I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's 17th meeting in this 2014. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with the broadcasting system when they're switched to silent. Item 1, no apologies, item 1. I'm asking the committee to agree to consider item 5 on its work programme in private. Thank you very much. Item 2, review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland. This is an evidence session of the Scottish Government's response to a Sheriff's Principal, Taylor's review, and members have copies of the response. I welcome to the meeting Rosanna Cunningham Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and her officials, Stella Smith, Civil Law and Legal System Division, Kay McCorkadale, Civil Law and Legal System Division and Alistair Smith, Legal Services, Scottish Government. I welcome you all to this meeting and I'm to minister, you want to make a short opening statement. Very briefly, thank you convener and could I remind the committee of my previous declaration of interest which still stands. The first thing to say is of course that the Taylor review is inextricably linked to Lord Gill's Scottish civil courts review. Indeed, the Taylor review has been written predicated on the fact that the recommendations made by Lord Gill had already been implemented. The Taylor review has been made on the assumption that Gill has already been implemented. Of course, the recommendations from the Gill review are what now form the basis of the courts reform Scotland Bill. The Taylor review has always been written and understood to be following on from the implementation of Gill. During stage 1 of the bill, the committee made some connections between the provisions in the bill and Sheriff's Principal Taylor's report. Indeed, the stage 1 report highlighted the relationship between the Taylor recommendations on sanction for council and the issue of the exclusive competence threshold. I consider a sanction for council, which sits in chapter 3 of the Taylor report as the main issue connecting the bill and the report. Although the remainder of chapters 2 to 4 on the cost of litigation and 7 to 9 on speculative fee agreements, damages-based agreements and qualified one-way cost shifting are of more general relevance in the context of the bill. The recommendations in chapters 2 to 4 of the report, including the test for sanction for council, have had close examination. The Scottish Government does not believe that those are matters for primary legislation. They sit firmly within the powers and remit of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Lord President have agreed that to be the case. The Scottish Civil Justice Council has only recently been set up and we consider it to be rather odd to having set up the Civil Justice Council then proceed to bypass what was considered to be the proper work of the Civil Justice Council by legislating in primary legislation rather than allowing them to do what was intended that they do. The recommendations in respect of sanction for council will sit with the costs and funding committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. I understand that the committee sees that as a priority issue and intends that it will be discussed at its next meeting later this month. As we move through the Taylor report, we agree that chapters 7 to 9 are for the Scottish Government and will require to be taken forward by primary legislation. That is the various damages-related recommendations. It was never the intention of the Scottish Government that those should be included in the courts reform bill. Indeed, as already mentioned, Sheriff Principal Taylor himself states quite clearly in his forward that he has assumed that the recommendations of the Scottish Civil Court's review, which are being delivered through the courts reform bill, would already have been implemented. However, the Scottish Government will aim to bring forward further primary legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament that will implement the recommendations in chapters 7 to 9 of the Taylor report. With those very brief comments, convener, I think we could probably just move straight to the questions. Nobody's got any questions. I don't think they're informed form yet. They'll get into this. John Finnie, Ronnie Campbell. Morning, Minister. Minister, I would like to ask you about referral fees. They are banned in England, and we're told that's due to the fact that they were considered not to be an interest to consumers. Are there any concerns that the interest of consumers in Scotland will be adversely affected by the fact that there's not similar arrangements in Scotland? If you could just give me a moment. I understand. At least Taylor hasn't recommended that they be banned, but we are going to look at the options that would protect consumers, and that would be things around cold calling and having a voluntary code. I think that we're cautious about them. It's not about banning them outright, but it's about looking at how one could set protections in place that would prevent the excesses that might have come about. How will that monitoring take place? Who will do that? I'm sorry, I can't answer that question at this stage. We've got to look at the options as to how we might do that. When we might hear about the options you're looking at? We intend to discuss the matter of referral fees with the Law Society of Scotland, who would have to make changes to their rules in relation to referral fees, should it be decided that those should be allowed for solicitors. So we've said in the response that we will take this matter forward by discussing it with them first and foremost, and we've undertaken to look at other options to protect consumers. I think John was asking about an idea of some kind of timescale, and we know that you're going to engage with the Law Society. Do you have any idea how long this process would take? The discussions would be taking place over the summer, which was our intention. You've called for evidence on the Taylor review, and in the context of the Court of Form Bill, this is not going to be part of the consideration of the Court of Form Bill. So our discussions with the Law Society on some of these issues, because this will not be the only issue that we have to discuss with the Law Society, will take place over the summer. And the outcome of those discussions, we can't mandate at the start of the conversation. No, I appreciate that. I just do some idea of when we might have some certainty, but if it's not possible to say it's not possible to say it just now. The certainty surrounds the legislation on the damages package, because we want to do that within the lifetime of this Parliament. Other things may go into longer term. That's helpful. Rodi, and then Eileen. Morning, Minister. I've just got a general question at the moment. On page 2 of Sheriff Taylor's review, he points out in the forward to the differences between England and Scotland in terms of litigation. In terms of the volume of litigation over a three-year period, a number of clinical negligence claims in Scotland, one-thirtieth of all claims made in England, number of claims from employer liability, one-twelfth of all claims from employer liability, and from motor claims, one-twentieth of all claims made in England. Therefore, on any criteria, it's substantially less than we would have thought. I'm wondering what your view is in terms of the suggestions on qualified one-way cost shifting and damages-based agreements, and accepting that we already have perspective for arrangements. What those together might do to the culture of litigation, and are we likely to have, in your view, substantially more cases coming to court? At this stage, I'm sorry I really couldn't answer whether or not it will result in more cases or not. The hope is that it will encourage more people, particularly those who are currently discouraged from raising actions. It will provide openings for individuals to raise actions that at the moment can't or feel that it would be far too expensive for them to do so. It's very difficult to make an estimate at this stage as to how many extra people or extra pursuers might be encouraged by this package of measures. It is a whole package, and it would be very hard for me to say what the numbers would be in the future. Just for clarification, if it might be helpful, Taylor was clean to emphasise that you have to see quarks in the context of the GIL reforms as a whole. For example, the power to strike out unmeritorious claims and case management. We've also said in our response that we will be considering what exceptions should be made to one-way cost shifting, for example, where there is fraud in the part of the pursuer. You're asking me to make an estimate of numbers that I simply can't make. I'm sorry. I wasn't asking you to be as specific as that. I was just saying that there's a general comment on cultures, whether this will encourage a different culture than we have. Given that the Taylor review was set up and really in general terms discovered that there is that same difficulty, and it's usually described as folk either have to be poor enough to qualify for legal aid, or so rich that the costs of it doesn't matter, leaving there for a vast number of people, a vast majority of people in the middle, who feel pretty much shut out from civil action, that what we're trying to do is bring together a whole range of measures which will encourage more people to feel that they do have access to the civil courts. A lot of people at the moment feel that they don't have access to the civil courts, but it's across a whole range of measures, and it's across a whole suite of legislative proposals and rule changes that this will be brought into being. The whole Gill review is part and parcel of that process, as well as the Taylor review and as well as any primary legislation that may follow on from that. But it is all about the entire package of making justice work. In terms of further engagement with stakeholders on one-way cost shifting, for example, obviously in England and Wales it's proposed to extend it to defamation and judicial review. When we are going to consult with stakeholders here, we're going to take a wider view of one-way cost shifting than perhaps Sherry Principal Taylor did? Well, I've already indicated that it's our intention to legislate in the lifetime of this parliament on this package and that will include qualified cost shifting. So that's the point at which the consideration of further extension of cases that would be affected by this would be taken into consideration. That would be a piece of legislation around this area and I think that would be the appropriate point at which we would look at that. But it would be one of the aspects of the consultation in advance of that piece of legislation that we would be asking about the extension to include further cases. Can I perhaps just clarify? Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. His suggestion is that quarks should be introduced in personal injury cases. We will be consulting, as the minister has said, on that in the context of the primary legislation that she's mentioned. But we need to see first how it works in the context of personal injury cases before considering whether it should be extended to other forms of... to other types of cases. I just referred to my register of interests. I've got to do some member of the Faculty of Advocates and pass on to other members. Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. I realise you're not informed today yet. Elaine, followed by Margaret. I think that one of the reasons why we may not inform actually is that the minister has told us a lot of what's in category 2 is actually going to be in the damages bill which is forthcoming. Just to be very careful, this is a separate piece of legislation. We have other damages legislation to deal with first. This would be another... This is a subsequent bill, sorry. I wouldn't want to give the impression that this is all going to be rolled up into one big damages bill. There's two separate pieces of legislation imposed. I misunderstood that. I thought it was safe forthcoming damages. No, no, no. I'm glad you asked that, because that might have led to some confusion. Do you have any ideas, as you say, within the lifetime of this Parliament, but do you have any idea of the timescale for consultation on some of these issues? I can't answer that categorically. I could give you my best guess is that this would be a piece of legislation for the final year. It's difficult to see it happening within the next parliamentary year, but we have two full parliamentary years to go. I think we're all looking forward to years already problem. This is in category 3 protective expenses orders before the event insurance multi-party actions. There seems to be less of a response on that. Are you considering introducing any of these in future legislation? No, this is an area that we consider is appropriate for the Civil Justice Council to use their existing powers. At the moment, we are effectively putting ourselves in the position of a watching brief to see how it develops before we would come back and consider anything further. It is an area of law, an area that is changing. It is something that we want to make sure that the Civil Justice Council does have an opportunity to look at themselves, and we consider it best done there.  If we are going to do primary legislation on all of these things, it takes time, and then if you try to change it, it takes further time, whereas the Civil Justice Council are in a position to be able to respond much more quickly. Indeed though, but if it is done through primary legislation, Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise it, which it doesn't, wouldn't it? If you do it through primary legislation, that is set in concrete boots for a considerable time. I am certainly not of the view that court rules should be done in that way, because you need to make changes much more quickly than you can make legislative change. Unless, of course, your legislation is full of powers to ministers to bring forward statutory instruments, but then people don't like to see that either, do they? We are all right with statutory instruments. No, but that is a bigger question. Yes, we will be lawyers indeed. There maybe isn't an absolutely perfect way to achieve it, but we do in Scotland quite often watch things change via court decisions and via case law, and the Civil Justice rules will be appropriate to what is currently the decision making process within the courts. Do you think that things like class action procedures can be introduced through rural changes that there would be no necessity for? No, well, you know, we are in the longer term committed to the multi-party actions, the class actions. It's not that it's less urgent, and actually it is a thing that we will consider in respect of that package of legislation that we've talked about. But there are issues that have to be bottomed out with public funding, when you get public funding involved with the Scottish legal aid board, et cetera. So, you know, we're not quite there yet in our certainty as to whether we will put that into that piece of legislation or not, but it is being considered for that. Yes, okay. Oh, I thought you'd disappeared. Margaret, followed by Sandra. Morning, minister. A damages award to the Scottish Government response refers to a cap for this to satisfy, to look at the amount a solicitor can take in its fee. Now, a damages award or agreement could include an amount for future loss. An amount for future loss? Yeah, to include the earnings or perhaps future care of the pursuer. In England and Wales, this has been protected for the client. There's no mention of doing this in the Taylor report. So, could the minister give some indication whether future losses, well, she thinks they are deserving of a special case? Yeah, I do think that future losses worthy of special consideration, and we do intend to consider that. It may not have been clear from the response, but I can put that on the record that it is something that we would be intending to consider if that is the principal concern. Yes, that's helpful. And just on the same subject, then the cap potentially is going to look at market forces, but if they are not seen to operate in accepted manners, then the minister or the government may intervene. Could you clarify more about that, perhaps, how that would work? Intervention or the cap? Well, we are intending to introduce a cap, and a greater sum will not be able to be deducted from damages than is set by the cap, but our response effectively was just agreeing with Sheriff Taylor's observation that in practice less than the cap may routinely be deducted because of competition between lawyers, so we accept that there is a certain amount of market force involved in that. At this stage, we wouldn't intend to intervene. We haven't got plans to intervene, but I suppose in the longer term you might say that if it looks like it's beginning to distort the situation that there might be a reconsideration of it, but, at the moment, no. At the moment, that wouldn't be our attention. Sorry, just for clarification, we have said in the response that we do intend to introduce a cap, as suggested by Sheriff Principal Taylor, on the amount of damages that can be deducted to satisfy the lawyer's fee in relation to a damages-based agreement, which we have said we will take forward in the package of legislation which the Minister has already mentioned. Sheriff Principal Taylor also mentioned in passing that in practice the market will set that despite having a cap in place, market forces will also play a role in this, and it may be that routinely less will be deducted from damages than is set by the cap simply because of those market forces. I understand that, and that's fine. Can I ask you about qualified one-way cost-shifting? I understand the rationale behind this, but not all pursuers are under financial strain and not all defenders are well-funded. Has the Minister any concerns about whether those protections, as he stands, might make some individuals of all companies less likely to defend a personal injury action? That's quite difficult to quantify, but I think in practice defenders who are, for example, small businesses in personal injury action, for example, rarely recover their costs anyway, so in reality they wouldn't be in a worse position, but we will be consulting on it in the context of the bills, so some of these issues would be teased out during the consultation. But would they not have to pay the pursuers' costs? Well, possibly, but these are... I'm sorry, you're asking me about a consultation on a piece of legislation which isn't actually drafted yet, so there are levels of detail here which will be part and parcel of the process of developing that piece of legislation. I suppose it was the whole thing that the pursuer will always have their legal costs met by the defender. And for justifiable reasons if the defender is very wealthy, but that isn't always the case. No, that's true, but then, you know, at the level of that decision-making process, I expect the court itself will have a view. These are issues which, as I said, will come up during consultation on the piece of legislation that will encompass these issues. Okay, I suppose the next part. I was going to ask, just to ask, surely will it not always still be the case that the sheriff or the judge will have discretion in cases to exercise? Yes, of course. I would wonder if that's what perhaps you were asking, you know, Mars, that you're quite right to raise that the plumber or somebody finds himself in court with no insurance, or finds herself in court with no insurance, and then finding that they're going to have to pay the pursuers' expenses even if the pursuer has lost, presumably Minister of the Sheriff would be able to take into account. I'm just asking that. This goes back to the Taylor review being in the context of Gill already having been implemented, that there's a raft of things involved in Gill as well that will impact on this, and it will continue to be the case that there will be decisions, and that would include shreval decision-making process about what would be fair in the context of a particular case. Those are all things that we would have to consult on when it came to looking at the piece of legislation that we're envisaging in the future. The same would be for any... to deal with any potential rise in pursuers saying, well, you know, I've nothing to lose, I'll get my expenses paid and... These are all issues which I would expect to be raised in the context of the consultation on this piece of legislation, which is unlikely to happen now until the final year of this Parliament. The difficulty for the committee ministers is we're trying to get something out of this session, to move further forward than just what we have in paper here and to explore some of these issues, but that was helpful. If we could move on just to the regulation of claims management companies, they are regulated in England and Wales. The recommendation is not to do so here. What's the rationale behind that? There's a couple of different reasons for that. First of all, it has to be said that at the moment there isn't a great... there's not much in terms of reported malpractice or concerns or problems going on at the moment in Scotland. It's not something that has been raised in a serious way, but we've got to also take into account some of the other changes that are being made that are outwith all of this. The alternative business structures, which we're currently negotiating with the Law Society, are not yet up and running, so we don't know what effect they will have on the market. So in some ways, much of what claims management companies do at the moment may no longer be required effectively because once these changes are in place, we've changed the field. So we don't know what effect that would have on the claims management sector. And there is also the aspect of establishing another regulator. That costs money, and while we're still pursuing all these other changes in the process to bring it into place at the moment, we don't think would be the right thing to do. Some management claims companies are already de facto regulated, either because their solicitors involved in them are subject to law society regulation or because they're in fact part of UK-based businesses which are subject to the regulator in England and Wales. So it's really a question of whether it would be proportionate to formally regulate at this stage or whether or not it would be better to see how the field changes as a result of the overall package of changes that are being made. We haven't ruled out claims management regulation, but at this stage we want to see what the impact is of all of the other things that we're doing. And that would include some of the proposals that we've just been discussing that will be part of this other piece of legislation towards the end of the parliamentary term. So it isn't that it's out of the game entirely. It's just that if you're asking me to rank in terms of time and priority, we don't see it as something that we would want to immediately bring forward. I understand that minister, but in the interim when they aren't regulated, some may be de facto regulated and all of the claims management companies are regulated in England and Wales, is there not a danger that Scottish consumers could be at a disadvantage as Scotland becomes a haven for claims management companies that aren't de facto regulated and could be? We have no evidence of malpractice in Scotland at the moment. Now, if that was to change, then clearly we would have to think again. But at the moment we have no evidence of malpractice and in those circumstances we feel that it is the right thing to do to allow a number of these other changes to embed and see what impact it has on the claims management sector. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning minister. Some of the questions I was going to ask have already been answered, particularly future law season special cases. I welcome that and I think the committee does also in coming in the back of Margaret Mitchell's issues in regarding small businesses and pursuers. It would be good to see what happens when the consultation comes out. If I could go further back to one of the ones I think is really important is the sanction for council and understand what the minister has said and her contribution seeing it as a priority issue and the SCJC looking at that, we mentioned obviously the Cost and Funding Committee from the SCJC. Could you perhaps expand on how that will work and what timescale will be for that? Well, I can't mandate them in terms of their own timescale. I indicated that the first meeting to look at this would be later this month. However, the whole of the Civil Justice Council rules procedure is being done as expeditiously as possible. Lord Gill has absolutely no reason not to want the rules changes to be brought in slowly. So my expectation is that this will be dealt with as soon as it can. And it is the case I think that we ourselves are committed to statutory instrument next year on council fees. Is it next year? No, that's the advocate's fees. That's a fairly different issue. To council fees will be left to the discretion of the Civil Justice Council. And they'll look at... They make themselves want to take evidence because the situation is changing. There's been new rules made by the Dean of Faculty since the Taylor review where councils can appear without slisters. So there's various changes that have to be taken into account. The Minister mentioned in her opening statement that the Cost and Funding Committee of the Civil Justice Council does have sanction for council on its next agenda for consideration. Good. I'm just going to say thank you very much. It's very helpful. You mentioned there that it seems to be that it necessarily won't be a full year or year and a half. It could be sooner than that. I think it's also wise to remind ourselves that the Faculty of Advocates has already changed its rules to allow council to act in certain civil cases without an instructing solicitor. These are all things which have happened fairly recently. So things are moving already quite quickly and in some aspects the Taylor review has already been overtaken by some events. Thank you. I might just pursue a sanction for council test a little bit further because this committee felt strongly enough about it to recommend in our stage 1 report that this should be introduced as an amendment to the court reform bill rather than being left to the rules of court. Press you just a bit further on that. The equality of arms is at the heart of access to justice and we must accept that. You will be aware that there's a lot of disquiet around about this. Do you not think that in those circumstances it would be worthwhile putting this on the face of the bill? No, because if you put it on the face of the bill changing it in the future is just that much harder. We've set up civil justice council to do a job. As I indicated in my earlier remarks it would seem paradoxical to set up a body to do a particular job and then proceed to bypass that body by legislating in a primary way. I think that the agreement that's already been reached between the cabinet secretary and Lord Gill is an appropriate one and this is an appropriate issue for the civil justice council. You recognise in your response to the Taylor review on page 9 that some of the concerns because you say that in the early days of the new exclusive competence limit that the justice council should be encouraged to grant leave to appeal will he might not otherwise do so in order for jurisprudence to be built up. That seems to me that you're suggesting that there will be some issues around about this and that the disquiet that we're hearing perhaps has some basis. The point about Lord Taylor's evidence to you and in fact his review on that sanction for council is rarely refused. There isn't going to suddenly be an abrupt change in that practice and if there was an abrupt change in that practice I'm sure it is something that the civil justice council would want to look at but there's no indication that that is the case. Perhaps the representatives don't ask for sanction of council unless they're pretty sure they're going to get it. Maybe that's why it's such a good hit rate. I just put that forward into it. You're not going to do it and find it's rejected. I think pretty clear that you're going to get it if you're asking for it on precedence. Would that be the case? I'm not sure that there's been any particular research done on that basis. I'm conscious from my own experience in the courts that there might be some sheriffs that you would avoid for certain things if you could possibly manage it. It may be the case that that's what's happening here but that would not be an absolutely normal part of the process and wouldn't change with anything that we did. As long as sheriffs have discretion then you will sometimes get that. It is terribly complicated for ordinary people let alone the committee to understand that the ins and outs of all this weighs expenses are going to... How are ordinary people at the end of the day how is the defender or the pursuer going to know what applies to them? How is that going to be... Whose responsibility will it be to put it in simple language? I would imagine the fundamental responsibility of their legal adviser to be giving them the best advice that they can give them in respect of how to proceed with their case. Is that not really at the end of the day the job for the professional that that individual has engaged? I'm just... It's complicated that people have all these things in front of them and at the moment it's quite difficult to explain to a client how expenses operate. I just think with so many this sort of confection of them here this list that it's going to be even more complicated for people to understand what their ramifications would be but I'm not... That has to be a part and parcel of why you employ a legal adviser. I don't think there's ever been any way around that in a sense that in that sense nothing changes. If you're going to raise a legal action the best course of action for you is to first see a solicitor and it is one and I'm sure everybody here in constituency offices frequently advises people that they need to take legal advice. I can't move away from that. If you've employed a lawyer then it is their job as lawyers to advise you as to the best course of action in the particular circumstances of your case. I'm just making the point that it seems to be getting very complicated perhaps it does come with a good result at the end but it's a very complex list of options. I think that ordinary people understand in broad terms things like no claim, no fee or no fee, no claim, that kind of thing that those general ideas are ones which most people do understand. To expect we have lawyers for a reason we have professional legal advisers for a reason and I don't think there's any way you can get round that. It is complex but the law has always been complex. This is getting very jurisprudential now. Yes. Can I just say a point of clarification actually, it's a recommendation in the Sheriff's Principal Taylor's report to set out in a letter to the client all the different funding obligations and options and their amifications of that. That's where the law society to take forward which they'll probably do in their practice. A letter of engagement I take it, yes. I'll turn to one of our legal people here, Roderick. I will keep off duties of legal professionals I think for the moment. Minister, could I just move on and kind of multi-party actions, group actions if it were being suggested, not by me or Hazentine, I wouldn't be so bold that we might seem to be in Scotland rather dragging our feet on this issue and why is the Government not embracing this a bit more forcefully at the present time? What would you say to that? Well, I've indicated that we are considering that for inclusion in the legislation that we would be likely to bring forward in the lifetime of this Parliament. If you were to argue that we should have brought it in five years ago, the fact of the matter is that we have a broad spectrum of change in terms of the justice portfolio and we have to find the right vehicle for change to take place in terms of legislation. I'm sure the Justice Committee is grateful that we haven't added at this stage another piece of legislation to their workload, but it is something multi-party actions, class actions are something that we are considering for that final piece of legislation. Just a general question, Minister. The Taylor review was published a year ago, and we're only getting a response from the Scottish Government now. Had a response been forthcoming earlier, then some of these recommendations could have been included and implemented as part of the court reform view. Why is it taking so long? Well, it's not quite a year ago since it was September last year, and obviously it's fairly significant and substantial. We've been having considerable discussions about aspects of it and our response does reflect that fact and those discussions are still on-going in respect of how best to move forward. But not all the recommendations fall to the Scottish Government to deliver and that we had to accurately reflect that as well. Some needed clarification and agreement with others. Before you make any kind of formal response you have to have some understanding of how others are impacted by it and we will be continuing to work with partners across the justice system in respect of all of the recommendations. I suppose in the sense that the Taylor review came out of the Gail reforms we focused on ensuring that the Gail reforms were being enacted because Taylor's recommendations were all predicated on that having taken place. So that's really basically how we've been working on this. Can I ask when the decision was taken not to implement the Taylor recommendations in the court reform view? What point did you decide no? We're not going to include any of these? The report wasn't published in time for the pre-legislative process that takes place within Government goes back quite a lot further than obviously than simply drafting the bill and remember that you have to consult on the bill. We didn't have Taylor review published at the point we were doing that work. That would have very significantly changed the court reform bill by a pretty serious magnitude and would have probably seriously delayed the court reform bill as a result. Thank you. I don't know if I'm any further forward with any of this. I don't mean that in a rude way. It's just so complicated so much is still to be discussed and consulted on. However, we've tried and you've tried, Minister. We can't ask for more than that. Thank you very much and we'll move on to next item on the agenda. Thank you very much. Now we move on to the next item on the agenda. Subordinate legislation, two negative instruments. These are the adults within capacity supervision of welfare guardians et cetera by local authorities. Scotland amendment regulations 2014 1 2 3 1 2 3, that's and title condition Scotland act 2003 rural housing bodies amendment order 2014 SSI 2014 1 3 0. The purpose of the first instrument is to allow more flexibility in the frequency of visits by local authorities to adult welfare guardians in response to the circumstances of individual adults. The instrument comes into force on 9 June 2014 the delegate powers and law reform committee considered this instrument at this meeting on 27 May 2014 agreed to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention as the meaning of the text inserted by regulation 5 could be clearer. The Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward its Groundhog Day and amending instrument to correct the error to members of any comments relation to this instrument other than here we go again. That's it, no comments. Members can take to make no recommendation relation to this instrument. Thank you. The purpose of the second instrument is to amend the title condition Scotland act 2003 rural housing bodies order 2004 by adding a body the UL is UL UL community trust CIC as a prescribed rural housing body the DPLR committee considered this instrument at this meeting on 27 May 2014 agreed that it didn't need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument seems to me to be a technical matter. Members are many comments. Members can take to make no recommendation. Now, I'm going to go on to public petitions but because I think there's people travelling to the Justice McRae petition I hear they're not here to vote 11 I'll take them in a different order and in fairness to them if we've reached that before they come I'll just have a little break if that's all right with the committee. Thank you for taking the effort to travel. For public petitions and you've got paper 5 which provides you with an update so I'll take the first one as PE1449 and preserving independent of the Scottish Administrative Justice Council if you've got that one. The convener of Accountability Scotland has advised the clerks that he has concerns about representation of the end user on the Scottish Administrative Justice Council advisory committee. He wishes to make a submission of the committee detailing these concerns. Can I ask do you wish to write to the convener of Accountability Scotland asking for a formal submission with a specific deadline say Friday, 1st of August or something like that or do you wish to write to the chair of the Scottish Administrative Justice Council advisory committee to ask about the extent to which the end user is represented in its deliberations before we do anything else? Both. You're happy? Is there life out there? Yes, there's life out there. PE1479 on the legal profession and the legal aid time bar, this urges the Government to amend the legal profession and legal aid Scotland Act 2007 to remove any references to complaints being made timuously. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has recently advised the clerk that it is proposing an extension to the time bar policy and will shortly consult stakeholders on this proposal. In the light of that, do you wish to just advise the petitioner of the SLCC's decision and of the forthcoming consultation? Of course that person could also respond to it. Do members also wish to write the SLCC to encourage it to consult so that they are made aware as well the petitioner on his proposal to extend the time bar so that it's interactive? Do you agree with both? Yes. Obviously, I keep it open. Thank you very much. PE1504 on civil appeals. Paper 5 provides a fairly detailed narrative on this petition. The committee previously agreed to consider this as part but you'll maybe remember this as consideration of our quotes reformable. We wrote to the petitioner to ask what the point of general public importance was in her case. And to ascertain the precise reasoning she was given by solicitors for not representing her. Yes. I think it's never been clear to me what that is. She obviously raises concerns about the procedural issues which I understand and which we hope to address with the bill. It becomes law but the general public importance has never been clear to me. So I think it's never been clear to me what the general public importance is and what the general public importance is but it's never been clear to me. So I think we need to ask her again. Right. Okay. Thank you. I'll just suspend then and we have a little break. I beg your pardon. Sorry. Can I go back to PE1479? You did say that there may be an opportunity to interact with the consultation but it says the consultation closed on 21 March. Different consultation. This is a new consultation. We have many consultations.  Okay. That seems fair. What's the time? 11. Till 11. We get a 12 minute break. You're not complaining. Begin. Turning now to petition 1370 on justice for Migrahe and I declare an interest as being member for the justice for Migrahe campaign. Members have received a letter from Police Scotland closing minutes of a meeting with members of justice for Migrahe. The minutes advised, a full investigation of JFM's allegations is now resuming and Police Scotland JFM will hold future liaison meetings. For the papers being issued last week members received a submission from justice for Migrahe which has been tabled. That submission makes clear that JFM believes that constructive progress is now being made between itself and Police Scotland and also we got complimented so I think that's rather nice to the committee. That's nice to make on the police response in the JFM's submission. John. There's very useful information from both parties here. As you alluded to, I think JFM talking about the constructive progress and I think the word progress is significant because quite clearly they aren't there yet. I think the fact that there is confidence in the Police personnel presently engaged in our deliberations and that these liaison committees are continuing is very good. It goes without saying but I'm going to say it anyway. It's a major crime investigation that's being talked about here and therefore it was important that a significant complaint having been made that there were and I quote again from the JFM submission, clear lines of communication having been established. The concern that's expressed by the JFM is the one that we would all understand and that is that all criminal enquiries in Scotland take place at the behest of the Lord Advocate, an important role for the Crown Office there and I think it's important also that we note the three different strands that's been alluded to, their call for a public inquiry, the significant criminal allegations and the anticipated submission from relatives and as the paper says that these three issues are all inextricably linked and I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I note the comment that's been said about the role that the Justice Committee has been played in progressing that and I think I would say that it's the Justice Committee articulating wide-held public interest may concern about the issues that has perhaps helped focus some minds and moved the issue on from the impasse that we saw previously. I think the on-going concerns GFM have do relate to some of the intemperate comments that were in the press last year and I think process-wise wholly inappropriate. I was surprised knowing that I agree with the view that there should be some political oversight into this, this is work in progress, this is not work that's concluded and I don't think the public would be in any way phased but by us maintaining a watching brief in this issue quite the reverse where we to say we're no longer interested, I think that would be give entirely the wrong signal. So I hope that committee members will agree with me that there's a lot of merit in us maintaining a watching brief on this very, very important public issue and keeping the petition open. Anybody else? Roddie, I'm sorry Elaine. I'll take Roddie then. I agree with what John said I think we should keep it open but I'd also be grateful for clarification as to the position in terms of an application to the Scottish Criminal Courts Review Commission. Elaine. It's good to see exactly the same as what Roddie said actually. Well it's not, it's actually, yes sorry Sandra. Thank you chair, I just want to make some clarification having read through it and thank the petitioners for the letter and the submission that you're putting in it. The Justice Committee have done a great job everyone who's been involved before even I was on the Justice Committee. What I want clarification on is the fact that it's going to the Crown Office they looked at it by the Crown Office and there's a paragraph here which GFM contingent to have little faith in any decision the Crown Office might make in respect of its allegations and I'm just wondering where that leaves the committee then obviously the request that the petition goes to an investigation. So where does that leave the committee? Well the petition is for an independent public inquiry and I think that depending what comes out of the police investigation into quasi or alleged quasi criminal or criminal actions during the course of this whole matter then one might have to then say that a public inquiry now is necessary. We don't know that's why I think that to keep it open as for the criminal cases review commission it's got nothing to do with the justice from McRahey that's to do with parties who may have an interest in lodging an application to SCCRC for a further review of the whole matter. So I think that that's although it's contingent it's important but it's not part of this petition. So basically what I was saying is we looked at by the police they've had meetings and they say it's very open etc and then it moves on from there it ultimately goes to the Crown Office and if the deliberations by the Crown Office are deemed to be unsatisfactory by the petitioners then we have a watching brief and this committee has deliberation on that, is that correct? I just want you to know how the process goes. Well we could but I think the problem is that the Crown Office might be implicated past Crown Office might be implicated and I think that's the issue that would be a problem if your police refer to a party that might be somehow implicated depending on what comes out of all this and I think that's where one might have to stop and say this is a big, big issue this may be the very thing that requires a whole public inquiry into the actions, I'm just summarising, I'm not saying this case of the Crown Office and the police John. Through yourself convener, if Sandra's concern is that by keeping it open she's giving some personal endorsement to the views expressed then that's not how I would see it. No, no, I don't think so. I actually signed a petition myself on my way back as well. It's processed. Yes indeed and I think we have to assume that given the re-engagement that things will progress in good faith and what will be will be and what will deal but I think that's an important role for us. May I say to Ken, do you agree to keep it open at the moment see what comes out of all of this and return to it with other petitions as we've done with other petitions in the past when the matter is not concluded. You agreed. Thank you very much so we're keeping the petition open and keep on watching. Thank you very much for now moving into private session.


And I was literally, after that, I was sick to my stomach. Welcome back to my channel. For today's video, we are going to be doing a story time just because y'all have been dying to hear about Nurse Bae. And I mentioned him before in my day in the life as a phlebotomist. If you have not watched that video, if you're new here, go check it out right here. I mentioned him before and I mentioned him a few times in a couple of my videos. And I was going to tell y'all some updates on him because y'all were very, very interested when I first mentioned him. It's just, it's just crazy.  I did not see this coming, so it was definitely like a, what do they call it in the movies? A plot twist there. It was definitely a plot twist to the story. Before you keep on watching, don't forget to like and subscribe to my channel. Cause girl, like what are you doing? Like you're here for a reason and one reason only. So make sure you click subscribe so you're always tuned in to my videos. Okay, and that's it. Period. Okay, y'all, before we get started, I do have to talk about my hair. I love this hair. It's so bomb. Like I haven't had curly hair in so long, y'all. This has given me very vacation, mommy. Mommy, I'm not, y'all know I'm half Mexican. So this kind of hair really gives me life and it brings out my features.  So what, what you gotta say? And this wig is from Abby here. All the details will be in the description box below. So this is me having it in for two, well, I had it in for a couple of days now. But this is me not wetting it or nothing, putting on mousse or gel on it for two days now. And it looks very, very good. I forgot what inches is, but I told them to give me the longest one cause I love long curly hair. And this is a transparent lace, I think. I don't know if it ain't, it look like it. It looks like it's in my hair. So, but I am about to do my baby hairs over because they need to be brought back to life. And what I really like about this wig, it is not getting at it in the back. Like I do not like curly hair like that. But yeah, y'all can clearly see it is not getting at it in the back. And we love that. Okay. It's about time to be glue on it. Fresh bottle. But yeah, y'all, like I said, I think this is a medium brown lace. This is a good lace. This is a good lace. So you can definitely be late as if it was a transparent. Cause today's beach, I gotta do my own. Now I'm going to be taking this. I don't even know what this is called, girl. I like doing it, but these because I need to get a box because I be getting makeup on my scarf and I don't be watching them.  My makeup, I want my hair to be weighed down at the end of the day. Like I do not like dry looking hair. I like my hair to look wet. I haven't had curly hair in so long, so I've been enjoying it. Like this hair, no makeup, just lashes, bitch, it's a vibe. Look at them, look at them.  We're going to the motherfucking ocean, okay. So now I'm just going to be taking some more God to be glue and I'm just going to put like this much on my hand and then just rub it through it just so I can weigh this hair down. Look how easy I'm running my hands through this. I love this hair. This is the best way ever. And I love like, oh my God, this wig is so pretty. That is it for right now. So yeah, make sure you check the description box below. This is Abby hair. This hair is so beautiful. You need to get one. And you need to get one for the house. Like you need to get one for the house. This is literally that wake up April is here. No makeup here. So okay, y'all. So let's get into it. So basically, so I started working at my job, my part-time job. When did I start? I started in June.  I'm going to tell y'all like how he came about then our engagement and then, you know, everything up until recent. Okay, so we had assigned units for our draws or whatever. Kids know I work part-time at a hospital and I'm a lot of these are draw blood. So I go on floors all the time, different floors every day.  I happened to see him.  Like, who is this? Like, I'm just like... Do a nice new face. Do a nice new face. Do a nice new face. Do a nice new face. Like, what? So, because you just don't normally see black nurses.  Like chocolate, beer, ooh, baby. Like, y'all should have seen me. I was just like, I was star shook. Like, I don't even know if he's star shook. Like, what is it? What's the word for it? I don't know. But I was in shock. So I'm like, who is this?  So I see him, but I didn't have one of his patients. So, but we've seen each other, but I didn't have one of his patients. So, so I was in a room and I think he seen me go in the room because this was not his patient.  His black man, give me a hard time. And then the nurse was in there already, like trying to like calm him down and stuff like that. So he comes in there like, you giving her a hard time. And I'm like, yes, he is sweet.  But no, like he came in the room. It was like, you giving her a hard time, like trying to calm the patient down for me.  And this is my first time seeing him, y'all. First time seeing him. So I'm like, who is this?  Then, you know, I didn't really say too much. We was just like talking about the patient or whatever. So it wasn't really that many words exchanged at that point because I mean, we can't really say too much. Because I mean, this is my first time seeing him. I don't even know him.  And I'm always remembering his face.  And probably, you know, his schedule did not mesh with mine of me going on that floor. So I never seen him. Then one day I went up there again and I see him again. And he is so nice. Like he will help you get a blood draw. Like he'll be like, oh, do you need anything? Like, do you need me to help you with anything? Or if he needed a blood draw, he would pull out.  Like he'll go in the room with you and no nurses do that.  He's just nice. But all the other lab girls said that they were nice him because I was always like, did y'all see that black nurse on this floor? And they're like, no. And then every time I say, like, mention it to them, they'll be like, oh my God, Cara, I did see him. He's nice or whatever him. I was in a room with him, with a patient. We were waiting because a heiferan draw, you have to wait.  But you have to wait to, um, IV to beat before you can draw. Um, we were waiting for the IV to stop and he started singing. He like... In my head, I'm like, what? Like, he had a note. Like, this nigga had a note.  And he was... I feel like he was just trying to show off or show me something real quick. So then after that, a couple more months went by and, you know, we just casually talking. Like every time I seen him, it would just be like, he's just being extra nice. I feel like he didn't want to push upon me right away because, you know, you got to feel it out. You got to feel the vibe. You can't be pushing on nobody, you know, that you work with. You know, it's just work. So it's like weird to get at somebody. And mind y'all, I never... I never had any interest in anybody that I ever worked with. Like, so this is all, like, new to me. Like, I don't know how to handle that as far as like, who's gonna make the first move or something like that. But I was definitely... I mean, I'm not gonna say I was interested right away because I'm not... And I'm not the person that I'm gonna let you know that I'm interested. But like, I'm not the type to show you right away that I want you. But I am going to allow you to show me that you want me that you're interested in me, if that makes sense. So I'm gonna let you do what I do.  I'm not one of those people that put their self out there. I'm just not. I'm shy. Yeah. And I'd like to play her to get it, I know. I like to be shy. Okay, sorry. So fast forward to like... Well, just fast forward to like, recently. We never like, you know, took it that deep into conversations until... Up until February. So this was like a week after my birthday. So me and my co-worker went to that floor that day. And she was like, oh my God, I got a real man here.  And then I'd be like acting casual.  I was just acting casual. So like normal, he'll be like, do y'all need anything? Woo, woo. So he said it to her first. But I just walked right in the room that I was going into. And he came and proceeded to go in the room with me. And I needed somebody to hold an arm for me for a patient. Because sometimes these patients be moving, y'all. Like, we need extra help.  He insisted that he wanted to help me. And I'm like, no, like, you know, I was playing it cool. Like, I'm like, no, that's okay. I'm gonna have my co-worker help me. And then he was like, no, no, I got you, I got you. And I was like, no, no, no, it's fine. And then he was like, for real. Like, I got you, I can hold. Like, he was like, you don't think I can hold? I was like, okay, fine, come on. That's besides the point.  So I'm like, you know what? I'm gonna just have my homegirl help me hold or whatever. And he was like, I can do it again. I'm sorry. Like, I got you for real. And I was like, no, that's okay. I'm gonna just have my friend do it. So I went to go do another draw and I came back to redraw that patient and I was waiting for my co-worker to come. So anyway, so I went back in the room and I was waiting for my co-worker to get done with her draw so she could help me hold. So then he came back in the room. My dude, like, the room is clear. Like, it's just me in there. So he came back in and was like, come on, let's do it.  Okay, y'all. So where I left off, he's like holding the arm next to me. So he's like next to me right here. Like, you know, we like chestin' back at this point. Like, he's all up in my mix, you know? Cause he had called me sis. He was like some, some sis. And I was like, what? Don't ever call me sis. Like, I'm not your sis. Like, what? Like what? Like, and I feel like he said that just to like see what I would say. Like, cause you know, if I was interested in a dude or something like that, not saying I would say this, but I would be like bro. And they would be like bro. So that's what you want me to be. You want me to be your bro. Like just to see like where my head is that, you know, like, if I'm feeling him or not. Cause if I wasn't, I would have been like, yeah bro, like I wouldn't, I wouldn't have said anything. But obviously, you know, I was interested. Like, I'm like, is this my man or what? So I was like, don't call me sis. And he was like, oh, so you're trying to be my lady friend. And I was just like, my job, he next to me. And so I was like, I can be, I was just like, I can be like, what's up? And then I was like, how old are you? Like, I was curious. And he told me his age. And then I told him my age. And then I was like, yeah, my birthday just passed on the 24th. And he was like, oh, my birthday is March. March. What do you say? March, the first week of March, it was sometime first week of March. But y'all know the first week of March is Pisces season still. So I'm just like, oh my God, like I can not get a break. Like, Lord, really? Why do you keep bringing all these Pisces men in my life? So I just did like a, like a big sigh. And he was like, what's that for? No, don't be doing that. And I was like, I haven't had the best experiences with Pisces men. He was like, I don't do that. Like, I have to change my way to let y'all know. Like he wasn't something like that. But anyway, he was like, I don't go by those like horoscopes and stuff. And I was just like, I just haven't had the best experiences with Pisces. But okay, I'll take a chance on you like in my head. I was like, okay, I'll take a chance. Oh, like we get engaged in conversation. I told him I don't want to be his sis. I want to be his lady friend. What's up? Like we good. The next time I'm seeing him, I think I'm going to get his number. I think he's going to give me my number in my head. I'm like, he's going to give me that number. So after that, I didn't see him for like two days, but I knew his birthday was coming up.  Like I want to go see his floor and tell him, but I'm like, I'm not no stalker.  Like I don't do, like I don't chase niggas. I just don't. I just don't chase niggas. I like niggas for niggas to chase me. You know what I'm saying? So literally crazy all day. I'm like, I wish I could see him, but I'm not going there. So literally I never see him on the floor. I never see him like nowhere in the hallway. And the hallway is just in his floor, his little area. He be working in. So me and my coworker were leaving. Walkin, walkin, walkin, walkin, walkin, walkin. You know, going, going home, going to the lab to go home. So it's crazy. I literally see down the motherfucking hallway. It's mommy. It's nurse bag coming this way towards us. And we going that way. So I'm like, oh my God, like I wanted to see him all day. It's crazy. God showing up. Okay. So I was like, happy birthday. I was like, happy birthday. And then he was like, like, he was like, he tapped me on my, my shoulders like, like, cause he was on the phone. So I was like, happy birthday. He was like, how you know? And I was like, you told me, duh. So I'm like, he don't even pay attention to me. So he must be telling everybody his birthday. But anyway, so I told him. At least I told him so he continued to walk.  Then come upstairs. He waiting right there. My man is waiting on me, sweetie. Like, I'm like, oh my God. And y'all, I'll be looking a mess in the morning. So sometimes I don't be wanting to get that close to him because I'll be looking a mess, but he don't care.  So he was like, so he walked up to me all cute with his little blueberry muffin he got from the cafeteria cause y'all know me working early. So that must have been his breakfast or whatever. But he came up to me all cute. Like, where my birthday give that?   I'm like, where's my head? Where's mine? My birthday was first. And then he was like, he was like, you know what? I'm gonna see what I can do. Popping out more. I was like, oh, say less. And I was like, oh, yes. Okay. Period. So, so that happened. So he went on his way. Okay. So I did have to change my lighting and stuff like that just because I was using natural light and the sun went down. So I had to bring out my lights. So hopefully this looks decent. Okay. Back to where I left off. So I ended up seeing him again like two weeks later. Me and my home girls were waiting by the elevators where you exit. Cause it wasn't time for us to go yet necessarily, but we were done with our work. So it was just chilling on the floor. And then lo and behold, we just chilling. And here he come. And he was like, are y'all working or hardly working? And I was like, baby, we working. What's she was talking about? Like we working. And he comes up to us, start making conversation. Like, yeah. So we got to celebrate our birthday. So he was like, so take my number down. Old school. He wrote on the paper.    But I'm not going to use it right away.  But I got the number. Okay. You got to leave a nigga waiting.  And he's no different that I'm going to treat him like that. So I waited two weeks to use this number, two weeks. And then obviously we're now in quarantine. So I was bored and I saved the number and everything. So I was like, I'm going to text him and see what he was saying to me. Like I'm bored. I want to see it's been two weeks. Good enough. You know, I started typing it in, like in my phone. Y'all know if you have an iPhone, if somebody's number is an Android, it'll come up green. This is all I said. I'm going to put on the screen. I'm going to be, I was like, so you have an Android. That's literally all I said just to like be funny, you know. And he did not text me back.    Like, and she probably was like, and then he was probably like, I don't know. Somebody play with my phone. Yeah. A couple days went past and then I had to go back to work. And I had asked my friend. I told my friend. I was like, yeah, I texted him and he didn't even text me back. Like what the fuck? So then she was like, maybe, you know, like he didn't get on service or something like that. Cause she has, I think she, no, she don't go to enjoy it. But she has an iPhone. She was like, maybe he didn't get on service or something. And I'm like, nah, like, like that would just wasn't enough for me. So I'm like, text his phone to see if it's his number. And my job, all she said was, hey, or something like that. And then he texts back right away. Like, who is this?  So she was like, yeah, that's his number. And I was like, never mind. Just say wrong number or something. So I'm like, that's his number though. So, but I'm not going to double text. I don't double text if you're not my man.  No, none of that. I'm going to just wait to see you in person. I was just like, I'm going to just wait to see him in person to let him know.  Two days later, I ended up seeing him, but it was a bad encounter because girl, I was getting in trouble at work. And me and my homegirl was walking with my team lead. I don't care.  So some of the stuff that they've been wanting us to do, I don't approve of. So anyway, so my team leader, whatever she found us, whatever we walking downstairs to go home. So then I hear his voice behind me. Like, is y'all working hard or hardly working? And it's in the same hallway we encountered when I told him happy birthday. So I heard his voice, but I didn't turn around yet. Like, I want to make sure he was talking to me. So I just, you know, proceeded my way. And then he repeated himself. He was like, is y'all working or hardly working?    So I was like, I'm not even going to say nothing. I'm going to just wait to see him again. And then I'm going to say something.  I had to work a couple of days ago. And so this was up until recently. So I was getting on my car and I was like, oh, I hope I see him today. But I don't know because I don't know like his work schedule or nothing.  So I'm like, oh, I hope I see him today. So I can tell him so I can tell my baby like I'm thinking about him.  Like what the fuck? I want to know what's tea. Why are you going to text me back? So that day I was like, oh, I hope I see him. Laura, please show off for me. The draw is crazy because I end up having the floor he works on. So I'm like, okay, like I got to make sure like I'm looking cute. And I had just got my hair done. So I was, you know, prepared to see him to run it to him. I was like, you know what? I'm going to do his floor last because I don't want to get my hopes up that he not here today. And I don't want to have a bad day. I don't want to be upset. So I'm like, let me do these other draws first. And then I'm going to go to his floor and see if he's here. So they call me ASAP because I guess I had to add on draw to go to that floor, to his area that I was saving for last, but they end up calling me to go do a stat draw or something like that. So I'm like, okay, now I'm going to see if he here or not. But there's two areas to his area. One is like one area where one set of nurses sit and then the other area where another set of nurses sit. And then like one area is where the high numbers, room numbers are at. And then the other set is where the low number rooms. So I was in the high number and I didn't see him. So I'm like, oh, he probably not here today. Because I wanted to know like why he didn't text me. Like normal people would just be like, who is this or something in that nature. And went to do the other draws and then I came back. So I ended up walking in the other way. And I was like, uh, I don't see him. He's not here boohoo.  And I was like, whatever. So I go in the room where I'm supposed to go. I come out because I forgot something. And then I come outside to my car.  Like, I don't know how to describe it. But what's that instrument when it's like, when they play on movies like, uh, but I walked outside to my car and he was right there waiting on me. He was waiting on a little old me.   I was like, oh my baby here. I can finally tell him.   I was like, so you've been quarantined. And then he was like, yeah, but you know, I was supposed to be come see you because I'll be out in ways, you know, cause he does stuff outside of nursing. So he does other stuff where the area that I live in. So he was like, I was supposed to be in come see you.   You happened cause you didn't text me back. I didn't say that, but I was supposed to have been come see you like, what's up? So he's basically referring to why I didn't use his number yet. So I'm like, oh, um, so you have an Android.  And I was like, yeah, that was me. I was like, why you didn't text back? He was like, oh, I need to know what's playing on my phone.  And then he was probably like, I don't know. Somebody playing on my phone. Y'all know how they speak. And I was like, oh, normal people just say, what's this? He was like, yeah. Um, he said, okay, I'm going to text it back. And I was like, okay. And then they called me to do another draw. And he was right there when they told me to go. So I was like, okay, well, if you have a good day and I'll see you like come find me when you leave, before you leave or something like that. He was like, okay, I will go to my floor. And he heard what floor I was on. So he came to look for me. I can see him like coming my way. So he's coming up to me walking up. And then he was like, so what you doing after work today? I was like, oh, nothing. What's up? And he was like, you should come over. And I was like, I should come over. It's, um, 7am. And what you like, what we've been doing Netflix and morning chill. I was like, you saw you trying to Netflix and morning chill or something. He was like, yeah, we can like order breakfast, you know, and okay.  So now I wanted to see where this was going to go. I wanted to see like what his intention was. I wanted to have like a good conversation with him. Obviously I didn't have a chance to because he didn't text me back. So we, you know, really didn't exchange words like that. Like a good serious conversation.   So I'm going to just go. I was like, okay. And then I was like, but I need to take a shower. Like, like I don't have no clothes. Like, I don't. And he was like, oh, don't worry. I got you. He was like, don't worry. I'm going to get you some stuff.  And I was like, okay, cool. So where do you live? And he was like, oh, I live on a lake.  He got big money. So I'm like, okay, well, I'll see you after. Just text me. He was like, okay, I'm gonna see you. I'm gonna text you at this point. I'm just like in the days. Like, I'm like, he invited me over. I just don't want him to push up on me though. He doesn't portray himself as that. So I was like, okay, I'm gonna just go. That's part of the reason why I said I would go to his house so quickly because like he's a gentleman. Nice. I don't think he would be like crazy psycho. Like he seems like whatever. So and I was like, he wouldn't do something crazy because we worked together.  Then he started texting me. So like during work still, because we're still at work. And I put it on the screen. He was like, I can't wait to see you later. I'm looking forward to it. And I was like, oh, likewise. Oh, he was like, I can rub you down in baby oil and put you to sleep.  Like I hope he do not try.  But I was just like, okay, if that's what you want to do, like this to see.   So I'm like, oh, he got big money.  And I'm like, whoa, thank you. Jesus. He got a nice house. Nice job. Ooh, I didn't call baby. Like I didn't call. Okay. And he a gentleman. He fine. Like, but you know, it's always a fucking, it's always something.  Whatever.  Like I'm just trying to see like a little something different because I never had a working counter before. So this is all new to me. So I'm driving up to his house and we getting a little closer to the address. And I'm looking around the house is starting a little smaller, a little smaller, smaller, a little dirtier. Well, not dirtier, but a little trapier looking. And so I pull up to the house. Yeah.   So it was just like mind blowing to me. It was like, whatever. But I wasn't judging, you know, I wasn't judging because you know, sometimes the houses are renovated on the inside. So you never know. Oh, and it's right on the lake. It's right there on the lake. This is like a little lake house type of vibe.   I'm like, what? Like, you don't live in the whole house. Like, but you know, I wasn't still at this point.  Like what? Like you live like this. Like I didn't think he would live like this.  I'm going to be comfortable because I can't be chilling somewhere. I'm not comfortable. And it's like, I just, I just can't, like I can't.   Treehouse, treehouse vibes. That's very much it was getting me.  I was speechless.   Shit is everywhere. And he's like, oh, I just came back from a trip. Don't mind the mess. But what did shock me is he did have bakarai on his little kitchen counter. I was like, oh my God, you wear a bakarai? Maybe this is where I'm supposed to be. Okay. And then I was like, okay, I'm about to get in the shower. So the bathroom was cute. Like I'm not even gonna let the bathroom is cute. It was renovated. So I was comfortable taking a shower. So he got me clothes. He got me pajamas.  So I did not wear those. Oh, then I got up the shower. So he smokes weed and I don't judge. So we went outside in the back where the lake was looking towards the lake was pretty. It was a vibe. So he could smoke and we just started talking.   I know a few things, but I don't know every detail. So and I am very, I'll question them perfectly. Like I want to know like I'm very, very curious person.  So I'm like, so why don't you have a girlfriend? Like that'd be my first question for me. Cause like why don't you have a girlfriend?    So we talking and something really stood out to me. So he was telling me like I don't got a girl. I'll be focused on money. That's why I'm out here. It's easier to get money on what I do. He's not from Wisconsin. He's from somewhere else. And he's been around traveling, going to school and came here to get more money. Cause it's easier to get money, I guess. So I'm like, but you don't have a girlfriend. Like none of y'all friends come visit you. He's like, I'm wearing a solo dollar. Like he don't got no social media.  So I was like, okay, whatever. I wasn't thinking nothing of it cause you know, like I don't want to go to social media anyway. So, but I thought it was kind of weird because you don't aren't from here. So how are you keeping contact with people?  So I thought that was weird cause he's a nurse and he's super friendly, super nice.  So bitch, I must have looked in the light. I must have been looking at him in the dark cause on his floor it is dim. Bitch, when this motherfucker could smile at me, I was like, no way.   And I'm a sucker for a nigga with a good smile. But you know, I'm still not judging. I'm still going with the flow. You know, we vibing. So he gets done smoking. We go back and out. He was just trying to be like cute and like he was like, I should have gotten a shower first cause I'm going to come sit down with you like right now.  But I'm just checking out the scene.  So he came and sat down by me and he was on the little Netflix.  We going through the Netflix and y'all know like the login is right there.  He tried so hard to scroll past y'all know like in Netflix, it'll be like continue watching for blue blue blue. But I already saw the girl name for the login. So he's trying to scroll. So at this point I'm going to question him because you trying to make it obvious that you don't want me to see his name. So I'm like, who is the girl name that was on there? And he was like, oh, first of all, when I said that this is what he sound like. That you had, you could do what you want. You could do so you want.   So a tenant is going to leave their Netflix and their TV right here for you to use.  But okay, I'm just like, okay, I'm not going to argue with him. He's not my man.  So we get to watching a movie and I keep questioning him. I'm like, so like he had tattoos. So I'm like, well, let me see all your tattoos. And that's when he told me I had a baby, which is fine. And then like, I'm like, so when do you see her? And I'm very observing like when I'm talking to somebody, I'm really like, you know, observing like of their actions, their movements and stuff. So it looks like he was getting very, very agitated by me questioning him.    And what stood out to me as well. This motherfucker did not ask me no questions. Like he wasn't asking me nothing that I like, he did, but it wasn't like how I was doing him. Cause I'm a motherfucker that will question him up at the odd day. And he wasn't like, it didn't seem like he was interested. Like it wasn't like he was holding a conversation.  I like somebody I can talk to and he was not doing that. I was holding the conversation. I was asking him everything cause I wanted to know like, what is you doing out here? Like, you don't have no social media. A few minutes go by.  Like come in, making me come closer, which is fine.  So, you know, we cuddling.  And you know, that's expected.  Then he rubbed my feet with baby oil. And mind you, he said baby oil in the text. But in my head, I'm like, hmm, what nigga has baby oil on deck? Like what nigga has baby oil on deck? So I'm just thinking all these thoughts in my head, he gets a little bit more feeling, feeling touchy. Goes under my shirt. I'm like, no. Like, and I'm like, what are your intentions? Like, I'm like, what are you doing? Cause, no. This is, I hit him with the Like, what are you doing? And he's like, I just want to hold you light. And I'm like, okay. So then a couple more minutes go by.   But I'm like, no, we not doing this.  So a couple more minutes go past. Like he's still feeling touchy, whatever, cause we just chilling. So then he asked me, how long do I got you? And I was like all till 12 because I'm not going to lay with you. Like you're not my man. I'm not going to lay up here and I'm uncomfortable in this area now. So the movie ends and he wants to go in the bedroom. And I'm like, okay, I'm going to at this, it's only 10 a.m.   Y'all know how the addict has that roof over like this. I don't know. Y'all like the roof is just touching. Like it's damn near no high ceiling.     And I was just like, mm-mm.  Like this literally looked like a trap house here. And I did not, I did not feel like he was like this. Like still not, I'm still not judging. I mean, I'm kind of judging, but I'm... So then we get in the bed. He's shedding his shades or whatever. The law and behold, I get in the bed first.   I'm like, what? Like at this point, I'm like, I can't believe this is happening because I didn't think he was like this. I didn't think he would try it. So our first encounter, like what? Like our first encounter, really you really think I'm that easy? Like 2 plus 2 equal 4? No. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is not what we're gonna do. You're not getting nothing from me, but I'm gonna lay here until I told you what time.    He's feeling on me, kissing on my back. And I'm like, no, stop. Like, no, this is not what we're gonna do. Like, why do you think that you deserve it? Like you don't deserve it.  He like, I've been wanting you since day one since I've seen you. And we should just make it official. Now you don't have to drive so far.  So I'm like, no. Like, I'm still saying no. Like, no. Like, he's trying to, then he's like, oh, let me just, let me just feel it. And I'm like, no, but I was getting a little, you know, it was getting a little, you know, super soak up. So he was like, ooh, let me just take it in. No, like, you're raw.  You don't even know me.    No. Drunk. In a moment. No.   Like, no.  You didn't even court me. You didn't even show me no access service.  I don't even know you like that.  Because who got baby oil on day?  It don't, it don't seem real. Then you're going to try to go down here and like eat it, you know.    See? I was like, no. Move. Like, I'm leaving. And he was like, you was not going to leave right now. I would say yes I am. Um, I left.    Quick. Like, you was not going to disrespect me.      Or all these bitches in the scene. I'm not the one.   So I went home and I told my mama she was like, see? Everything that glitters does not go. And he was somebody that I thought was not like that. Like, he was, I thought he was like a good boy. Cause I usually go for the bad dudes. And I thought he was like somebody that was good, pure, wanted to really get to know me. But sis, this nigga. So the next day he texted me, this way he texted me. He was like, hey, I'm sorry for the way I acted today. Wrong and ungodly of me. I hope we can still be friends sis. Here we go.  And I said, first of all, I'm not your sis.  I feel like you're fraud.  That wasn't your house. But anyways, it's cool, no pressure.   But anyway, he was like, that's funny. I only live here like I said I wanted you from day one, just got out of here yesterday. Please forgive me. I'm like, I'm not holding anything against you, baby.  And then he's gonna say perfect. Okay. And I haven't talked to him. This did happen recently and I haven't talked to him since. And I just like, and I was literally after that I was sick to my stomach because I was thinking like he was so good and pure and fine.  And you didn't even try to know my mother's favorite color.  I mean he asked me what I do, but you didn't ask me what I do for fun, what I like to do.       I understand the circumstance, the situation we in right now, we can't go nowhere. But I mean, but I don't care.      Sorry. But more of the story is, everything that glitters ain't gold.  And I was like, look, I thought this was gonna be different. But apparently not. Okay. But yeah, girl. I thought nurse babe was it. I really did. But no. Yeah. So let me know in the comment section if you ever had like an encounter, a work encounter, a work relationship with somebody that y'all was pursuing, did it work out?  Like what do these niggas think we are? Like we are queens. This is our temple. And I'm not giving it up that easy cause I know I got that good. Okay. And no hockey shade. But it's true. It's true. It's true. But yeah, this here is bomb. So make sure you check out the description box below. This is Abby here. But yeah, y'all. I'm still waiting on my, my nigga, my man to come. I don't know who it may be.  Like I'm ready. I'm ready. But obviously we can. No type of social contact with anybody. So it's going to be a little bit more difficult, but it's okay. It's okay. I hope it's worth the wait, you know? So yeah. I hope y'all enjoyed this story time. Don't forget to like, comment, subscribe. My camera is blinking girl. And we want strong.


When you look at the Gallup poll that came out in late October about Americans' opinions about making marijuana legal and you see that support has almost doubled since 1983 to 44% and that it's jumped dramatically in just the last four years, so we really do have the wind in our back. Although public support for drug prohibition is fading, most people have no idea what a post-prohibition regime could look like. November 12th to 14th, 2009 at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in New Mexico, we asked leading drug policy reformers to explain their views on future legal regulation models regarding illicit drugs. In the United States, the term legalization is one that some people understand in terms of tax and regulate, but a lot of people think the term is associated with anarchy. The free market system we know is designed to maximize consumption. If we look at Nike, Coca-Cola, Blue Jeans, if you look at any large multinational corporation, they're all in the same business, which is increasing consumption, regulate and control currently illegal drugs. That's the way that I talk about it. It's about regulation and control. Legalization to me means regulated legalization, taxation. We want more control, not less. All drugs need different models. Different drugs vary on a degree of harm, a degree of addictiveness, a degree of compulsivity, a degree of physical damage. More harmful drugs would probably need more regulatory options, and the less harmful drugs would need fewer regulatory options. Transpon produced a paper, which is a blueprint for legalization. Can you just introduce us to this document? It's basically the first time ever that we've outlined that anyone really has outlined precisely and in detail how people would get hold of drugs in a post-prohibition world. And that means applying normal regulatory frameworks to a situation that is currently completely out of control. We basically have three choices in the post-prohibition world. We prescribe them by doctors, we dispense them from pharmacies, or we sell them under license. Cannabis, it's going to be sold under license in the same way that you would for any other drug. So it's not going to be next to your Hershey bar. This is a consumer rights issue. Currently in Holland, you buy a packet, which you have a vague idea of how much THC is in there. But we would like to see a government stamp on it. We would like to know that a government regulator has overseen that process. We would like to see a health and safety warning on it. We would want to see an ingredients list saying how it's grown and the kind of products that went into the growing process. And part of the licensing conditions would be giving advice to people who use it, particularly for people who are misusing, if they're using too much or using inappropriately, or for people with mental health problems, people with vulnerabilities. We have to learn from the lessons of alcohol and tobacco. I have, when I'm doing my PowerPoint presentations, images that have been traditionally associated with alcohol and tobacco. And they're called sexy bodies, they're called muscular bodies, they're sex, they're glamorous, they're fabulous. The model of alcohol and tobacco has been the model of commercialism. The first issue is branding. If you allow a product to be branded, it will be advertised. Even if you have advertising as illegal, if you allow branding to occur, advertising will occur. In fact, if you look at the various ways that it can be made available, it can be made available in a cylindrical, inconvenient medicine container with a snap top.  Probably not at first. So it would be for home use, informed adults in unattractive packaging in non-branded forms. Do you have any ideas how to regulate the production of cannabis? Okay, so this isn't new in terms of regulating production and supply. All the frameworks are in place. There are controls over the production of tobacco. There are controls over the refining of tobacco. They're not as good as they should be. They're really not. We need much better controls. But the frameworks are basically there. I fight fiercely to end marijuana prohibition. But the thought that it would one day be controlled by Philip Morris or Anheuser-Busch or the major pharmaceutical companies or consumer good companies does not fill me with joy. But what's happening in the United States and I think other countries as well in the last couple of decades is the emergence of all these smaller breweries, oftentimes just making for local communities, local states regulated by the state, but producing in relatively small amounts, sometimes owned by the larger companies, sometimes not. And I think that that model, which continues to emphasize the quality of the product, which continues to provide employment for local people all around the country, I think that's one that jibes very well with where the marijuana market is now. Okay, let's talk about other drugs like stimulants and opiates, how that regulation would differ from that of cannabis. We regulate legally two very hard drugs, alcohol and tobacco. So what we're talking about here is adding drugs into those frameworks. So if we start with heroin, heroin as the most concentrated form of opium-based products would only be available initially from a doctor. But with all drugs, there are different concentrations so that you can put opium in various different things. You can have opium tincture, you can smoke opium. So it would likely be that opium would be available in the same way that cannabis is in the kind of coffee shop system. I would not advocate a system where anyone can simply go into pharmacy and buy. I want to try some heroin today. You have to be diagnosed first as an addict before you could get this and that there should be sanctions for people who then turn that over to the black market and give it to people who aren't diagnosed. It would make sense to me that both methadone and heroin were available. Heroin perhaps for take-home use, perhaps not, perhaps use on site, but certainly starting with the most dependent drug users of the population, give them heroin and methadone in some kind of combination that works for them. And then see if that monitor the size of the illegal market. If you started with all the dependent users and the illegal market has dropped 80%, maybe you could leave it at that. But if you wanted to go to other people who are wanted to participate, informed adults who could use it in a certain way, you'd have to make that decision at the time. Unlikely that we're going to see cocaine on prescription for recreational use. The suggestion is that cocaine powder will be available from a chemist. Again, perhaps with licensing on consumption, perhaps rationing controls. Coca leaves, no licensing at all. There's no reason why people shouldn't be able to go and buy that from the same shop where you go and buy your lettuce and tomatoes. What we're looking at here is the opportunity to review the entire process the whole time. So you operate the precautionary principle, operate strict controls. You begin to let them go if it looks like it's going wrong. You squeeze them back in again. It's really neat. Not like what we have now because you don't have any opportunity to intervene at all. Does it apply to psychedelic drugs as well? No different model. If you think about psychedelic drugs, all of the harms from the drugs come from set and setting. What's set and setting? Set is expectation and setting is the circumstances of use. So if people are unsupervised when they take the drugs, harm can happen. So the whole process of psychedelic drugs is essentially you have to require supervision. How does that model look? Well, what it looks like is you allow people to apply for a license. And when you are granted a license, you are guaranteeing that you will supervise people for unsetting setting issues for the entire duration of their trip. So you'll become responsible for this person's behavior for eight hours. The first people that would be invited to participate would be Shalman's and psychotherapists who've been involved with doing this for centuries now. Let's see Shalman. With tobacco, we've been able to reduce dramatically the use of tobacco in the United States. And we didn't throw any people in prison. We did it through public health and education. And I think that's what we need to do with drugs. But it has to be honest education. It can't be the kind of propaganda that we get from the drug warriors that try to scare kids. It only makes them more cynical. And they disregard the message. I think the adults are lying to us again to try to scare us. And it has the opposite effect. Drug reformers, I believe, have clearly the high moral ground because a moral position is that of compassion and inclusion and caring of people that are brutalized by our current system. That's where morality is. Morality and compassion for me have the same thing. So the reformers have the moral high ground. Putting people in jail is an amoral approach to this particular problem. The drug policy reform stands in 2009 where the gay rights movement was in the late 60s, early 70s, or where the civil rights movement was in the early 50s. You know, I just don't want people to sort of all of a sudden get so excited that when all of a sudden the wind starts to blow the other direction or when things start to slip backward, that we get demoralized. Because we have to be tough. We have to see this as a multi-generational struggle trying to grab and change as much as we can in the moment. But being ready to understand this is going to be a long struggle. There's no two ways about that.