Passive voice. How to construct the passive? One, check to see if the active sentence contains an object. John ate an apple. Subject, verb, object. Passive is possible. John ate yesterday. Subject, verb. Passive is not possible. Two, move the object to the front of the sentence. Put the original subject in a by phrase. An apple, verb, by John. Three, put the verb in the form B plus 3 of main verb. For simplicity, we use numbers here to refer to verb forms. One, base form, eat. Two, past form, ate. Three, past participle form, eaten. An apple, be eaten by John. Four, put the B in the same tense as the original active sentence. An apple was or were eaten by John. Past tense. Five, make the first verb agree with the new subject. An apple was eaten by John. Put the other elements of the sentence in grammatical and logical order. Yesterday, the large green apple was quickly eaten by John, who didn't realize that it belonged to his sister. When other auxiliary verbs and modals are used in combination with the passive, remember B plus 3, passive. B plus verb, I-N-G, progressive. Have plus 3, perfect. Modal plus 1, modal. The apple should have been being eaten by John. In combination of auxiliary verbs with the passive, B plus 3, passive. B plus verb, I-N-G, progressive. Have plus 3, perfect. Modal plus 1, modal. The apple is eaten by John. Present tense. The apple was eaten by John. Past tense. The apple is being eaten by John. Present progressive. The apple was being eaten by John. Past progressive. The apple has been eaten by John. Present perfect. The apple had been eaten by John. Past perfect. The apple has been being eaten by John. Present perfect, progressive. The apple had been being eaten by John. Past perfect progressive. The apple will be eaten by John. Future or modal? The apple is going to be eaten by John. Future or modal? The apple must be eaten by John. Modal. The apple must have been eaten by John. Past modal. The apple must have been being eaten by John. Combination.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaskyscasewrakes.com with the Patriots, Niners, Bears, Jets, Random Number Block Radimizer for Pick Your Team 11. That's how the Number Blocks work right now. And big thanks to this group for getting into it. Let's roll it, Randomize, Names and Numbers, 2-4, 6 times, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6th and Final Time. After 6, we've got Jeff down to Jeff, 2-4, 6 times for the Numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6th and Final Time. After 6, we've got 0 down to 6. Alright, Jeff with 0 and 9 and 4, Matthew with 8, Jeff with 1, Matthew with 7, Mark with 5, Matthew with 3, Jeff with 2 and 6. Coming up in a separate video will be the break itself from jaskyscasewrakes.com.


So, the last feature that we have that I would like to show is the working list. And, you know, at the end working list as Marco was explaining is there are like filter kind of filter that are stored in the in the database that are persistent right. So, let me then go back to the to the to the access to web platform. So I'm going to use if you use a capture application. Okay, and now I'm selecting the and hello home. So, I am selecting the malaric registration in this case is an event program. Okay, and I see that I can see that they have three, three working list events assigned to anyone events assigned to me events today so I can click on those. It will like apply the filters, right, and they are persisted in the in the backend. So now how can I display these filters. So in Android, if you go for example I'm going to now go to the to the this same program to the malaria, malaria registration. So then I'm going to click on the filter button again. Okay, and now I can see that this field those working list are also presented here. So basically I can navigate. And I can say for example okay I just want to see all the events that are assigned to me so I click on this. And these are the events that have been assigned to me. And also you can see that how these filter are like automatically updated. Okay, if you select this. And it's also been moving to the default direction. So you can apply as many filters as you want. There are no events that have been conducted today, events assigned to me events assigned to anyone else. So this works in events but also it works in tracker the same way. Okay, so you have working list working in track on tracker, so it will show up here as you as watching this for events.


In September, Uganda paid the Democratic Republic of the Congo $65 million as war reparations. This follows an order by the International Court of Justice in February, ordering Uganda to pay $325 million for killings, loot and damage caused during its occupation of the DRC in the 90s. The amount paid in September is the first of five such installments. What was the case presented by the DRC and is this the beginning of ensuring justice for the victims? Kambale Musawuli of Centre for Research on the Congo explains. It's a historic day, right? It's a historic week actually, not to think about that today. Uganda has paid reparations to Congo, right? The first payment came. This comes from the history of conflict that we've had in the DRC. Since 1996, there has been a war in the Congo waged by U.S. allies around Uganda. They've invaded the Congo twice in 1996 and 1998. Up until today, they continue to support proxy rebel militias. But around 2003, the Congolese government at the time decided to take to court Uganda and run the action. They went to the International Court of Justice to sue these two countries for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, for preferring our Congo's resources. The court heard the case. In the end of the case, they dismissed the case against Rwanda. The reason they gave for dismissing the case is that they did not have jurisdiction to try Rwanda as a country at the ICJ simply because Rwanda has never signed the Rome Treaty. The United States is one of the countries also that have not signed the Rome Treaty. So the court found itself inadequate to look at the case for Rwanda. But for Uganda, Uganda is a party to the Rome Statute. So the ICJ was created from the funding documents of the Rome Statute. So then, given that Uganda signed the Rome Statute, the courts found itself adequate to actually try Uganda. They went through a vigorous process, judges, the lawyers from both countries. And in the end of the process, the court in 2005 found Uganda guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and preferring of Congo's resources and displacement of population and so on. So in 2005, at the time, there was a statement for ICJ that Uganda would have to pay about $10 billion of reparations. Those were the damages that the Congolese government was seeking for what they did in DRC. And from 2005 to now, there's been a lot of back and forth about the amount for reparation. So one, already the court in 2005 found Uganda guilty of preferring of Congo's resources, killing Congolese civilians, being an occupying force in DRC. Then about sometime last year, the case came back up because Uganda hadn't paid reparations to DRC and there was no final judgment saying what the amount will be. So the judges again heard Congo and Rwanda. And in the end, the court decided that the damages, the values for reparation will be upward of $300 million, about $365 or such. Of course, Uganda stated that they cannot pay it. But now, we see Uganda has made this first payment. So I'm not looking at the dollar amount of what Uganda is actually paying. I'm looking at the original reason why we are where we are. The Congo sued one of his neighbors, actually two of his neighbors. One was not, the case was not heard because of jurisdiction. The other, the country was found guilty. And being found guilty and being sentenced and judgment being disclosed, they are making that payment. So Uganda today is saying, yes, we invaded the Congo, we pay for Congo's resources and we kill civilians. So that's the only victory for justice seekers. We do believe that over $300 million is not enough for the crimes that are committed. But the fact that Uganda is making the payment is the acknowledgement from Uganda that they have committed crimes in the Congo. While Uganda has begun paying reparations, Rwanda has still not been brought to justice for its crimes during the same period. What attempts have been made to pressurize Rwanda and how is it that both these countries continue to support insurgencies and intervene militarily in the affairs of the DRC? It's very important also to understand this context. The ICJ International Court of Justice and the ICC, the International Criminal Court are two bodies coming out of the Rome Statue. So we know that at the ICJ, Uganda has been found guilty and they've been sentenced. There is a judgment and they are paying $65 billion from the amount given for damages for reparations for the RC. So in a normal situation, the International Criminal Court, the ICC should look into this case. So there is a civil suit and they also need to be a criminal suit. In the civil suit, it's already determined that Uganda has paid for Congo's resources. Uganda has committed crimes of war crimes that have displaced populations and so on. So the question should be asked, why isn't the ICC, the International Criminal Court, looking into Uganda for these same war crimes, crimes against humanity and pay for and Congo's resources? Because it's the same statute. That's one. The second one is the case against Rwanda. Rwanda did not get tried because of jurisdiction. But given that Uganda was found guilty at the ICJ, more than likely, they will find also Rwanda guilty if he was actually properly tried. So that means that for the past two decades, international bodies have had information about Congo's wars, about the invasions of Congo by its neighbors, Rwanda and Uganda. But these nations have continued to engage, temper, and interfere in Congolese politics through invasions, through war, through different Congo's resources, unabated. And that's almost like the most important element to look at, that how come Rwanda is not being held accountable? So you will look at Rwanda's partners internationally. For example, the United Kingdom, which has decided to send a refugee seeking asylum into Rwanda for processing. They are using Rwanda as a contractor for processing refugee seeking asylum in the UK. Why is the UK engaging with Rwanda at the level? The United States is the same. They have military agreements with the Rwandan government. They have not stopped any military training, any military support they provide to the Rwandan government. And they have the same information that we have. I believe this culture of impunity is what has caused the conflict in our Congo to continue up until today. Over 60 million Congolese people have died. It's almost as we're saying that people can come to the Congo, loot Congo's resources, kill Congolese civilians, and nothing will actually happen to them. Because of the cultural impunity, as just mentioned, work continues. We believe for peace and stability to happen in the ERC, we need to have justice. There need to be a case open back up at the ICC. There is no case against Uganda at the ICC for the crimes of Uganda. There need to be more international pressure on Rwandan Uganda's partners. I said that if you are not a stakeholder for peace in the ERC, we are not going to use our taxpayers' money to support this oppressive regime. And lastly, which is the call from the Congolese population, though we know there is an ICJ ruling and a judgment of overpricing the million dollars given for reparation, we still believe that we need to implement the recommendation of the UN Mapping Exercise Report. The UN Mapping Exercise Report that was published in 2010, October 1, 2010, said that what's happening in the Congo is a war crime, crime against humanity, and possible genocide if proven in the competent court. And this report calls for a mechanism for justice for the ERC. It's proposing a tribunal, an international tribunal for Congo. It's also proposing, if not that, we can look at a special chamber, mischambers created to look at the cases of crimes in the ERC. The Congolese people are calling for that. We believe that justice is non-negotiable using the word of Dr. Denimi Kwege, the Nobel Peace Prize. We must have justice to have peace of stability. The judgment against Uganda is a step in the right direction. The first payment is a step in the right direction. We know that it should be more, but we must continue, continue, continue to push for justice for the ERC. Without justice, there cannot be peace.


Hey everyone, it's Gabrielle. I'm over here today at Oxmer Toyota for our Facebook use vehicles of the week I have three vehicles. I would like to go over some of the details on so let's go over this one right here This is a 2019 Jeep Renegade Limited. It is all-wheel drive Now the exterior color you are seeing is called alpine white clearcoat So a few of the accessories are the vehicle has a navigation. There is heated leather seating There's a backup camera Now it had one owner does have a clean car fax that interior color is a sky gray with black The mileage is 7,811 the price is 23,000 now this one is priced well below the market rate and it's one of the lowest price within 400 miles So moving on to our second. This is a 2017 Subaru outback 2.5 I all-wheel drive exterior color is in a crystal white pearl Few of the accessories on this vehicle. There is a sunroof The vehicle is equipped with navigation back at camera Does have a clean car fax with only one owner that interior is a warm ivory mileage on this is 2880 the price is 17 263 this one is price number one within a hundred miles Moving on to our last This is a 2017 infinity q of fifty two point oh T Exterior color is in midnight black This vehicle has a sunroof has heated leather seating It is all-wheel drive was locally owned with one owner That interior is a graphite with sport leather seating the mileage on here is 17,318 the price on this one is 23,000 the odometer is 17,730 miles below the market average and it's one of the lowest prices within 500 miles of here So wonderful options if you all have any questions feel free to let us know I'll have our contact information listed below. Thanks guys. I'll see you all next week. Bye


as, all these things. I think that it's a bit of wait and see. In terms of pillar two, I think that it's a big step forward where we are with this programme, though, where previously because there is more targeting within it, because it is more prioritised, because we are using data, and I think that that's a big step forward. Is there more to do on that? Yes, absolutely. We need to make sure that we continue to get the best data involved, so we are specifically targeting, because it's a limited pot, whichever way you look at it, and it will always be a limited pot, so we've got to use that wisely and make sure that we don't have anything coming through the system, that we're not too sure why that's coming through the system. We want to make sure that it's the right things in the right place, and it's at a scale. I think that the big thing for me is the collaborative pot. I think that it's £10 million that's allocated to helping collaborative applications. I actually think that that is the most crucial thing of the entire SRDP. If we can use that money wisely to get people coming forward in their, if you like, 10 estates working together or 10 farmers working together to bring forward big-scale applications that will actually make a difference to those biodiversity targets, we'll deliver the 2020 target. If we rely on individual farmers to come forward with individual applications, I actually think that we won't get anywhere in that 2020 target, so I think that that collaborative pot is going to be used really cleverly, and we're going to have to make sure that it's targeted at the right places. So, if you like, that's the one that I'm keeping my eye on is how we use that. Quick follow-on from that, so I know that there's proposed work in the next resas programme on SRDP targeting, so we talked a lot about this new data layers that we're getting, new information systems where we can put these layers together, and I think part of the aim is to use these new sets of data that we can bring together to start doing that sort of focus SRDP targeting. So it brings us back to this point that we had in the beginning about targeting in the work and getting the best action at a local level, I think. Sarah Boyack. Just a quick follow-on about where biodiversity fits in terms of spending money on farming. Who would be leading on that to actually identify what value for money we get out of that, if we're saying that how we spend the money is really important? I think we'll try and take that point on board, unless anyone has a comment to make on it. So I'm just asking, because we just passed a statutory instrument earlier today, after a bit of discussion about what kind of grass was in one bit of the requirement and one bit was in another, and I'm just thinking that there is a chance to pull together some of the biodiversity information that we've had today to maybe feed that back to the ministers. There is a follow-on reporting mechanisms through SRDP and CAP where, if you like, there has to be evaluations as to what the money has been spent on and what the impacts that have been, so that tends to happen, and I think that Rhesus helps out with that. So I think that there's quite a lot of information that should come through the SRDP, said of things, as to what the money has been spent on and what its impact has been. I'm not even sure if the one for the previous programme has been finished, because it tends to be after the programme that you get that information, so I'm not an expert on that bit, but there is definitely a monitoring programme that goes along with the SRDP and is put back to the commission and things like that. The features in that so that it can be tracked through? Oh, we should indeed, I think. Thanks for that point. Jim Hume? I'm not sure if it's slightly earlier, because the CAP isn't really happening yet, and we've heard it's waiting to see. IAAC maps are going out now, and I think that they'll be finished and back with the Government by middle of May, for that perhaps, or there should be anyway. So that's probably when we'll start to see the data coming in to see if there has been any changes, positive or not? Okay, that's certainly an important source, but thank you. Alec Ferguson, you want to take this forward a bit, yeah? Yes, and it really follows on this conversation, while also linking back to the opening sort of discussion we had there, I want to look at, which is the conflict or potential for conflict between the land management sector, if you like, and the conservation sector, on the other hand, exists, because I noted with interest that James was talking about a real willingness to co-operate and buy in to the various priorities that were being discussed, and I'm glad to hear that is the case, but I had a very interesting email from somebody who's very involved in this world, who'd better remain nameless in advance of this meeting, and he told me that he'd attended the State of Nature conference recently, and then the next day attended the Farming Scotland seminar or conference, and he said that it was really like existing two parallel universes. He said that the language was completely different, and I'll quote from the email. He said that conservationists were talking about the ecosystem approach and ecosystem services, farmers were talking about markets and forward selling to try and avoid risks. We've talked about incentivisation to try to ensure that the land managers are playing their part in this, and I've got some sympathy with the need for it, because I do think that, and perhaps I'm speaking as a former farmer here, but most, if you introduce conservation measures on your farm, you are tending to take away from the productivity level of that farm. It's a bit of a generalisation, but I think it's probably true on the whole. You're therefore reducing your income, and you probably want some incentivisation to be able to do that. So I think my real question is, do current policy objectives relating to land management have an adverse effect on biodiversity? Does anybody think? And if so, what can we do about it? Right, I'm just going to take that. Derek? Yeah, I'd say some do, I would say. But it does come down to individuals. Not every land on every farmer is the same. People farm and own and manage land for different reasons. We notice that the hard-of-press tenant farmers will, in agri-environment schemes, buy in large, go for management options where they get a regular income. Landowners tend to go for more capital options to invest in their farming and going forward. So there's a sort of split. You can see these splits and options that they go for going forward. People might have said that they managed land for all different reasons. So I think we have the mechanisms there. But we need to think more cleverly about how to go forward with these mechanisms and how we get people to implement biodiversity on farms and within catchments and how we get people working together, because no farm is an island. Farmers want to do this work but the incentives have to be there and have to work across farm boundaries and across cash-in boundaries. It's that bigger picture that we're struggling with. How do we do it if the willingness is there? Herons reason why, if you like conservation and land management, so things can't come together. I mean, there's no heron reason why that should be the case. I mean, I do think that if you just looked at strategies and tried to find where they don't entirely fit together, you could probably do that as well. I suppose the bit that I would look at is that when you get down beneath some of the debates that you can have at a national level and you actually look at the practicalities at a regional or a local or a catchment level or whatever it might be, an awful lot of those things tend to disappear to an extent and you can have fairly good conversations across the piece between NGOs, land managers, tenants. You can usually find a way forward on most of those issues. I suppose I'm relatively positive that if you get out and talk to folk and you sit around the table and you batter out what are the really important things from a business point of view, what are the important things from a conservation point of view, how those things can fit together, you'll usually find a way. We shouldn't have national debates about things, but we do sometimes get into that theoretical thing of having an argument that the argument only works if you look at it at that level. If you actually get down and talk to people, you can usually resolve it. I think that overall we should not try and drive a wedge between conservation and land management. I'd agree on language that there is definitely an issue. I mean, me personally, things like ecosystem services and natural capital I wouldn't necessarily mention out loud. I think that the language will put people off pretty quickly. I mean, I like the concepts, but in terms of what are we actually talking about with people, I think that we need to get back to talking about in simpler language. Whilst I think that we need to do all that, and I think that the farming community as well in terms of their language sometimes needs to come towards the other side as well, so I think that there's sometimes a bit more simplification talking with people working at practical levels, working on practical things, can resolve a lot of this stuff, and yeah, that's where I'd come to. Sorry, I just followed up. I have no intention of trying to drive a wedge between these two things, but I'm just interested when you mentioned the natural capital agenda there because I was quite taken with the submission that we received from Scotland in estates because they actually mentioned, I'll quote from it if I may, it said, the natural capital agenda offers a potential mechanism to bridge a gulf between land managers and conservationists because it could provide a way of aligning the desired outcomes of both, and I just wondered what anybody thought of that particular statement. Yes, I agree with the fact that the natural capital agenda could do that. Is it worth pursuing? Yeah, absolutely. It's not an either or. It's not a question of either you have fruit production and a reasonable income or you have biodiversity on farms. There are ways of integrating biodiversity into crop systems that have production benefits for agricultural yield, intercropping or genetic mixtures, for example, for barley. In an increasingly unstable climate as well, I think there's opportunities to look at these alternative cropping mechanisms because they might not bring year on year the same yield, but they will give you stability through time. So we need a wider perspective in terms of what we're getting out of the land and how it can support farmers there. The issue is that reduced production equates to reduced income, so are there ways that the natural capital that farmers provide can be recognised in terms of rewarding them in their income? That's what payment free system services mechanisms do, so Sue mentioned downstream benefits for fresh water and flood management. The payment needs to move back up to those people that provide it, and it's putting in place a mechanism that does that. I've talked to some of the people that work on this, the environmental economists, they say the key thing is to get that away from government subsidies, so it's not dependent on there being a subsidy mechanism, it has to work in its own right, so the people that get the benefit pay for the benefit to those that provide it. I think there's some great opportunities here to start having these discussions. I'm sorry, because this is really interesting, I think, because we've been talking a lot in a different field about creating a Scottish brand, particularly when it comes to food and drink, in this year of food and drink, is there a potential to link a Scottish brand with the environmental credentials of the product that we're talking about and which could produce a market premium to reward the producer in the way that you're talking about? Is that the desired outcome? Is that doable? There are two ways in which it's doable. First of all, you get a premium, you can charge a premium for something that's got an environmental association, so people will pay more from that. The other thing is, there's interesting discussions with Norris Scotland during Scottish Environment Link, is that one of their aims is to shorten the chain from food producer to food seller, so they were looking to not only grow the food, but also convert it into a marketable product themselves, so that they maximise the benefit from that premium that comes back. Both of those things, looking at the supply chain and the production chain, as well as the underlying level of production, could have benefits in terms of promoting biodiversity in a wider environment. James, next. Just building on what I said earlier, which you obviously picked up on about a willingness, it's not going to come from news for anyone around this table, but I don't want to downplay a tall economic market side of farming and also the importance of regulations and incentives, but something that came back strongly to us in the pilot was the strong moral dimension that land managers have. Words like stewardship and succession were extremely important to them. I think that that's a very key routine in terms of the environmental agenda. They see themselves as stewards of the land, and they obviously see themselves as wanting to produce food, but it's broader than that. Derek mentioned the different types of land managers that are out there, so we saw that as a routine to engage them on those issues around words like natural capital a little bit, but it certainly benefits from nature. There was a definite route in there. Grant Moyer. I think that things like the potential for markets around carbon is obviously something that a lot of work has been done on. I think that what we've got to do now is to work on how do you actually get that to scale so that people do start to get, you know, if you are looking after your deep beats, if you are looking after your carbon you've got on your land, how does that translate into payments that are not to do the subsidy regime? I agree that that's pretty crucial. I think that that's probably the next step that we've got to take. The statement about natural capital being something that could bridge absolutely, I agree. I wouldn't go and sit down with my local farmers group and say, let's have a discussion about natural capital, and I'll try and couch it in some other language. I think that that's the bit where we've got to try and work on slightly. I'd echo those points. I'd agree that it's worth exploring, and I would suggest that the Scottish Forum for Natural Capital is probably the best group to engage with to look at how that might roll out. That is really our mechanism at the minute of really engaging with business, I suppose. We're starting to talk about the language of business, including farming, and I would say forestry communities as well, so that would be my recommendation. Jim Hume, perhaps, follows nicely on now about final thoughts. Yes, sorry about that. Absolutely. I'm just wondering if the guests here today were concerned about any skills gap that we may have by diversity, where those skills gaps are, and perhaps what we could do about that if there are thoughts about skill gaps. It's almost inevitable, but when it comes back to the monitoring, taxonomists, and there's a good plant life report on this recently, in some cases there are fewer individuals that are experts on the species than there are individuals of the species left. For stoneworks, there's only one person in this country that does stoneworks, but they're a key species, especially the outer isles. Taxonomic expertise in some of their unloved species groups, such as low plants, lichens and mosses in stoneworks. We're losing that, and it's a steady drip-drip-drip, and I think one of the reasons for it is that it's not an obvious income generator. It doesn't make a lot of money, but it's just fundamentally important in knowing what we've got and what's happening to it. Who else? Sue? I was involved in a past work in a consultation with industry asking them what skills biologists would need for the future. We were given a very clear steer that we needed an increase in taxonomic strength in Scotland, and I don't think there's been any improvement at all on no uptake. It is a real risk, because our taxonomists are getting old and frail, and it's not so much just the fact that there's fewer of them, is that some of them actually are really quite old and can't do the job as well anymore. The aging scientific population is laughing apart, it's a real problem. Simon Jones is really lacking skills, but there are young people out there who want to do these things, but it's having a mechanism to allow them to do that, so at the wildlife trust we had the developing ecological survey skills team, which was full of young talented people with real incredible expertise in lichens, briar fights and all sorts, but then they had to go and get jobs, many of which struggled, and the funding for the scheme of which I might be wrong, but I'm not aware of any other schemes that exist like that anywhere in Scotland now to bring young talent through. It was completely funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the funding stopped, the course stopped, that's it. Unless you have an opportunity and a real passion that you're lucky enough to live next door to the old guy who was an expert on lichens or wood ants, for example, there is no way that you can just find a way of getting through it and making a living out of it unless it's on the back of something else, so it's that apprenticeship scheme, I would suggest. It doesn't have to be big-scale, but I think there's a desire out there, and Scotland is well known for producing people like this who are going to do other things, but we've kind of hit a gap in the market now, because there isn't anybody doing it in the minute, training these people up. Just a point in the longer term. It goes back to something that Simon said earlier on, but if we don't have the teachers taking the kids out into the countryside and lighting that fire, we're going to have a huge problem in the long term. Part of the issue that exists currently is that the cost of hiring coaches to make these school trips out to these more remote areas is, as I understand it, the real prohibition out of that sort of thing happening. So, yes, we've got a short medium-term problem. We could have an even bigger problem long-term. So, most three people want to come in, right? This is the luck. Right. So, Rob, and then Grant, and then to Sarah. Okay, just really quickly. I mean, I think it just comes back to this issue of getting biodiversity into urban areas, into small gardens, into the schools, so it's great that you get the kids out into places like the Cairngorms, that's fantastic, but bring the biodiversity to them. You have the space, you have hospital grounds, you have urban green space. Make it biodiversity as well as green. I mean, just on the travel side of things, there's a travel grant scheme in the Cairngorms exactly for that, which is that the travel issue is still a big one, so we still subsidise that. The other bit, I would say, is not just on the core skills in terms of what was talked about there. The other side is, I think, the role that Fwag used to play those skills in terms of the actual practicalities of turning some of the conservation things into the practical things that you can do in the land management side. It does reside. There are still lots of people who do that, but I think that that's an area where, again, the skills and the numbers of people are probably not what they were 10 years ago, so I think that that is probably an area that we're probably going to look at as well. Fwag, so Sarah Boyack? I was just picking up on two points, really. One in terms of schools, I think that it might be something for us to reflect on when we draw our thoughts together, whether eco-schools is the model, whether you want to bolt things on to eco-schools or whether there's something else that's needed. The second point about having jobs for people who have taxonomy skills to go to is not clearly just enough to encourage young people to get interested. There have to be long-term careers. Is that something for SNH, James Hutton Institute? I think that you suggested from James Hutton Institute that we need a totally new research organisation to deal with ecosystems. Is it building what we've got? Where are those jobs going to be and who's going to be responsible for making sure that we have a natural resource of people with those skills? Right, we'll try to wind this up just at the moment, so very briefly, Simon Jones. The eco-schools, and it was interesting what Michael Sir said earlier, and I think that there are some good examples, but 90 per cent of eco-schools are primary. At high school level, it drops away, so that's where there's a big gap, that's where it starts to stop. Skills has got to be a continuous one from cradle to grave and all that. I certainly hope that there's more than one person looking after the rusty bog moss at the moment, amongst other particular items of which we are species champions, but we've had a very good round of discussions just now, I think, from you all, because there's a huge amount of food for thought in this, and we will most certainly be exploring ways to turn those into practical means for us to actually begin to take steps forward. People have said there's been enough theory, we've got the theory, we need the language right, but we also need the actions, and the actions in a time of limited money are going to involve a lot of fleet of food, I think, in some cases. So I'd like to thank all of you for giving us the chance to get this overall view, and we'll most certainly be trying to make sure that the 2020 vision looks like the practical arguments that you've made just now. So thank you, witnesses. At the next meeting of the committee, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will give evidence on the Scottish Government's biodiversity strategy, and we'll also take evidence on the review of agricultural holdings legislation from a panel of stakeholders, so I now close the meeting. Thank you.


Hello, this is Maria Riccielli from BSC Software, the SOM Technical Marketing. Today I'm going to show you how to navigate the business service view we have released as part of TrueSci Capacity's optimization version 11.5. In order to access the business service view you need first to login into the TrueSci console and then point to the menu on the left hand side and navigate till business services under Capacity Views. By accessing the business service view you will be presented with the main page where you have five different panels. First on the top left hand corner you have a summary panel which shows the total number of services listed by forecasted saturation. This correlates with the saturation by service category graph on the right hand side where a new dimension was at the customer dimension. This time was importance so you can see we have the importance as category and with the four different levels low, medium, high and critical. In the bottom you see there are three different additional panels. One on the left hand side related to service by provider which is a pie chart. In the middle there is a user g-stagram and on the right hand side a risk pie chart which does help you to understand how many services you have in an healthy status, in a warning status and in a saturated status. From the main page you can drill down on the next level. As an example I'm going to focus on the critical server service that I have in a saturation status so I'm going to drill down to get additional information to those services. You see here that we have three different services listed. I'm going to focus on the customer support management service. Under this service I have two different applications defines education and service. Please keep in mind that this is not mandatory to have applications defined under business services. So for example in the case of the cruel and meant service management I don't have any application defined but I have four different service pools defined as part of this service. Now let's focus on the service application under the customer support management. You see that for each application I'm provided with indication about the usage and the risk related to resources associated to that application under the business service of interest. First, the user is based on average over the last 30 days. It is an indication of how much capacity I'm using with respect to the allocated capacity that is associated to my service pool whereas the risk is really a combination of max value and usage trend in the last 30 days. So if there is at least an element in the business services that is at risk the risk will be bubbled up until the business service level. Now let's focus on the application pool as an example and let's click on this red triangle to get to the next level on the service pool detail page. For the application pool I can see that I have three different VM associated and I can immediately get information in the summary tab related to usage and risk associated to this pool and a nice chart which is representing the utilization over the last 30 days. In addition I can jump on the service tab which represents the elements that are contained in my pool. We have in this case three different VMs and we can further investigate on each element included. As an example we can focus on this VM. I'm provided with information related to usage and risk related to this VM. I can mouse over to each of those indicators to understand why I'm getting those values. For example the usage score is 62 and is a combination of CPU memory and storage with the related weights usage score. The risk instead is 97 and its total risk is shown as Mark's value of CPU memory storage risk values. So in this case it's really a representation of the CPU risk value which is contributing the most which is already in a saturation status. If we focus on the usage instead and we mouse over on CPU we can see that it is 94 and is based on 95 percentile value of CPU utilization. We can also get additional information by drilling down on the specific VMs and access the detail page of the specific VM associated to each service pool. From here you can see that you get information about CPU memory network and disk transfer rate over time and in addition to that actionable information that we know are represented by recommendations. Thanks for watching.


The Niger Medical Association has elected a new president Uche Rowland at its 62nd annual general conference and delegates meeting in Potakat River State. The association also advised state government to focus more on revitalising and funding general hospitals rather than getting involved in teaching hospitals. The report. Briefing newsmen in Potakat, the newly elected president emphasised that the most important thing for him and his team is to bring unity to the health sector. Oji Ma said that most Nigerian hospitals are in a state of decay and therefore called for proper funding and attention to the health sector from political leaders who are aspiring for various positions. Hospitals are not present and so it's supposed to be green. Look at who that is and see what a ward looks like. See what a greening looks like. A lot of state governments, I'm sorry to say this, are jumping into teaching hospitals and neglecting the secondary healthcare system of the general hospitals. I will call on our governors of the states to focus on your general hospitals. Everybody who has established a teaching hospital that they can't give you funding and therefore the teaching hospital is on strike. Go to your state and do that. It's all debt and everything. There was something to take care of our medical students. The NMA boss, who called on the government at all levels to make the environment conducive for medical health practitioners, directed the apiastic branch of the association to explore options of a legitimate strike that must involve all doctors in the states to achieve the payment of salary arrears to the state workers. ADM urged political stakeholders to bring to the fore concrete agenda for health to demonstrate willingness to strive for a robust healthcare delivery system as a key dividend to Nigerians. ADM, in the second resolution, urged the Federal Ministry of Health and other advanced stakeholders to treat mechanisms that will facilitate the speedy implementation of the new National Health Authority Act in order to prevent the fate that befell the National Health Insurance Act with the ultimate aim of that multi-served desire in the Universal Health Cooperation being calculated. ADM also directed NMA apiastic branch to explore the option of legitimate strike that must involve all doctors in the states to achieve recovery from the salary arrears for the state workers, especially those in the state university teaching hospitals. Uche Volan Ojima, a consultant dermatologist at the University of Nigeria teaching hospital Inugu, secured a total of 319 votes to defeat his opponent, Okoro Kenneth Johnson, who polled 40 votes and Kingsley Ikuir Madu, who scored 0. He studied medicine and surgery at the University of Botakat River State.