant social mission, a mission to serve the public, to do public purpose work. Is this a significant part of its basic mission? And this is sometimes in the law and sometimes in organizational articles of confederation of organization. It will stipulate what the organization's mission is. A second key criteria for determining profit distribution is what's called a capital lock. A capital lock is a stipulation that any assets that the organization accumulates and keeps in its own books. If the organization goes out of existence the organization is obliged to transfer those assets to another in-scope organization that will serve the same purpose. In other words, the assets that are retained a profit that is not distributed has to be dedicated to another similar type organization if the organization itself is transformed into a for-profit or if it goes out of existence. So the capital lock becomes a second test of what happens to any retained profit. The third feature is whether it is totally prohibited from distributing profit. The criterion in general is significantly limited but if it's totally prohibited then it is a non-profit institution because in the SNA an entity that is perhaps a market producer that nevertheless is totally prohibited from distributing its profit to investors or to managers or stakeholders. That is the core definition of a non-profit institution and all these entities that do have a total prohibition on profit distribution that have met all the previous criteria would be considered NPIs and would be in scope of the sector. So the answer is if it's totally prohibited from profit distribution, yes, it is in scope. And then comes the significantly limited profit distribution constraint. If it's prohibited from distributing more than a half of any surplus that it earns then it is also in scope of the TSE sector. But then there are entities that can fail this test but still be included if they are keeping profits at a higher level because they essentially are earning limited profits because they are restraining themselves to producing a social mission. So let's take a social enterprise that is required by law or by its mission to serve only to employ only people who are disadvantaged in some disadvantage. They may be former prison inmates or they may be drug addicts who have recovered. And if the organization is obliged by its mission or its laws to hire those people particularly at a higher level, this would likely reduce their profit because there are certain requirements that they have to perform in order to serve these people well and keep them on the straight and narrow from their addiction or their criminal behavior that reduces their profit because it increases their cost and therefore it may appear that they're distributing more than 50% of profit but they truly are a social organization. And so they are in scope even though it appears that they may distribute more than 50% of their profit to other entities and maybe investors or others but it is an indirect increase in the amount of profit they distributed and it's a product of the fact that they are incurring extra costs which then translate into a higher share of the surplus being distributed because the surplus is so small. So these are the five characteristics, the five tests, the decision tree that one must go through in order to decide whether particular classes of organizations are in fact in scope of the sector. So this gives us a visual picture of what the TSE sector looks like. It is a sector with multiple wiggles and characteristics and it identifies the components that are included and you'll see the dividing lines. There are certain social ventures that are truly corporations. They do not meet this limited profit distribution case at all but there are others that are within the TSE sector. So we have to make divisions between the in scope and the out of scope components that have the same legal status or the same legal structure but that not all of which are included in the TSE sector. The same is true of cooperatives and mutuals. Some of them are clearly inside the TSE sector because they have a capital lock. They have a limit on their distribution of profit but some cooperatives are every bit like for-profit companies. There are huge insurance companies for example that are organized as mutuals but that don't meet these criteria of having a significant public purpose that limit their profit distribution to their stakeholders or that have a capital lock attached to their operations. And the same is even true of the volunteer work which we will be getting to next time. There is some activity without pay that is excluded from the third sector, the TSE sector but there is some that is included and it can be direct volunteer work as well as organization based volunteer work. So these are the complexities of coming together with a clear idea of what is the in scope components of this TSE institutional units. And so this next slide gives you a sense of some of the types of institutions that could be considered to be inside the TSE sector scope. And with many of them, not all of them in a particular country may fit all the criteria. And so the task may be differentiating which are in scope and which are not in scope. Associations probably all of them are included in most countries. Similarly with foundations though there are occasionally governmental foundations. When it comes to hospitals, it's not unlikely that some of the hospitals in a particular country may be in scope of the third sector. They are a non-profit in character or they are otherwise limited in their distribution to profit but there are others that are public institutions and some that may be for-profit hospitals. And so knowing that their hospitals is not sufficient. It's important that you determine that they are truly private in the ways that we've defined and that they are truly non-profit distributing or they are significantly limited in their distribution of profit. And the same is true of schools and universities. You can have public ones, you can have private ones and you can have private for-profit ones and you can have non-profit ones. Labor and professional organizations probably more likely to be all included particularly if the laws that they administer in the way of organizing and testing professional workers are applying to professions that themselves one has a choice about entering or not. Cooperatives and mutual societies inevitably there will be some for-profit and some that are in scope of the TSE sector as cooperatives with a significant mutual or social purpose to them. Similarly with social enterprises and in the case of so-called sheltered workshops these are workshops that are employing people who have had some disadvantage attached to them that has increased the cost of the activity that is done by the workshop, by the organization and they can be included even if they distribute more than half their profit because their profit has been constrained by the necessity of employing people with this disability. So it is a somewhat complicated story all of the NPIs are all of the entities that end up in the end-pish sector are included in the TSE sector. And the TSE sector though can include nonprofits that are in S15 which is end-pish or S11 and S12 which are non-financial and financial corporations. It can include some cooperatives and mutuals that are in these corporate sectors as well if they meet the criteria and it can include some of the social enterprises the ones that also may be allocated in SNA to S11 or S12. And so what that means is that those of you compiling the TSE satellite account have to pick up institutions some of which are allocated already to these other sub-sectors these other institutional sectors within the SNA and the ESA. And it's not sufficient to just pick up end-pish though all of them should be included but it's necessary to go through entities that may have these legal characteristics but not belong in the sectors to which they have been allocated but rather in the TSE sector. So how do we find these entities? How do we go about looking for them? This is the last topic that we'll need to take up in this workshop. There are many different sources to go to and a whole procedure that you have to run through. Probably the easiest way to start is to look at tax records and legal records. Legal records would include the laws on these different kinds of organizations. So there may be laws about nonprofit institutions. There may be laws about cooperatives. Sometimes a country has a single law on cooperatives. Sometimes it's broken down into different types of cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, agricultural cooperatives, et cetera. And each one of these has a legal character to them and in those laws one should scour to see whether there are legal limits on the distribution of profits. Another place to look is in tax records. Tax records will very frequently identify certain characteristics of organizations that allow them to escape taxation. They can be incentivized through the tax system and guaranteed and rewarded for the fact that they are serving public purposes. And so they may be given certain tax breaks compared to other entities. And these tax breaks may be a trigger that will tell you that they are a public mission purpose. They may have a limitation on their distribution of profit that will also be a clue. And then when all else fails it's appropriate to make contact with various umbrella groups or experts in your country that will have information about who is or is not a cooperative or a nonprofit institution or a social enterprise and which ones meet the criteria that we have specified for in scope characteristic for the satellite account. So these three components are the three places that you can go to look. And I think what you're looking for are various flags. They will identify these things as TSE units. So the major ones are listed on the left side of this slide in green. The legal form or the legal status of the organization the tax status of it. The ownership type, is it owned by members? Is it owned by some political entity? Is it a for-profit entity that is in control of it? And then finally the industry, is it in the health field? Is it in the education field? What field is it in? And that can sometimes be a clue. The fallback flags are the things to look at if you cannot find any other basis for making these judgments about the characteristics and features of the organizations. First of all, you can look at their financial statements and see if they have significant transfer income. Transverse typically are charitable contributions, for example. If an organization has significant charitable contributions that's a clue that it probably is in scope of the TSE sector. Similarly with member dues. Member dues are a clue to the existence of cooperatives. The absence of dividends. Dividends are payments that are made to investors. So they essentially are a clue that the organization is distributing profits because it's paying dividends. And then various employee compensation programs may only be available to certain kinds of organizations with certain kinds of features that are the type that would qualify it for being in scope of the TSE sector. So these are the types of things to look at and they will differ of course from country to country. And so finding and deciding whether they are sufficient requires a certain amount of understanding. And as you'll hear at the end of this session, we have developed a certain amount of information about these characteristics at our center at Johns Hopkins. We have a team that can be of assistance to you as you work through your own statistical system to figure it out whether the units you're looking at truly do meet the standards of this new United Nations handbook which we were very deeply involved in putting together. So to compile the picture of the in scope units, you start with the organizational universe in the economy that is your business register and you identify subsets within it that are likely to contain potential TSE sector units. They may be defined by various laws. They may be certain kinds of co-ops, certain kinds of nonprofit entities, certain kinds of social enterprises if there is a law on social enterprises. And then you test whether units in each of these subsets meets the five definitional criteria. If all the units meet the test, then you can conclude that the entire subset can be included in the TSE register. But if some but not all the units meet the test, then you have to subdivide the test, the subset and test whether each one of these subdivisions meets the five definitional criteria. And you have to continue to do that until you have only in scope units left. So you repeat this whole process on the different subdivisions. So for example, let's assume that you have many different laws on different kinds of cooperatives instead of one general generic law on cooperatives. You would have to break each of them apart that is take each subset of them, the agricultural co-ops, the producer co-ops, the consumer co-ops, the housing co-ops and for each of those individually run them through the five tests and determine whether all of them in that particular unit meet the test or just some of them in that subunit meet the test and do that for each one of the subdivisions and keep subdividing as you go until you have the pure gold of in scope units that have passed all the tests and deleted the ones that have not passed the test. And then you can attach a flag in your computer files for all the units that meet the five criteria for inclusion in the TSE register. And so this is a bit of an elaborate process and it will take many months or several months to run through depending on the character of your data in your business register and other information. But there is a pretty sophisticated understanding of the way in which this proceeds and some good experience with other countries that have made these choices as they've run along. It tends to be the case that the cooperatives, mutuals and social enterprises are the most complicated because they are the ones that have both in scope and not in scope components. And so you can't just throw all the cooperatives and all the mutuals and all the things that claim that they're social enterprise into the mix. It's essential that you go through the arduous task of evaluating these different subunits, subsets to be sure that you are not including things that are inappropriate to include. So let me close now and then just remind you again of what I just mentioned that our center is available to provide direct training and technical assistance to your statistical agency as it works through the implementation process. We've got a lot of experience working with other countries already in doing this. We would have to charge some modest fee to cover our time for this kind of technical assistance work. And we invite you to contact us at the website that is listed here or at the email address that's listed here to begin a conversation about how we can be of help to you if you want to have our assistance. And again, we have a whole set of working documents that we have devised in order to help countries go through this process, a set of field guides and our process is to invite the country to fill out the field guides, to submit them to us. We then review them very carefully and see whether they have applied the criteria appropriately. On the basis of that, we would write back a memo that would point out some things that we think need to be further explored or we basically approve the things that you have already done. And through this kind of exchange, we can assure ourselves and assure you that what you're producing truly is comparable to what other countries are producing. And it does not make any sense to go through this SNA process and violate the central goal of the SNA which is to produce comparable data across multiple countries. And so we invite you to be in touch with us and see whether we can work out an arrangement that is suitable for you and works for us as well. So thank you, we go on the next workshop to look at the definition of volunteering that is built into this handbook and I'll look forward to talking with you then.