Okay, can everybody hear me? Only one good thing today, one is all we need, luckily, on BA and knowing everything else. Any quick last minute questions here? Giro, did you have anything that you were looking at to the upside? Zen traders alive, that's good to know. All right, that's who we get.  Again, summit going on, gapping up today, but don't have a lot of conviction that we're gonna go anywhere with it. We were down earlier, the market's just a mess, so let's stick with the specific things like we do. We will see what we get here. If this doesn't work out, I don't have anything else. If this doesn't set up, I'm up for any other ideas, but everything everybody put in the room I didn't like, but if this doesn't actually set up to do, then I don't have anything else. Well, this is not what I wanted to be doing.  Okay, now that we're anxious here because this isn't really looking the way I want it to, but again, this looks very strange like the other one, but based on the volume, I mean, it's clearly open, but this reminds me of yesterday's, doesn't it? This looks exactly, I know, I was just thinking of the same thing, Jackie. This looks exactly, exactly, exactly like that. Nope, I don't like this. You're on your own if you do it. Not for me. Yeah, there it is, this is the open. Yep, look at that. Unbelievable, just like yesterday's. Here it goes, and this is the open here. It wasn't there. Yep. All right, let's see what we can do here. 89 by 65, 89 by 65, 89 by 65, tag. And the thing is, I mean, there's nothing we can do when they open late. Nothing. I was thinking the exact same thing as Jackie. 89 by 65 is valid. And do not jump the gun on this. It's definitely open now. Wow. We're all thinking the same thing, but if we had done it, you know, it's like, but still, you don't know. Back when you knew 99, but I don't know if that's gonna hit here. There, do it, do it right now. There, get it in and get the stop in right now. That's it, this is it. Wow. Don't worry about where you got filled either. You gotta have gotten it. Wow, this is moving fast now. 65 is a stop. Now that it's gonna matter, we're gonna be out of this soon. 26 is the first target. 2640, 2650, $26. Here, hope everybody got it. And I said to take it before even 90. That was a good decision. You had to do it. You had to do it. All right, let's just take your look at the market. Market, market, market, market, market, market. All right, let's get back to the tag. Here. All right, hope everybody got it.  So you had ample time to do it. Now what? Well, let's see. Great call. I said, don't worry about that, Brett. And, but if you did, and this is just FYI for the future, if you get a fill that you're in conflict with the risk, it's not gonna matter in this case because this is still going. But what you could do is take some out quick because you were up right a ways. So you could have just shaved some off really quick and get the stop back in for the rest. So you can do that if that ever happens. There's nothing you can do. We would have gotten a worse fill if we waited to 90 and then I said 99, luckily. And this is very jumpy. Very jumpy. Almost so jumpy that I can't look off of it. So waiting to see what happens with this. We have the stop at the right place. Did anyone get out? I mean, you would have had to actually react pretty fast to get out. It was almost like you would have had to take it and get out right away. We could have done that. That broke pretty hard. I think 26 is doable. But I guess we're gonna find out here. Shoot, great entry though. We couldn't have gotten any better. This was not open till here. Just like the other one the other day. Just like the other one. But if we had done it actually, I mean, we would have gotten a better price, but just like the other one. But it was like, I was like, wait a minute. Is this open? And it looked like it was with the volume but then it wasn't. Here we go. Cag, pay attention everybody. This is it. We're gonna get this down.  Should it screen right now? Not holding trades long. June, summer, holiday next week. We got a good one. This was the only thing. It worked out. I was perfect. Here we go. Cag. Let's see if it breaks 50. Ooh, I just saw an invisible tick. Ooh, I just saw an invisible tick. 52. Cag, I wanna look at some other things and I can't. 52. All right, here's doing what? Quala Bear probably got out of at least half, I'm guessing. We're gonna be stuck in this now. Oh, you didn't. Usually you do. Well, maybe we'll get a reset up in this to take more or lower the stop or something here. Let's, I mean, you know, let's find out. I did not get out of any there in the 50s because it really looked like it was gonna break 50. And you see how this is bouncing back. Time today is still really early here, but this is really wild. I don't like WBA. I've said it now 55 times. I can't say it anymore. I do not like this trade. I do not like this gap. It's not good. It's rallying with the market. You are totally on your own if you do this. We didn't miss anything here. Move 50 cents and the stop was $1.50. This is better. Here we go. Stick with the Cag or you could have been out of it. This has gotta be it for in here though for the next five minutes. Wow, you did not, you weren't fast at all then because I moved, I said 99. And then before I said 90 Brent, you did not get it in the right minute. You, I mean, I don't know what to tell you then. I have no idea what to tell you. Here, I don't know then. Just make sure you have the stop at the right place. You don't have to be a little patient here now. Just for a few more minutes. Again, this market is very sketchy to me and just lack of follow through yesterday. We don't have follow through today that won't be good either. Spire's trying to lift but it's not really going anywhere. Let's take a look at this. This is red falling. Wow, this could really fall off the planet. Brent, do you use hotkeys? I know some of you do. And I know some of you do not. And I definitely think it's important to use hotkeys.  Well, this is why the Dow is down, BA. All right, let me just look at a couple of things here. I'm taking off the picture. We're in CAG, it's nothing else to do. Just look CAG fall. I just want to see something here. 9.39, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, Thursday. 10 o'clock, we have a number. 10.30, we have a number. 10 o'clock and 10.30, there's today the 27th. The 27th, things people. Okay, here goes the CAG. Let it rock and roll. Sorry, I'm just checking out some things here about some options, which I may decide to do here. What is today? Next Friday is the 5th, gosh, I need a calendar. Five plus here, there's 12. I just took care. Two and a half weeks, seems like a long time. Just like CAG drop, there's nothing we can do with it. This has got to go right now, don't break that 52. Trying to look at some options here. You could be out of the CAG if you wanted, didn't break 52. I'm going to try to give it some more time. I think that it does. Those of you in the options letter, check your email. And I am going to try to wait for 15 more minutes on this CAG. I think we can get this down. We have the market with us at the moment. That's 712 is so far away though. Here, CAG! Gosh, I can only do so many things at one time. Here it is, gosh. 25, everybody CAG! Oh, come on, keep going. Gosh, darn it. Yep, didn't keep going there. Hold on, I want to do one more option here. I'm going to get it out. There's two letters coming. Just whatever you want to do with the CAG, you could be out of it. But I actually think that there is more room to go on the CAG. Oh my gosh, yep. It's like, how many things can I do at one time? It's like yesterday. They call me to be on TV an hour and 20 minutes. An hour and 20 minutes before the show is live. Before it's going to be on. Here's the CAG, it's looking good. It's trying to break 26, 23. And Brent, because you had such a horrible fill, what are you going to do? Are you going to get out early? Are you going to hold it? Oh, I just have to give this one other thing out, everybody, and then we'll watch this. Brent, cut out. Oh, you got out a half. All right, here we go. CAG, pushing, pushing, pushing. Nice call, nice trade. On point here today, people, on the week before holiday. I mean, really thrilled, really happy. 23, 25, hand to the button here. One more push and we're out of the CAG. Let's see if we can get it done in 26. Nice call, 944. I bet this goes to 25-something now that I'm seeing it. I mean, 25-something-something, but I can't see how we're still in it till then, unless it goes straight down. This has been so herky-jerky. But at the end of the day, it's been really a lot to do. Here, CAG. This is just gonna sell off. Every time it goes down, it bounces back. That's really annoying. 26-20, it goes five cents and it moves back 10 cents. It goes three cents and it moves back five cents. I do not wanna be in this through a bounce. Hand to the button here. Here, CAG, here it goes. I can't take it anymore. Great trade, 15 cents from the target, done. Don't wanna sit through a bounce. This could very well bounce into 10 o'clock, and I do not wanna deal with that. I just don't. If you're still in it, you could be in half, you could be in the whole thing. I do think it has a two, five, boom, boom, boom. Here it goes, right now. Here it goes right now. Don't let this get away from you, though, for sure. In fact, you could put a stop at 26-21. You could bar by bar it. I think this has a two, five in front of it today at some point, but I can't guarantee you that it'll be in the morning.  I can't tell you that. Here, it's trying to get to 26 if anyone's still in it. Great job, everybody. Great job. Done with that, but if you're still in it, it's still going. What's happening with this? Nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing in the world. Okay. All right. Checking everything out. Great job. Is anyone still in CAG? Did everybody get out? I remember those were in the option letter. Two were sent. It's like juggling that. Juggling in the world. All right, what's everyone doing? I get still going. I absolutely believe CAG breaks 26 dollars today. I just didn't know it would be this morning. And that was a nice move in there. We caught it. I mean, just at the right time. And once this bounces back, it's not that it doesn't keep going in the day, but it'll have like a 60 cent bounce. And I was like, screw this. It was so bouncy. And it's just, I don't know why. Just was. If you're in this, I would bar by bar it. Great call. Only thing I liked and it works. Love when that happens. Any questions? Let's take a look at the Mew. Did not like Mew for anything today, but and didn't call any options in this because I don't think this is a good long-term trade. Mew was nice yesterday, worked out gorgeous. And actually, if you held it for the move over the high and did the ad, it was a fantastic trade. Hector, I don't really understand what you did with this, but I mean, no matter what your price was in this, you should have gotten a minimum of 90 cents if you held it over the high. Now, if you got out just to get one R, and didn't do the ad, then I can see that maybe you didn't work out with the BYND. And which basically BYND then yesterday did flip around, did reset up. This is very wild. So not sure what everybody did with this option. If everybody's still in there, everybody got out of it. I don't know. This I thought would go yesterday full on. And it did go through both the strikes. Market is just gonna try, but we have the number out of 10, we have the number out of 10, 30. Let's just look at everything, the banks. Any questions? Where did this go? 2606 people, and here's the bounce back and it's gonna be big. And again, this doesn't mean that this is done for the day, but it means it's done for the morning. Jackie got out of one option and held the other. Yeah, I think that that was a good, I don't think holding both would have been a good decision because, I mean, again, these conditions, this market, I talked about in the webinar last night, take your profits, take some, or all.  It's just not a good idea. Galahad, you probably should have got out of one of those just based on the fact that it expires tomorrow. You know? Oh, you only got one. All right, well, then that's fine. Any questions from anyone about anything? Well, too short of a time for you, but not too short of a time for me. So you make your own decision if you wanna change the expiration date and pay up, but really a gap like that yesterday should have gone. So that's the way I was looking at it. Let's see what else is happening here. Numbers out in 10 minutes, we can wait for that. I'm not doing anything else today. Let's see, any questions? Tonight is Nike. So Nike is a big one tonight. I'll take a look at that chart right now. Campus tonight. I really, I mean, I just don't know what we're gonna do with Nike, but it's the only thing that I could see that would be even remotely interesting tomorrow. JKS is tomorrow morning, STZ, but really Nike is the one that, I don't know what it does, but it's the only one I'd be remotely interested in. Well, let's take a look at it. VC, I see that you emailed me back. I have an options newsletter. It's $49.99 a year. It's five grand for the year. If you don't want a day trade, you can sign up for the options newsletter. It's five grand for one year is worth of trades. And well worth it. Although next week people, I'm taking off. I may call some things next week if I feel like they are amazing, but I don't know. I will tell you what the summit coming up. There could be some trades in the market. There could be. If there are, I'll feel the need to call them. If they're good, then they're probably gonna be big. So I'm not like sure exactly here what I wanna do tomorrow into the weekend, if anything, but I'll think about that tomorrow. Today, today we just got the two. Nike is very interesting. I think it's gonna be in play either way. Everyone should have made money on the CAG. Any questions? So I think CAG breaks 26 dollars today, but I don't know when, I don't know what time, and I didn't wanna sit through a bounce. Actually, this was a small bounce considering. I thought it could be a bigger one. Well, it was about 40 some cents. Really too much to give away when you're trying to get something and get it in and out of it early. Morally made 214 dollars today in CAG. Thank you. Even though you were going on and on and on about shop, Morally, what you said on the email, Timmy, was nice about what I said about the market. Let me pull it up. I'll have to stick that in one of the emails today. What did you say? You keep going on and on about shop for some reason. Where was that email from you? We'll look at your shop today. I don't have the charts out. Hold on one second, people. Shop is rallying today, but I wouldn't go long yet. What did you say? What I say in the first few minutes every morning is pretty much set in stone. Yep, that is an accurate statement. My webinar was awesome. Thank you. And I had a great spot on computer. I did, I did. Considering they called me and I ran out of my apartment without my hair and makeup done and only in a dress and went, I did do great. I was very strong with the other people, with the other two men. I would have liked to talk more. I think a segment was cut a little bit short because the other guy was on the phone calling in. What was really funny though was when Nia was like, oh, on the fly. And then after we were off the air, I said, Nia, you're good on the fly. If you're on live TV, you've gotta be good on the fly. The most successful people who are on live television are good on the fly. If you're not good on the fly, how on the earth can you do live TV? So Nia's good at being on the fly. Charles is good at being on the fly. Not every anchor's gonna be on the fly. The most successful television anchors are good on the fly. I'm good on the fly. I'm great on the fly. I've been on the fly sometimes with anchors like when they've made a flood. So it's good to be on the fly but you definitely have to be on top of things. So a lot of people have a difficult time being on the fly. On the fly is good. That's probably one of the reasons I'm so good at trading in the market too. Cause this is like immediate decisions here right now. Take it or not, take it, do it or not, do it. Boom, on the fly.  You don't know. I mean, you don't know this might have failed. You have no idea. I mean, what was the one we watched the other day? Oh God, what was the one that was down big the other day that I didn't really like but we was on the watch and then it flipped. It was yesterday. No, it was two days ago. What was the other one? What was the other one? Shoot. Can't even think of it. OSTK, let's look at that. And this is absolutely taken a dive.  And actually somebody, this was only last year, said, oh my God, this, you have to take a look at this Melissa. It looks so good, it looks really good, it looks really good, it looks amazing. And at the point that they said that, this talk was here and I didn't, I was like, oh, and then look where it went. Anyways, Morali, what you said was really nice. A-V-A-V, was that it? Morali, are you listening? Morali, are you there? Morali, Morali gave me a compliment and said he's been around following a few other people like me who do gaps not to butter you up. Too late for that, Morali. But not to butter you up, but you're far ahead of the game. What you say in the first few minutes every morning is pretty much set in stone. They say those things either in the middle of the day or when they make a video talk of what happened during the day. That's right. But honestly, my intuition, I guess you wanna call it, in the pre-market is like so good. It's like everything coming together. Even before the open, like full on. That is like, it's my intuition, it's the system, it's experience, it's like all of it, really, really good. And I called no longs in the market yesterday even though we gapped up. And I have not called any longs here in the market right now even though we gapped up. And I explained in the webinar last night why I feel that we're heavy. Gala had discredited everything I said, but I'm not gonna give him a hard time today because he's been making money and doing well lately. But you just don't have the institutions here supporting the market right now. So even though you're seeing these gap ups, I do not, you know, I have no interest in them whatsoever. You just made 150 hours on shop. I thought you were getting off this thing. Lantia. All right, let's check out our favorite stock Disney and then any other questions and if not, I'll already go. Didi, did you make money today? You should have. Alfredo, you wrote a really cute note on Facebook. Thank you. At Disney. Shoot, shoot, shoot. I'll have to look at this harder today or by tomorrow. Any questions? JD made money in CAG and everyone should have made money in CAG. It depends really how fast you hit this. If you waited for 90, your fill was bad. But remember I said then take it at 99 and then it broke and then it really broke. And even when I said 99, if you had hit it then it broke past 99 but it was still in the 90s. But anyways, if you waited for 90, you got a horrible fill. So again, hot keys rule the day in things like this and this was very wippy and wild in here. Unfortunately it opened late. This kind of was a bugaboo. We've seen that a lot lately. Seen that quite a lot lately. I did see the article on Disney but I didn't read it yet, Jackie. But I did see what you sent me. Did anyone watch the Democratic debate? I was flipping back and forth.  I go to my mother. She's like, I can't even watch it at all. I can't even watch five minutes of it. I just can't believe how far left the Democratic Party has gone. It's like not even the Democratic Party. I don't even know why they're calling themselves the Democratic Party anymore. They should just come up with a new name and then have a different party called the Democratic Party and then whatever they wanna call it, the Socialist Party. I mean, the Democratic Party has gone so far off the rails. It's not the Democratic Party anymore. It's like when they wanna tax everybody, it's 70% tax rate. I mean, the things that they were saying were so far off the rails. You're like, what in, this is what? I mean, it was like so, they have gone so far off the rails that that's exactly why Trump will get reelected and whether people like Trump or not.  It's like, what? Abortion for everyone? Well, that's a religious issue that I just, I don't wanna get into a discussion about abortion. I think that's more religion based. But the taxing situation is so far off the rails. To think of taxing people, it's 70%. What? You're still talking about the CAG? You mean you wanna do the CAG again here? It's hysterical too that DeBlasio is on that stage. There's no one in New York and Manhattan that wants him to be even the mayor. 8% of the population voted for him. No one here can stand him at all. It's, he's a total, total joke to even be in that stage.  He's like, on top of that, he thinks everyone loves him. This couldn't be farther from the truth. If you wanna do this again, you could do it right here. You could squish one in and put this top at 2665. Right here if you wanna do it. For a little scalpy poo, 40 cents if you feel so inclined if you really think it's gonna break 26, I'm gonna pass. I think it was a good morning and I was perfect. But five minutes setting up, you could do it right here. Stop 65, tight, tight, tight. It's gotta go right back down again if it's gonna. And I'll be in and out quick. I have stopped watching SNL, but I should start DVRing it. But they fast trumped so much, I just can't, can't watch it anymore. But I'm sure they'll do something funny about the, I guess there was some kind of flood with the microphone. I didn't really hear that whole thing. Free college tuition to everyone too.  It's like... Anyways, there's another one tonight. I'll have to flip in between. I need to keep up with these things for Fox News to see what's going on. But it is quite interesting. When you're 19 year old, someone's laughing to debates. Well, it's good for him to be informed at least he's interested. The rich will find somewhere else to leave their money. You personally think there's no match to challenge Trump yet, that's probably true. Here goes the keg. Is anyone back in this thing? Again, I'm passing, but it's definitely breaking down again. Jackie did it, she's swinging for the fences. All right, what else should we have to talk about? Oh, Jaro did keg. Jaro, since we're doing an open house, you wanna talk? Tell people who you are. You talk about your wife, you could talk about your girlfriend. You could talk about both. Do you have a mic with you today? I know you're shy. You can talk for a minute if you want. Jaro has the opposite personality of me and yet we're very similar. I'm an extrovert and he's an introvert. But yet again, if you know him, he's really not an introvert. So sit a little bit different. Do you have your mic with you? Looks like they seem to think they have to go and full on social to get the party nomination. I know, I know that's what I'm saying.  Okay, so I'm out of hiding. Yes, I am sort of the opposite of Melissa in a number of ways. However, let's see. I've been trading this season for quite some time and Melissa's gap analysis kind of rules what I do, even though I do some longer time frames. As far as longer time frames and some others, even some scalping that I do on my own, it gets driven by the gap stuff as well. So this morning, I've just been playing CAG at the open and that is going okay. But what else have I, I was scalping beyond yesterday a little bit. And this morning, I've been keeping an eye on Apple. What else has it might been watching? I took a little scalp out of Netflix but that's not the regular play. But anyway, I am still just maintaining my list. I don't think, I'm trying not to keep a tremendous bias in the very near term as to what's going on at this point. As far as the market goes, you see I draw lots of lines here on my charts with levels. And so the first thing I look at is we're just inside yesterday's range. What matters to me now is that there was a little gap here in the spy, what, 17th to the 18th, whatever that is. And if we get below that gap, I really want to take notice. So it's kind of important that the market wants to stay afloat for me. It's kind of important that we don't go below that. What is that level exactly? 22, oh, about 22, 90, 22. So that's what's on my mind. And obviously the old highs that we broke are right up here. So moment by moment, I'm just swimming. I'd be keeping a lot of cash and I've been scalping more than I normally would. But again, the analysis that goes into the scalps is based on the system. I'll only scalp long things that are strong gappers and vice versa. So with that, I'll pass it back. So you were looking at the market here. Let me look at what you were looking at for this area. Well, I mean, technically we did break that area. Technically, technically we did. Last night we were down. So I mean, to me, this looks like we're hanging on by a thread. Look at this here. We can't hold up this even now. Any quick questions from anyone other than anything at all? Any quick questions? Great trade today in CAG. We will be watching tomorrow morning. Actually, tonight I'll be watching Nike. See what it does. It's either gonna be a long or short or it's gonna be nothing. Three choices. Do nothing, go long, go short. Any questions from anyone? Great job, everybody. Fabulous day. Want to come back with an open house tomorrow? You can. If you're interested in the options letter, email me. If you're interested in the class, email me. Next class is July 13th and 14th. No password on tomorrow, either. Room closed next week for the holiday, yes. I think the market will be absolutely dead. Some people have off the whole week. Some people are taking Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. Some people are taking Thursday, Friday.  I don't think anyone's gonna be working Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Like, if anybody's in the office, it'll be Monday and Tuesday and Mondays are normally slow, so it's like, do you know what I mean? I would just, like, stay away. Their only thing there might be options trades next week in the market. And why do I say that? Because of the summit and President Trump meeting with President Xi. So, based on that, we could have some significant market movement. You know what I'm saying? But I won't know until I see it. I won't know until I see it. Try to get out as many things as you can profitable, though, by today or tomorrow. That's my suggestion if you didn't get out of stuff Tuesday or Wednesday. But we are gonna have a very wild July. You figure the China trade stuff in the market. The Mueller's gonna testify, that's July 17th, so that's right then when we get back and then that week of earnings starting. So, I mean, July is gonna be big. Big meaning, big for volatility, which means we're gonna have a lot of trades. We're gonna have a lot of swings. Swings are good. You just have to play them in the right direction, which we did today. All right, good job everyone. Have a great day. Beautiful day in New York. Have a fabulous day. Email me with questions and I'll see you tomorrow.


Hi there, it's Sandy Olnock and I'm going to do a Boca floral background. I think it's Boca or Boquet and I was sent some beautiful stamps from Pickett Fence Studios and this is one of them, A Bird of Paradise and I decided to make some Boca background for it. I've stamped it in some no-line ink. You can stamp it in any kind of really light ink onto watercolor paper and then I'm going to do the background first because I don't want the flower to bleed out into what's going on in the background and if I touch water to the watercolor pencil in the flower that might pull it out into the background so this will help me to keep it under a little better control. Just going to do a section at a time and get out my tea strainer, yes tea strainer for those of you who haven't seen me use this tea strainer for colored pencil or watercolor pencil. See it grates the color onto the surface of the paper, it makes very, very fine powder out of it and I'm going to use a couple different greens and these are by the way my Albrecht Durer pencils from Faber Castell, very nice watercolor pencils and I'm just putting little blobs of color on here. I had a picture that I found on the internet when I was looking for what color are bird of paradise flowers and that's where I saw one that had a beautiful Boquet background and decided to use that as my inspiration so just look up things like that and you will find all kinds of inspiration out there on the web and what I saw was that there were different levels of greens, there were like really bright yellow greens and there were blue greens and there were really dark sections because the dark sections make the light sections look light and then there were areas that looked like they were white white like really, really, really white white so I wanted to be able to put down a mix of different levels of color you know from the very lightest to the much more darker kinds of colors so I started off just doing a first pass over the entire background first with as soft of blends as I could in most of these areas knowing that I would go back in and add more later and so I'm using my brush with a baby wipe there to just tap off some of the excess water because I didn't want to add too much and get too out of control but blending so that the powder just turns into watercolor and doesn't stay as looking like powder. Now the powder you can do on top of water so once you have painted it already if you see an area you want to add more color to just grate some more pencil on top of it and you can move that around. The brush that I'm using is not one of my crafting brushes and I realized after I was all done with this that I had used one of my fine art brushes so I'm sorry to my crafters if you're looking at this and thinking what is that it's one of my nice Windsor and Newton sable brushes but if you were to do this on a card I would use a bigger brush for the background smaller brush for the flower and bigger I would say probably a number 12 this is a number 8 in the Windsor and Newton but fine art brushes tend to be sized a little differently actually probably companies entire companies size them differently but even though that's an 8 I would say use a larger brush you know 10 or 12 if you're using say the silver brand of brushes that I recommend for crafters because this one's expensive so once I got that first section done I moved on to the next section I'll speed this up a little because you saw how that worked and I'm just going to be looking at things like making sure the color is consistent going from one side of the stem to the other so that's where I was I'm kind of putting some of that blue green kind of color in there because I want it to look like it's continuous behind the flower so anytime you've got a background that goes from one side to the other make sure you create some kind of continuity there so it doesn't look like it just stops right behind something and I'm just going to move my way up the rest of the card and do the whole top section with a lot more light in it so I'm going to put some of the darker mid tone type of greens the yellow greens in it and then more of the color up at the top but leave a nice big open whitish area because that's what was in the photograph that I saw it was gorgeous to see that white light come through it might feel weird when you're doing this to think well I'm not doing something in every square inch that's okay let it just let it be don't don't stress out about it so I'm going to add enough water to get all of this moving and then once this is all settled I want to dry it even though it will lift again once I get it rewet I want to dry it so that I can start putting in some details using the pencils themselves so I began by just wiping off the excess color on the tape so that nothing crawls back into the painting and then dried it really really really well if your paper is even damp then when you go to put a pencil line in it it's going to stick and it's not going to be able to move very well even with good watercolor pencils like these albrecht doors some of us scribble in some areas I want a couple stems because that's what I saw in the picture and then start very slowly to work around some of those bokeh dots which I know how to say it bokeh bokeh bokeh oh my dog is trying to help she says it's pronounced wolf wolf so we're going to try for bokeh instead okay I went and calmed her down there was a squirrel outside that she had to let me know about so now I am fully safe from neighborhood squirrels so back to the background here I'm going to continue to put in some more of the stems a little bit here and there just not a lot and in a very light color so it doesn't end up being really strong but you can see I'm starting to put a little bit of color around some of those bokeh dots the bokeh when when a camera takes that kind of photograph and fuzzes out all that stuff in the distance and you get almost a twinkling of light you get all different kinds of edges you get some that are really hard edges some that are really soft edges and I'm trying to create some of those hard edges with the pencil itself I'm not going completely around any of those dots though at least not many of them I wanted to make them so that some edges fall away into the background and some are very sharp and that's going to be what's going to create that look of coming in and out of the light but if I do all of it using a brush and the pencil and watercolor pencil it's going to end up looking like it's got all hard edges notice as I paint around some of these areas they're very specific kinds of shapes like they're just the shape that I painted around them but I don't want all that to be hard-edged so I'm going to use a baby wipe and dab into some of these dots that I've already painted around and then I can also dab into some of the color that's already there if it's wet I should be able to lift it somewhat but the dots that I paint around are going to remain lighter than the ones that I dab out because every color is going to lift at a different rate some are going to lift really easily some of them are going to be a little harder to pull color out of but it's going to give you the range of depth that you get when you see a bokeh background in a photograph so once all that is done I dried it 100% completely again and started working on the flowers these watercolor pencils are really juicy I guess in terms of the amount of color that they put out which is really nice and I started layering the color in relatively heavily I mean I'm not using a super heavy pressure but I'm using a lot of color in here and using a mix of colors the flower that I was looking at had this one like the big fat petal and maybe there's a scientific name for this I don't know much about bird of paradise but it had a lot of green to it but it had like little yellow on one tip little red on another tip moving into some purple and blue and then into the green it was just gorgeous the way all this colors melted together so I colored them together and did a simpler brush stroke across all that color as I possibly could that bottom section I wanted to put more color in but I didn't want to wait and do it in a second layer so I used the powdered pencil again to drop it into that wet area because that I had already taken my brush over that stem then in the picture that I had there was one like shocking blue petal just an absolutely crazy blue petal that was so intense and it was contrasted with all the other petals because this was the only one that was this incredibly bright blue and that's another one of those places where looking at the internet is going to help you you're going to be able to get something that looks more realistic but notice how intense those colors are looking compared to the powdered pencil they used in the background because that's going to create that difference in the visual separation between the foreground and the background because the flower is going to be more intense that way and it really makes a difference when you're doing no line or implied line coloring like this implied line means you sort of know there's a line there but you know it because there's a contrast between the edges as opposed to a black stamped line so when I stamped it in that very pale tan gray color it ended up with the lines kind of disappearing and now I can reestablish them some of the petals that I saw in the photograph had red tips to them so I could extend these red tips any old way that I wanted because I wasn't constrained by the black line and I could change them up as needed in order to make the flower look the way I wanted it to look but I love these watercolor pencils they're so vibrant when you start putting the water over them it just lifts the color up and just really makes them strong and bright and merges all of that color together so it's nice to be able to go through and put all that heavy color down and then just run the brush over it to try to blend it and not have to worry about lots of layering I did decide I wanted a little tip of that yellow back on that other petal just to tie it in with the whole flower and I was just tickled pink with this when it was done I mean I was just so excited when this came out like did I really do that it looks like an actual bokeh background so I hope it's something that you might try I would definitely pull up a photograph and see what you can find to inspire you so you can look at the shapes and the way they interact with each other but I added it with some dimensional adhesive onto an orange card base added a little sentiment from a different picket fence stamp set and my card is ready to send to a person to whom I am grateful that's about it for me today hope you enjoyed this I will see you again very soon have a lovely day go make something beautiful bye bye


How narcissists react to no contact When you go no contact with the narcissist They sense that something is wrong They know that you're on to them They know that you figured them out They know that you know Because up until that point You may have been under their spell They managed to pull the wool over your eyes They had to do that to control you Because they're very insecure They're shame-based people who are doing everything they can to avoid reflecting on their shame But they don't want you to know that Which is why the last thing they want is for you to leave them They have a fear of abandonment Even though they may have mistreated you the entire time You may have thought that they wanted you to leave them Because it may have seemed like they hated you But when you do leave they try to make you feel bad As though you're doing something wrong as though you had no right to leave But when you do leave They know their scheme and deception has been revealed They know that you've discovered their dishonest activity And they may feel disappointed But they're not going to tell you that Instead they're going to turn against you Because their shame is eating away at them It's destroying them But instead of acknowledging it and trying to deal with it They become defensive They try to protect themselves against what they perceive to be an attack on their interests They experience a narcissistic injury Because it causes their childhood trauma to resurface They get very angry and they try to beat you to the punch They try to get you before you get them To make you look like you're bad, wrong or crazy They can't look that way Because image is everything to a narcissist So they have to take you down Which is why they will talk about you to other people They will start a smear campaign They will make false accusations about you And they may even try to drag you for the courts Because if you've got no contact They're now unable to use you to regulate their own emotions Which is why they will come back to threaten you They will enforce their flying monkeys They will spread rumors about you Especially if the immigrant narcissist or a psychopath They will show a strong and unreasoning desire for revenge Because they really hate you But it's not really about you It's a projection of their own self-hatred and shame Which they don't want to deal with Which is why you need to be two steps ahead of them You need to anticipate what they're going to do You need to focus on your health You need to focus on defending yourself against that attack You need to believe in yourself Because you are capable of overcoming this As long as you make the right preparation for it Because they're going to come at you with all sorts of mad and erratic behavior And you need to remain unmoved and unbothered Because they will get supply from that And then you've just got to keep moving Just keep doing what you do Don't let it affect your life Show them that you're still able to do what you need to do You're still able to take care of yourself Don't let it get to you Because that gives them supply They love that And they're always looking for your reaction to the abuse It lets them know that they're safe and secure Because they're actually more afraid of you than you are of them Which is why they have their temper tantrums Because it's meant to intimidate you It's meant to manipulate you into doing what they want Just remember you're better than that You do the right thing even if they're acting childish Even if it's not a ventations to yourself Because you understand that it's not all about you But they just can't get over themselves They can't stop thinking that they're so important They can't stop complaining They can't stop moaning and groaning Because they hold too high an opinion of themselves They focus solely on their own situation And how it affect them then Instead of the bigger picture And that is why they always lose in the game Thank you for watching If you found this video helpful please give it a thumbs up Share your thoughts in the comment section Hit the subscribe button to receive the notifications If you would like to support the channel You can donate at paypal.me-survivor You can book a one-on-one with me on my website It's NARC Survivor, the Cuddy UK Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Welcome to the Pyramid Insider. I'm Tyler Patner. Today we're going to be taking a look at the brand new SIG Sauer ASP 20 in 1.77 caliber. So the ASP 20 was announced at SHATCHO 2018, which is where we saw it first and a pretty interesting announcement from SIG going into that brake barrel arena was pretty surprised by that actually. But the guns available in 1.77 and 2.22 caliber. We have a 1.77 here to test for you guys today purely because you ordered all of the 20 twos we got on our first shipment. So appreciate the business.  It's absolutely awesome. This is in the Beechwood stock finish. The synthetics not quite out yet. And I know there's also going to be a scoped package available at some point down the road with a SIG scope included. We don't have that quite yet. That is certainly common though. Now some of the cool things about the gun we're going to go over in a little bit more detail here. One of the biggest things that a lot of people like about this gun built in the USA now that is built in the USA with both US made and globally sourced parts. So something to keep in mind there. But the fact that this is built and largely put together basically in their facility in New Hampshire is a big plus. You have Americans working on this gun, putting it together, QC'ing it, which is fantastic. Starting at the front of the ASP-20, we do have an active suppressor here. Now this is permanently fixed to the barrel. It should help us keep things nice and quiet and backyard friendly. We'll obviously sound test it and see what it's doing. Of course that is a fix to a fully rifled barrel. And coming back to this breech area here, this is one of the more innovative things SIG has done with the ASP-20 that really we haven't seen done before. Now this is called their Keystone Breach Lockup System. And basically what they wanted to do is, number one, try and eliminate barrel droop, which from a manufacturing process, if this is all machined together and made as one piece, which is what it is, that should take care of that for us. And number two, they wanted to make sure that you have a system here that returns the barrel to the exact same place every time you break it and reset it. Whether that's going to stand up over time or not, we'll find out. On top of the compression tube, you have a Picatinny rail system. Very easy to use. We went ahead and mounted a Leapers UTG 4 to 16 by 44. This is the side parallax option here with some hawk rings. Dropping down here, you'll notice one of the features I like most on this gun is it has an ambidextrous safety. You got the S right there for safe. You flip it forward and you have the red dot letting you know you're hot and ready to go. And you will also find that located on the right hand side. It's super easy to get to so you can just flick it off from the firing position and then pull it back if you need to put it on safe again.  You'll notice it does have kind of a flat faced form here like their X5 series pistols have. It is adjustable for both second stage travel and pull weight. So you have a definable range that it's adjustable in which SIG is probably one of the first manufacturers I've seen do this. It will adjust between two and a half and three and a half pounds in terms of where that trigger releases at. And then again, you can adjust for that second stage weight or that second stage release point basically with this small Allen key and then you have this kind of odd screwdriver here that will help you adjust right at the back of the action for that pull weight. Interesting trigger right out of the box guys. This would definitely be a very solid hunting trigger so far no complaints with it. Rounding it out at the very back we do have a rubber butt pad and of course it is set onto a very nice beach stock that is stained kind of with this dark gray black finish. It's a bit different looking but I like it quite a bit. You have some nice texturing both on the forearm and you have a very vertical pistol grip which is very comfortable for me. You throw the gun up into the shoulder, it's about eight and a half pounds on scope. This thing's shoulders very nicely. It does have more of a kind of like sniper style stock to it but I like it a lot. Again, very comfortable and very easy to use. With all that said guys, we're gonna find out if this guy's got the goods. Let's head out to the range, see how she does. Alright guys, so got some groupings here with the ASP 20. Tested about 22 different pellets here. It was a whole lot of pellets to go through. Put over a thousand rounds through this gun.  Really only found a couple pellets that produced really any good promise out at 45 yards. We decided to back it into 30 yards to start our testing. The JSB heavies definitely were promising in our pretesting. Didn't do so well when we put them on camera an inch and a quarter group there. It's okay, not great. We could certainly do better. There's a heavyweight pellet right over 13 grains. 0.68, so under three quarters of an inch here, a very solid grouping. And then our best ones, the Barracuda matches just over a half an inch. This is 0.51 inches. So a fantastic group at 30 yards with the Barracuda matches. Stretching it out to 45 yards guys, stuck with all five-shot groups. JSB heavies only proved to worsen about just under two inches for all five shots here. Not very good. Kind of what we expected after the 30-yard groups there. And honestly guys, this was what a lot of pellets were doing at 45 yards. They just weren't even grouping at all. But we have our two best here. So those JSB monsters, five shots in 1.3 inches, four out of those five in 0.7. So four out of five ain't bad. But certainly still we can do better. The Barracuda matches again 0.7 inch 45-yard group. This is exactly what you're looking for. This is going to do it. Whether you're looking for small game hunting or target shooting 45 yards, ASP 20 got the goods with the Barracuda matches. So on top of being pretty accurate and putting out about 18, 19 foot-pounds with most of these heavy pellets, the cocking effort's not too bad on this SIG ASP 20. You're only talking about 35 pounds or so. Pretty easy to break it down. Didn't have any troubles during our testing. Didn't give me any shoulder aches or anything like that. So the ASP 20 is pretty easy to maneuver with as well. Before we get to the wrap up, guys, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. We appreciate all you guys following along with us. Hit that notification bell so you get notified when we upload videos. Comment down below. Let us know what you thought of the ASP 20, what you might want to see next. And don't forget to hit that like button. Appreciate it a lot. Now, the ASP 20, guys, accurate, certainly has good accuracy out to 45 yards. Three quarters of an inch is damn good for any break barrel, in my opinion. You got a very solid trigger on this gun. It's backyard friendly. You got the Keystone lock up system, which represents a step forward from a technology perspective for break barrels, keeping that lock up consistent. Had no problems with scope zeroing and maintaining zero over a thousand shots on this gun. So that's pretty impressive. And for a gas piston, guys, I found this very soft shooting and not terribly hold sensitive either. So overall, the ASP 20 certainly has a lot of pluses going for it. Releasing this into a market, though, where $300 PCPs are now relatively common. I don't know if this necessarily passes the smell test from that perspective. But if you look at it for the segment it's in, a high end break barrel, gas piston, air rifle, this certainly does everything that its competitors do. If you're a break barrel guy, if you're a springer guy, a gas piston guy, this is definitely something that's probably going to pique your interest and certainly worth a look. So definitely check out the ASP 20 next time you're on pyramidair.com. For the Insider, appreciate you joining us today. I'm Tyler Patner. We'll see you at the next one.


Helo, hi gwaith ymgyrch, dwi'n ddweud fyddai'n gweithio'r ddechrau, ac ydych chi'n gwneud i David. Yn ymlaen, Naomi, ac rwy'n beth o'r Grifthau Aelgrwyd meddwl. Rwy'n arred погwll gardau yma o fyrniadau ei hyn yn gweithio, a dyna sut rydyn ni'n anghyfyddoedd mewn ddamlu yng Nghymru. Gallodd yn ganferwyr yn ôl yw fynd i'w Llyfr Nadol, ac yn ddwych chi'n gweithio ond i'r rhaid, ond rydych chi'n gwybod hi'n gweithio ar fyntfforddi Llyfr Nadol. Felly mae gydigau'n gweithio'r Ddaeth Unedigol o'n fan hyn yn cael ei cas i'r newid i'w Llyfr Nadol, neu pob pwynt i'r holl Ddaeth Unedigol, ein llwyntmentau a'r cwestiynau gydig oedd yn rhoi gwneud hwnnw, a mae'n cael ei wneud o'r lleisiwyd o'r parlymyniad oherwydd. Felly, mae'n ddweud i'r cyfnod o'r ddau i gyd yn ymlaen i'ch byddwch gweithio ffeydd. Ond mae'n gweithio'r ffilm o'r llectur yn ychydig i'r website. Mae'n gweithio'r ffilm o'r lecwyr o'r website, a ddweud i'ch ni'n gwybodaeth i'r llectur, ac mae'n gweithio'r lecwyr o'r website. Mae'n gweithio'r lecwyr o'r website. Mae'n gweithio'r lecwyr o'r website. We've got Robert Rogers, who's chief executive of the House of Commons, giving an insider's guide to what goes on behind the scenes at the Commons. We've got the Lord Speaker, Baroness de Souza, talking about her role in international relations. We have Andrew Kennan, who's the clerk of committees, talking about the role and reform of select committees, and that's just a few. Next month we have got one of the archivists in the parliamentary archives talking about Parliament and suffragettes, which will be on the anniversary of the death of Emily Wilden Davison. So, do check that out online, or if you're in London, come along on the 5th of June. So, that's a little plug from me. Without further ado then, I'd like to hand you over to David, who's going to give a lecture, and then we're going to turn the camera off, and you can ask him lots of questions, and he doesn't have to be bound by the fact he's being recorded. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Naomi. Well, can I start by also thanking the University of Hull for inviting me to give the latest in this open lecture series under the auspices of parliamentary outreach. It is a particular pleasure for me to be in Hull for the first time since I bicycled here from London 25 years ago to raise funds for anti-slavery international, and it is a special privilege for me as I'm a great-great-great-grandson of William Wilberforce to be in the Wilberforce building. So, I am genuinely thrilled. About 700 years ago, if I can take you back, in the 1320s, one of my distant predecessors wrote a little manual in Latin on how to hold a parliament called modus tenendi parliamentum, or the way of holding A, or possibly the parliament. Most of it is about who is to attend, how they get paid, where they sit, and so on. Only one of its 36 paragraphs deals with what a parliament is actually supposed to do. After discussion of a faze of state comes, and I quote in English, matters of common concern to the kingdom so that laws shall be enacted against the defects of customary law. So already that far away parliament was there for political discussion of the great matters of state, for the assent or withholding of taxes, for discussion and settling of grievances, but also increasingly from the 14th century to legislate. Now, its non-legislative functions are still crucial to parliament's daily life in holding the executive to account, fulfilled through debate and scrutiny and question. In recent years, these have taken centre stage and understandably so. They're relatively accessible and highly visible. Select committees, particularly in the last 30 years, the departmental select committees are the jewel in our crown. Question Time plays, Prime Minister's Question Time plays to an audience of millions. The regular urgent questions that the current speaker has introduced keep the commons abreast of breaking news. And debates, as a form of political discourse, debates on issues are a well understood form of political dialogue. By contrast, parliament's legislative function is complex, it's sometimes inaccessible, it's based on texts and to some eyes, infuriatingly slow. A bill can take all of 12 months or more to progress from introduction to royal assent, going through all its stages in both houses, and it gathers around it a panoply of papers and documentation. All beautifully set out, and this is a plug, are on the bills pages of the parliament website if you want to follow them. But it does show just how much paper there is, how much information there is gathering around a bill. The procedures we use to debate and decide on legislation are widely seen by academic and political observers as needing reform and refreshment. So in a limited time what I'm going to try to do is convey some of the fascination and of the significance of parliament's legislative role. Now I'm conscious it's a political subject. Bills are basically politics in action. Same-sex marriage, welfare reform, the European Union, banking, enough said, but it sure does make them interesting. I'm going to limit myself just to the commons and in order to be topical just to the session that just ended, that's session 2012-13, the second session of this coalition parliament. And I'm going to limit myself to primary legislation, that is to say bills that become acts of parliament that have the force of law rather than secondary legislation which are statutory instruments made under powers granted under an act, but powers granted to ministers. I may drop in a few modest suggestions for reform. So firstly what is legislation about and quite interesting what is it not about? Well for example it doesn't really cover public expenditure except for forms sake. Spending plans are not subjected to the discipline of legislative procedure nor are government borrowing or money supply. Foreign affairs and defence remain relatively unconstrained by legislation. There are now one or two EU bills each session. We had three in the last session including the accession of Croatia to the EU and there will be at least one in the forthcoming session. Every five years there is an armed forces bill which sets out the legal basis under which the forces operate. But by and large those subjects are not the subject of legislation. But in general terms just about everything else can be. In a sovereign parliament almost anything can be legislated for except the weather and of course the climate change act even tried to do that. And we are now legislating or discussing legislating on subjects that the first Queen Elizabeth, those of you who have done this, the first Queen Elizabeth would have been appalled by interfering with succession and even criticising the episcopate of the Church of England. For whom do we legislate? The answer is for the United Kingdom or for its constituent parts. Virtually all bills cover England, most of them cover Wales and some still cover Scotland and Northern Ireland in whole or in part. That is why on and off for the last 30 years people have been asking what's known as the West Lothian question. Named for the then constituency of Tandiel. Is it right that Westminster MPs from Scottish or indeed Northern Ireland constituencies can vote on legislation which has no effect on their constituents? And if not, is it possible to devise arrangements for English members to have some sort of special voting rights on England bills without undermining the validity of a government of the United Kingdom that relies on a majority in order to have its validity? Put crudly, why should Scottish MPs be able to vote on your university fees? Well England and Wales or England bills are in fact the exception and rather not the rule. Only two of the 15 major government bills last session, defamation and marriage same sex couples were England and Wales and that can change in their passage through Parliament. In fact the defamation bill there was a clause that protected peer reviewed statements in academic journals from Action for Defamation. That was extended to Scotland during its passage through the Commons. So something that started as an England bill became an England and Scotland bill. There has been a commission that recently reported on this chaired by a former distinguished clerk of the house but I think it's fair to say that immediate results are not expected. This session there was a Scottish bill which I will mention because it has some unusual characteristic. It was called the Partnerships Prosecution Scotland Bill Laws which originated in a report from the Scottish Law Commission. Its tragic but interesting origins lie in a fire in January 2004 at the Rosebank Care Home in Udingston in South Lanarkshire in Scotland in which 14 residents died and where the owners were found to have infringed health and safety rules. They were in a partnership which they soon after dissolved and in 2008 the High Court of Justice in Scotland decided the dissolved partnership could not effectively be prosecuted and fined because, you can read the judgement if you're an enthusiast, it didn't exist anymore and therefore nor could the individual partners be fined. As you can imagine for the relatives of the 14 who died at the Rosebank fire this was intolerable. So the bill makes it now possible basically to find a partnership even if it doesn't exist although not of course retrospectively. I don't suppose most members even enthusiastic observers of legislation will have noticed the passage of this particular bill but it does meet in a small way that 1320s definition of some bills are there to improve the law. A lot of them of course are not. Where do bills come from? Well a number of the larger government bills come down the traditional route of policy formation, debate and development, party manifesto, sometimes media excitement, white hall, digestion, green paper, consultation, white paper, possibly pre-legislative scrutiny then through the sieve of the parliamentary business and legislation committee of the cabinet to arrive on the floor of the house. Some have been years in preparation, last session's defamation bill began in 2010 with Lord Lester of Hearnhill's private members bill on the subject. Others have their origins because of events, events dear boy events as the man said, things that happen. The partnerships bill I've just mentioned, another one we have the police complaints and conduct bill, a rose out of the Hillsborough independent panel report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster so that the independent police complaints commission could reopen that case and also oblige serving police officers to be interviewed as witnesses. So those were cases where stuff happens, not always connected with tragedies but sometimes. Now if I can move to a slightly less somber example, I don't know if there are any checks here. No, fine. The European Union approvals bill covered three separate, quite small issues which required primary legislation. And one was to establish that the electronic version of the European Union's official journal could be taken as the authorative one. It arose out of a case brought by the Czech customs authorities, this is ghastly credible, the Czech customs authorities against a wine importer in Olomuz who in 2002 or 2004 had wrongly categorised as a fortified dessert wine, an imported alcoholic drink he brought in called Cagor. Cagor interestingly enough is the Russian term for Cahor, those of you who know the black wine of Cahor from south west in France. Peter the Great brought it into Russia because he had a stomach disorder and then on ever since for 300 years the Russians have been drinking something called Cagor which is a fortified sweet wine and it's used as communion wine in the Russian Orthodox Church. I digress a bit. In Prague, analysis found that in fact it was as well as some great juice, there was a lot of sugar beet alcohol and corn spirit. The importer got off prosecution for wrongly labelling it because he said that the new EU customs regulations are only electronically available in Czech and therefore he couldn't be expected to have read them. As a result of which, years later this strange piece of legislation arrives in the House of Commons and we have to spend some time on it. So we are special thanks to, they're called skoma-lux of Olomuz if you want to buy, used to be known as Olomuz where a number of my Slavic ancestors used to do business selling the wines of western Slovakia which I assure you are not, have no corn spirit in them. Right, let's get back to bills. What are the main characteristics of bills? Well the first thing you see is they're written in a language which is not simple which has to stand up in court under hostile scrutiny and it has to have precise meaning. That means legal language however unused or friendly that may be. Sometimes it means real intellectual complexity, sometimes it means length. Few bills are complete unto themselves. Few of them are an island of statute unrelated to other statute. So they have to refer back to and often amend existing masses of statute law which has itself been amended. I learnt last week that every year, and this is a good fact for an essay, every year around 10,000 to 15,000 changes to existing statute law are made by the new statutes. I'd imagined about 100 to 150. There are thousands of little changes going through all the time. That makes it challenging to keep up with what the current law actually is, never mind how it's being changed. And it does suggest that the bills changing existing law should as a matter of routine be accompanied one way or another i.e. hard copy or electronically with a text showing how the relevant bit of the existing law would look if it were amended as he's being proposed. The main characteristics of legislative procedure. Well I'm sure there are those here who could give you a better and a more precise definition than I can but I'll give you a few characteristics. First it is gradual and staged. It's not sudden. It's not a resolution. It takes time. A single bite is not enough. The material in bills is chewed over and it's very time consuming. Secondly, at Westminster, although obviously not in some other parliaments, it's bicameral, which sometimes means that the same meal is made of it in both houses. So it goes through two very similar processes. And it's a nuisance to change law once you've passed it for those reasons. It takes as much time and trouble to change it as it did to agree it in the first place. And I think most importantly it is textual and substantive. It's not intended to be contextual or symbolic or illustrative. It's not a work of literature, which is where I got those words from. And it can't be criticised as a work of literature. It is not for the faint hearted. It is sometimes said on the basis of no evidence that Bismarck, who can't have known very much about the legislative process I always think, and who once said that a Bavarian was halfway between an Austrian and a human being. But that Bismarck said, and forgive my German, je vénige di leute da rübe wysn, viwst in gesetze gemarctverden dystobesa schlefenzi nacht, which basically means the less that people know how sausages and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night. So I hope you'll still be sleeping at night at the end of this lecture, but not before. So let's go to the Queen's Speech a year ago, almost exactly a year ago, which gave notice of 15 main government bills. All but one, and that's House of Lords reform, have now become acts or are likely to do so fairly soon. The Queen's Speech gives a list, but it's not an exclusive list. She says memorably, other measures will be laid before you, and they are. Some are too minor to be worth mentioning. Some may still have not got the agreement of others. Noticeably last session, the succession to the Crown Bill, which awaited the agreement of all the Commonwealth realms to the end of male primogeniture in succession to the Crown. Others were in effect emergency legislation, a different sort of events that then produces the need for law. The Police Complaints and Conduct Bill, which I mentioned. We had a Mental Health Approval Functions Bill, which went through in a day when it was discovered that in some regions, the power to approve specified doctors to detain patients under the Mental Health Acts had been improperly delegated. And perhaps of more political interest, the Job Seekers Back to Work Schemes Bill in March, which dealt with the consequences of the so-called Poundland case, if you remember the young woman who was sent off for two weeks to work at Poundland. Others reflect ongoing policy development within government. Government policies don't have to be set in stone each year in May, put into the Queen's Speech, and then they sit back and do nothing. Politicians have ideas throughout the year. The Infrastructure Financial Assistance Bill and the Growth and Infrastructure Bill introduced in the autumn gave effect to ministerial proposals which had only crystallised, best way to put it, in the autumn of 2012, as did the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill. And the Marriage Same Sex Couples Bill, which was introduced in January of this year, did indeed represent the outcome of a consultation that had begun in March 2012, but whose outcome was by no means certain at the time of the Queen's Speech in May 2012. Now, who can bring in legislation? The answer is any member. And that includes, although I'm not talking about the Lords, any peer, whether or not supported by another member. You don't need a seconder, and you certainly don't need six people or ten people. A single member can simply present a bill, and once it's presented, it gets an automatic first reading, even if there is no text. All you need is a long title and a short title, and a day is then named for second reading. So presentation is a mere formality. There are some survivals of earlier procedures, and I'll mention one which is of political significance, which is called a 10-minute rule bill, which is a motion you seek the agreement of the House for leave to bring in a bill. Now that is in fact the skeleton of a procedure which covered all bills until relatively recently, like 200 years ago, because this is an old parliament. So twice a week on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, after oral questions and statements, a member has the chance to make a little speech seeking the leave of the House to bring in a bill. Convention since the Speaker's ruling of 1931 is that the quote, brief explanatory statement permitted is to last for no more than 10 minutes, which to some people may seem quite a long explanatory statement, and therefore it's known as a 10-minute rule bill. And then another member can make a similarly long speech in opposition, and then there can be a vote. There aren't many. There are about 45 bills a year. We had three votes in the last year. So it's a chance for a speech, but it is a remainder of some old tradition that the House didn't just let people present bills. They wanted to see if they would have leave, first of all. And indeed, on a side note, the abolition of the slave trade bill, the first time in the first great debate, was on a motion from Wilberforce for leave to bring in the bill, as you will remember. Getting a bill presented is one thing which anyone can do. For a backbencher getting it debated, let alone decided or passed into law, is very different. For backbenchers there's a ballot. You draw, well actually I draw 20 numbers out of a hat at the start of each session. So next Thursday morning I'll be drawing the numbers and the deputy speaker will be reading out the names. For the first time, and this is breaking news, for the first time we'll be doing it in reverse order, because it used to be we picked out number one, and by the end of the ballot people didn't mind who came 18th or 19th. So this time the first name out is number 20, and the excitement will grow unbearably to see who is then number one. So these members then get priority on the 13 Fridays set aside from private members' bills each session. Now the overall system is that only really non-controversial bills enjoying preferably active government support, absence of opposition opposition, and sometimes drafted by government lawyers are likely to reach the statute book. And of the ten that reached the statute book last year, nine were exactly that, what some people call handouts, meaning bills from government departments for which there was no time in the government's legislative programme, usually short and usually relatively non-controversial. The procedure committee is about to produce a great report on this, not in time for your exams, is about to produce a great report on this, which will no doubt suggest quite radical changes in procedure. In parenthesis there's a quite separate category of bill called a private bill, which in very simple terms is a piece of local legislation. And as I'm here I must mention the Humbra Bridge Bill, which was introduced in January and which has almost completed its common stages. Among many other amending provisions about the Humbra Bridge it sets the new statutory maxima in effect for tolls. I was glad to see that pedal cycles will continue to be free as they were 25 years ago. It'll also deal with speeding on the bridge. I'll just mention that in case any of you drive. From now on I'll just be dealing there with the most in a sense important category, which is government bills, bills presented by ministers. The principles of bills are discussed on a debate on the question we read a second time. Now that debate is usually scheduled to last for a day, meaning about six hours. And the question is a simple one, yes or no.  So you may say, why bother to debate it? What's the debate for if you know that the bill is going to get a second reading anyway? Well, there are three groups of people who may benefit. One is ministers. It gives them a chance to set out in public, televised what the bill is for and in some detail what its provisions will do and to put it in a political context. Secondly, the opposition have a chance to explain their view on the bill, which may well be a little complicated. They may well welcome some bits of it and dislike other bits of it, particularly bills about crime, because no opposition wants to be seen to be against measures that are there to put down crime. And back benches have an opportunity to make speeches, setting out their own views, but perhaps most crucially to intervene on a minister speaking and put a question to him or her and get an answer on one specific issue in the bill that maybe causes them concern. In a large legislature, in the House of Commons with 650 members with a constrained timetable, individual backbench members are otherwise largely divorced from any detailed engagement with the process of legislation. And it's not strictly true to say it's a yes-no question, because in the Commons you can table what's called a second reading amendment, which has to be framed so that if it were passed it would be fatal to the bill, where you can express in no more than 250 words why you dislike the bill. If it's selected by the speaker it's put to the House for Decision, and if passed it's fatal. And of course the government will win if it's a straightforward opposition reasoned amendment, but it gives the opposition a chance to explain why they may be dislike one bit of the bill, but not another bit. And they don't want to be on the record as having voted against second reading and be told, oh, but you voted against this wonderful provision. An example in December there was a reasoned amendment on the energy bill from the opposition, which affirmed support for what they're doing on the electricity market, but objected to the absence of a decarbonisation target. So they voted on their amendment, but they then didn't vote against second reading of the bill. Once a government bill has been given a second reading, it's the subject of a programme order. The system of programming, which means timetabling legislation, as opposed to just allowing unlimited time, started in 1997, modestly, and in 2004 became the rule. By now every government, virtually every government bill is programmed. It sets a date by which it has to come out of committee. It limits the time to be devoted to the bill when it comes back to the floor of the House for consideration third reading. And if made at the same sitting as that in which the bill was read, it is put without debate and without the possibility of moving any amendment. That is a bit ruthless. And I think there is a good case for allowing for some sort of amendments to be moved at least to programme motions, because those are the ones that constrain the amount of the time that can be spent on talking about it. Now, it was never foreseen by my predecessors who drafted the rules that a government bill would once be given a second reading, in this case by a very large majority, we had in July, but the government would then not move the motion for the programme order, which would leave the bill floating in mid-air. But this is actually what happened and always the unthinkable happens with the House of Lords Reform Bill. To remind you, in July, ministers suspected they would be defeated on the programme motion if they moved it, because the Labour opposition or their willing to vote, indeed enthusiastic to vote for second reading, was going to vote against the programme motion because it didn't want any constraints on the length of time the bill would have to take going through the House. And they would be joined by a large number of conservative backbench rebels, who were maybe not some of whom will have voted against second reading of the bill, and others of whom showed their doubts about the bill by saying that they didn't want to have any limitation on a debate. I mean, no limitation on a debate of a bill of that nature, it would go on forever and ever and ever. So the ministers therefore decided not to move the motion, which left us in a difficulty, because nobody knew where the bill was. So we, or I think it's probably my fault, we explained that it was in limbo. I don't know very well what limbo is, but it's a theological term, and apparently it no longer exists in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. What we should have said is a waiting committal, because it's been read a second time and it hasn't been committed, but I thought the phrase a waiting committal had a slightly unpleasant overtone. But most government bills, those that get through this stage, then go either to a public bill committee or to a committee of the whole house, or exceptionally to a select committee. The main bills that go to a select committee are what are called hybrid bills, which are basically private bills like the Humber of Bridge bill, but that have been presented under public bill procedure, partly because they are government sponsored. They're not sponsored by the Humber of Bridge commissioners or Humber of Bridge board, but they are sponsored by government. And this year we're going to have one. We didn't have one last year. There'll be one that's probably, you know, there's a railway being driven, called HS2, or maybe driven north from London, through the home counties and possibly gradually reaching Yorkshire. So that will be dealt with through a select committee procedure, and the regular armed forces bill, which hours ago I mentioned, you may remember, also goes to a select committee. They then examine it, meaning they try to sit in a bipartisan way, take evidence, but they can also then change the bill and report it back to the house. And consideration is being given to doing that more often, to committing more bills to select committees, where the spirit of select committee investigation and inquiry, rather than of partisan debate and scrutiny, can be imported. It is generally observed that bills of what are called first class constitutional importance, I've never seen a bill of which regular described as a second or visitor class, or what's the word, tourist class constitutional importance. They go to committee of the whole house, which means the whole of the 650 members become a committee, which means they can talk as much as they like to a single question and that the speaker's not in the chair. And all members can table amendments and take part in debate and decision. And so are urgent bills, because it's by its nature a swifter procedure than setting up a committee upstairs to send it to, short and relatively uncontroversial bills, and sometimes short but controversial bills this session. We had the welfare benefits uprating bill, which put the 1% cap on welfare benefits. The advantage of the government is there's no report stage. It's a one bang. They get it through committee of the whole house unamended. They move straight to third reading. But there are drawbacks in bills in committee of the whole house. Members, as you may imagine, can find it rather a daunting experience, probing amendments, exposing their possible personal uncertainties about what a bill is doing in detail in the grand surrounds of a very, very empty chamber. There's none of that shad sense of purpose you can get with a smaller number of members in a small room that are regularly meeting together. Voting is much more time consuming. It takes 15 minutes to vote in the House of Commons chamber compared to about a minute in a committee upstairs or less than that of 20 people. And of course, if it's taken downstairs in the whole house looking at it, no evidence can be taken. You can't have witnesses examined by 650 people. Now, we had the electoral registration and electoral administration and registration bill in the summer of last year went through committee of the whole house. And I think all the members involved felt they might have had a more constructive and helpful debate if it had been in a committee upstairs. So more thought is being given to dividing bills between maybe vital bits to be downstairs, but most other bits could go upstairs and you might conceivably allow all members to attend the upstairs bit, the committee upstairs, although not to move amendments or to vote, but at least if they want to attend and take part in these debates, they could. Public bill committees to which most bills are committed comprise typically around 20 members reflecting the party composition of the chamber. In 2009, the right committee on reform of the House of Commons concluded that it was about time that the means of selecting these members was looked at. And the Hansard Society, I don't know how many of you know the Hansard Society, is about to bring out a report very soon, which should be making radical proposals, so I'll leave it there. As to what public bill committees do, Louise Thompson of this university, I think, published a paper in parliamentary affairs on the impact of public bill committees over the first decade of this century, well, over the last 10 years, we could say. What it showed is, I think, slightly unexpectedly to some of us, that actually committees were spending longer scrutinising these bills and they were discussing more amendments than they did in what some of the old and bold say 30 or 40 years ago was a much richer environment, but that significantly fewer amendments to the bill were actually made in the committee. I think, Louise, you entitled your thesis, is it about viscosity? I didn't understand that. And an article on their operation a few years ago asked the reasonable question, rubber stamp or cockpit. I think that was, again, are these committees merely rubber stamps just agreeing the bills or is it a tremendous place of fighting? Well, a bit of both probably. One example which you can if you have the time and I do read is on the marriage same sex couples bill, which I did read partly because the substance is such an interesting subject anyway. They didn't make a single amendment. The bill went through completely unamended and I read an article about this that said what a waste of time. I don't think it was. There were fantastic debates. There was, in fact, one division on a, it was a tie at seven each. But the important thing is all the issues that people wanted to raise were raised, discussed. And there is now a much clearer idea amongst those people who will then in about 10 days time when the report stage comes up in the House of Commons, will at least have crystallised what is a real worry and what isn't, depending obviously from which of the many sides of the argument you come. So what can you expect from these committees? Well, we shouldn't expect forensic non parties and scrutiny and learning debate. They're not postgraduate seminars in some institute of legislative studies in the cloistered calm of a campus. They are a political debating forum on a series of detailed policy propositions which have been put forward by ministers. So the debates that take place in these public bill committees are by way of amendment and they are by the way of exploring the provisions of the bill to see if it stands up to hostile but hopefully not wholly destructive analysis. Much as in a court of law cross examination is designed not to expose lies but to discover some sort of truth. So the output is not to be measured by changes. The amendments discussed are often simply a peg or a way of framing a question or crux on which to argue rather than representing a form desire to change the bill in the way that the amendment suggests. So ministers are forced to defend or feel forced to defend the proposals that are in the bill. The advantage of that is they have to be satisfied with the advice that they are getting from their officials. So the terms of a bill are tried and tested in that crucible of debate. Secondly the opposition can use it of a means of exploring their own views in some detail which are unlikely to have been fully formed at the time of second reading. And thirdly and perhaps potentially most importantly the world outside Westminster, civil society should have if it's interested in detail in the provisions of a bill a clear idea of what the bill is intended to achieve and how it will operate. It has or it should have an educative or expository function. The procedures in these committees are I fear not necessarily designed to achieve these ends. They are perhaps excessively attuned to a dialectical process of textual amendment. And it does seem odd to me that members who wish to ask simple questions and get simple answers while a bill is going through, it's not easy for them to do that. It is assumed you should put down amendments. So there may be a space for a more directly and explicitly interrogatory procedure through a process of let us say oral and written question and answer rather than relying always on amendment. In the recent years public bill committees have started with several sessions of oral evidence. That's to say question and answer from a range of witnesses which is intended to help committee members identify the detailed issues and to give civil society the people who are deeply engaged in the bill a chance to make their representations and to answer questions. Again, I would urge you to be the same sex marriage, the same sex couples bill for a good example of really interesting and vigorous oral evidence as you can imagine from a range of people including a particularly argumentative bishop. In fact, in the earlier days before we had evidence of course civil society still made contact with members so that they are sitting in the room in the public bill committee would be the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Let us say who would have memoranda they would hand out to members perfectly properly and they would talk to them at the corridor outside or the Institute of Housing or the Association of Directors of Social Services or whatever the bill was about. So that was always going on to say this is an amendment we'd like you to think about next week or why don't you argue this. The advantage tonight is transparent. We all know what interest groups are saying to members and everybody can know because they're published on the website. One disadvantage is that bills that start in the Lords and about a third of major government bills start in the Lords rather than starting in the Commons because if they all started in the same house the Commons had nothing to do for the second half of the year and the Lords would have little to do for the first half of the year. Start in the Lords committees don't generally take evidence on them so they can take the public bill committees can take written evidence on Lords bills but not oral evidence and I suspect that that convention will soon be revisited because the Lords don't have committees on bills and are therefore not able to take evidence. I want to have a word about the public reading stage. The coalition agreement of 2010 committed to introducing something called a public reading stage. The idea is that members of the public would be able to comment on a bill in detail. We've had three of these so far. The most recent one on the Children and Families Bill and it remains uncertain whether and when there will be more but I suspect in the coming session there will be another one and it is in a sense merely an extension of what we're doing anyway by actually going out to the public and having an electronic forum and with the bill on it and you can look at it and you can say at Clause 32 you can post a comment and somebody will read it. I'm not going to say they're going to change the bill as a result but somebody will read it. Okay so that's the end of the committee stage. Report or technical consideration is when the House as a whole has a chance to look at and amend a bill. Now most members find this the most frustrating side of legislative procedure and the right reform committee in 2009 agreed. Ministers can use it to bring forward new material either in response to the debate in committee or elsewhere or because they didn't have full agreement to it before or because they haven't thought of it before. The official opposition gets a chance to get votes of the whole House on the three or four issues in the bill it feels most strongly about and often forgotten back benches because there are a lot of other members who are not clearly represented by the views of the two front benches get a chance to put their views. Now there never seems to be time. The chair does its best through the grouping lots of amendments together in big amorphous debates or maybe it's simply that time is ineffectively used or distributed for all matters to be voted upon. Now there are a range of remedies being looked at for this and this is in a sense the most crucial weakness in legislative procedure. The most recent example we have the crime and courts bill which was effectively report stage was hijacked at the last moment by the debate which all sides wanted on the new clauses relating to the implementation of leveson, press regulation. As a result of that other things that were rather more closely connected to crime and courts and you may say what's leveson got to do with crime and courts and the clue is in the word courts. Other things including for example a debate where there was a lot of controversy about extradition was simply not held because there was no time for it because it just fell off the bottom. And finally you'll be glad to hear except it's not quite fine. We come to third reading which is the last stage of a bill, the stamping. These are generally rather lackluster debates of half an hour or so where there's a mood of relief and self-congratulation and they are debatable. It does however give a chance and particularly the vote gives a chance for a last look at a bill and you might say well if you voted for it on second reading why wouldn't you vote for it on third reading? Well some members say and some mean it, I'm going to look at the bill, I'm willing to go ahead with it on second reading, I won't rebel here but I'll have to see it third reading if it meets my concerns that I expressed. And returning to marriage same sex couples bill and possibly the European Union bill sometimes and if the House of Lords bill had gone way through. There would have been people that said I'm not going to allow this bill through unless X happens to it on the way through. And we had an example last session, the Justice and Security bill which came from the Lords which was divided on third reading, the government won very easily 13 MPs voted against. Six Labour, four Liberal Democrat, three SNP, one Conservative, one Green. So that's from every party, a tiny group of members but they gave them a chance to put on the record their concerns about what are called closed material procedures, the introduction of so-called secret evidence in civil cases. So now it's gone from the common sigh of relief and it goes up to the Lords, is that the end? No it isn't. If a commons bill is returned, it comes back with or with amendments, the commons then consider those Lords amendments. And that can go on until the text is agreed, in theory the whole of the text is agreed by both houses. Now the back and forth for some reason you know what it's called, people call it ping pong or whiffwaf as I think Boris calls it. And we now even call it ping pong on our website, I'm embarrassed to admit because there's no other short phrase for it. The basic idea behind this is that where you've agreed on something you mustn't open up new areas of disagreement. So the only thing you're discussing when quite the bill comes back from the Lords is not the bill but the amendments. Those of you familiar with what you all are with aspects of family life know that when you're having an argument it's very important to concentrate on what you are having an argument about and so that it doesn't spill over into who takes out the dustbins or does the washing up or other things. Just concentrate on the point of disagreement not the many many other points in the context around. So the Commons can agree with the Lords amendment and it generally the Commons agrees with a vast mass of Lords amendments. Why? Is it because of the wisdom of the senatorial wisdom of the House of Lords? Perhaps it may have something to do with most of them were actually moved by ministers in the House of Lords in the first place and therefore the government which commands a majority in the Commons is likely to agree to them usually without opposition. It can amend a Lords amendment and then a seek agreement to that amendment usually but not always in a fairly friendly way. It can disagree to a Lords amendment and where it disagrees it assigns a reason the text of which is agreed by a little mini committee in a little mini room. If it disagreed to a Lords amendment it can propose an amendment in lieu that's to say an alternative but related proposition. Or if the original amendment, and this is where I'm losing you, if the original amendment sought to leave out some words you can amend the words restored to the bill. For example if the amendment from the Lord says leave out Clause 6 we don't like it the Commons can say no no we disagree to that amendment we want to maintain Clause 6 but to go a little bit of the way to meet your concerns we will amend Clause 6 and we'll send back some amendments to the words restored. And which is a nightmare it can propose consequential amendments to the bill in other words because of stuff the Commons is doing it has consequences. So you see why it's fun it's a sort of wonderful intellectual game except it's not game and it is easily understood if you concentrate on the fact it's about politics and policies and that makes to me the last week of every session the most enjoyable and sleepless and exciting. There is one issue about Lords amendments which before I come to an end which is to do with money. Because basically the Lords being an unelected house are not supposed to take the initiative on spending money or raising taxes. So when amendments come back from the Lords that seem to do either of those two things they are identified as infringing the Commons privileges and they get a little P put next to them. Most of them agreed anyway because they were moved by ministers in the Lords and it's simply to say we have noticed this involves money but we're very happy to agree to it. So for example in the last session we had a public service pensions bill that was 16 of the amendments that came back were designated as engaging privilege and 14 of them were just simply agreed to by the Commons not a problem but two were not which sought to basically improve the pension terms of the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence Police. Now the reason the Commons disagreed with it isn't really because of the money it's the matter of the policy involved. Government felt strongly that we shouldn't be extending the same early retirement provisions to the Ministry of Defence Police as maybe enjoyed by the other police forces. But then we have to send back a reason if we disagree for money reasons saying we disagree with this because of money and there's a form of words that's used which then annoys their Lordships who feel that we're trying to hide behind money when actually we're just straight disagree with them. So why bother to have reasons? Well this is my last but the fact is nobody knows. Reasons are a survival I believe from distant days when neither house knew what the other was saying. There was no transcript so the Lords would suddenly get some message from the Commons saying we've disagreed to your amendment number 17 and the Lords say well why? And nobody would know. It was now of course every Hansard that is on the web within three hours of it being said and certainly within the next day it's in a bound volume so it's very easy to find out what the real reason is for disagreeing to an amendment. It also dates back to the days when the two houses would meet together and to point effectively managers the way the Congress still does to try to work out a compromise and so you sent the managers off with a reason so they remembered why it was that the house had disagreed with the thing in the first place. Will you be delighted to hear I've exhausted myself, I've probably exhausted you and we haven't even got to the Lords, let alone to Royal Assent and the use of Norman French. I just hope that what you've heard has inspired you a little if you didn't have it in an interest in the passage of legislation, a recognition which I'm sure you did have of its importance and its significance and of its close connection with politics which is why I've tried to give examples from bills on matters that are a substantial political interest. And a willingness to engage with the legislative process. Thank you very much.


Everybody forced here up in two boxes 22 22 nfl leaf autograph jerseys here for Shane D. Thanks Shane. Good luck, man Come on McCoy. Let me more Lenny more I was like more Lenny more as a throwback for sure Hall of Fame at seventy five Is a long time ago to be inducted into the Hall of Fame man Early days right there Beckett authenticated Lenny more almost 50 year anniversary of his Hall of Fame induction Another throwback here a mel Renfrow Can't move the Kind of move this to show the auto mel Renfrow barely a couple of throwbacks Hall of Fame 96 Hall of Fame inscribed both of them Shane Thank you again. We'll get these out to you