When I'm from the Fraser Valley Regional Library and I'm originally from New Zealand. So the rhymes I grew up listening to were Māori. So just a few things about Māori. WH is pronounced F and the vowel sounds are A-I-O-U. And Māori, every vowel sound is pronounced. So when you read the rhymes, you're pronouncing the vowel sounds. There's no accent so much as just concentrate on the vowel sounds. So this one I picked for this is the learning to dance, a Māori. And it's usually done, it's the beginning stages for most of the Māori dances, the Poi dances. And the ones that we use the lot as kids were actually stick. We use sticks like kids here do pedicake. We did with sticks to the Māori rhymes. So I actually had to look up the English in this. And I haven't done the English in this. So I do, that's Māori was what I grew up with. It's fati-fati-toe-ho-pe. Fati-fati-toe-ho-pe. And that's the swivel you hit. So that's the first move of the Māori dance. Ringa pākiae, clap your thighs. Ringa pākiae. Wai-wai-taka-hea. Wai-wai-taka-hea. And that's move your feet, move your eyes. So you usually get this sort of, so each movement builds on one. Te-te-ra-waka-oh, sorry. Ka-ho-ri-oh-ka-no-i-hea. So that's the eye thing. Sorry. Can we do that line? Yeah. Ka-ho-ri-oh-ka-no-i-hea. Ka-ho-ri-oh-ka-no-i-hea. Te-te-ra-waka-runga. Te-te-ra-waka-runga. Look up, look down. Te-te-ra-waka-runga. Te-te-ra-waka-runga. Look down. So again, it's look up, look down. Up, look down. Hari-waka-mora. Hari-waka-mora. Hari-waka-mora. Go forward, return back. Hoki-waka-mori. Hoki-waka-mori. Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Mi-ho-ri-ti-tana-e. Mi-ho-ri-ti-tana-e. Do you want to do it for us all lunch and hour? Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Ring-a-pa-ti-a-e. Ring-a-pa-ti-a-e. Wa-i-wa-i-ta-ka-hea. Wa-i-wa-i-ta-ka-hea. Kahuri-ou-ka-noue-e. Kahoori-ou-ka-noue-e. Hari-waka-mora. Hoki-waka-mori. Hoki-waka-mori. Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Ba-ti-fa-ti-to-ho-pe. Now this was much easier in front of my mirror.


How's it going guys, my name's DPJ and I'd like to thank you for stopping by and checking out the video. Today I bring another community highlights and damn, some of these clips are truly insane. The one you're probably most curious about is the one the video is titled after. And yes, people get, a team get while doing The Last Wish Raid, a ton of escalation protocol loot, including an SMG and many other things, which is just ridiculous. That clip though is 5 minutes long and it's going to be the last clip featured in today's video. But don't skip to the end, there are plenty of amazing clips in this community highlight, so I do hope you enjoy it people. Now if you have any amazing clip, you'd like to share with the world, send it into the email, I'll just link at the top of the video description, but guys I hope you enjoyed the video and hopefully I will see you on the next one. Like a titan of the first pillar, look at them fall. Asgardian standing. Hands, hands. Put down a well please. Oh my, how did we do that? I didn't have any heavy ammo.  Did we seriously just think the same thing?  Let's go!  Okay, I shouldn't have said that out loud. Thank you guys, I won't, I'm not gonna say that's no homo. Incoming at the caves. Round's over. Your opponent took their prime evil down. Why can't we just like... Jack ready? All right, all right, ready? One Jack. One K coming down. All right boys I'm getting absolutely garbage, let's go, come on, let's get it.  I got a nation of beasts with rampage, outlaw, drop mag with a ranged masterwork. I got a f***ing helmet. Dreaming. I was so relaxed. I called it. You should have screamed finally. Well uh, guess what I'm doing, I'm clipping. Because I want to use this.     Is that glacier watch? That f***ing... Yeah, I see it. Oh, he's keep dropping. Trust me, he's keep dropping.  A knight on steps? Steps open? Oh my god, there's so many loads. Oh my god. How many... I don't know, they keep dropping loot for me. I don't... I don't know, I just keep seeing trees open. Knight on steps, I need help. I don't have any worries. Rocks knight, guys. Yeah, you guys keep... There's so many loot that you guys see. I'm gonna take a screen shot. Oh my god. You see, guys, how many loot I get at? Oh my god. There's so many. Yeah.


The article discusses the limitations in current estimates of typhoid fever disease burden and suggests ways to improve them, so that effective communities can benefit from disease prevention interventions like vaccination and water, sanitation and hygiene. This article was authored by Stephen K Oberow, Puiying Ira Tam and Eric Daniel Mintz.


Has anyone else noticed that ever since Trump tweeted out those criticisms of Elijah Cummings, that the Democrats and the media have been insisting in repeating this lie that Trump only targets people of color?  It wasn't that long ago that Trump and Rosie O'Donnell were constantly fighting on Twitter. And if you remember, the media and Democrats always called that sexist and accused Trump of quote, attacking women. The formula seems to be that any time Trump or Republicans for that matter criticize people on the left who are black, brown or women, that they will simply label that either sexist or racist. When he attacks white men, they'll largely ignore it unless of course they can find some victim group to put that white man into. He goes after Biden all the time and of course the media doesn't attach any labels to that because there's simply nothing to gain politically from it. We saw more of this with Don Lemon as he interviewed a black pastor who had met with Trump and other pastors to discuss what they can do to help the black community. Lemon desperately tried to get this pastor to label Trump a racist, but the pastor saw through his game and wasn't playing. It goes so bad for Lemon that he actually trots out an old spat with Obama that this pastor had in an attempt to discredit him.  We'll get right back to that, but let me just take a quick moment to thank this channel's sponsors, ribtea.com. If you're used to buying whatever package 10 pack of underwear or t-shirts your local department store has, perhaps you should consider upgrading to something that's so high quality and so comfortable it'll actually improve your mood. Their cool nylon silk will leave you feeling clean, cool and comfortable.  Get on over there right now and take advantage of the limited time 20% off promo by using the code DRONETECH. President met today with 20 African American pastors and faith leaders behind closed doors of the White House. Joining me now, one of those pastors, Reverend Bill Owens, is the founder and president of the Coalition of African American Pastors. And therein lies the reason for this hit piece. Trump met with these black leaders and the meeting went really well, so of course CNN now has to either get the pastors to disavow Trump or they just have to destroy the pastors. It really is very insidious and corrupt. It's certainly not the behavior of a free press. What did the president say about his attacks against these leaders of color and did any of the faith leaders raise concerns about that? Well, I think something was said in passing, I don't tune in to negative talk from inner side. What's the difference between an attack and criticism? I mean, yeah, I get it, Trump uses really fiery language, but it's almost always in service of a harsh critique. Trump is the leader of this country and he's a private citizen. He has every right to criticize any politician or member of the media no matter what their skin color is. Again, the implication that they're giving is that any criticism of a hallowed person of color is racist simply by virtue of the fact that the criticism is coming from a white person and that should be condemned. Wouldn't that be so convenient for the left, the Democrats and the media, if they can simply dismiss all of their opposition as racist and perhaps even have the ability to inflict retribution against those giving the criticism? So, listen, we have a delay, so pardon me for that, so I just want to just for the sake of time and I don't mean to cut you off here. The question was, what did the president say about his attacks against those leaders of color and did any of the faith leaders raise concerns about that? Look at how annoyed Lemonhead is getting that he's not getting the sound bite that he so desperately wants. Don Lemon really just comes off like an interrogator trying to strong arm his suspect into a confession. The pastor's response to Lemon here is just hilarious because it's so true. Trump never calls anybody out based on gender or skin color. If somebody comes at him, he punches back regardless of the gender or skin color of the person. I don't remember him saying anything about color leaders, leaders that are color. There were some things discussed, said, but I don't remember him referring to leaders of color. We have a long documented history that's easily accessible online, yet Don Lemon persists in trying to convince whoever's watching that he only attacks people because of their skin color. It's so dishonest and damaging to this country, but they've convinced themselves that anything goes in service of getting a socialist in the White House. Did anybody there raise concerns about what he has been saying lately about people like Elijah Cummings or anyone? Well that was not the purpose of the meeting today. The date of the meeting was how can we help the black community? What you see here is that Don Lemon's only real concern is covering for a Democrat career politician who's worth over $1.5 million and discrediting a black pastor whose only concern is helping African Americans improve their lives.  What would he do for a living if that happened? You've said some controversial things before in 2012 you equated President Obama's support of same-sex marriage to supporting child molestation. You later walked that back, but that in itself is an outrageous statement. Why should anyone take you seriously? And there it is. The pastor's not playing ball, so Don Lemon's going in for the kill. What Don Lemon is doing to this pastor right now is the exact same thing that the media and the Democrat Party are doing to half this country who support or might work with Trump. They want people to know that if you support Trump then they're a potential target for anything from doxing to even violence. Well I find President Trump leaders of all colors. He attacks who he will. He's his own man and I can't dictate what he should or should not do, but he does not just attack black people. He attacks anybody and you do it. Like the pastor says here, Trump will go after whoever comes after him. He's never shown any bias for skin color in the people that he criticizes. It's just that the media doesn't make an issue of it when he targets white males, unless they of course happen to be gay. It just so happens that the media has a label for you if you criticize literally any other group. Thanks for watching everybody, please like, share and subscribe. Also, don't forget to check out my live stream later today from the Trump rally in Cincinnati, Ohio.


What is the international symbol for autism? Did that puzzle piece over there? We don't like that. It's childish. Get it? Get it out of the way. Nah. What about the infinity symbol? Hmm. But no rediversity, autism. Still, you know, it's not for me. You know, let's just push that to the side for a second. Oh, no. What have I got here? Oh, the international sign of autism. What is it? A chicken nugget.


Scientists have shown that an active ingredient of cannabis significantly up-regulates autophagy, extending both lifespan and health span in C. elegans worms, and providing benefits to mice. Two of the most well-known components of marijuana are tetrahydrocanabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. They have the same atomic composition, but differ in structure. THC provides the high that is often associated with marijuana use. CBD, on the other hand, is considered benign and seems to possess antipsychotic, pro-cognitive, anti-inflammatory, anti-seizure, and antibiotic properties. In 2018, the FDA approved Epidiolex, the first CBD-based prescription medication for some rare forms of epilepsy, and later for the treatment of some seizures. However, the research into these compounds is still in its infancy. In this new study, scientists dive deeper into the workings of CBD using C. elegans nematode worms, which are considered a good model for initial studies, including in geroscience. Previous research has shown that CBD can increase lifespan in C. elegans and zebrafish, but the mechanism had remained unknown. Another study had found that CBD induces autophagy in cultured neuronal cells. In this new study, the researchers attempted to investigate the relationship between these two effects. Autophagy is the process of clearing away various cellular debris, such as misfolded proteins and dysfunctional organelles. Unsurprisingly, this maintenance system appears to be very important for health and longevity, both in model organisms and in humans. The CBD treatment greatly increased autophagy in numerous tissues and cell types, most notably by 78% in neurons. The researchers then validated those findings in vitro on numerous cell types, including mouse neurons. Importantly, impaired autophagy in the brain is considered a major cause of Alzheimer's disease. Worms on CBD also lived much longer than controls. While numerous compounds and interventions have been shown to increase the short lifespan of C. elegans, some by much larger margins, this was a significant increase and a good indication that the treatment made the worms healthier. The researchers also measured the worms' health span. Three popular health metrics that decline with age and C. elegans are pharyngeal pumping rate, reproductive capacity, and locomotion. And all three were restored, rather than impaired, by CBD treatment. With age, neurons and C. elegans undergo morphological changes, acquiring an irregular shape. The CBD treatment was able to mitigate the number of these irregularly shaped neurons. CBD also led to an increase in neurite length and spine density, two measures of health in mouse neurons. The CERT1 gene has been a popular object of study in geroscience. By knocking out the CERT1 gene in mouse neurons, researchers were able to eliminate many of the benefits of CBD treatment. This points to the important role that CERT1 has in mediating CBD induced benefits. CBD is an intriguing compound that might have numerous benefits. This study expands our understanding and links CBD to autophagy. Because CBD demonstrates this effect in neurons, it could become a potential anti-alsimers drug. Obviously, the fact that CBD appears to increase autophagy in worms does not mean that using marijuana will make humans healthier. We need a lot more studies in human trials on CBD and other compounds before we can say anything like that. When there's more to share, we'll have it for you here. So please subscribe so you don't miss out. I'm Ryan O'Shea and we'll see you next time on Lifespan News.


Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece. And today it's time to get into something that has personally frustrated me for almost, I guess my entire career as a One Piece fan, which dates a fair way back almost 14 years now. And that issue is how entirely underutilized one of our primary protagonists is, being Niko Robin. And I know that this is a common and somewhat divisive concern, but I do truly believe that Robin has been purposely moved into the background for an astounding portion of the series, and in this video I'm even going to show you how. But before we really get into that, I want to take us all back to a much simpler time. Because Robin, as she is portrayed today, was not always this character. I think that we as One Piece fans have come to accept her role in the story as it is today, whether we like it or not. But Robin used to be so, so much more than the Straw Hat Archaeologist we know and still love in the post-times give era. I mean to start out, she had probably one of the most fantastic journeys to becoming a member of the Straw Hats, having been introduced in the series as a high-ranking villain as part of Baroque Works, and during that time she was a splendid antagonistic presence throughout the entirety of the alabaster saga, and was actually instrumental in Crocodile's downfall by wavesaving Luffy, and constantly undermining Crocodile in general. She was also wonderfully mysterious and driven, like as much as we did not know what her goal was, Robin's crusade to achieve it was palpable, and it made her a very striking character. So much so that when Vivi was baited and switched right in front of our eyes, this was a very exciting development within the series. A former villain with the second highest bounty amongst the entire crew, and certainly the craziest devil fruit ability that the Straw Hats had to offer. What a time to be alive. Plus, unlike every other crew member thus far, Robin possessed superior worldly knowledge, not only in her understanding of the ancient language, but she was also more mature in general, and her awareness of the world dwarfed the teenagers we've been following up until this point. It felt like the Straw Hats received a huge upgrade when Robin joined their ranks in every respect, be it knowledge, strength, or utility, and it's really weird to look back on that because that's not how I see her in the post-times give era. Robin is still incredibly valuable, like I honestly believe that in terms of threats to the world government, she should be considered second only to Luffy, because it is Robin that is going to make him the pirate king by allowing him to follow the road poneglyphs, and her bounty does not reflect that in any way, shape, or form. The world government should be beyond desperate to capture her. In any case, I'm in danger of rambling now, but the point is that despite her theoretical value, I feel that she doesn't have the same aura about her as in the pre-times skip period I mentioned. I no longer see Robin as a heavy hitter of the crew in terms of power, and her sheer wealth of knowledge, well it's undeniably there, but it only exceptionally rarely gets put into use. In fact, unless it's a situation involving a poneglyph, Robin's skills are simply neglected in the story. And I think this is really sad because going back to the pre-times skip briefly, we spent an entire saga establishing just how absurdly important Robin is, not only as a technical asset, but also as a valued crew member in general. What the whole water seven saga presented to us was quite possibly the most difficult journey any straw hat member had undergone to become part of the crew. She was ripped away from the only people she had ever been able to consider friends and taken on a brutally long campaign by the end of which she was finally able to admit that she actually wants to live and begged the straw hats to take her back, which is one of the most iconic moments in the entire series. This was prime Robin, which to be fair is to be expected in a saga focusing on her, but after any slobby, Robin embarked on a very rapid decline to the background. I mean I'd say that her involvement in Thriller Bark was quite solid, she felt like a great and active crew member there, but that really was an arc that got the entire crew to shine as a cohesive group. After that though, you could pretty much say goodbye to the Robin we once knew. This powerful worldly asset to the crew was just gone because unless there was a poneglyph involved, her skills were just never fully invoked again. And you can divide this negligence into two areas being combat and knowledge. And I'm going to start with combat as well as the horrific revelation that Robin's last proper fight in the series was during the skypeer arc in chapter 265. And at the time of this recording, that would be 700 chapters ago. That's an awfully long time to go without some good old combative focus. And the argument I always get in response to this is Grand Line Review, one piece is a complex series with a billion different characters to focus on and not everyone needs to have a fight in order to be an asset to the story. And to be fair, those people are technically correct. Fights are not everything. However, let's be real. In a battle manga, they make up an extensive amount of content, even in a series as rich in other elements as One Piece. And if a character is not involved in combat, then they will naturally be left out of said content. And that is a big contributing factor as to why a lot of the time for the past decade, it can feel like Robin does not get her due focus because she is actively being kept out of the battle aspect of One Piece. I mean, not entirely, she is still given a token showcase here and there, like facing off against the New Fishman Pirates or the Centaurs on Poncazid or any number of other meaningless fodder. But as for the last time she fought a character of actual relevance, well yeah, it was Yama on Skypeer. And this is where another argument will come up if it hasn't already, which is the general belief that Robin is too weak for combat in the New World and is better served as a background character as a result. And this is blatantly false. Robin is still a powerhouse within the crew because no, she couldn't stand up to the Monster Shrio, nobody really can, which is why they have that distinction. But everyone else, Robin has just as good a chance in a fight as any of them. In fact, with the frankly overpowered ways in which she can use her devil fruit to create gigantic limbs, full body clones and even fly, I'd go so far as to wager that she could defeat any other straw hat, excluding Jinbei actually, but anyone else, well, Robin has a pretty damn fine chance against. And a lot of people there might disagree with me, but I think those people forget just how powerful Robin is. She just doesn't get to show it off because reasons are betray reasons. Our betray reasons we aren't privy to. Basically, Oda just doesn't want to use her that way. And it's really disappointing, especially in situations like the climax of Dressrosa where Robin was put in a potential combat scenario with Diamante on Flower Hill. So my dream for how this would have gone would have been a straight up 1v1 Robin versus Diamante. Or even Robin and Kuros teaming up against Diamante. But instead, what happened? Robin's sole duty during this conflict was simply to protect Rebecca. Protect Rebecca. What an incredibly boring use of a fascinating and versatile character. And narratively, I do get it. In this situation, the traumatic oomph was very much waited on the idea of Kuros taking revenge for Diamante having killed Scarlet.  Which obviously means that Robin can't really be involved at all. Lest it impede on the sheer manliness of this battle and take something away from Kuros as a character. Despite the fact that Robin could have very easily used her powers to both attack Diamante and protect Rebecca if we really had to go down that route. But sure. I mean really if anything Robin was a hard counter to Diamante. Because his flag Devil Fruit was great at dodging in general mobility. But there is no dodging Robin. And this whole thing really could have been settled without putting anybody, including Rebecca, in unnecessary danger. But the saddest part is that in terms of combat, this really is Robin's highlight of the New World era. Otherwise, her Devil Fruit powers get used as more of a Swiss Army Knife kind of tool. A nice utility for most given situations. That generally involves some sort of stealth or saving people by forming a net. And you know what? That's cool. I love that Robin has this extremely versatile ability.  The reason why she doesn't get to fight is because Oda doesn't want her to fight. That's it. Hence wasted potential in my opinion. But combat isn't everything. And I did mention that Robin also gets neglected when it comes to knowledge. Unlike her physical abilities, there is no denying that Robin is the mental champion of the crew. Absorbing every shred of information she comes across. And after having spent two whole years with the Revolutionary Army, you'd figure that that reservoir is pretty limitless by now. But the thing is that Robin never gets a chance to put any of her worldly gifts into practice either. In fact, for the most part, Robin spends her situations with the straw hats just sitting quietly in the background. And I also get why we can't focus too much on what Robin knows because it would dispel a significant part of the mystery behind One Piece. To note a specific example, one of the biggest gripes I have with how Sabo is used in the series is that Robin would have known he was alive. She spent two years with Sabo and the Revolutionary Army after Sabo regained his memories. And after rejoining the straw hats, she never once said anything to Luffy about his sworn brother since childhood actually being alive. And the reason why is purely narrative. It simply was not the right storytelling decision to insert that information there. Rather, it was much more dramatic to have Sabo reveal himself on Dressrosa. But that sums up the general problem with Robin's knowledge. At any given time, she knows so much more than we as the audience are allowed to know about this world and its figures. Which means that for dramatic purpose, she needs to remain largely silent. And I guess that's cool in theory, but in practice, what we have is a protagonist who is neither allowed to say nor do anything of impact. She can't tell us about the world unless it's the right time for us to know certain things. And she can't properly fight because well, there's actually there's no good reason other than Oda doesn't want it to happen. So at this point, Robin's primary purpose in the story is to read Ponyglyphs. She's the equivalent of playing Pokemon and keeping that one member in your party who you never use in battle, but they have a necessary attack like surf or cut that pops up every now and then. And whenever that skill isn't needed, which is 99% of the game, you just ignore them. And I hate that because I love Robin. She is a character with so much potential in every area that makes a character great in this series. But you know, actually the one concession I will give is that New World Robin is exceptional in the art of comedy. Oda really has given himself license to use post timeskip Robin in some very hilarious ways. And I think that that is something that was definitely missing from pre timeskip Robin and a great improvement that makes her feel like a really solid part of the crew because she now has her own shenanigans just like they do. But it has come at the cost of an awesome character that we used to know or at least got a great taste of during alabaster, skypeer, water seven and even thriller bar. Robin could have been so much more than what we see today, but sadly I don't think that she ever will be. And you know, to be fair again, Robin isn't the only straw hat who falls into this category. I think there are arguments to be made that Nami and Chopper have also been given a bit of a rough deal in the post timeskip story, but those are discussions for another time. For now, I know that many people may disagree with me, but I just feel like Robin has become a very tertiary feature of One Piece and I would love her to have even a bit more prominence. And hey, maybe that'll come during Wano, but with the insane amount of characters featured in that arc already, I'm not so sure about that. And given how the entirety of the New World era thus far has gone, I really have very little hope for Robin going forward. But that pretty much does it for why I feel Robin is underutilized within the modern era of One Piece. If you enjoyed this video and the content this channel produces in general, then please do consider donating to the Grand Line Review Patreon because the support of all of your amazing people is what continues to make this channel possible. And if you'd like to see more videos like this but applied to other anime and manga series, then please do feel free to check out my second channel New World Review for all of your wider needs. And if you'd like to join the fun at any time, then please do head over to my Discord server where a wide array of shenanigan retakes place on a daily basis. And finally, please do comment with your own thoughts on how Robin is used in the series. This has been the Grand Line Review and I'll see you next time. Who, in your opinion, would make the best king of the pirates that isn't a member of the straw hats? Hmm, I mean it's really so difficult to think of anybody except Luffy and Roger that would really fit in that role. But I'd say that Ace might have been a good pick, maybe? The thing is that he doesn't have that undeniable charisma that Luffy or Roger have. You know what actually, Whitebeard probably would have been a fantastic king if he so chose that path. But even better than that, I think a guy like Kozuki Oden strikes me as very capable of taking the Pirate King crown. I mean provided that he didn't already have commitments in Do you think that the anime will ruin the Wano arc with its pacing and fillers? So yes and no. The thing about Wano is that we've already had some really fantastic episodes which were filled to the brim with filler but it was good filler, like enjoyable and added a lot to the worldbuilding experience. However we've also seen far too many episodes that take on Toei's old style of filler and after a string of those episodes I just gave up reviewing the anime. So I think that Wano is going to be an awfully long roller coaster of really great episodes and then really not so great episodes. Can Wapol eat arse? I would be disappointed if he couldn't.


One of the most common questions I get asked is, you know, how do I start day trading? So what me and my mentor about it for our viewers on YouTube is create a free mentorship course that reveals our 12 secrets that every single brand new day trader should know before they get started. But please take note that there is limited seating every single week. So please reserve your spot at myinvestingclub.co. Link is in the. So today we're going to be talking about approaching a trade. And really, I mean, this is, I'm doing, I'm doing this one. There is some prerequisite webinars to this one, just because, like, I wanted to do kind of a more adept webinar because the last three or four ones I did for you guys were pretty psychological. And so this one will be to the point, I know this is the first webinar of the year. So there's probably a lot of new members where you haven't seen them.  But today we're going to be talking about like how to approach a trade, what you need to be prepared for. And then we're going to go over different kind of executions for different kinds of trades. But like, yeah, like about a couple of weeks ago, we were kind of just coming off of the, you know, off of the buyer's market in on the micro time frame. For those of you guys who don't know, this is how I judge the macro sentiment. This is how I judge this is how I judge the current trend of the market. And this is literally like what's going on week to week. And so a couple of weeks ago, we were kind of here in a buyer's market just coming off of that thirsty long period. And then we had two weeks and I just kind of plugged this in here. I feel like the last two weeks were kind of slow, kind of dead. We had a lot of slow mornings, but now it's kind of picked up again. Right. Yeah. When I say day twos, by the way, I don't just mean day twos. I mean, multi-day runners. I should have said multi-day runners, but you know, it was too long. And this is, this was supposed to be a spin off Star Wars return of the day twos like the Jedi. It's not, you guys probably didn't get that, but that was in my mind. Yeah. Day three is day one now. And day five is day two. That's what's up, Val. And so the, yeah, a long time since Val's been here, I thought you were going to bed. Anyway. Um, yeah. So like longs definitely have control of this market and like, and we, and I kind of talked about that today and, and Val and I and Harry, we're all kind of talking about that. I talk about this, I talk about this here where, um, this kind of January effect is, you know, has started, I don't think it's full force, but it's definitely started. And this combination of like being in January, which is historically a hot market, you know, the Bitcoin being at all time highs, this is a really great combination for just an overall bullish atmosphere, you know, and like one thing I saw today and Harry noted it and I posted about it in main chat today. I posted kind of a collection of, you know, different things that Val said, Harry said, and I said, and we were all saying the same thing. Right. We were, we were saying that like, this is that kind of market. And if you've seen previous webinars, you, you know what I'm, what I'm referencing where there's, there's a market where the range gets really strong. And there's a point in the market where, um, you don't see a lot of dips. But when you do see a dip, it's big. You're kind of getting these A, you know, these A and B style market, market moves, like there's not a whole lot of room if you're wrong.  And this is where longs often get a little overzealous, right? This is where the longs are, the longs get trained, like for no dips, no dips, no dips, no dips, no dips. And this is why the market gets so strong. It's because longs aren't getting their dips. So they chase it higher and that works for a week or two until the longs get too comfortable with, you know, Harry called it like the FOMO lines are working. I was talking about how this is like a no, like a no dip market. And I think Bao phrased it as something like, dude, like this stock went way up with no dip. And that's kind of what we're seeing in this market. And that's partially because I think a lot of people have FOMO on these Bitcoin names. And so we're seeing like a lot of chaser stuff and just know that this, that this overzealousness can't last forever. And so, uh, it eventually will, uh, punish people. And if you kind of look over to the market sentiment, like this kind of follows it, right? It's like, you know, when we kind of get dead, people get used to, people get used to just like normal bounces, normal moves. But then we get into this buyer's market and things just start, things just start skyrocketing and people chase. And then you can kind of imagine how once people start chasing, that's when everything starts getting long crowded.  You guys saw FTFT today. That's, it's, it's very dangerous on the short side. And so the patterns that I've been noticing that I've been working well lately that you guys should probably be focusing on are continuation, are like continuation trades, like a day to gap up, if it gaps down into a prior close or into some kind of major support, you know, that's Harry and Harry has told you that's his favorite trade. That's my favorite trade. These stocks are continuing on a bigger timeframe. If you zoom out on all of these charts, and we'll go over some charts in a minute, when it's the key trader section, but you got like, I'm going to show you guys, I'm going to go to the 30 minute charts and the 15 minute charts.  That means we're on the back side. Like we just tanked VWAP day two. That means that we're on the backside, right?  Hey guys, my name is Toss Bradley. I'm one of the head mentors and moderators of my investing club. If you have any questions about getting started in the trading, getting started in the MIC, MIC in general, text me at two, one, three, four, five, eight, five, nine, nine, seven. This is not a robot. It is me directly on the other end of my business line. And we'll get you in the club. We also have special promotions going on that I can get to you depending on your trading needs. Hit me up. Back to the video. You know, like it's just something to really keep an eye on in this multi, in this multi day market, you know, this multi day move market that we're seeing, right? And so like, I really feel like this, this short, like this short kind of 10 minute timeframe trade is getting a little bit crowded because everyone kind of has the same idea. And so that's why these moves, like we're seeing the bigger range, like people want them like a little 10 minute, they'll buy a dip and it'll dip way lower or their shoulder pop and it'll short way higher. And it's just enough to stop you out. And then it pulls back just, and that's just a sign. That's why we keep track of the range week to week, right? Like if you notice that range is stronger than normal, you, you know, you might want to space out your orders a little bit more. So that's, that's why we keep track of this, this stuff week to week. And anyway, what do I think, what do I think that we're here for next, what do I think's coming up? So I've been around a lot of sectors and up, here's the thing, when sectors come out of nowhere, like it's a new thing that we've never seen before, and it's just bang, blam in your face, those stocks run and run and run immediately off the get go. And they're strong from the, from the start until the head gets caught off the snake, we've seen a Bitcoin run before. And the problem with that is that everybody knows Mara, everybody knows IGC, everybody knows DPW, right? Riot, everybody knows these stocks, like, and even in the Wii stocks, TL, or YCGC, everybody knows these stocks already. And they know that these are the sympathy runners to the sector. And like, these are the stocks to buy for the sector. And the problem is that they've run before. And so what I've noticed about repeat sectors is they're never as strong as the first time that the sector runs. And so what, what I'm kind of guessing is that, like, initially everyone's like right now, like everyone's late for the initial move of the sector, everyone right now is frantic and you're like, oh my God, what, oh my God, what, what's the Bitcoin stock that I need to buy? What's the marijuana stock that I want to buy? Like, if you wanted to buy marijuana stocks, you needed to do it before, like, before the election kind of cycle. You know, then you're kind of getting birth. Everyone's like, hunt, actively hunting it now. And if you start entering in late, like, look at the daily chart, if it's up two, three days and a row already, you've missed it. Like, and I think that we can easily see a delayed, like kind of like a delayed sector run, you know, on the Bitcoin and the marijuana stuff, just because I feel like it's very easy. Yeah, I will, I will in just a second. I feel like it's very easy to get for it to get long crowded and then kind of sell off. And then after that kind of first round, what kind of sells off because these stocks have run before, which means there are back holders in the stock, there's no resistance levels now, and that's going to get in the way. And I think that can add to this potential delay.  But like, then if, like, if the overall sector is still running, then, like, you're going to see these stocks that kind of sold off or the chasers got caught, and then that secondary move is going to be the move. I noticed that, like, on repeat sectors, you know, if it survives past the initial push, that second push is stronger. So anyway, and I was talking about the three day rule, the three day rule. It's almost like the five day rule, if they go, but the three day rule is that like after about like three days, a stock that's on like three days, this is too late to be buying bingo.  This is abnormal, guys. These kind of stocks, like they typically go one, two, three, and then they tank. It's, and of course it's not perfect, right? Every now and then you're going to get a fourth, but the main idea is that anything past day, anything day three and beyond, you are taking extensive risk if you were on the long side. And what's another good one? Like what's another, like maybe FRSX, right? Like, you know, like we have this kind of move, we have this one day strong move, two strong moves. And on the third, you know, you can't be buying up here on the high on the second day or on the third day. What's another, what's another reason why FTFT is just on day one, right? Yes, that's on day one with a couple other, what's a couple other recent recent runners here, Mara. Yeah, oh, Mara's perfect. Whoever blue boot. Yeah. So this is, this is where, if you're buying here, and this is what I think is going to happen, right? People who don't really know the three day rule, people who don't know the three day rule, like they're, they're getting all this kind of FOMO up here. And they missed it, dude. Like you can't do this. Like, and again, you see it here.  You can't be buying up here. This is all FOMO, you know, like after this third day, it pulls back, the consolidates for a while here. Yeah, you can buy after it's consolidated.  Like, like Vau said, the risk to reward is you're going to get killed. And like, what, yeah, what, what was the other one, BT, BT, you're going to just get slaughtered on this kind of stuff. Yeah. 845. And that's, this is my last slide. And I timing is perfect. That's all I got for today, guys. My voice is shot. Thank you so much for watching our video. If you want to see more of our videos, please subscribe to our YouTube channel by clicking the button here. We do our best to post a new video every single day. If you have any questions about M.I.C. or any general trading questions, please text Tosh using the number here. Also, stay up to date by watching some of our most recent videos right over here.


Ynghylch i ddweud y my Neinau Darlanghsiidd Cfg Leichte. Rwyf ni'n gael am hynny'n meddwl yng nghylch y Lai Darlanghsiidd Cfg Leitte. Rwyf ni'n gael ynghylch y Lai Darlanghsiidd Cfg Leitte yn y Darlanghsiidd Polinithig Dynchydig oedd includes y gyfnodau i'w cerddoi, ddeltyliau, ddellunol, dd喝io, ac drwy'n pag maen nhw mai'n nhw'n bryd yn cael ei ddechrau. ac yn ystod o ffondi, ar fynd i'w ffostod y byddol iawn i bryd yn y Llywodraeth.  Mae'n bwysigio'n storio a fydd hyn yn ystod nhw i ddim yn ei fnwysigol... ..yna hwn yn gyfer gwneud i'r ddiweddau yma'r unrhyw o'r bwysigol... ..di fod o'n gwylliant i gjempae yng Nghymru. Many of you will have studied in the course of the world this year now a feature of which has been the creeping expansion of criminal liability but negligence in all sorts ofood fields. One aspect of which, over the last 15 years or so has been the resurrection of prosecutions for close attention and that has taught quite a lot of them directed against medical professionals of one sort or another. woeid yn gweithio gwahanol wedi bod yn gwneud hynny. Ieithwch yn ei wneud o'r drwy'r cwydd'su ar gyfer ac mae'n gweithio'r gwaith i gael y llaw ac'r adresur ac mae'n gweithio'n gyda'r gwaith yn fwyaf. Mae'r gweithio'r gwaith yn gweithio i'r adresur ac mae'n gweithio'n gweithio i'r adresur i'n gweithio i gael gwaith, Ond nid yw'n gwybod ddim yn ei wneud, when I first received Professor Spencer's kind invitation, there were a few butterflies in my stomach. I know it didn't settle down very much on discovering the name of the benefactor for this lecture series, the very distinguished Baron Dr Cornelius Bahadin Dilansew, as we've heard a remarkably talented man with qualifications in dentistry, medicine and law. I hope that the subject of Saffrin's lecture, medicine mistakes and manslaughter would be of interest to the Baron and will be of interest to good selves. Thank you all for coming. Medical mistakes come in many shapes and sizes, but criminal law adopts a one size fits all approach, which to my mind can be a bad fit. For individuals at the sharp end, the stakes are high and stuck, manslaughter prosecution or no action. As we all know, involuntary manslaughter is an amorphous category, which covers a wide range of unintentional but culpable killings. Medical cases are prosecuted with reference to the catch-all concept of gross negligence. Although not unique as an example of objective criminal liability, as we've heard in fact crimes of negligence are on the increase, it's positioned near the apex of serious offences and the absence of a lesser or inco-hate crime renders this an unsatisfactory all-or-nothing scenario, often hinging on moral luck and prosecutorial and expert witness performance. Although relatively rare, such prosecutions have risen markedly over the last 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, since 1925, 65 health professionals have been charged with medical manslaughter, significantly over 50 of these since 1990. Understandably, this has caused much anxiety for healthcare professionals and invited academic inquiry. This lecture will consider how criminal law should deal with fatal medical error. I'll attempt to defend the following thesis, that the current test for liability, gross negligence, is unclear, unprincipled, often unfair and ought to be abolished. I'll argue that subjective reckless manslaughter is the proper place to set the bar for liability. This approach is quite old-fashioned. A more modern approach would see the creation of a specific offence for the healthcare context, perhaps death by dangerous doctoring. But I am against this option. We are living in an era of quite obscene over-criminalisation. As Professor Spencer has recently remarked in the Cambridge Law Journal, the government is, somewhat sadly, big on binge lawmaking. We should resist the temptation to gorge around gross negligence by creating new special offences here. We really do not need a dangerous Docs Act. As Douglas Huzack points out in his recent book called Over-Criminalisation, which I recommend to you, prosecutorial discretion offers the only way of slimming down on criminal liability. He notes there and continuing our food theme that statutes are in effect menus from its prosecutors' chews. In these circumstances, and perhaps these alone, I would prefer a more limited choice set menu, as opposed to a more lavish à la carte.  I'm not convinced by this bacon and egg ice cream idea. Anyway, before getting into detail, one question could be quickly dealt with. That is, whether criminal law should be involved at all in dealing with medical error. Well, surely not even the staunchest sympathiser of the medical profession would go for a blanket ban on criminalisation, or if so, they would struggle to make a convincing case. Some events will always be beyond the pale and warrant a criminal response. The tough task then is to settle on a morally meaningful and fair framework for culpability. Given that this involves a wide range of conduct from the blatantly reckless to the momentary slip, this is far from easy. In 1952, a Dr Gray was convicted for causing the death of his patient after getting high by setting anaesthetic gases prior to an operation. This is quite different, obviously, from the case of another henistatist, a Dr Falconer, prosecuted in 2006 for a momentary slip. He fatally injected oxygen into the wrong tube, going into the vein, rather than the abdomen of the baby being operated on. These are conceptually distinct, a clear violation versus a momentary slip. They're morally quite different, but legally speaking, both are swept up by the broad and perhaps brutal brush of gross negligence. I think this is wrong, but we don't need a new broom to sweep clean. No new offences, but rather we need to rediscover recklessness, which should be the bottom line. Okay, in terms of a brief history of medical manslaughter, although such prosecutions have increased markedly, lately, they go back a long way. The first known prosecution, or the first I've been able to find, occurred in 1329 in Newcastle, where a practitioner was commended to God. Not as one translation of this form of medieval legal French said, condemned to God, obviously quite different. And grateful to Mr Ian Barker for this information. Gross negligence emerged proper in the 19th century, where we find the first cluster of cases. As I've said, although these cases are very rare, their tendency to challenge the very basis of liability has often led them to the appeal courts and into law reports of our leading authorities on manslaughter. The first of these concerned the conviction of a doctor Bateman for his treatment of his patient during the somewhat difficult delivery of her child. The baby was in the breach position and in performing a manual version to move the baby to the head down position, he mistakenly removed part of her uterus and caused other internal damage causing death. On the appeal and quashing the conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeal formulated the following test of liability. I'm sure you're familiar to you all. In a nutshell, criminal negligence is more than normal negligence, but how much more we don't really know. This was endorsed in 1994 by the House of Lords in the case of Adam Arco. Here, in Leastatist, lost his appeal against conviction after fatally failing to spot a disconnected oxygen tube during a routine eye operation. Lord McKay of Clashburn refined the Bateman test. This formulation, which represents the definition in inverted commas of gross negligence, has been much criticised. It amounts to the following circular test. It is a crime if the jury think it ought to be a crime. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the next case to end up in the appeal courts, the case of Misera and Suvastavirth, saw gross negligence manslaughter assessed for its compatibility with two human rights of the doctors, namely the Article VI right to a fair trial and the Article VII prohibitions on retrospective criminalisation. Saw what happened in the case of Misera and Suvastavirth. Well, they were senior house officers at Southampton General Hospital. They mismanaged the care of a 31-year-old man to develop toxic shock syndrome after a routine knee operation. This is quite a rare complication, unlike MRSA, for example, as a fairly low mortality rate of about 5%. Specifically, they responded inadequately to obvious signs of infection, race temperature, pulse rate, and failed to chase up blood test results that would have prompted the antibiotic care that would have probably averted disaster. The jury convicted and their appeals were rejected. So, to the human rights arguments, how would these express? As you know, Article VII of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits retrospective criminalisation. In essence, the doctors argued here that gross negligence is so vague as to fall foul of the certainty requirement of Article VII, that is the principle of legality. Perhaps putting rather crude and somewhat unlikely terms, their argument boiled down to this. Had Dr Misera perhaps in a state of panic picked up the phone and asked the solicitor, listen, I'm losing the plot here. Could you tell me, what is gross negligence? The simple and succinct response might have been, well, it's gross and criminal negligence if the jury can clue it ought to be. It's not that useful, though. Although this wouldn't amount to much by way of chargeable hours with legal advice. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the force of this argument. They recalled Francis Bacon's famous linkage of justice and legal certainty from the 17th century. I think this quote is worth reading out in its entirety. If the trumpet given uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So if the law given uncertain sound, who shall prepare to obey it? It ought therefore to warn before its strikes. Let there be no authority to shed blood, nor let sentence be pronounced in any court upon cases, except according to a known uncertain law. This was dismissed on the basis that Article VII demanded sufficient rather than absolute certainty. And that the degree of vagueness here was acceptable. Of course, numerous legal philosophers have defended vagueness as a necessary feature of law. Timothy Endicott's book of vagueness in law from 2001 is a good recent example. However, returning to Bacon's trumpet metaphor, we're still left with a tune with notes that are difficult to read. Now, we might not expect, or indeed you want, the sort of complex detail and intricate music of the great jazz trumpet at Wynton Marsalis. Does anyone read one of his concerts? Wonderful, but very taxing. But surely we do a little bit more clarity from the criminal law. And in fact, to quote Marsalis on jazz, something I didn't think I'd be doing in a law lecture, he says that the jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication. I think we might legitimately wonder whether what we have in terms of gross negligence is sufficiently intelligent and clear communication. Certainty argument, which was rejected, was connected to the argument under Article VI, which requires a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The jurisprudence surrounding Article VI suggests that a fair hearing implies a reason to the decision, and it was argued, and this was the key point, that as juries here are effectively deciding a question of law, that is the meaning of the offence, the meaning of gross negligence, and because they did not give reasons for their decisions, it has contravened Article VI. Law justice judge in the Court of Appeal did not agree. This is not a question of law but one effect for the decision in the individual case. In terms of this question of law, question of fact point, Andrew Ashworth is surely right, he usually is, in noting that this is a distinction without a difference. It's also one without adequate explanation. After all, it truly is plausible that juries do on occasion accept the conduct was grossly negligent, and they decide against convicting the defendant of manslaughter. In other words, and I suppose this is a mischievous speculation on my part, they do deal with both the question of fact and the question of law. The relatively low conviction rate of around 30% seems to support this. With respect then, the Court of Appeal's conclusion, in the case of Misra, is more than a little optimistic. Indeed, it does nothing more than echo the ffectitious legal advice I noted earlier on. A doctor would be told that grossly negligent treatment of a patient which exposed him or her to the risk of death and caused it would constitute manslaughter. Again, to my mind, this is not particularly clear or intelligent communication from the law. It doesn't pass the Bacon or Marsalis test. Regrettably, an application for legal appeals at the House of Lords was rejected. This represents a lost opportunity for a possible, albeit rare, declaration of incompatibility which would prompt a rethink about this offence. Therefore, prosecutors, experts, judges and juries are thus left to grapple with the difficult and circular concept. I'll now say some more about why this concept is so troubling philosophically and also in its practical application. The negligent criminal liability has long exercised legal philosophers. Jerome Hall was not exaggerating when he called it an inordinately troublesome area. Hall was responding and rejecting Hart celebrated general theory of guilt in which Hart defended criminal negligence as part of a wider capacity theory of responsibility. Hart famously used the example of a man mending a roof and, without thinking, throws a slate or building materials down onto the street below, causing death without thinking when he turned culpable in advertence. Glanville Williams, on the other hand, had subjectivist misgivings. For him, the search for the mental deficiency here, for example, forgetfulness, amounted to, I quote, an unrewarding exercise in moralism. However, it retains contemporary support. Notably by Andrew Ashworth, and despite its general commitment to subjectivism in criminal law, the Law Commission has given its standard of approval to gross negligence. I'll return to the commission's proposals a little later on. But for Jerome Hall, negligent liability loses sight of the notion of blame, which is the proper foundation of criminal law. In other words, there's not enough men's rare, or perhaps none at all. Now, such arguments are based on a principled objection to its unfairness, particularly as it applies to professionals working in high risk and sometimes unsafe settings. As Alan Norrie notes, grossness depends on the way the conduct is socially and morally perceived, rather than its inherent quality. However, there's been little empirical examination into the relevant perceptions here. Partly prompted by this, I decided to review all known prosecutions since the start of the 20th century. This involved two things. One, a statistical analysis, looking for any trends, themes in the cases, and also conducting interviews with current prosecution service liars at an office of what was then called the Special Casework Directorate. To cut to the chase, my conclusion is that the offence is incapable of clear and objective measurement and ought to be abolished. Now, there may be sufficient cause to call for the complete abolition of gross negligence management. However, it should be said that the arguments presented here rest on research into its application to medical cases. Further research would of course be required to analyse its operation in other settings. But I suspect that it can operate equally harshly for the other professional defendants it mainly applies to, transport drivers, electricians, architects, school teachers, engineers, prism officers. The option of exempting healthcare professionals from gross negligence liability is open to the criticism that it offers unfair protection. Whilst perhaps it's possible to make a special case for healthcare, it should ultimately be unacceptable in a quality of law terms. In reality then, that leaves us with two choices. Downgrade and prosecute more with perhaps a special homicide offence for those who killed whilst performing socially vital functions. Or upgrade and narrow the focus on reckless killing as the proper business of criminal law. As you see in a moment, I prefer the latter option the reckless killing option. Now, what is so wrong with gross negligence? Well, an analysis of the data presents at least five problems which I will now consider in turn. First and, escapeively, gross negligence means gross vagueness. Prosecutors, the prosecutors I interviewed, struggled to pin down their understanding of the term gross, often initially relying on gut instinct. This was partly because, as one explained, rather revealingly, there's no overt criminality there. The notion of gross negligence was understood with reference to synonyms such as extra bad, totally unacceptable, pretty invisible and beyond the pale. In short, there was no obvious or objective system for classifying errors, for classifying mistakes as gross or not gross. This response reflects the definitional difficulty. Note the rather circular return to the word gross at the end of that quote. Here's another example reflecting the difficulty of controversial cases on the cusp. This prosecutor concludes by saying I wouldn't say it was clear and agonised over the decision to prosecute. Some said yes, some said no. In the end, they prosecuted. In the end, the jury acquitted as they often do. Of course, expert evidence will be crucial in such a case and I'll return to this shortly. The second point is about the character of the defendant who is prosecuted with medical mansculter. While the statistics, albeit small, reveal that a disproportionate number of non-white practitioners feature in prosecutions over 50%. This is high given that the number of non-white NHS hospital doctors is estimated to be around 25%. Clearly, this is a particularly troubling finding. How do we explain this? Perhaps we can't, but it may be understood with reference to a number of sociological explanations such as the training and language skills of doctors trained overseas as well as their ability to gain employment and gain superior supervision in better performing hospitals. This involves some speculation that it may be that a high proportion of foreign trained doctors are working in poorly performing hospitals, have received inferior training, possess inadequate language skills, are exercising responsibilities beyond their additive skill and are inadequately supervised and are working in unsafe systems. Of course, a high number may also be related to racist attitudes that creep into the decisions to complain about and consider investigating individuals in the first place. As I said, this is speculation, but it's certainly not implosible. Sadly, given what we know about the role of race, education and social background as powerful determinants of individual success, perhaps it would be surprising if it was not reflected in the breakdown of such statistics, but it hardly instills confidence in a fair system of law and justice. Coupled with the vagueness of the offence, the consequences may be particularly harsh, particularly unfair for some. The third finding suggests there may be a possible geography of prosecution. In other words, unexplained regional variation on the number of prosecutions. There are a greater number of prosecutions in the north, particularly in the north west of England. Now, once the numbers are small and may be explained by normal random distributions, it surely can't be explained by more negligent fatal error in the north, as you'd hope not if you lived there. Rather, could it be a sign of increased prosecutorial confidence in certain regions, certain CPS regions which have, as it were, got home on gross negligence achieved by conviction are to be significant, given the overall low conviction rate. The fourth finding is about expert evidence, or perhaps you can call it expert control. It seems that ultimately the measurement of gross negligence, what does it actually mean, is effectively handed over to relevant medical experts. Prosecutors and thus juries are reliant, perhaps over-reliant, on expert evidence. By and large, this is not the sort of scientific evidence which is currently exercising the Law Commission on consultation paper on this important issue. After all, gross negligence, if it's anything, is a legal term of art, but one which lawyers have devolved to experts, and today are subjective evaluations of where the conduct has crossed the vaguely drawn line of gross negligence. And surprisingly perhaps, expert judgement is itself an uncertain quote as particularly revealing here the prosecutor originally felt the case was gross negligent as two experts disagreed, one said yes, one said no. Then they changed their mind to saying yes, ultimately six months later they reverted to no. Of course, expert evidence is required in such cases, but surely it's inappropriate that it appears to determine rather than just inform the relevant legal questions. Perhaps it's worth pausing and reflecting on possible reasons for this. If you consider the lengthy process by which the criminal justice system considers these cases, it's effectively an exercise in buck passing from the police to the CPS, from the local CPS to the case work directorate where they do high profile, complex work and from the directorate out to selected experts, between experts back to the directorate and throughout this process no-one is comfortable with the task of measuring grossness. Even seemingly clear cases such as mistakenly removing the wrong healthy kidney that's happened down in Cleneddli in 2000 can collapse and it doubts about culpability and causation that creep in during cross examination in that case the man died about four weeks later and he had other complications but I think if you'd ask 100 people on the street why did he die I think he's because he took out his one healthy kidney. Anyway, these are all bad marks against the name of gross negligence and as the fifth funding suggests perhaps this is avoidable given that the next insight which is that in reality some prosecutors at least are researching for subjective thought, really looking for evidence to suggest subjective recklessness. This comment from a prosecutor revealed a preference for evidence of subjective recklessness. This was fairly reflective of the lawyers that I interviewed. He went on to say that the absence of subjective recklessness is a relevant consideration when considering the grossness of the negligence. This is symbolically important as indicating prosecutorial unease with gross negligence. It could also be a practical significance given the sense that some prosecutors are in fact working to a higher standard of recklessness. Before making the case for recklessness let's first consider the case for introducing a special homicide offence for healthcare professionals to go death by dangerous doctoring possibility. There are two obvious objections to creating context-specific crime. First, a defence against the principle of minimalism has too much law on the menu of prosecutors. It almost seems to be the problem in the restaurants that Gordon Ramsay reviews, doesn't it? They've got too much choice on the menu. Maybe there's a lesson there. And secondly, it marginalises defence, reduces its stigma and dilutes its deterrent effect. However, appreciation of different context has led to specific forms of liability in other areas. So if, for example, we accept that vehicular and familial homicide warrant separation from the emotive term manslaughter, why not do the same for deaths caused by careless medical treatment? One option is to creating offence for those who are killed by virtue of misperforming their socially vital work duties. Some argue that a sophisticated, nuanced and fair approach to designing criminal law calls for a context-specific approach to responsibility. So, what's the context in healthcare? Well, we know that medical errors are predictable and routine. Statistics are, if not shocking, then quite striking. UK studies suggest that there are around 850,000 adverse events in NHS hospitals each year. And that about 70,000 deaths are partly contributed, partly caused by such error. In the United States, some of the studies put it a little bit more shockingly and tried to convert this into what it would mean in terms of jumbo jet crashes. Wait for it three every two days. Now, this is not a call for airlines to run our hospitals. But it may be said that the political third way of the public-private partnership might well permit the prospect of a so-called easy hospital. But of course, healthcare is far from easy. And the systematic study of medical error is relatively new. There's no agreed taxonomy of the terms here. The best attempt to doing so has been undertaken by Mary and McCall Smith who have addressed the relationship between medical error and blame and conceptualised these events as errors or violations. What do they mean by this? Well, they say that errors are seldom intentional whereas violations are deliberate deviations from accepted rules, norms or principles. This can also be classified as the difference between doing wrong and wrongdoing. Perhaps it men's rare terms between recklessness and negligence. So, administering the wrong drug or the anaesthetic mistake of Dr Faulkner referred to earlier on are errors as they contrary to the intention to give the correct drug or the correct injection. Whereas a decision to continue with surgery contrary to common practice or poly concern is a violation. They further divide errors into skill based and technical errors. Skill based errors they say are slips and lapses such as the momentary loss of concentration or distraction which they say are not necessarily manifestations of carelessness, of negligence. Technical errors on the other hand are concerned with variability in competency and performance. Now, whilst this is a useful taxonomy of error, there's no evidence that this has gained general acceptance within healthcare, let alone filtering through the prosecutors handling such cases. Truly designing a new criminal offence must attend on a well understood typology of error and its relationship with individual blame. Arguably the study of medical error is at this time insufficiently well developed to support the significant step of creating a new criminal offence. And after all it is for those who argue in favour of liability beneath recklessness to establish medical cases and merit such criminalisation. Yet persuasive arguments have not been forthcoming. Calls for new legislative offences should also be based on clear evidence that existing criminal law is failing to deliver on its aims. So unlike domestic and sexual violence or corporate killing where we've had recent legislative change, there's no such consensus upon which to build a new specific offence or set of offences for healthcare. As Sunford Cardish would say we should first consider the consequences of criminalisation. Would it contribute to the goals of improving patient safety? Would it reduce the number of errors? Well very unlikely. If we know anything from the studies on medical error it's that creating a safety culture depends to a large extent about making people feel safe to talk about and report error. Something which is surely inhibited by the prospective criminal prosecution. Even a morally diluted form of homicide. The easiest existing alternative and my preference to be able to tell would be to prosecute such cases as subjective reckless manslaughter which despite its lack of recent common law authority in this setting in the manslaughter context is unconsentious and well understood. Now it's true we aren't talking about closely connected concepts here. Indeed the legal line drawing between subjective recklessness and those negligence has always been blurring. As Jeremy Horder points out in the 19th century judges were less concerned about observing a neat separation between recklessness and gross negligence which often was a product of more contemporary criminal law scholarship and its pursuit of conceptual clarity. Of course in the most part for most cases using these terms interchangeably would not present problems. The conduct can be properly classed both grossly negligent and subjectively reckless but this will not be true of all cases particularly difficult cases on the cusp. It's here that the wider term gross negligence allows prosecutors to take an unfair punt. Having recklessness as the bottom line would offer some detection against this. Now whilst the higher courts have given their blessing to gross negligence indeed have preferred gross negligence the word recklessness is never far from view. For example returning to a case of Adam Alco where the House of Lords approved gross negligence Lord McCay stated and I quote it's perfectly open to the trial judge to use the word recklessness in its ordinary meaning as part of its position of the law if he deemed it appropriate. This was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Misery where stating that evidence of the defendant's state of mind is not irrelevant to the issue of gross negligence in fact adding there will often be a critical factor in the decision. Now it's probably no accident that recklessness lurks in the background here. Arguably this reflects judicial reluctance with a leaving liability at the lower level of gross negligence. The Law Commission has also endorsed this what we could call recklessness as a gross negligence position and saying the following recklessness falling short of recklessness indifference can really be regarded as a kind of gross negligence the fact that the defendant saw a risk and wrongly discarded it or stupidly thought it insignificant is compelling evidence of the grossness of his or her negligence. Now as we know the Law Commission has for some time been working on performing involuntary manslaughter and more recently with a more major task of restructuring homicide they deserve congratulations on a difficult job very well done the proposed three tier structure first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter by criminal act or by gross negligence is an improvement current position but what about the medical cases I'd be considering this evening well here the commission settle for gross negligence the fact they go one step further and clearly disagree with myself in proposing to abandon reckless killings for manslaughter should be said this is a change from their previous position in 1996 and I'm not at all convinced by their reasoning for this change of heart they cite the support of the Royal Prosecution Service in favour of submerging reckless manslaughter into gross negligence well with respect they would wouldn't they after all it's a prosecution friendly concept it's always worth a pint perhaps they also note that recklessness has proved a particularly problematic term in criminal law they're not wrong we all agree although arguably things should be easier after the abolition of objective or coldwell recklessness in the case of G and somewhat strange to my mind for them to put a lot of faith on the equally if not more troublesome term gross negligence what I think is most striking in the essence of what they're saying here and I encourage you to look at the report yourselves and draw your own conclusions is that whilst these are in their own words properly thought of as reckless killings they say we don't like this difficult evaluative term so let's just deal with these under the wider heading of gross negligence it's a bit like saying that intention is a problem only in criminal law so let's just process all intentional killings as reckless killings well with respect whilst an element of pragmatism is necessary here and compromises are perhaps inevitable this is hardly complied with fair labelling and does not adequately address some of the problems I've explored in this lecture so back to then in 1996 the earlier proposals they proposed to replace subjective reckless manslaughter with reckless killing which would be committed on proof of subjective awareness that the conduct risk death or serious injury so that the professional, the doctor knew, subjective knew at the time of the event the risk of death or serious injury their recent change of heart to ditch recklessness is probably explained by the fear of prosecutors being unable to prove the defendant's subjective awareness at the time of the conduct in question of course as Glanville Williams well put it subjective theory is an ideal imperfectly achievable I think that the fear here is somewhat misplaced it's a bit of a red herring but it's controversially introduced by Will Diplock in the case of Caldwell after all if it is such a problem proving subjective awareness of a risk where is the overwhelming evidence how do we explain the high number of convictions on the basis of subjective reckless criminal damage all convictions lots of convictions for violent defences for assault defences but granted these comparisons may not be exact but the general point I think remains retain some validity without a confession as to state of mind juries and magistrates will always draw inferences from behaviour it happens all the time it's their job if it was reasonable to foresee a risk they would conclude the defendant did foresee the risk this may not wash with what we may call died in the wool subjectivists but it may be the best but how does this apply to the medical cases but in short I think recklessness works the very few cases that lead to conviction are classic subjective recklessness so Dr Walker will continue to remove a larger than expected liver tumor despite warnings that it was too dangerous unusually and tellingly he pleaded guilty Dr Sinner will give a large morphine overdose to relieve the pain of severe arthritis to the patient with kidney failure he refused to read her medical chart which was offered by her husband he apparently waived that opportunity away he closed his mind to the risk he was given a custodial sentence very rare indeed and more recently Dr Ramneth will give a fatal dose of adrenaline against the advice of three colleagues professional violation in Mary McCall Smith's terms so the worry that prosecutors couldn't prove or can't prove subjective awareness of risk is I think an exaggerator and as you have seen some prosecutors are in fact doing that very same thing searching for evidence of subjective fault however the problem of recklessness remains of course it's not a straightforward concept much ink, academic and judicial has been spilled trying to define it despite the best attempts of amongst others Glanville Williams and Anthony Duff the courts have not settled still are settled on a coherent doctrine the speeches of the law lords in the case of Jeeve I think you'll agree that they testify to that point Glanville Williams famously redefined recklessness to require that the risk would have been obvious to the defendant had he paused to think Anthony Duff offers the test of practical indifference that is I couldn't care less building on this more recently Victor Tagros defines recklessness as where the individual has failed to fulfil his duty of investigating the risks was willfully blinded himself to the existence of the risks I think summarising you could legitimately say the following where a doctor has special knowledge of certain procedures carrying with him certain risks and fails to investigate those risks without justification criminal responsibility can be properly attributed on the basis of recklessness I think this strikes the right balance in terms of its breadth it should satisfy those unwilling to trust strict subjectivism that may be open to challenge that leaves us with the standard lacuna case what do you mean by this well a case where a doctor is aware of the risk aims to avoid it that gets that wrong and in getting it wrong in making a mistake we return to gross negligence leaving the jury the vague term and a difficult value judgement I've tried to demonstrate the significant problems with this concept to my mind these are the cases the very cases that should fall below the criminal line and the two obvious arguments against this do not appear that strong first no one has persuasively argued that more prosecutions in the health setting would be a good thing that is that it would improve patient safety secondly a skeptic my question whether the shift from gross negligence to recklessness would make any difference in practice well to my mind it would be surprising very surprising if this did not result in less prosecution and I think this should be a good thing I'll conclude by summarising what I've tried to argue here this evening medical errors including fatal errors are an inevitable feature the delivery of healthcare to the criminal law it's not a question of should be shouldn't we but rather where is the appropriate place to set the bar for liability gross negligence is too vague despite surviving the challenge in misery the issue of its human rights compatibility is not settled there is no clarion call from the law's trumpet it can and has been questioned on a philosophical level that is there is insufficient moral blame especially for homicide its breadth leads to unfairness lumping together a case of slips and lapses with those of clear recklessness for me it clearly fails the test of fair labelling but what is more empirical examination reveals further reservations prosecutorial and expert evaluations show that the term is too broad and too open to subjective opinions this translates into particular harshness for those exposed to prosecution by virtue of their risky yet socially vital work often at the mercy of moral luck what I would say is why continue to struggle with the vagueness and vagueries of interpreting gross negligence when there is no consensus but what it actually means and whether it should be a crime inlaying cold wealth arrest or a case of G Lord Stein said this the sureest test of a new legal rule is not whether it satisfies a team of magicians but how it performs in the real world well with a conviction rate of around 30% very low for homicide and with quite a few successful appeals against the conviction gross negligence performs badly in the jury room to my mind the argument for the bottom line should be recklessness now this term is not without its difficulties and I wouldn't dream of claiming that I've cracked the code in this lecture but I think the performance energies should be channeled at revising recklessness criminal law should be a last and rare resort we should limit the set menu of prosecutors to one course recklessness well I've returned to the food theme I think a rumbling has replaced the pasta flies in my stomach with a pleasant cross with dinner to follow I think I'll stop there thank you for listening


God is love, and because he is loving, he must righteously punish evil. There is coming a day of judgment when God will judge the world.  For a day of anger is coming when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. Because God is merciful, He is giving us time to turn from our evil ways. However, stubbornly, arrogantly, people persist in their sin. They mistake God's patience for God's absence. They mistake God's mercy for God's permission. But of that day and hour, no one knows. Not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew chapter 24, verses 36 through 39. The scripture says that it will be like in the days of Noah. People were living life as usual. Calamity fell upon them unexpectedly from seemingly nowhere. So it will be in our day. Many will be busy with their usual living. People will be marrying, graduating, raising families, starting businesses, indulging in pleasures, and carrying on with life as they know it. The reign of God's judgment will begin to fall. Thankfully, God has provided a way of escape. By putting your faith in Jesus and what he accomplished on the cross, you, like Noah, can find shelter from the rain. May we turn from our evil ways and embrace God's free gift of salvation. I'm David Diga Hernandez, and that is your Moment of Truth. For more free teachings like this, make sure you're signed up to my email list so that I can send you weekly emails with content that will help you to grow spiritually. Go to davidhernanisministries.com slash email.


What's up everybody, Jason here for jazby'scasebase.com. This is 2021 Pinini Spectrum Football. This is a one box break, two random teams each, number one. And again guys, we're gonna give away a full spot, free spot. If you bought a full spot in here, you can enter a winner free spot, all-card ship. Now this is a two random teams break, so 16 total spots. Everybody gets two random teams at NFL. So here's the dice roller. We're gonna use the dice roller for the free spot. So these are the customers that bought it in straight up. You have a one in eight shot. They won't paste your name in here. Then there's the rest of them that won from score one. Then we'll double up the names, of course. And then we'll have the teams there. And we'll use the same dice roller to do the randomize for the names and teams. So let's roll it. It is a two and a six, eight times. Good luck, eight times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And it is eighth and final time. Steve, congratulations buddy. Five to eight times, two and a six, eight. You just want a free extra spot. Boom, little character sign right there at the end. So that should make 16 now. Now we're just gonna quickly copy the names twice and double them up. Now eight times on the list of names and teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight times, two, six, eight, eight. Dwayne down to Michael. And now eight times here on the teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Colts, that'll all sign those rounds. All right, eight times. So Dwayne with Indianapolis Colts, A-A-R-On with the Cowboys, Thomas with Gerard with the Texans, Aaron, A-A-R-On, sorry with the Jaguars, Steve with the Browns, Alan with the Ravens, Michael with the Commanders, Steve with the Raiders, Alan Murdoch with the Eagles, Maddie Slay with the Dolphins, Gerard with the Broncos, Aaron Miller with the Patriots and Chiefs. Matthew Slay with the Bills and Saints, A-A-R-On, sorry with the Seahawks, Michael with the Lines, Steve Herrick with the Bucks, Panthers, Aaron Miller with the Vikings, Thomas with the Steelers, Aaron Miller with the Packers, Steve Herrick with the Fortinators, Tim with the Titans, Dwayne with the Cardinals, A-A-R-On with the Bengals, Jeremy with the Falcons, Maddie with the Giants, Steve Herrick with the Bears, Michael with the Jets, Tim with the Chargers, and Michael with the Rams. All right guys, so does any of you want to make any trades? Give you guys a quick minute. All right, I'm assuming no trades, let's just close it. So again, this is a fresh master case, actually. A fresh case is just a non-master case. There's only eight bucks in the case, so we'll generate a number here to use from here. So these one boxers are coming from a fresh case, so all possibilities are still in here, guys, including big RPAs, big inserts, one-on-ones, all that good stuff. Definitely keeping on. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Let's quickly generate a number that we can use here. So let's see. Six, one, two, three, four, five, six. We're gonna do the second box here. So these ones will be for future breaks. Aaron, what's going on, man? How are you? I'll double check it after this break.  That must have been a typo, maybe Joe or somebody previous to me that was putting in orders and messed up. Don't worry, for some reason, that happened and you didn't even catch it. The shipping team would catch it because when they ship it out, they're gonna notice that that's not in the box. So I'll double check it right now and I'll confirm with you. And if that's the case, I'll just switch up the names and put it to the correct way. But thanks for catching it, though. But like I said, no need to worry. That wouldn't have went to him anyways in the final process of shipping. That would have just been like a breaker error. Can't help you right now, but once I'm done with this, I can take a look. All right, so here we go. Two-two Atwell with a Tyler Boyd, just 75. 54 out of 60. 22 out of 60, Chad Johnson for the Bengals. Surprised you're up this late, I don't know, right? And I love calling you A.A. Ron because I just remember your YouTube or Instagram handle name. So I still do it. All right, so there you go, Bengals. That's going to A.A. Ron. And Trey Sermon, so technically not a 49er anymore. Of course, this is still gonna go to the 49ers, but he's actually gonna make his Eagles debut. Boston Scott's injured, so he's gonna get called up and from the practice squad, and they're actually gonna probably maybe get some snaps in, who knows? So Trey Sermon, that's 49ers. Steve Harrod with that one. All right, we got Chris Evans and a Fred Werner. Little Danny Dimes to 60. Max Impact, that's Giants, Matthew Slade. And then we got a Kellan Mond and Noang Woo to 20. That's a dual autograph right there, dual patch autographs. And that is gonna go to the Minnesota Vikings. This time's gonna Aaron Miller, the other Aaron in here, right? Got two errands here. So there you go, Aaron Miller. Nice dual autograph right there for you, buddy. I've got Radgers, Green Bay Packers, Aaron Miller. And we got a Retrospect, Troy Aikman, number to 60. Derrick Brown to 25. Max Impact, three color patch. That is for the Panthers and Steve Harrod. And then we got a Bill Parcells, Giants autograph. Nice one there for Matthew Slade and the Giants. This one should be a rookie though, hopefully. We have a Julio Jones to 25 for the Titans. Jalen Darden to 60, Rising Rookie. That's Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay Bucks to Steve Harrod. And how about a little Mac Daddy Jones to 99. Rising Rookie, that's a Patriots and Aaron Miller. And a little bit of a teaser for you, A-A-Ron, but great player though, healthy this season. Travis Etn Jr., that's five of 50, and an RPA. Little three color patch. So there you go, that's the final hit of the break. So there you go, folks. Nice little first box there again. This is from a fresh case, so if you guys do wanna run this back, you know, maybe tonight, who knows, but for tomorrow with Joe. Obviously, we got an Etn here, Bill Parcells, do autograph their rookies and a trade sermon.  So again, this is number one. Number two's in the store, with the filler, Jaspyscasebreaks.com.