nts, they will be seeking to override the professional view of Police Scotland. Police Scotland's recent letter also makes clear that it has clear operating procedures that are currently under review in conjunction with the BTP, stating that its police officers should not go on to the tracks when they attend an incident related to the railway. Should there be a requirement to do so, then a nationally agreed process demands that a competent and trained member of the rail industry is present at the scene to advise. Police Scotland is currently working with the BTP on a training needs analysis, as has been mentioned, and we should allow that work to continue. If amendment 4 from Douglas Ross were to be passed, we would be faced with a substantial cost of providing personal track safety certificates to around 17,000 officers who would not have an operational requirement for one. If amendment 6 and 7 from Margaret Mitchell were to be passed, a police officer who did not have that certificate would be unable to exercise the power of entry to railway property, as Stuart Stevenson mentioned in his contribution, even if that was to access an area nowhere near the actual track. A locked station building, for example, or indeed a railway station or a train, we would be, as has been mentioned already, in the ludicrous position where you and I could go into a station or a train but that a police constable could not if they did not have that certification. I am sure that no one of us would want to be in those positions. Although amendment 5 is dependent on amendment 4, amendment 5 is not one that I can support on its own terms either. The amendment requires separate training plans and costs to be published. The bill already places a statutory requirement on the Scottish Police Authority to engage on service performance and costs within the railway industry and others. The SPA will, of course, be accountable for that engagement as on other matters to this Parliament. In fact, the committee already has the power to scrutinise, to question the annual reports and accounts laid by the SPA and has the option to seek further details on the training and costs of railway policing by Police Scotland at any time. Somebody convener of the Scottish Government strongly opposes the amendments that would impinge on the role of the chief constable in determining the training that is required to support operational policing. Therefore, I would ask Douglas Ross and Margaret Mitchell not to press their amendments, but if they are pressed, of course, I ask the committee to reject them. The loss to wind up press or withdraw. Thank you very much, convener, and I thank all members on different sides for their contributions to the debate on those amendments. Stewart Stevenson went to great length to describe the potential effects of both the amendments that I put forward and indeed yourself, convener, and I now feel that I should blatantly declare an interest because, based on what Stewart Stevenson said, my wife may not, as a police sergeant, be able to cycle into Elgin train station to get on to train in Elgin to go anywhere else. I accept that there is some criticism about going into a railway property, but I do not believe that that should take away from the general emphasis that we are trying to include with those amendments that there must be more detail and more scrutiny within the legislation on training. If I decide to press and those amendments are agreed, I would give a full assurance that, when bringing those back at stage 3, I would like to redefine that element of the property and entering into a property to ensure that we do not end up with what would be a rather ludicrous situation, where my wife and 17,233 other officers could not board a train anywhere in Scotland. However, I also noted, Mr Stevenson said, who is it who should be determining the training requirements? He does not want it to be politicians, but it is important that, as politicians and members of the committee, we voice the opinions and views that were shared by British Transport Police officers, British Transport Police authority, the rail users, the unions and, indeed, the rail operators, all of whom have significant concerns about a lack of training in the detail of the bill in terms of the response from the Scottish Government. I think that we can be a voice for those concerns. I will give way to the member. I think that what Douglas Ross is saying is reasonably constructive in the context of the debate that we have had. I will not step back from being interested in training. I think that, like all members, we will be interested in training. I think that the sole area of difference is who should be responsible for setting it. I think that that is the top, bottom and middle of it, but I think that we can make common cause and continue to take an interest in training and to hold the chief constable and the minister accountable for whether we consider the training as adequate or not. I do appreciate those marks from Mr Stevenson. If I can very briefly finish off with a few of the other contributions, Liam McArthur was right to mention that this was a central concern that we, as a committee and our witnesses had around scrutiny at stage 1. Mary Fee, I thought, was correct also to highlight the concerns. Indeed, Michael Hogg said that some of the unions would be prepared to take industrial action and we need much more detail, not just for the safety of our officers, which is paramount, but the safety of all rail users. I was very pleased to get the support of Mr Stevenson for amendment 5 in my name and disappointed that, for some reason, the minister would not be quite as supportive. However, to finish, I quoted at the beginning the RMT, British Transport Police and rail operators, and I think that it would be correct to finish my quotes and my proposals going forward with a quote from the Scottish Police Federation, and Callum Steele told the committee. I do not consider it feasible, I find it incomprehensible, that the service, be it the British Transport Police in its current state, a hybrid or a transport service within Police service of Scotland, would put a police officer out to work in a railway line without having the appropriate track safety requirements. The old adage, if you think that health and safety is expensive, try an accident, would come bearing down on them at a hell of a rate of knots, and I would be at the front of the queue knocking lumps out of them for even suggesting that it should be done that way. I just want to finish this. I would hope that, considering all the responses that we had as a committee and indeed that final quote from the Police Federation, that we do treat as Stuart Stevenson said, training as an imperative part of this bill going forward, and I will move and press the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. If we are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Are there any extensions? No. Five, four, six against, which means the amendment is not passed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Douglas Ross, already debated with amendment 4 to move or not. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. If we are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour? Those against, and no extensions. Five, four, six against, which means the amendment is not carried. I call amendment 6 in my name, which I now move. The question is that are we all agreed to amendment 6? No. If we are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in favour, please show. Those against, thank you. The debate is four, four, seven against, which means the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 7 in my name, already debated with amendment 4, which I do not move. The question is that, I call amendment 8 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 3, Liam McArthur, to move or not move. On the basis of the three not passing, I do not move 8 or 9? Not moved. Thank you. The amendment is not moved, therefore I put the question that section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 9 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 3, Liam McArthur, to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. The question is, therefore, that section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 2 in the name of John Finnie and a group on its own. John Finnie, to move and speak to amendment 2. Thank you, convener. The purpose of the amendment is to put in a statue to footing the assurances offered verbally by ACC Higgins, and they were that any BTP officer who transfers into Police Scotland would continue to work on railway policing duties unless they themselves agreed to move. It does this by providing a protective officer from BTP, modelled on the Police and Fire Reform Act protection, for officers transferring from the territorial forces into Police Scotland and, indeed, legislation that applied long before that with all previous accommodations. It sets out that an officer must not be assigned to duties that would require them to move away from the geographical area of their former force unless they consent to do this. That was a previous arrangement. With that proposal, the amendment is the restriction relates to railway policing rather than geographic location, and that would facilitate officers who are served within BTP at the moment from moving from one area to another but still within the railway policing. That would provide a greater level of assurance to officers who wish to continue their career within railway policing. It would, indeed, place Police Scotland's statement of intent on a statue to footing. I move amendment 2 in my name, convener. Thank you very much. I thank John Finnie for lodging the amendment. Given the debate that we have just had in relation to an earlier grouping, I am minded to recall a specific quote from the minister that the Parliament and Government should not seek to intervene in the discretion or decision making of the chief constable. I think that what John Finnie has set out is a fairly reasonable argument for where that discretion and decision making should, to some extent, be being circumscribed. I think that the amendment for the reasons that John Finnie sets out is one that reflects the concerns that we had during stage 1 and seems to me to be a pragmatic and proportionate way of addressing those, and therefore I would support it. I have just a really technical point about the drafting, which I suspect it would be for the minister to perhaps comment on at section 3. I just want to be absolutely clear that a constable of the British Transport Police who is engaged in duties outwith the service of that police would be treated as being a constable of the Police Service of Scotland operating on service outside the BTP at the point of transfer just so that there is no ambiguity. I think that it would be just useful to get that in the record. I agonised around this and concluded that it was okay, but I would like to hear it unless John Finnie wants to come in on my comment. Certainly, the precise intention is not to disadvantage anyone, so if there are further the protection and, formally in previous legislation that I dealt with, regulation 19 was well known, it is to afford that protection, albeit that someone may have temporarily been a secondment elsewhere. I am absolutely supporting what is proposed. It is a proper thing. I am just making a very narrow, tiny technical point to make sure that we put on the record the intention. That is all. That is probably, as I said, for the minister rather. I am happy to support this amendment. As John Finnie Andley and MacArthur said, it will give assurance to concerns that we heard while we were taking evidence from BTP staff that would be transferring over. It very clearly laying out in a legislation like this gives a very firm indication of the intent that they will be allowed to stay within BTP if that is what they wish to do. I think that it is a sensible way forward and I am happy to support. My view of this amendment makes a very constructive contribution. I thank John Finnie for bringing it forward. ACC Higgins of Police Scotland gave an assurance to this committee that any member of BTP who transfers Police Scotland will respect their right to police the railway environment for the remainder of their career and they will not be moved elsewhere unless they volunteer for that. In response to concerns that railway police officers could be diverted to other duties following integration, ACC Higgins gave a clear assurance that they would not, with the obvious exception of a crisis situation. I am conscious that those assurances have not yet persuaded all of those who have concerns on either front. Some members referred to this in stage 1 debate, as well, that BTP officers would be deployed to non-railway duties. John Finnie's amendment clearly puts the position beyond any doubt. It provides a statutory guarantee that any constable who transfers from the BTP to Police Scotland will be able to continue their career within railway policing if they wish to do so. I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. As I said in my remarks, I am fully supportive of what you have described as a constructive approach to an issue that was raised with us. You also quoted ACC Higgins who offered similar assurances. Those assurances were given in response to concerns that were being expressed by the BTP, but they could be seen as Parliament and Government establishing criteria around the operational freedom and decisions that the chief constable and the senior officers when Police Scotland take. How is that different from the concerns that Douglas Ross was raising under the previous amendments around training provisions? I think a couple of ways. If you do not mind, I will quote the member directly from the contribution that he literally just made that said that he believes that amendment strikes the right balance of being both proportionate and pragmatic in that respect, so I would agree with the member's previous contribution. I think that the most important part of the amendment of John Finnie's is section 2 subsection B that a constable to whom the subsection applies must not be assigned duties that do not so relate unless it is necessary to make a special demand of resources for policing. It goes back to my point about a crisis situation. It is still allowing the chief constable to have that flexibility, but at the same time, as the member himself said, his contribution strikes the right balance between being, as he described it, proportionate and yet pragmatic. It also gives statutory force to the guarantee that the officers who transfer will not be diverted, as I say to other duties, while ensuring that flexibility exists with the chief constable. In terms of the point that was made by Stuart Stevenson, I would concur with John Finnie's response to that that the intention is to ensure appropriate protection for anyone known to convent at the time of transfers, so it is helpful to put that on the record. I strongly welcome the amendment. I am grateful to John Finnie for seeking to provide a greater level of reassurance to BTP officers transferring to Police Scotland that they will have every opportunity to continue their career within railway policing. In turn, I believe that the amendment will help to secure that objective of ensuring the expertise of BTP officers. It is very much retained within railway policing on integration with Police Scotland, so it is convenient that the Scottish Government supports the amendment and, of course, I would ask the committee to similarly support it, too. I am grateful to those who have spoken. The important thing that I would like to say is that I mentioned the Police and Fire Reform Act. It is entirely consistent with previous legislation that relates to the number of amalgamations that took place in 1975, so it is a consistent position across the various decades, shall we say? The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'll agreed. I called amendment 10, the name of Liam McArthur, grouped with amendments 11, 12 and 13, Liam McArthur, to move amendment 10 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. As with the earlier grouping, the amendments within this section reflect concerns that I set out during the recent stage 1 debate. Throughout the evidence that we heard earlier in this year, we heard concerns about the impact that this bill was likely to have on BTP officers and staff, on the availability of specialist expertise around the policing of our railways and even the ability of the railway operators to provide a safe and efficient service to the travelling public. However, we also heard concerns about the ability of Police Scotland at this point in time to accommodate yet more structural change. That is an organisation that has not had its problems to seek over recent years or that Scotland has highlighted serious shortcomings in financial management within Police Scotland and that many of the savings and efficiencies that were promised by ministers at the time of centralisation have not materialised. Even if the policing 2026 strategy does finally enable Police Scotland to emerge from a period that has taken its toll on the morale of officers and staff, why are we adding to the challenges that they are being asked to contend with by layering on yet further structural upheaval? If the Government is intent on pressing ahead and if it secures the backing of Parliament, I believe that there is a strong case for delaying implementation of any provisions. My amendments propose a delay of 10 years, which would safeguard the interests of BTP employees and allow more time for changes to be made that would allow the transfer and due course to be managed more smoothly and with less disruption. I accept that this is perhaps an arbitrary figure and I am open to suggestions of what might constitute a more appropriate timeframe for implementation, but I firmly believe that there is in the interests of policing in Scotland, both in our railways but also more widely. If ministers rollback from the headlong rush to dismantle BTP, more time would at least allow the ground to be better prepared, even if the direction of travel remains the same. I move amendment 10 in my name. Douglas Ross spoke to amendment 12 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have mentioned some of the points already. I will go back to the quote from Stuart Stevenson about how important training is to the committee and the process of the bill. It is important that we get information upfront at the time on terms of the costs of training and, indeed, laid before Parliament, showing that all councils and police cadets have received the necessary training to police a railways and railway property. That may be different now because my earlier amendment failed, but it is still important that we get the information on all training for police officers and police cadets and, indeed, where that funding comes from. I would continue with amendment 12 and move that motion. Do any members wish to speak to Stuart Stevenson? Thank you very much, convener. Liam McArthur talked about a headlong rush. I am not quite sure that I recognise that in the context of 1 April 2027, but there we are. I would say that in broad terms, if one is going to set a date that far in the future, it might be more appropriate to say something like no sooner than, but that is a very minor, picky point. The real point comes in amendment 11, which I think fundamentally gets it absolutely wrong, because the future of the bill lies really on only two hands. The responsibility for what we are doing has to lie, first of all, on the chief constable, who has to be sure and give us confidence that he is prepared to pick up the responsibilities that this bill, if passed by Parliament, would give him. Secondly, it is for us to take the responsibility for how we vote at the end of the parliamentary process for this bill when we vote at stage 3. The list of people who are in amendment 11 are a whole long list of people who will have no responsibility for the consequences of any decisions that they might choose to make. It is entirely inappropriate to hand the veto for how the policing of railways is to people who have no responsibility for carrying it forward. I simply cannot support amendment 11 on that basis. Douglas Ross in talking about amendment 12, my real problem with it is simply the use of the word all in 2ba, that all constables and police cadets, because it comes back to the issue that I have made before, that the training of constables and police cadets is a matter for the chief constable to make sure that the training that all constables and police cadets have is consistent with the duties to which they will be assigned. It is as simple as that that I cannot support amendment 12. I should not be supporting amendments either. I just wanted to point out that in relation to 2b sub-paragraph A, there is a very important category that would be missing from there. Where are I supporting that? That is police support staff who, of course, pay the valuable role of scenes of crime examiners. There is a deficiency there anyway, but, regardless, I will not be supporting. Thank you, convener. This is a complex set of competing amendments that the committee has been asked to consider. I am grateful to Liam McArthur for his explanation for what he is looking to achieve with us. Those are not amendments that the Scottish Government is able to support. My remarks are concentrated on amendment 11 from Liam McArthur and amendment 12 from Douglas Ross, as those raised the most important points. I will also say something about the timescale in response to Liam McArthur's amendment 10. I have welcomed the Justice Committee's stage 1 report. It has made a number of very constructive suggestions and we have responded positively to those. The committee has also heard from many members of the joint programme board, the BTP, the BTP Authority, Police Scotland, the SPA and the UK Government's Department for Transport, about the detailed programme of implementation that is already underway and has been delivered through effective partnership working. Passage of the bill will enable that work to move on to a vital area, such as secondary legislation, to deliver our commitment to BTP officers and staff on their jobs, pay and pensions. It also encompasses detailed work on operational integration, led jointly by Police Scotland and the BTP, including the arrangements for training that Douglas Ross has focused on in his amendments. The committee has rightly shown great interest in the work of the joint programme boards and a desire to scrutinise the wide range of preparations over the coming period ahead of integration of the BTP in Scotland into Police Scotland by the target day of 1 April 2019. The committee has asked for six monthly progress reports on the joint programme boards work. As I have said, I am happy to accept that recommendation and I am sure that the Scottish Government provides those reports on behalf of the board. Those reports will enable the committee to assess progress across the full range of the board's work and to consider evidence of how the recommendations that are being followed through. That includes recommendations that the board should broaden its engagement to include the railway industry and other key interests during the work ahead of it. Amendments 11 and 12 from Liam McArthur and Douglas Ross go further than the committee's stage 1 report and visages and seeks to set out a statutory requirement for other reports in addition to that. In the case of Douglas Ross's amendment, that would focus primarily on training. Progress reports from the joint programme board will provide the committee with much more than that. The board's progress reports will provide regular updates on the readiness for integration. Liam McArthur's amendment would create an additional hurdle where, as Stuart Stevenson has said, a large number of different bodies would all have an effective right of veto before integration can proceed. He will not be surprised to know that I cannot support that proposal. While the Scottish Government will engage closely with a range of interests in considering the timing of commencement, we believe that the Government must retain the responsibility for that decision. By taking that responsibility, the Government would of course be accountable to Parliament for the decisions that we are making. Liam McArthur will also be unsurprised to hear that I am unable to support his amendment to delay commencement of the provision of the bill until 2027. We would have very limited say about how railway policing in Scotland would be delivered in the meantime. Of course, we know that, if the Conservatives are returned to power in Westminster, it would no longer be by the BTP as it currently exists. That amendment would mean that we would lose out on the benefits of integrated policing across Scotland's transport infrastructure for the lifetime of two Parliaments. I ask Liam McArthur and Douglas Ross not to press his amendments, but if they do press them, I ask the committee to reject them. Liam McArthur twined out the presser withdrawal. I apologise to Douglas Ross that I did not acknowledge his amendment in this grouping in my earlier remarks. I am supportive of the emphasis that he put on the importance of training. In relation to Stuart Stevenson's comments—I thank him again for those—when I referred to headlong rush, I was not of course levelling a criticism of myself, which, as he rightly says, in putting the date back to 1 April 2027, I could not be accused of anything like a headlong rush. However, it is fair to say that the provisions or the recommendations within the Smith commission report did somewhat come out of left field for the BTP. The distance that we have travelled between the Smith commission report and the bill coming forward is no great distance at all, and therefore, as far as many of the BTPs are concerned, there has been a headlong rush, particularly given that there is the absence of other options having been consulted upon. Although I take his point about more felicitous language no sooner than, and I will certainly bear that in mind. I thank John Finnie for his comments, although I think that they were more directed at Douglas Ross's amendments than mine, but I acknowledge that he is not supportive of my amendments. I also acknowledge, belatedly, Rona Mackay, where I think revealed, I let the cat out of the bag about her views on my amendments in this grouping in responding to the earlier grouping, but I thank her for that. In relation to what the minister had to say, he is right to point to the partnership working. I think that we had a good evidence session with representative of the JPB, and I think that he very much said what—or reinforced what the minister has said. However, in a sense, the proposal to merge BTP within Police Scotland was not at the request of Police Scotland. Had we made a request to Police Scotland to give them more time, I am not entirely sure that they would cast that back up in our face given the challenges that they have to take on board at the moment. To give credit to Police Scotland, they tried to offer the committee reassurances where they could, but nevertheless, I think that the structural upheaval that this will involve over and above the challenges that they already have on their plate should not be underestimated. I think that a lot of the evidence that we heard around the concerns that BTP officers and staff currently have about the maintenance of their terms and conditions is going to make it very difficult to provide reassurance on that side, while at the same time going through a difficult process with Police Scotland officers and staff through the context of the policing 276 strategy, in that the more that is given in one area, the more difficult it will be to provide reassurance in the other. I give way to John Finnie. I am grateful for the member giving way. Would the member accept that ACC Higgins described the time frame as being a luxury compared to the amalgamation of things? I am grateful for John Finnie's comment, although ACC Higgins' reference to a luxury only serves to underscore the other difficulties that ACC Higgins and his colleagues are trying to grapple with at the moment. I would not necessarily suggest that, by any stretch of the imagination, it reflected enthusiasm on his part that the workload that they are trying to deal with in terms of this structural change is one that is particularly welcome. On that basis, I propose to move amendment 10 in my name. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. I will agree. There will be a division those in favour, those against. There are five for the motion, six against. Amendment is not passed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Liam McArthur, who is already debated with amendment 10. Liam McArthur to move or not move? The question is that amendment 12, in the name of Douglas Ross, is already debated with amendment 10. On the basis of previous votes, I will not move the amendment. I call amendment 13, in the name of Liam McArthur, who is already debated with amendment 10. Liam McArthur to move or not move? Likewise, not moved. The question is that section 7 be agreed. I will agree. The question is that section 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 14 in the name of Liam McArthur, who is already debated with amendment 3. Liam McArthur to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. The question is that the long title be agreed. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Agenda item number 8 is a feedback. Thank you minister. We were trying to get through the amendments today rather than having to bring them back. Thank you very much for you and your officials for appealing. Agenda item number 8 is feedback from the Justice Subcommittee on its policing meeting of 24 25 May 2017. Following the verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments on questions. I refer members to paper 7, which is a note by the clerk, and invite Mary Fee to provide that feedback. Thank you, convener. The Justice Subcommittee on policing met on 25 May when it agreed and published its report on the governance of the Scottish Police Authority. The subcommittee shares the very serious concerns about the governance of the Scottish Police Authority, which were raised by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. It wrote to the Cabinet Secretary of Justice with its views, and that letter was also copied to HMICS to assist Derek Penman in his urgent review of the openness and transparency of the Scottish Police Authority. The subcommittee will consider that report next month. The next meeting of the subcommittee is scheduled for Thursday 1 June, when it will take evidence from Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority on the Auditor General's 2015-16 audit of the Scottish Police Authority and its review of Police Scotland's I6 programme. I am happy to take any questions. Members have any questions for me? There are no questions. That concludes 20th meeting of 2017. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday 6 June, when we will continue our evidence-taking on the Domestic Abuse Scotland book.


Okay, so let's try this one, useless at least principle on this equation. Phosphorus dried chloride plus chlorine gas goes to phosphorus pentachloride plus heat. Since we have heat here as a product, we know it's an exothermic reaction. If heat was over here, it would be an endothelic reaction. So if we add PCL5 or phosphorus pentachloride, that's a product, so if we're adding it, it's going to push the equilibrium to the left. If we add a reaction or Cl2, it's going to push the equilibrium away from it, it's going to push it to the right. We take PCL5, which is a product, and remove it, it's going to push the equilibrium to the right. Temperature decreased, okay, since it's an exothermic reaction, temperature decreasing means that we're removing heat. Since it's an exothermic reaction, heat is a product, so if we remove it, it's going to push it to the right, push it to the product side. And the catalyst, the catalyst doesn't do anything to the equilibrium. It only affects the rate at which the reaction occurs, so if you add a catalyst to the reaction, no equilibrium shift will occur.


Hey guys, RealLifeTheGame here. Today I was looking over these videos of making such and such a Roblox account. You guys can see they make Roblox Fortnite Galaxy skin account, Minecraft account, Sniper Wolf xxcentacion, BTS, my dad making Roblox a Roblox account. If that even makes sense, Nicki Minaj. Right, so you guys get the point. So today we're going to be creating Jumbro, please. Kylie Jenner Roblox account. Yes, I said Kylie Jenner. Why Kylie Jenner? Because nobody has done Kylie Jenner yet. They have done Ariana Grande, Drake. They even made the Fortnite default skin. They made Spongebob a Roblox account man. Even Ninja, that is the same man. Right, so today we're gonna be making Kylie Jenner Roblox account. Some guys don't know who Kylie Jenner is. This is Lycra, real quick. Kylie Jenner. Kylie Jenner. She's pretty famous on the internet man. I'm pretty sure you guys know who she is. Okay, so that's her Instagram. Oh yeah, let's just go on her Instagram because it shows who she really is or at least to get an image of what she is. Okay, so this is Kylie Jenner. She seems to wear a lot of makeup, dresses, a lot of revealing clothes. She has a baby. She is dating a rapper named Travis Scott if you guys know who he is. Oh my God, okay, so we'll come back to this. So let's go to my avatar Roblox.  I'm not gonna be creating a new Roblox account because I don't want to go through all that hassle with trying to make a username because they might be taking all that stuff. So we're just gonna go off of my account. And as you can see, I only have 1,400 Roblox. So we're gonna have to make it work with that. I'm not one of those YouTubers that are like, go, I just have like 100,000 Roblox so I could be cool. Nah man, Roblox? I'm fine with 1,400 because Roblox drives you crazy. So let's just make it work with the 1,400 Roblox we have. If you guys want me to make more of these, let me know in the comments below who you think we should make a Roblox account next up. But try not to pick someone that already has been created. Okay, let's start off with the body. Where do we go, catalog? There you go. Okay, I'm pretty sure Kylie Jenner doesn't have a black body as you can see. I mean, unless she ate a lot and got fat. But no, she is very skinny and petite. Okay, so we go to body parts, go to body parts, or body parts. What? The skeleton? No. Isn't there like a girl body parts on Roblox? Okay, I know. Head, faces, packages maybe? No, not here either. No, these aren't like the, yeah, these aren't it man. Where's like the actual body parts, like the arms and all that. Okay, Roblox girl. Okay, let's go off with this one. Roblox girl, get now. Okay, girl torso. Okay, we got that. So they have girl, oh woman, there you go. That's what we're looking for. The woman, get now. Okay, so there you go. Now we got Kylie Jenner's body on our Roblox character. Next, let's see her hairstyle. Okay, so it seems like she has pink hair right now, like recently. So let's go to the catalog and let's look for pink hair. My God, hopefully we can afford pink hair with 1400 Roblox because they can get pretty pricey. Let's just search up pink hair. Oh God, oh there you go. Okay, so her hair is pink. It's not like too bright. It's not really bright. Okay, someone like this color? Pink hair. So it seems like we don't have a lot of options with pink hair. Oh God. Okay, no, there's not that many options. No, that's too dark. What's this girl? Nope. Okay, no, no, no, no, she doesn't have, oh, there's some pink pop. But she doesn't have short hair. She has long pink hair. So when you get long pink hair, nope, that is not going to work out. Oh, that one looks nice with ice cream cone. Oh, but it's kind of short, huh? Oh God, oh, this one looks nice. Oh, but it has blue. All right, let's just go back to the beginning pink hair. This one, man, that's too short. Which one can we pick? Okay, this one's pink flower princess hair.  She could just have it in a ponytail, right? Okay, so this is getting very difficult. We can't find the perfect hair for her. We're just going to have to pick something already so we can just continue on. Okay, let's just go with the strawberry ice cream. Shall we go with that one? I don't think she would wear an ice cream cone on her head, would she? No, she doesn't seem like that type of person. Okay, oh gosh. Come on, work in this pink hair. Nope, oh my God, this is harder than I thought. Blue ninja hair, oh, that was cool. I think that's the one they picked for the ninja video. Not only pretty awesome. Okay, let's just brilliant pink. No, she didn't have ponytails. Oh, man. Okay, no, that's boy hair. She does not have spiky hair, man. Let's just go back. Okay, we're at the last page. Wow, so they don't really have a lot of options for pink hair. Let's just, okay, let's just go with this one. Doesn't look too bad. I mean, it's the same shade of pink that she has, right? Yeah, it is because it's not too bright or too dark. It's in between. All right, there you go. So we have the hair. Oh my God, she is pretty so far. She needs a clothes though. Wait, where's my body? Woman right arm, woman right leg, girl torso. Where's the torso? No, oh my God, she does not have an arm like that. She has a skinny arm and a big old block arm. Okay, let's go to body. Where's body? Body, torso, woman torso, left arm, woman left arm, right arm. We already got the right arm. Let's get the legs. Okay, she needs the left leg. There you go. Okay, so, okay, she's not looking that bad. Kind of coming along, isn't it? There you go. Yeah, oh yeah, that hair fits perfect, man. You go. Okay, so what do we need next? Next, let's pick. Seems like she wears a lot of dresses, but I don't think they have dresses on roblox today. Let's go to catalog and get more dress. Let's see what pops up, dress. Nope, there aren't any dresses. Okay, so we're gonna have to go with something else. So she wears a shirt.  Okay, I don't know, man. Okay, she wears crop tops. Let's see. Crop top, crop top. Let's search that up. Wow, there's no crop top either. Clothing, all clothing, crop top. Oh, let's search up dress. No? Oh, no dresses. Okay, wait. No, that kind of, no, that's not really a dress. Okay, let's go with crop top. I think that's the code, right? Okay, no, these are all like boy, these are all likey, why does likey stuff pop out, man? Now we're done. Oh, this kind of looks like the shirt she would wear. Okay, we are on our clothing shirts. Crop top shirt. Okay, why are they all boy stuff popping out? Crop top, nope. Okay, nope. Okay, t-shirts or shirt? Wait, which one's that? Oh, yeah, it's shirts, right? There you go. So let's keep scrolling to the next page. Oh, God, come on, we gotta make her look exactly like Collie Jenner. She does not wear a babe. Where's Supreme? Gucci? No, she had Dior, let's search up Dior. Dior. I saw her wear a Dior shirt. Oh, look, this is something she would wear. Yeah, I think it's kind of similar to like where something she would wear, like a crop top. Right, so let's buy her that. Yeah, man, you see, like she has a little crop top going on. All right, nice. So now pants. Let's go look for pants. Okay, what kind of pants would she wear? She wears like those torn jeans that everybody, those trendy torn jeans. Okay, so clothing, pants, torn jeans. Let's see what pops up, man. I know they have a lot of, oh, they don't have any here. Wait, what is this? Torn jeans. Oh, these look kind of good. I think those might be the actual, actually, the only ones that they might have here because all these are the same. These are actually like literally torn off as you guys can see. They're like ripped from the knee below. So funny, man. Okay, so let's go back to these. These might be the only ones we might find in the catalog. Okay, so lots of, not too bad, man. All this stuff we've been buying have been like five robes. Except they are, that was the most expensive. Oh, girl, you need to, wait, where's your shirt at? Let's go to the, I thought the shirt would like apply on right away. I guess not. It's a torn jeans, jeans torn. There you go, Dior shirt crop top. Ooh, looking nice. Hey, I think she's coming to look pretty good. Okay, now her face, woman face. There you go, that might be the face we need. Kind of looks like you're already, doesn't it? Well, let's see if they have like, I'm pretty sure they have faces that have makeup on here, right? Cause I've seen some of those faces before. I've seen those faces, they look pretty creepy on roblox. I think they look a little terrifying. Okay, so faces, uh, how do you search this up? Makeup? Makeup? I see if anything pops up. Nope, glam, maybe glam, right? That's something like roblox would name it. Glam, no. Come on, I don't think, I'm pretty sure we seem like makeup faces. Okay, let's just go to the faces. Let's scroll on to the H page to see if we find one. Because Kylie Jenner does wear makeup, so we gotta make her look exactly the same. Okay, uh, now yellow star face. No, that does not have makeup. Actually, I think those are only in the games, right? Or can you actually buy the faces? I mean, I've never really looked at the catalog on faces before.  No, Kylie Jenner is not an alien man. I like to see Tiger Chase here. It's a pretty cool face. And a friendly grin. Oh man, no. Yeah, I don't think we're gonna be able to find any like faces that have makeup on them. Pink shades. Oh, well, she does wear shades now, but the mouth is silly, man. It won't fit her. Okay, we're on the ninth page. We have to find something. Oh, there's some Miss Scarlet. Oh my God, but that one's 8,000 Roblox. I really did not have that. Embarrassed. Oh, that one looked kind of nice, but it's over our budget, man. All right, so let's go over here. Oh God, no, man. I don't think there's any faces that have makeup on them. Or something similar. Yeah, we're close to that. Butterfly. Oh, that one looks nice. Bad news. Yeah, I think we're just gonna have to stick with the woman face. That's probably like the closest thing we're gonna get to. Uh, purple, no. No, okay, well, we'll just stick with that. I mean, it kind of looks like she has makeup on. Okay, so what do we need? Shoes. Okay, we need shoes now. It looks like she wears high heels all the time. You see high heels? Oh my God. High heels, high heels. Oh, right here, she's wearing sneakers. Oh, look, that's her boyfriend. Okay, well, let's see if we can find high heels. I don't think they have high heels, right? High heels. High heels. Catalog. I don't think they will have high heels in Roblox. Okay, no, they don't. Nothing's gonna pop off of that. I mean, let's look at her. Let's have a little quick peek. Peep at her. Oh, she doesn't look too bad. I think it kind of resembles her. Like her dress style. I mean, she can be barefoot, right? It's just Roblox. Doesn't matter. She could be barefoot. Oh, God, I mean, that looks pretty fine. Well, this is our making Kylie Jenner a Roblox account. So now let's see if there's any games on her Kylie Jenner games. I'm pretty sure there's gonna be games. Oh, Kylie Homestore, Kylie Homestore, Kylie Jenner. See, there's a lot of games. Oh my God.  My God. So she seems like she has a pretty big following in a fan base on Roblox. So let's just click on this game to see what it is like. Kylie's Homestore. It's in Hollywood. Wow. Okay. Let's just check it out, man.  Let's download and install Roblox. I don't get that thing when it pops out. I just like it. It makes me rage. All right, there you go. Come on. I want to see this Kylie Jenner Homestore. Join it server Kylie Homestore. Maybe we'll get to find some high heels or makeup on this game. Eye sugar scarlet. Oh, there's somebody here. We said there was nobody playing. Try on. Try one on. Is he gonna load in? Reset. What if you reset? Oh, there. Oh, I'm sorry, Kylie Jenner. Hey, she's wearing the same outfit. Dude, what? Oh, no, she's not. There you go. Hello? I'm Kylie Jenner. Hi, I'm Kylie Jenner. Let's tell her and see if she replies. I think she's AFK.  Yeah, I think she's AFK, man. Oh my God, this is like her. Oh, look, there she is. She's like freak. That was just like, okay. Store? Oh, they do have a store here. Candles, endless, endless. I guess that's her store like in their actual life. What do they have here, Joanne? Man, these shirts think might take my outfits better. Oh, man, let's go explore the rest. Oh, no, it's a little laggy. Yeah, it gets laggy every time I record on the actual website, but on the app, it doesn't. Okay, so what is this? Oh, they have dresses here? Nope. Man, these clothes don't even resemble her. I think I did a better job, man, dressing up as Kylie Jenner. Oh, look, there's models over here. That's what I was talking about, buddy. You see, those are the faces I was talking about. You know, I wanted to buy the beauty product, Bubble Access 435. Man, these out there are mine. These look better. Let's just buy it so I want to see that one because that one really looks like her. Oh, look, you can even put makeup on right here. That's what I was talking about. Okay, oh, man. Wait, so how do we put it on? There you go. I think this one with the pink lipstick now looks like her. I think it looks like Kylie Jenner now. Or at least it resembles her more with the makeup on. Oh, they even have the hair. Okay, she had pink hair, though. Let's just try on this black hair. Oh, man, what happened to her face?  Oh, God. Well, she's like, Kylie Jenner doesn't have a face anymore, guys. But let's just give her the makeup. Now, oh, okay, so we have double hair now. Right, you guys, well, that was my attempt on trying to make Kylie Jenner Roblox account. You guys enjoyed the video. Make sure to slap the like button if you're new to the channel. Make sure to subscribe into that notification bell and I will see you guys next time. Bye.