The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Supreme Court judgment on European Charter of Local Self-Government Incorporation, Scotland Bill, and United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation, Scotland Bill. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney, Deputy First Minister. This morning, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the European Charter of Local Self-Government Incorporation, Scotland Bill, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation, Scotland Bill. Although we have had limited time to consider the full implications of that judgment, given the seriousness of those potential implications, I wanted to come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to update members. I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer, and the Parliamentary Bureau, for making time to have this statement today. In every parliamentary term, there are moments where this Parliament comes together to make a significant statement of intent on who we are and what we collectively stand for, showing a shared sense of purpose on what we seek to achieve as parliamentarians for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament unanimously passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation Bill in March was one such moment. This Parliament set out our collective will to change the culture and practice of how we support children in Scotland. Incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child directly into our domestic law would make us the first administration in the United Kingdom and the first of all legislature anywhere in the world to do so. We felt proud to be the Parliament that would enable this historic step to be taken. We celebrated how this bill would change the lives of children for generations. We imagined how incorporating article 12 would mean that children will have the right to be involved and heard in relation to the decisions that affect their lives. We all look forward to seeing the improvement that incorporating article 23 would deliver in ensuring that children with disabilities have dignity, self-reliance and are able to actively participate in their community. We were certain that we were doing the right thing by incorporating article 3 so that children's best interests are a primary consideration in decision making. On 12 April, however, the United Kingdom Government's law officers referred certain provisions of the bill to the Supreme Court. That reference meant that the bill could not be presented for royal assent and accordingly could not become law until the reference was determined. Today we have that determination. Presiding Officer, while we fully respect the court's judgment and will abide by the ruling, we cannot help but be bitterly disappointed. It makes plain that we are constitutionally prohibited from enacting legislation that this Parliament unanimously decided was necessary to enshrine and fully protect the rights of our children. Before I discuss the implications of that in more detail, I shall make clear that the judgment also affects the local self-government bill. That bill strengthened local government by incorporating the charter into Scots law. Starting as a member's bill, it too was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament and supported by the Scottish Government and local government through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The bill was intended to develop and to further strengthen the relationship between the Scottish Government and local government in Scotland, and to ensure that priorities and policies are developed and delivered in partnership. The judgment will make those aims more difficult to achieve. The Scottish Government will now liaise closely with Mark Ruskell, the designated member in charge, who has taken this role from the former member of the Scottish Parliament, Andy Wightman, to work out how best the potential next steps can be taken in addressing the issues from the ruling. The UNCRC bill was a landmark moment in the Scottish Parliament's history. It was modelled partly on two pieces of legislation central to our constitution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998. The UNCRC bill sought to incorporate international human rights law into our domestic law and adopt a judicial route to a remedy. With the unanimous support of the Parliament and the overwhelming support of stakeholders, we sought to make those internationally recognised treaty articles directly justiciable in Scottish courts, with powers for our independent judiciary to either strike down incompatible legislation in devolved areas or, if a future piece of legislation declare it incompatible. That was a new approach for legislation in this Parliament, so the UNCRC bill took us into new territory, including the use of the powers of the Parliament and devolved competence. After wide public consultation and full parliamentary scrutiny, we all entered that territory clear that this was the approach that we wanted to take. The full implications of the judgment need to be considered carefully. However, our initial view is that the judgment does not prevent the Scottish Parliament from doing something that we would consider routine practice. It has not narrowed our ability to amend or repeal legislation in devolved areas, either in an act of our Parliament or the United Kingdom Parliament. It has not changed our competence to incorporate international treaties, nor has it reduced our ability to rely on our judiciary to enforce our statute book. The judgment does, however, expose the devolution settlement as even more limited than we all, indeed the Scottish Parliament itself, had understood. It sets out new constraints on the ability of our democratically elected Scottish Parliament to legislate to protect children's rights in the way it determines, after open and careful consideration, appropriate roles for the judiciary and this Parliament in that protection. Strikingly, the judgment has decided that there are limitations to devolve competence for the mere reason that existing statutory provision just happens to be in an act of the Westminster Parliament. The reason for this distinction derives from Westminster's continued claim of sovereignty over all matters, including those devolved to this Parliament. However, the effect of the distinction is essentially arbitrary. For example, the Scottish Parliament can fully protect children's rights by declarations of incompatibility if those rights are affected by acts of this Parliament, such as Gaelic Education under the Education Scotland Act 2016, but not if they are in Westminster legislation from before devolution, such as the Education Scotland Act 1980. Even if the subject matter of that legislation is wholly devolved and could be repealed and replaced by the Scottish Parliament, our own children, in our own schools, in our own country, but Westminster legislation, so we cannot apply the UNCRC to that legislation. That is the ludicrous constitutional position that Scotland finds itself in. The Supreme Court has therefore illustrated the incoherence of the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the current devolved settlement and under the current UK constitutional arrangements tied to the continued claim of unlimited sovereignty by the Parliament at Westminster. There is no doubt that the implications of this judgment are significant from a children's rights perspective and in terms of this Government and indeed this Parliament's aspiration for the country that we want our children to grow up in. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law to the maximum extent possible. We want to ensure that we pursue that policy in a way that can be enacted and therefore made real in practice. Members may wish to recall what children told us about how incorporation would change things for the better. In the evidence that the children's Parliament gave in the consultation on the bill last year, a child said, I think that you should make children's rights law because it will keep a lot more children safe. Bruce Adamson, the Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland called the incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law the most important thing that we can do to protect and uphold the rights of children and young people. The Supreme Court has criticised the maximalist approach that the Scottish Government took as deliberately exceeding the limitations of competence. It is normal for the Scottish Government to invite the Scottish Parliament to make the maximum use of its devolved powers and responsibilities. Indeed, we are frequently encouraged to do so and on this issue we are specifically encouraged to take this approach by many voices within the Scottish Parliament. It was an approach widely supported by many stakeholders and by the children of Scotland who wanted the Parliament to protect them to the maximum extent possible. The law in the area in question had not previously been tested. The Scottish Government took a reasonable view on these difficult questions, a view that the Presiding Officer of the time judged to be within legislative competence and which was unanimously supported by the Parliament. The Scottish Government notes that the judgment underscores that domestic legal effect to international human rights treaties can only be achieved through incorporation and that, while it is within the Scottish Parliament's competence to incorporate international treaties and protect the rights of Scotland's citizens, the nature of our current devolution settlement and the UK's constitutional arrangements impose limitations on the extent and the manner in which we can do that. It is regrettable that this bill has been delayed and will not now become law in the form which our Parliament agreed. We remain committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC to the maximum extent possible as soon as practicable. Although the judgment means that the bill cannot receive royal assent in its current form, the majority of work in relation to implementation of the UNCRC can and is continuing. We will now reflect on how to add to those existing protections through incorporation. The UNCRC is the most widely ratified international treaty, but very few countries have committed to take the journey that Scotland has so clearly wants to take. To everyone who has walked with us this far on that journey, encouraging us along the way, I want to reassure you that we will reach our destination. The Government remains committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC to the maximum extent possible. There is no doubt that we may not yet wholly comprehend all the implications from this judgment. It will require careful consideration and I will be happy to keep Parliament updated. However, one thing is already crystal clear. Some have said that the Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved legislature in the world. On the day that the Supreme Court has confirmed boundaries on our ability to protect our children, I regret to say that it certainly does not feel anything like that. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call Donald Cameron. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of this statement and refer to my register of interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. We welcome this legal judgment because this was always a legal question. It was never about the substance of the policy. There was unanimous support from all parties in this chamber for both bills, but we warned that parts of the bill would be legally problematic. To their shame, the SNP did not listen and instead politicised this from the very beginning. In this very chamber, at stage 3 of the bill, the Deputy First Minister characterised the UK Government's approach as menacing. In an election debate, Nicola Sturgeon used it to attack the UK Government and described the legal challenge on Twitter as morally repugnant. That political posturing has been comprehensively demolished by the definitive judgment of the Supreme Court today. The judgment by Lord Reid, one of Scotland's most eminent judges, is unrelenting in its criticism of the Scottish Government approach. At paragraph 60, noting, the legislation has been drafted in terms which deliberately exceed the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, deliberately exceed. Those are caustic words. The court was in no doubt intentional. To confirm that this was always about the politics and not the law, what is the first response by the SNP today to their comprehensive court defeat, as ever they make it about nationalism and their obsession with independence? Can I ask the Deputy First Minister this? Given that the SNP's disgraceful approach has delayed the bill on children's rights that every party in the Scottish Parliament supported, will he apologise for creating this unnecessary delay, and will his Government make the necessary changes so that this legislation can be passed immediately? The delay to the implementation of the bill has been created by the reference to the Supreme Court by the United Kingdom Government's law officers. That is the only reason why that is the case. On the point that Mr Cameron raises about the scope of the bill, I would simply remind him that at stage 3 of the passage of the bill, his own colleague Alexander Stewart said that the direct incorporation method adopted by the bill will ensure a maximalist approach that is very much to be welcomed. It is the maximalist approach that has caused Mr Cameron such concern in his remarks today. I will say to him that the Government is absolutely committed to implementing this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity by addressing the remedies that are necessary. However, I will make absolutely no apology for whatsoever is being determined to do as much as I possibly can within statute to protect the interests and the rights of children and young people in our country. For the United Kingdom's law officers, to take us to the Supreme Court to stop us doing the maximum that we want to do is an absolute disgrace. Scottish Labour stands ready to quickly get the bill back into Parliament and make sure that we can pass a competent act protecting young people's rights. The Government's record on rights shows why it is needed. The Deputy First Minister says in his statement that the decision is essentially arbitrary. For example, the Scottish Parliament can fully protect children's rights, but too often this Government does not. In recent days, the SQA, directly under the remit of this Government and until recently the Deputy First Minister, was made subject to the statutory powers of the Quality and Human Rights Commission. That extraordinary move is a result of breaches relating to 112 policies, many of which relate directly to awards of qualification. There are other areas where the Scottish Government has refused to act to meet either the standards or the spirit of the UNCRC. Real and tangible action is needed now and it is possible now. Will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing an analysis of every single policy area that the Government is not yet meeting the criteria of the UNCRC alongside an urgent action plan of how that will be achieved? Much of the material that Mr Marra talks about was rehearsed during the passage of the bill. I appreciate that he was not a member of the Parliament at that time, but his colleagues always supported the passage of the bill at all stages in its proceedings. The very argument that he advances about the necessity to protect the rights of children is why the Government brought forward the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation Bill to make sure that that was the statutory position within Scotland and that there was a justiciable remedy should the Government not be or public bodies not be fulfilling their commitments in that respect. What worries me about the situation that we find ourselves in is that there are very significant areas of statute where that remedy will not be available to be exercised. I cited in my remarks the Education Scotland Act 1980. The Children's Scotland Act 1995 is another example. I could give a whole host of examples on the record in the stage 3 proceedings of this bill, where, as a consequence of the approach that has now been taken, there will be a limitation on our ability to do exactly what Mr Marra wants us to do. I want there to be a justiciable remedy available for children and young people in our society. I want it to go across the whole statute book. I want people to be able to challenge where they believe their rights have not been honoured, but the ruling today unfortunately constrains the ability of that to be exercised because of the objections raised by the United Kingdom Government's law officers, and I profoundly regret the stance that they have taken. I share the deep disappointment in today's decision expressed by the Deputy First Minister, but it is perhaps more surprising and more disappointing that it is the UK Government their decision to challenge this Parliament's unanimous decision in this way, given that a working system for intersecting legislation has long been in place in relation to EU law. We now appear to be in a position where the UK Government is not interested in co-operation for the common good to allow us to protect the rights of our children, only in defending insular borders. As part of the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Government, we are going to bring forward world-leading human rights legislation that will enshrine the right to a healthy environment and dignity and rights for older people and LGBTI people. Can the Deputy First Minister advise what the implication of today's decision will be for that, and how we can ensure that neither legal technicalities nor the UK Government's insularity prevent us from enshrining human rights into Scots law? Maggie Chapman raises a number of very significant points. What she correctly does, although there seems to be behind me a little bit of walking away from those commitments, is to reinforce what Parliament had in its mind when it passed the legislation. What Parliament had in its mind was to maximise the protection of rights that could be available to children and young people within the powers of this Parliament. We endeavored, as a Parliament, and agreed unanimously the mechanisms to enable that to be the case, and they have now been constrained by the objections raised at the Supreme Court by the United Kingdom Government. That is the factual reality of the situation that we now face. We must consider that ruling, and we must reflect on it in relation to the legislation to which Maggie Chapman refers in relation to the human rights legislation that will come to Parliament in due course. I give her the assurance that my ministerial colleagues will engage constructively with Parliament and with the wider Scotland to ensure that we have an open discussion about the application of those issues in the formulation of that legislation. Months have been wasted, and it is children that have lost out. The Scottish Government knew that there was a problem, but it preferred to wait for a constitutional clash. It is depressingly predictable. It has not answered this yet. Why did the Government wait? The Government did not pass the legislation on its own. Parliament passed the legislation in its entirety. Let me go through the absurdity of the question that has just been put to me. If I unilaterally decided not to follow the unanimous legislative decision of the Scottish Parliament, the first person on his feet to complain about it would be Willie Rennie. I know that there are lots and lots of loud people shouting behind me, but what I am trying to say to Parliament is that Parliament knew what it was passing. It wanted to maximise the protection for the rights of children. Mr Rennie was one of them, so were his other colleagues, all of mine, all the Conservatives, all the Labour Party, all the Greens. Everybody wanted this to be in place, and the people that objected were the United Kingdom Government's law officers. That is the factual reality. I regret that enormously, because nothing would have pleased me more than to get the legislation on the statute book and get the type of protection in place that Mr Marra has raised with me in the course of question time today. Nothing would have made me happier, but what has thwarted that is the actions of the United Kingdom's law officers. As you would expect, many members wish to ask a question, so I would be grateful if questions and responses could be short and succinct. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Miles Briggs. On the day that the UK Government cuts £20 per week from the poorest in our society, pushing thousands of children into poverty, does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that the Supreme Court ruling today has shown that devolution simply does not enable this Parliament to protect Scotland, in particular our children from Westminster control? There are clear limitations placed on the ability of the Parliament to legislate to the maximum extent it wishes to do so to protect the rights of children and young people in Scotland. We will do as much as we can to remedy that situation in the spirit of the unanimous view of Parliament, but certainly the type of actions that Rona Mackay has cited by the United Kingdom Government certainly do not help to strengthen the rights and the position of children and young people in Scotland. Miles Briggs to be followed by Michelle Thomson. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister would recognise that the UNCRC was first ratified by the UK Conservative Government 30 years ago in 1991, but the Supreme Court ruling points to a number of significant questions around the legal advice ministers and Parliament as a whole have been provided during the passage of these bills. That is an issue that I think the Parliament has to also reflect on, given what the Deputy First Minister has said from the former Presiding Officer's advice to all members of this Parliament. Can I therefore ask the Deputy First Minister if he will agree to publish the legal advice ministers have received throughout this progress of the bill as well? Mr Briggs knows, because we rehearsed a lot of these arguments in the last parliamentary session, that the Government does not publish its legal advice. It is a well-established... We know that Mr Kerr is new to this institution, but he will become accustomed to the fact that Governments do not publish their legal advice. As for the issues in connection with Parliament, they are not issues for me, and it is not appropriate for me to comment in any respect on their contents. As a much-respected centre for constitutional change at the University of Edinburgh is made abundantly clear, the referral of the bills to the Supreme Court by UK law officers was as much a political as a legal decision. They were under no duty to refer their decision was political. The effect of the ruling on the UNCRC bill is to deny a range of rights to Scottish children. Although the Scottish Government may now reluctantly seek to amend the legislation to make it compliant, can the cabinet secretary confirm that every effort will be made to ensure that the children of Scotland do not lose out due to the political actions of the UK Government? Let me use an example to illustrate the position that Michelle Thomson puts to me to substantiate the argument that she has made. The Education Scotland Act, the contents of that act, the 1980 act, are entirely devolved. The Parliament can amend that act in its entirety, but if we wish to extend to the citizens of Scotland the right to judicially challenge that bill in terms of the UNCRC and the point that I was advancing to Mr Marra, that is no longer available to them because the United Kingdom law officers have taken the action that they have taken. It is an area of policy entirely within the competence of this Parliament, but we cannot extend the rights that Parliament wants to extend to that bill because of the actions of the UK law officers. I am rather with Michelle Thomson on the question that this was not legal but a political intervention. I call Martin Whitfield. I can hardly hear myself speak. I would be grateful if we could have cam in the chamber. I call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Eleanor Whitham. I am grateful. Paragraph 32 of the judgment states that no one disputes the right of the Scottish Parliament to regard the UNCRC as an important convention and to give effect to it. You would have the support of the members on this side of the house. Could you confirm that we can rectify that by April next year? I will do it as quick as I can. I will say to Mr Whitfield that we will have to consider the judgment, we will have to consider other aspects of the legislative programme and we will come back to Parliament on those terms. I am certainly very keen to work with members of Parliament as I was throughout the UNCRC bill because it ended up being passed unanimously. Not all the legislation that I bring to this institution passes unanimously, so this did pass unanimously, so I am keen to work with other parties to make sure that we can rectify those issues. As for the timescale, Mr Whitfield will have to give me some time to consider what is possible. I call Eleanor Whitham to be followed by Megan Gallacher. Writing last year to the local government committee of which I am now deputy convener, the president of COSLA celebrated incorporation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law and noted that she sensed a high degree of support for the bill, an observation that proved correct when this Parliament backed the bill unanimously. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the UK Government's attack on this bill is an attack on the cross-party judgment of both COSLA and the Scottish Parliament and on the system of devolved politics in Scotland itself? Obviously, the local governance bill was not initiated as a government bill, but we supported it and Parliament adopted it unanimously. I recognise it to be a constructive and helpful piece of legislation to cement the position of local government within Scottish democracy and society. Whilst I regret the fact that we cannot proceed with the legislation at this stage, I give Eleanor Whitham and the local government community the assurance that the Government will do all that it can to work within the spirit of the legislation as far as we are able to do so without the legislative power in place. Throughout his statement, the Deputy First Minister repeatedly asserts that the UK Government is making a claim of unlimited sovereignty. Will the Deputy First Minister accept that, rather than striking up a collaborative tone and pledging to work on behalf of Scotland's children, his statement this afternoon does nothing but stir up yet more constitutional grievance that even the Supreme Court accepts as deliberate? The sort of straightforward way through this would have been for our bill to get royal assent without objections from the UK law officers. It was supported by every single member in this Parliament. What on earth are the Conservatives objecting to the passage of legislation that they themselves supported?  This Parliament made its choices about how it wanted to deliver the maximum protection for children and young people in our country. The people who have got in the road of that, the people who have interrupted it, are the UK Government's law officers. Is it any wonder that some of us are disappointed by the conclusions of this process? I was a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee when the incorporation of UNCRC was scrutinised and passed when the bill had overwhelming support from Civic Scotland. What can the Deputy First Minister give children's organisations and the many children that they support that the UNCRC will inform everything that we do here in Scotland in the future, despite the UK Government's needless petition decision to flex their muscles and to take us to court? Does this ruling today not make it clear that the current devolution settlement needs urgent attention if children's rights and Parliament's will are at stake? Just not long before I came into the chamber today, I received a letter from the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights, which the letter is signed by countless organisations that are actively working in the field of children's rights and interests. They make the appeal to me, which I have already confirmed in my statement, but I take the opportunity of Gillian Martin's question to repeat the point, that the Government will do everything that we can to work within the spirit of the legislation that Parliament has passed and which is in no way constrained by the reference on limited elements of the provision to make sure that we advance the cause of children's rights and that we operate in a fashion consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child whilst we take the necessary legislative remedies to address the situation that we have to do. We cannot lose sight of the people that this is for, children all across Scotland. I am pleased to hear that Deputy First Minister say today that he and his Government will seek to realise the rights of children to maximum effect. I look forward to their support for my young disabled persons transition bill, the immediate doubling of the Scottish child payment and end to the use of mosquito devices and an amendment to the age of criminal responsibility, but on the UNCRC specifically, I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to do all that we can right now to fix this situation and realise the human rights of children in Scotland. In that vein, when this bill was initially brought before Parliament, it included a grace period of six months after the bill received royal assent before it would have fully of come into force. Had the court judgment not taken place, the bill should have been implemented in November. I believe that the Government should reintroduce a reviewed bill straight away. Therefore, does the Government agree that enough preparation time for incorporation has been given already? Will it commit to ensuring that any review of the bill includes provision for it to be implemented immediately? That is a very legitimate point to be considered as part of the sequence of events that we take forward. Obviously, there has been awareness of the limited range of issues that were the subject of challenge in the bill, so organisations will have the opportunity to consider the basis of the legislation that Parliament has taken forward. The point that Pam Duncan Glancy makes is a material point to consider within the timetable for scrutiny and implementation of any future legislation. Paragraph 33 of the judgment highlights the fact that the Welsh Government did not face a legal challenge on provision of the Welsh UNCRC Bill in 2011, making it even more stark that this was a choice made by the UK Government rather than a necessity. Would the cabinet secretary agree therefore that this only goes to demonstrate that the Tory Government at Westminster cares more about exercising unfettered power over Scotland than they do about the rights of children? I have a lot of sympathy with that point. I come back to the example that I have repeatedly cited. The Parliament has legislative competence to amend the Education Scotland Act, but the UK Government has objected to extending the right of independent judicial scrutiny of whether issues in the Education Scotland Act 1980 are compatible with the UNCRC. That, to me, is a vivid example of how absurd the objection has been from the United Kingdom Government, and it illustrates the type of willingness that Audre Nicolaus talked about to try to constrain the scope and the actions of the Scottish Parliament. Today might not be a good day for ministers, but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The supreme ruling calls into question the legal advice MSPs have received, and perhaps more the legal advice SNP ministers have been given and have said they hold when members are making legislation. In light of the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament be making into what needs to change? I thank Mr Briggs for his point of order. The rule of the presiding officer is to indicate a view and opinion on legislative competence at the point when a bill is introduced, and the intention of that statement is to inform the Parliament in any consideration of its bill. The presiding officer has no further rule in relation to legislative competence during the passage of any bill, and its view on the matter does not prevent any bill being submitted for royal assent. In all instances, the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in determining legislative competence. Their ruling on those matters clarifies the legal position and will inform future consideration of legislative competence. I make reference to the last question that was pointed to the Deputy First Minister. My apologies to Audrey Nicola. I haven't been able to speak to her about it, but paragraph 33 of the judgment states that the suggestion seemed to be that the fact that the legislative competence of that provision had not been challenged had some bearing on the present proceedings. However, that provision is much more limited in scope than the Scottish UNCRC bill. It imposes a duty on the Welsh ministers when exercising any of their functions to have due regard to the requirements of the UNCRC and its first two protocols. I just wish to put that on the record as a clarification in relation to the last question. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. It is not a point of order, but your comments are now on the records. There will be a short suspension before we move to the next item of business.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com with a pack of 2020 Panini Mosaic football hobby break Hobby pack break number 155 with 6 2019 National Treasures football spots being given away at the end of the break In fact, there's gonna be three different dice rolls in this break because thank you to everybody here for buying spots We're giving away five spots in this I think that's what we said. Yeah, so we're giving away five spots So we only sold 27 and the first dice was gonna be the giveaway for the five spots within the pack break The second dice roll will be the break itself and the third dice roll will be the NT spot giveaway Let's do this one first. Let's roll it randomize it Seven times lucky seven so top five after seven one two three three four five Six and seven then final times top five Sean Sean Steve Matthew and Tom After seven times you've got extra spots in the break. So we'll put little rooftops Next to your name so you know that you won this in that randomizer now Let's do the break itself What is oh this is from a different break? Sorry, let's clear out that list. All right, there we go There's everybody here for this mosaic pack break. Let's roll it randomized names and teams eleven times six and a five One two three ten and eleven and final time six and a five eleven times for the football teams one two three four and eleven the final time after eleven we got That selection of teams there There's the first half of the list and There's the second half of the list right down there. Let's sort by team alphabetically. Let's just go ahead and print this out And let's rip open this pack And then we're gonna see who's gonna win those national treasure football spots We just have if you're watching live We just have one more of those filler packs to go and then we're in breaksville on that one So we got one two three four packs remaining out of this box We're going to Select a die, and then we'll just go one two three four if I roll a five or a six. I'll just roll again It was two times It was to we're just gonna be packed to Nice got away from me there. All right, there's the final print out Thanks everybody for making this happen Let's make that last pack happen and then we can rip open some NT football tonight What do we got here? We got a Brady for the Buccaneers Ben We've got a Travis Kels or Kelsey a Taysom Hill blue 64 at 99 for the Saints. That'll be for Tom Got a Jalen Régor a Devon Duvernay and a Troy Aikman. All right nothing too crazy there, but The crazy part is who's gonna win those NT football spots new dice new list All the names in there, and it's gonna be the top six after eight Good luck one two three four five six seven and Eighth and final time after eight so from seven on down No, good sad times But I appreciate everybody taking the risk on this Happy time for the top six. You're in that NT break Matthew Matthew Matthew Matthew Matthew and Shawn Matic Wow Five out of the six spots. That's wild Sometimes that's though. I mean I've seen Matthew by a lot of spots and then but end up on the wrong side of the list So I guess it could happen this way too Congrats. Thanks everybody for watching. I'm Joe. I'll see you for the next one. Bye. Bye


ourselves as privileged to collaborate and support its iam a migrant program as well as welcoming iam to speak on various occasions at the co-forum our summer conferences in co-switzerland just above montreux especially on the topics of land degradation and migration over these days we have heard a lot about the challenges we face in creating the dynamics for safe regular and orderly migration and we have also heard a lot of innovative solutions and especially the need for partnerships we wholeheartedly agree and support every effort in partnership building especially when the first partner is the migrant themselves in our own work we have found that not only is the know how or the technical important but also the know why or should i say the values and the vision that drive us no matter how convinced we may be every organization individual and most certainly the public at large needs reminders of why we do what we do and must strengthen nourish and even let ourselves be guided by our common values two small tools that have helped us in doing so have been the use of stories or storytelling and proactively connecting people and not simply waiting for partnerships to happen both during our co-forum and in our national teams we have sought out the stories of migrants and tried to give them a voice we have actually even created a program and curriculum for migrants and refugees as rebuilders and powering them to be the change makers and them as our main partner in helping others more recently we have used human libraries also with the fantastic support of iam to inspire and connect people in a safe space where people and are more open to an enriching encounter with the other we can only encourage the use of this or any other grassroots tool to get migrant voices into the public space and create trust between and within communities in terms of connecting people and organizations we have also together with the Geneva center for security policy and the hospice general of Geneva recently undertaking the organization of a speed dating event just to get all the organizations in Geneva who work on migration into the same room and to start learning from one another we're surprised to see how many actually did not know each other and how many were happy to actually do so before partnering actually getting to know one another and nourishing common values is a good first step since i've started coming to conferences in Geneva i've been hearing about the need for breaking silos and the need to collaborate across sectors and of course for partnering and let us be honest there are inherent challenges that remain from our experience a focus on values on storytelling actively connecting all actors even the most local and seeing migrants as our partners can be of help the challenges and opportunities presented by migration are too complex for any one organization country or sector to address alone and we look forward to collaborating with you for the benefit of all thank you thank you very much indeed Ms. Semer Panayka-Davil coordinator of the development network of international social service has the floor sorry thank you madam chair for giving us the floor to the international social service um thank you director general um distinguished delegates ladies and gentlemen the international social service as an international child protection NGO founded in 1924 and present today in 130 countries um says is the opportunity to bring children's rights in migration to the forefront of all the discussions in line with the initiatives for child rights in the global compacts first of all the international social service would like to highlight the importance of meeting the standards set by the UN guidelines for the alternative care of children when considering alternative care settings for children on the move secondly the new york declaration has noted that detention for the purposes of determining migration status is seldom if ever in the best interest of the child and therefore alternatives must be prioritized however the international social service notes that where detention might nevertheless occur the quality of care provided by trained and qualified professionals includes inter alia an individualized treatment and access to basic services in addition states should duly assess the child's individual situation and find sustainable quality solutions through social assessment of the risks involved and family and social condition in the country of origin finally the international social service advocates for the establishment of operational cross border case management systems with harmonized standards among the different countries similar to the existing cooperation that we have in west africa i would like to thank you madame chair for giving us the floor and i just want to be in line also with the minister of interior from jibouti who mentioned that we should have an approach humane empathique and for the international social service we emphasize that we should have an approach global in accord with the standard global approach in accordance with established rights of the child thank you very much the final speaker on my list this afternoon is miss mantalin keru a politics specialist for the international catholic commission thank you mr chair mr director general and partners more than most migrants and refugees often stake their lives on trying to figure out how to go in the right direction millions depend on agencies of the un going in the right direction and we are impressed with how much iom is going in the right direction these days as you repeatedly emphasize mr director general iom does this work best in support of states efforts but always multi actor that states and multi actor reflex is your key to it all your best direction but all is not yet where it needs to be because as so many migrants and refugees stake their lives on trying to find the right direction they often struggle and suffer terribly against all odds indeed the right direction is also the right's direction fully for the sake of migrants of all kinds their families and all of society turning to both compacts being developed may we ask you mr director general how you see the three r's of refoulement return and regularization return as we see it among the many evidence-based and wise recommendations in the sutherland report number seven observes that how return is being done today is neither good for migrants nor for states so it's time for straight dialogue on principles and practices on return including practical read mission and reintegration this too belongs in the compact regularization given how many programs exist already it may be the most underrated solution to all sorts of migration labor and integration challenges it's time to expand regularization programs that exist for migrants often below the radar programs that successfully regularize regularize migrants and refugees whose lives family unity or recovery from human trafficking depend on it and fill jobs with workers and countries that structurally need them regularization that is permanent where possible temporary only if decent orderly departure and humanitarian corridors these alternative mechanisms exist but they need to be scaled way up how with cooperation even voluntary cooperation among states and other actors as was the case a generation ago when 70 countries unhcr iom and other actors including icmc came together in orderly departure programs resettlement family reunification and labor migration other mechanisms for safe orderly and legal pathways that should be expanded include private sponsorship family reunification and labor migration governance of course iom is the leading global agency on migration and you have been for years so of course iom has a central role in complementary governance of migration as miraslav lachak president of the general assembly said in the opening panel this week governance must always be people centered and rights-based and we would add diligently ordered to the common good of all in society mr. director general a last question to you what do you recommend for new elements of governance not only in implementation of the new compact but in migration in general these next five years all of this too belongs in the new compact on migration and in fact across both compacts together with 180 civil society partners we have consolidated these priorities in a unified civil society document entitled now and how 10 acts for the global compact the 10 acts reflected the thinking from over a thousand hours and civil society partners around the world participating in global and regional processes specifically on the compacts since december finally many of us are going in the same directions with you the right direction the rights direction to concrete solutions is essential in iom's work and the compacts because so many lives and societies depend on it thank you thank you very much indeed and with that last intervention this completes the speakers on our list and they've all made some very valuable contributions i'd like to thank all member states observers and speakers in particular this afternoon we've heard from international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations who are our partners working very closely with us and we're very grateful to them for sharing their views so this concludes our general debate we'll now move on to the penultimate agenda item item 18 other business the floor is open to delegations women wish to raise any items under other business well i see no proposals nothing to raise under other business however we do have one ac that we mentioned earlier this week and was still to be dealt with as you will recall the administration shared with member states document c slash 108 slash inf slash one dated 28th september 2017 entitled note on rules and procedures for the election of the director general and deputy director general a brief overview of this document was also presented during the 21st session of the standing committee and if there are no objections i'll once again ask the administration to briefly outline again the main points of this procedure so the legal council has the floor thank you madam chair in the document that the chair referred to c 108 inth one contains the rules and the processes for the election of the dg this is the same that had been circulated to the council before and had been used in previous elections that has taken place just a few points of importance at this stage i think that we could highlight and draw specific attention to as we say these rules and procedures are contained in this document it covers both provisions in the convention the rules of procedures and decisions taken by the council previously in the past uh and the important elements are that candidates should be nominated by member states nomination of the candidates should be sent to the chairperson of the council no less than two months prior to the date of the special session of the council uh and it's currently as you see they're planned for for june next year and there is a resolution uh on the timing of the next uh sessions next year that you will will be dealt with uh each candidate will be announced by the chairperson as soon as it is received and eight weeks prior to the actual session the bureau will communicate to the official list of candidates to all member states and elections will be held in a private session and will be taken by secret ballot thank you madam chair thank you very much to the legal council i also take it from discussions held during the standing committee the member states would welcome the opportunity to have an interactive session with candidates this has become a more and more widespread practice in the un uh agencies so i propose that the bureau conducts consultations with a view to identifying methodology and uh an opportunity to organize that interactive exchange between member states and the candidates for the position of iom director general before the election takes place clearly nobody intends for that methodology or that process to be very burdensome or lengthy in terms of the time it might take both for members and for candidates so we'll be careful and we'll ensure that we meet the criteria that have been transmitted informally would you agree to this proposal for the bureau to conduct consultations in that regard i see no objections thank you very much for the confidence you're showing in the bureau it is so decided let's move on to the last item on the agenda item 19 date and place of the next sessions the administration has identified the following dates the 22nd session of the standing committee on programs and finance and the second special session of the council for the last week of june 2018 generally some member states here have difficulties with events taking place in parallel on the same time and i'm thinking of the human rights council which might take place at that same time but that's a reality in Geneva we all suffer from that problem concurrent meetings and that's why the proposal has come up for the last week of june 2018 and that probably alleviates some of the pressure but we'll also have the elections of director general taking place then we probably don't have any other possibility other than the last week of june 2018 we'll also have the 23rd session of the standing committee on programs and finance tentatively at the end of october or beginning of november 2018 that's the second date i wanted to give you and then the next regular session of the council at the end of november 2018 so that will be the 19th session of the council if there are no objections these dates will be adopted and a more detailed calendar will be circulated early in the next year are there any objections any comments i see none so i declare draft resolutions c108 l15 adopted well that was already adopted convening the next regular session and c108 l16 on convening a special session of the council adopted my dear friends and we are gearing to the closing of this session with a couple of hours of anticipation i think we'll all be happy about that being a friday of a long week but before we close this session i i would like to offer the floor to the director general for his overview of this 108th session and and so therefore ambassador swing you have the floor thank you very much madam chair i think overview might be an exaggeration of what i can offer at this hour of the day on a friday i would first of all like to begin with some words of appreciation starting first of all with our chair i've been extremely pleased and impressed with your your chairing of this session 108th i'm happy to say that recognize that this is the first you're the first woman to chair the council during my time there was one i think much earlier but you can see how far we have to come we are not anywhere close to to uh gender equality in the makeup of our the makeup of our boards and it's up to you the member states to see that that changes because you select the members of the board so i'm delighted at this and and extremely impressed with the professionals with which you've gone about this and i think i don't want to embarrass the chair but she has just been named one of the most outstanding women in all of a baro america and all of the spanish-speaking world it's just been published i'd like to give her a loud round of applause we will see if we can get a copy of that document and get it to you but we're very proud of you thank you so much uh let me also turn to you and thank all of you the member states the owners of this organization for taking your ownership seriously for turning out in such large numbers and from making such very substantive and and interesting and innovative presentations here it's helped us a lot to understand where you are in your thinking about the migration world right now and i especially want to thank you uh for adopting this resolution on the first anniversary of iom within the un system and calling upon all member states to support iom's current and future role as the global lead agency on migration um we've heard your encouragement and your counsel to us about um increasing our policy work and i signaled that in my opening remarks that we need to do more here we're doing quite a bit we also need to make that work much more visible uh we've heard you loudly and clearly on that and i know that you will want to support us in that endeavor you also would like us to have a much stronger advocacy voice uh i do believe that with the entry into the un and the glowing a growing interest in uh migration that we are getting a lot more visibility than we had before which allow us to be have a much stronger voice uh in your behalf all migration matters um i want to thank all of our mgs team where are you patricia please stand up i i won't this is behalf of all the mgs team i i would like to single them all out but we will acknowledge that perhaps uh when we get back from Puerto Vallarta and uh some kind of a drinks party or something to symbolically to say thank you for the great work you always do they're in here early and in here late making it possible for us to have a very smooth council meeting uh our interpreters always are thank you very very much we're so dependent on you and you do such a great job and you managed to even get my muffled american english right thank you very much uh we will try to find a way to to thank you uh more substantively than that i would like just to cover quickly three points uh one on the global compact is as expected and as is perfectly natural much of the focus of this meeting and your presentations has been on the global compact on migration that's perfectly understandable and we're grateful that that was the case uh almost a universal focus on the global compact expressions of appreciation to iom for the various ways in which we tried to support the process we also heard from this podium a very strong call by the president of the un general assembly echoed by many of your delegations for iom to keep all un member states here in Geneva informed during their global compact negotiations in new york and to give you regular debriefings after each round of negotiations and i propose that we do that perhaps best through the iom un working group again a great channel for communication um we've also heard from you a fairly wide ranging maybe close to universal endorsement of our role not only now until july during the negotiations but following up to and implementing the global compact i think this will be crucial to the success and we will be prepared to take on whatever role we are asked to take on i hope in regard to global compact that we will see a lot of you i'm thinking particularly of our international organization partners our international uh our NGO partners and other partners that will see a lot of you next week starting monday in Puerto Vallarta Mexico so second point has to do with partnerships i want to thank the member states for encouraging us to continue our current course in the light of one year's experience in the un system um i think that iom's business model might even offer some ideas or suggestions as we go through the secretary general's reform process as we look at the implications for us we ask ourselves are the things that we're doing that would be useful to others if so um imitation is the best form of flattery um although we're not as visible or well known uh our iom partners um we're not always visible or well known iom partners directly with many parts of the un system and always have and that will continue in fact i think entry into the un system will make us have uh bring us to have even more partners third and final point you've talked to us again about resolution 1309 maintaining our essential qualities we certainly plan to do that we're the only organization that spends full time on all aspects of migration and we will continue to do that and we will do it along the lines that you've outlined in 1309 let me just say at the operational level we made a major announcement today that working with the au the eu libya african origin countries unhcr we will be mounting a major effort for the voluntary return of all the remaining africans and others detained in the detention centers in libya we'll keep you closely informed on that we hope and believe that this is something that can be done in fairly short order working very closely with many other countries including france idly germany and the european union in general the african union uh the the un secretariat uh and unhcr so you'll see i think some movement in that area to address this whole problem of slave labor and slave markets and detention centers in libya uh so you'll hear you hear a lot more about that i think that's uh madam chair the last thing i had to say except to wish you all a very good homer journey for those who've come from afar and a good weekend thank you very much thank you very much director general uh let me now turn to my own closing remarks i would like to take this opportunity to reflect also very briefly on the on these four days before i draw the meeting to an end um the 108th session of the iom council is finalizing its very impressive work this in in this moment and from my perspective it has been four days of stimulating exchanges with a very active participation of member states and observers and also our partners in civil society and the un and with insightful contributions from panelists and speakers that have enriched our discussions including of course the very impressive exchange this morning with uh uh two migrants from different regions allow me to try to summarize not summarize too ambitious but at least to draw on a common on a few common elements that haven't pinned the work these four days member states interventions in particular but also everybody else predominantly focused on two points one reaffirming iom's lead role in migration and the significant support provided to all countries it couldn't be in any other way there is no other organization with those characteristics and it's and and i i have been very honored to be able to attest to your views um and your opinion of iom during this week the second subject is iom iom's role has been iom's role in the global compact on migration follow-up and uh coordination all interventions referred in fact all interventions referred to the global compact itself clearly showing the importance that we member states give to this exercise that has occupied us a well a good part of 2017 and will continue to occupy us during 2018 and also all interventions talked about the role that iom has played during the process up to now thanking iom for the extensive policy and technical expertise they have given to the consultations as well as to the srsg and the car facilitators also the vast majority of member states from all regions want to see iom playing a strong leadership role in any follow-up to the gm coordinating with other agencies in the un system and beyond and making sure that the organization is well placed to do so member states also frequently cited iom's policy and technical expertise their operational efficiency flexibility and then the field presence with a global footprint as key attributes in this regard while recognizing iom's significant expertise in both policy and operations many delegations expressed an interest in viewing iom's iom enhance even further its policy capacity but without losing its operational flexibility and nimbleness for which it is so well known others suggested iom focus more on building its management capacity concerning the follow-up several delegations stressed the existence of various mechanisms that may play a role in this regard thus without a need to create new institutions the follow-up process should be efficient and by efficient i mean no need for an extraordinary amount of new resources no need for more staff no need for more extra time than that which already exists for the cause of migration and therefore no need for creating new institutions the follow-up process should be efficient in order to facilitate reporting and participation as required also many delegations expressed that it would be natural to have a geneva-based follow-up mechanism given the state the states and un expertise already here with the iom playing a central lead role in this which i like to call the geneva hub on migration this we need to convey next week in Puerto Vallarta as the deputy the director general just actually said and in fact let me recall that i did point to you the documentation very small but very direct and thought-provoking documentation prepared by iom in this regard we will have an opportunity to continue this dialogue those of us who are going to Puerto Vallarta I hope most or many of us will be there and we will have an opportunity to continue this dialogue with the president of the general assembly who has been very interested in what he heard here in geneva and with certainly with madame louis arbor the srsg and the tucco facilitators it will be crucial I think for iom's member states to ensure good communication between geneva new york and capitals because after all I don't need to remind anybody that the negotiations of the global compact will take place in new york and therefore this communication between geneva new york and capitals is essential the bureau will make sure that the iom un working group which is the instrument that has served served us very well up to now for several years meet regularly next year to assist delegations in keeping up to date and exchanging views as the negotiations advance in fact we plan to hold the very first meeting of the working group on iom and un relations before the end of the year as we come back from Puerto Vallarta to be able to brief the geneva community about Puerto Vallarta and let me just advance that probably that would happen on the week of the 20th just so that you'd note it down in your calendars 2018 will be a crucial year for migration and therefore for iom our organization is in good shape and well prepared to face the challenges that these changes will involve in that regard i would like to thank the administration for the outstanding work that you have achieved with a special recognition for the dts leadership during his mandate it is true we will be electing a new dt mid-year in in tune but we i'm not saying goodbye because the director general will still be with us for a couple of important meetings we will still have before june but i also hope that we are able to continue the work in a in the strong way and in a resilient and seamless process that we need to in order to be able to continue playing our crucial role i would like to express my thanks for the confidence that the council has placed in this bureau and also expressed my appreciation to all member states for their commitment to iom's work i'm sure that your active participation and contribution will be prominent and essential in the work that will require our attention in the coming year and i cannot of course not do my own side by finally thanking very warmly the secretariat the senior staff around us here the more junior staff who've been running around and the people from the regional offices who have been with us throughout thank you very much for that thank you to the interpreters and have a very good weekend


Tech Talk, Creative Commons, and GPL. Recently I did a video on software licenses, and I talked about different types of licenses, whether it's an end-user license agreement or a distribution license, and a lot of you are probably familiar with the more common licenses, such as the GPL-2, GPL-3, the SD, Apache, and MIT license. And then you may also be familiar with the Creative Commons license, which usually applies more to artistic things, music, video, photos, paintings, that sort of thing. So how do these correspond when it comes to GPL?  Does the license match up? How do you use the Creative Commons license with the GPL? Well, there's different versions of the Creative Commons license, and some are compatible with GPL, and others are not. Now, does your art have to be compatible with the GPL license if your software is on the GPL license? This is a very gray area in some aspect. The way it's pretty much worded, which is unclear to me when I read it, I wish I should have brought up the exact wording of it. Basically, if your software depends on that art to run properly, then it needs to be released under the GPL or a compatible license. And the example they give is your program has a button, and that button is a picture, and so the program will work without that picture, then the picture needs to be released, again, under the GPL or a GPL compatible license if you're releasing your software under the GPL license. But to me, that's kind of confusing because, well, what if the image I'm using is not, but it can easily be replaced with any image? Any image can be put in there. I don't know. That's where it's unclear to me, and maybe one of my viewers knows better than I do. Now, just about a year ago, I was at the FOSICON, the Free and Open Source software conference here in Florida in Orlando back in 2014, and I talked to some people who knew a little bit more about this. They told me to contact the Free Software Foundation, so I did, and after a while I got a response back, which is very unclear still. And they're big concern when you're asking people questions like this. They're concerns that you're trying to circumvent the license, which was not what I was trying to do at all. I was trying to understand it better. My example was a game-like Doom. Now, the original Doom by idSoftware has been released under the GPL code, so you have the game program under the GPL, but the level design, the music, and the imagery, all the art portions of that game are still under a proprietary license, meaning that you can download the game and you can get the demo files for the game and play it, but you still have to pay if you want to play the full game. Now, there are projects out there like Free Doom, which has spent years redoing all the arts and levels and music to make the game completely free both in the software aspect and the media aspect. But my question is, how can the original Doom game be released under the GPL if the game media files are still under a proprietary license? That seems like a conflict, because I can't play the game that softwares no good to me about the levels, music, and sound. Yes, nowadays we have replacement with Free Doom, but originally we didn't, and I never really got an answer for that. But going back to the Creative Commons license, and as I said, there's different versions of Creative Commons license. Some are compatible with the GPL and some are not. And if you go to the GPL website, the Free Software Foundation, and read about that, they suggest other licenses when it comes to artwork. They really say they don't take a stance when it comes to media, artwork, and freedom, except for when it's incorporated with software. And basically, when it comes to the Creative Commons license, you can't say it's not for commercial use or that you're not allowed to modify it. So basically, you need to use a Creative Commons license that allows for both commercial and non-commercial use, and it needs to be a share alike, meaning that you're allowing other people to make modifications to the artwork. And at that point, it's now compatible with the GPL. So there's a lot of gray area there as far as I'm concerned from what I've heard. Again, maybe some of you know a little bit more than I do. You can comment in the comments below. Let me know what you think. I love the Creative Commons license. I usually release most of my stuff under a Creative Commons share alike for commercial and non-commercial use. So it's not really affecting me, but there are times where I like making little video games and I'm not the best for making art for video games. So I go out there and I find something under Creative Commons license that says I can share it, and it says non-commercial use, and I'm not using it for commercial use, but technically, according to the Free Software Foundation, it sounds like I'm not supposed to use that because it conflicts with the GPL because with the GPL, you can use the software for commercial use. So it's a very gray area. I thought I'd talk about it a little bit. I don't know if I've confused you guys or if I clarified some things. Basically, I hopefully it's clear on what they said, but exactly what that means. I wish there was more clarification at least for me. Again, if you know of something that explains it better, please share or comment below. And if you enjoy this video, let me know. Give it a thumbs up, like it, share it, comment. And as always, visit my website, filmsmychrist.com. That's Chris the K. There should be a link in the description. And as always, I hope that you have a great day.


Hello and welcome to the session. Let's discuss the following question. It says, A bag contains 5 black and 6 red balls. Determine the number of ways in which 2 black and 3 red balls can be selected. To solve this question, we should know the theory of combination which says, R objects from N objects can be selected in CR ways. And we should also know the fundamental principle of counting which says, if event A occurs in and event B occurs in, then event A and B occur in M into N ways. This knowledge is the key idea. Let's now move on to the solution.   And the number of ways to select 3 red balls, 6 red balls. The total number of ways 2 black red balls is equal to 5 C2 into 6 C3. This is the fundamental principle of counting. Discuss in the key idea. And it is equal to 5 factorial upon 2 factorial into 5 minus 2 factorial that is 3 factorial into 6 factorial upon 3 factorial into 3 factorial. Again equal to 5 factorial can be written as 5 into 4 into 3 factorial upon 2 factorial into 3 factorial into 6 factorial can be written as 6 into 5 into 4 into 3 factorial upon 3 factorial can be written as 3 into 2 into 1 into 3 factorial factorial gets cancelled with 3 factorial 2 into 2 is 4 and this is equal to 200.  And this is the required answer. So this completes the question. Hope you enjoyed the session. Goodbye and take care.


When you decide about our master and decide about the specific track, you probably also decide what is next. One of the important things there to realize is that if you choose, choose not with your mind but choose with your heart. Because we know, and that's our own experience here, that many students finally end up in a job that they like. And one of the funny things is that we also see is that these students start to mingle. So maybe in your first job after your specific track, you end up a little bit more in a job related to that specific track. But after five years, you will see that all these students end up in similar jobs. Maybe you also want to know where did our students end. We have a linked in-page and on that linked in-page most of our students subscribe. And what we did, we asked our students, where did you end up? These graphs that are to the left of me are a rather rough indication of where people ended up. If we then go to the economic psychology track, you see that most of them end up in research again or in marketing. And when then we go to the organizational track, there you'll see that most of the students end up in an HR or personnel selection and those type of jobs but again also in research. So you see that we indeed offer a master, an academic master that prepares you for an academic career or for a vocational career. But if you proceeded for vocational career, you will probably end up doing further research, for a specific company or a government or some other institution or you will end up in some policy job either at a company or again at some government.


A true weapon of kings, you certainly don't want to be one of the poor souls to fall under this regal blade. This Egyptian weapon dates back as far as 2500 BC and its crooked shape gives it a sickle-like appearance. They aren't terribly large and a few varieties exist, but these swords are swung in a hacking motion similar to an axe. Only the outer edge of the curved blade is sharpened and can cause powerful and deep lacerations. The rest of the sword is dull for blunt striking and curved for effective hooking. Many pharaohs are depicted in Egyptian records and art as possessing this weapon, suggesting possible ceremonial or honorary applications of the kopesh as well as combat.