In tukaj vse je tukaj drugi tukaj, in tukaj vse je, da je loranda Svidé z Universitetem Paris Diderot na kolizijstvu v Plasma delandava. Zdaj sem tukaj tukaj vse. Zdaj sem tukaj tukaj mikrofon. Ok. Ok. Kaj sem glad, da je tudi tudi, či to je vse vsak treba, in tudi srvi tudi, ali v latih tudi, tako zelo sem sem nekaj ni vrst v mnohi tudi, tako, da sem si vrst vrst vrst, ali sem je vrst nekaj ni vrst, Tako, imam veliko pravdu na organizacijerji, da sem tukaj vse oportiniti. Prezettam te 5 tukaj, na to, da je tukaj tukaj tukaj, tukaj tukaj je tukaj, da je tukaj, da je tukaj, da je tukaj tukaj, It was written down first by a left in the thirties, and let's say the mathematical study of the equation, started in the late sixties and in the seventies. And it's been since a very active topic in mathematics, and actually there are really two main directions of the equations. in včešče, tudi je tudi dve rečenje. Prvom je, da je tudi izgleda smutnega solučenja in je to več vsočenja. Prvom je, da je izgleda izgleda izgleda, nekaj je vsočenja. In tudi je vsočenja in vsočenja. So my series of talks will be rather devoted to the question of the large time behavior. And so because of that, the first talk, what I will present today, is really more related on the sort of general structure of the equations in which varies an entropy, as it is a case for the Landau equation. For this first talk, we will not hear at all about the Lando equation and it will be introduced actually in the second talk. At the end of the second talk. This first talk is really devoted to the general structure of equations having an entropy. Let me give a few standard definitions. We will consider a Cauchy problem. Do which I mean that we have an equation which writes like this. So you have, let's say at the abstract level, an equation in which you have an unknown, which I call u, which depends on time. And the Cauchy problem is given by the derivative in time of u is equal to some operator acting on u. vse operator je nekaj linijer in to je všeča in vseč vseča. Vsi je več vseča, ki bi spet všeč všeče. In posledaj smo in inisiali datan. Tak jaz sem pa ne da. I bi se da se vseča in se vseči vseči vseči vseči vsiči vseči vseči vseči vseči vseči. Prvoj definiton je definiton, kaj je liapunov funktionalni, kaj, kako je, nekaj, in antropi. Zato, da je antropi meni meni, nekaj ne zelo, da ne zelo, kaj je liapunov funktionalni. Vse bovalo je vse odrstavilo na dalek. Zelo ga se prišli, da svačš nekaj precedači enrč njega mi je nepunejo. Odrstavo je tudi več nekaj nekaj, vzelo je, da da imamo što energija, nekaj, finačno, što tako je njega pošli, da ga bi nekaj odrstavila, of Boltzmann that we will see in the sequel. And this is a function which goes from the functional space E to R. And we say that it is a Lyapunov functional when we take the derivative respect to time of H of U of T, then we get something which has a sign. So in that case, which is done positive. So this is a function such that for any solution U of the equation X, the quantity D over DT of H of U of T is non-positive. And when it is so, we will use the notation minus D of U of T for this quantity here. And the D here is for dissipation. This is the so-called dissipation of the entropy H. So D is called dissipation. So this is a situation which is quite common in physics and in many other fields. And let me give a very simple example consisting of a system of two differential equations. So suppose that you have the system X prime is equal to minus Y and Y prime is equal to minus Y. And you take initial data, which are respectively in R and in R plus, like this.  And one can easily check that starting with an initial datum, which is non-negative here, you always remain because of the differential equation in the space of non-negative real numbers. So you can really select E like that. And for example, for H you just take H of X and Y is equal to X. And it's immediate to see that if you select solutions of the differential system, you get here minus Y of T. And since Y is non-negative, minus Y is non-positive, and you get this. And so here D of X and Y is defined just as Y. However, this is a typical example in which it's not really useful to write down this Lyapunov functional. And the reason for that is that typically here you get an entropy or a Lyapunov functional, which is not bounded below. And when it's like that, then usually it is not very helpful to consider this entropy. And because of this, one introduces a new notation for the Lyapunov functionals, which are, that we will call strict, in the sense that they are bounded below. And at the point where the entropy reaches its minimum, we will suppose that we have an entropy dissipation, which is equal to zero, and which also corresponds to equilibria of the equation.  So let me write this. So this is, let's say, definition two, this one being definition one. So we still consider the equation, which is written here. And when H is an entropy for equation H, it is said to be strict. When the following properties are satisfied. First, there exists a unique equilibrium, which I will call u infinity for equation x. So this means exactly that a u infinity is equal to zero. And I will systematically call it equilibrium. And we will suppose more over the following. So d of u is equal to zero if and only if u is the equilibrium. And also h of u infinity is strictly less than h of u for all u different from u infinity. So u infinity realizes the minimum of h. Another way of saying this, if you prefer, is to say that a u is equal to zero if and only if u is u infinity. Ok, this is the same as saying that there is a unique equilibrium. So this is a situation that we will systematically consider in the rest of the lectures. So we will systematically consider equations in which there is a strict entropy structure like this. So let me give, yes, of course it's possible also to have a, which depends on t in some situations. But in what I will present it will be systematic. So let me give one example which is more interesting than this one. So this one as you can see cannot be strict because basically h is not bounded below. So let me give this second example and it will still be a system of two ordinary differential equations. But a system which is a little more complicated than the previous one. So let call it c2 and it's given by the following equations. We will suppose that we have initial data which are both just real numbers. So here the set e, the functional space that we consider is just r squared. And the natural Lyapunov functional is just x squared plus y squared. So we take x squared plus y squared. So let's do the computation, this quantity. So let's suppose that x and y are solutions to the system c2. As you can see, you get x prime of t. I will use this notation, this is the derivative respect to the first variable of h. So I just use the chain rule at this level. And here I observe that dh over d1 is just 2x and dh over d2 is just 2y. So I just get 2xx prime plus 2yy prime. As you can see, the structure of the system is such that when you multiply by x, you get x squared. You multiply by y, you get y squared, then you add up.  And there is a factor 2 in front if I'm not mistaken. And, of course, this quantity is non-positive. And you can define the associated entropy dissipation using this formula here. And what you get is that d of x and y, the dissipation, d of x and y is just 2 times 1 plus x squared plus y squared times x squared plus y squared. Like this. And now we can check that this is a strict entropy structure. So we have to verify both assumptions here. So here, let's first look at the equilibria of the differential system. As you can see, this will be equal to zero plus this will be equal to zero only if both x and y are equal to zero. So in this situation, u infinity, which I will write x infinity, y infinity, like this, is just zero, zero. And this is a unique equilibrium. Moreover, it's clear that d of x and y is equal to zero if and only if x equals y equals zero. So this is true. And finally, let's look at h of x and y. As you can see, h of x and y is strictly bigger than h of zero, zero, which is equal to zero if and only if x, y is different from zero, zero. So here it's extremely easy to check that you have a strict entropy structure for this set of two differential equations. Once again, looking at this example here, it's very easy to see that here you don't have a strict entropy structure. Now there is a general principle, which is sometimes called LASAL principle, which tells that, provided that you have a certain number of conditions which are required, when you have a strict entropy structure, you expect that if you look at the equation and you let t go to infinity, then you will converge towards the unique equilibrium. And this can be made as a theorem provided that you put the right assumptions, especially assumptions related to compactness. But I will not go in this direction today because what I'm really interested in is effective explicit estimates for the speed of convergence in such situations. So I will now, because of this, give a third definition, which is in some sense even more stringent than the definition for the strict entropy structure. And what I will write now is sometimes called an entropy-entropy dissipation structure. Write it here. So this is the third definition, the one which actually will systematically be satisfied in the equation that we will present in the rest of the talks. So we still consider an equation of the general form, which was written at the beginning. And we suppose that it is associated to a strict entropy structure according to the second definition. So this means that we have a unique equilibrium, an entropy, and an entropy dissipation satisfying the constraints which are here. So we have at our disposal u infinity h and d. We say that an entropy-entropy dissipation and for the rest of the talks, I will call this EED. I will not write again entropy-entropy dissipation. So we say that an entropy-entropy dissipation estimate holds. And sometimes it's called a quantitative entropy estimate, which is actually a vocabulary that I prefer, but it's less common than the vocabulary which is used here. So when one can find a strictly positive number, which I will call C0, such that for all u in the functional space E, the entropy dissipation is bigger than the constant C0 times the entropy minus the entropy of the equilibrium. So when this holds, we call it usually EED, like I said previously. So it's before commenting on this, or actually commenting on this, I would like to say that this is not a priori crazy in the sense that because of the strict entropy structure, we know that h of u is bigger than h of u infinity. So this quantity anyway is non-negative and actually strictly positive except when u is equal to u infinity. And d of u basically satisfies the same constraint because of the definition. That is, d of u is equal to 0 only when u is equal to u infinity. So there is some hope that such, by the way, does everybody see here? Yeah, it's okay. So really because this is the most important sentence here. So such an inequality is not completely absurd a priori. And the second comment is that as you can see here, in some sense we have completely forgotten about the initial equation. But it's from the initial equation what will retain is only those parameters here, which are related to the equation, the u infinity, the entropy and the entropy dissipation. But the solution of the equation does not appear anymore here. So to check something like this has to do, in general, let's say, with functional analysis. It's trying to prove an inequality between functions, which are not directly related to the original equation. Okay, there is some link, but it's not completely direct. Why do we introduce this definition here? It is because there is an almost immediate proposition that we can write down when we have such a situation and that I will prove immediately. So the proposition tells us that, let's say, when an equation gives rise to an entropy dissipation estimate. So it's exactly what we define here. Then the following large time behavior estimate on the solutions of the equation holds. Arch time, behavior, the solutions hold. So this estimate is the following. For all time non-negative, it's possible to bound the entropy at time t minus the entropy of the equilibrium. Remember that this is a non-negative quantity because we are looking to an equation with a strict entropy structure. And here I will have the difference of the entropy at time zero and the entropy of equilibrium times exponential minus c0 t. C0 being the constant, which appears in the inequality EED. So as you can see, this is something which tells you that the solutions of the original problem are converging towards the equilibrium in a very specific way. That is, it is the entropy of the solution at time t, which converges exponentially fast towards the entropy of the equilibrium. And we will see later that in many situations, this is enough, in fact, to get an explicit estimate for the solution itself. But let's first concentrate on this. So the proof is very easy. It is just a direct application of Grenoval's lemma. Indeed, thanks to the entropy structure, we already know that if I compute minus the derivative of this quantity here, this is of course the same as computing minus d over dt of h of u of t, because this one does not depend on t. And so this gives me exactly what I called d of u of t. So this is the entropy structure. And then I use at point u of t the general inequality that I know for any u in E. And this tells me that this is bigger than C0 times h of u of t minus h of u infinity. Like this. So as you can see, I'm exactly in the situation in which Grenoval's lemma holds. That is, I have minus d over dt of something is bigger than C0 times something. And I deduce from this the inequality above. So we conclude thanks to Grenoval's. This is kind of a general tool for getting explicit estimates for the large time behavior of any kind of equations provided that there is a dissipative structure represented by an entropy, which is strict and which can be sort of quantitatively estimated respect to its dissipation. Let me first come back to example 2 to show how it works. So for example 1 there is of course no hope because the entropy structure is not strict, but for example 2, which is still written here, let's try to see what happens. Now my dissipation of entropy is 2 times 1 plus x plus y square times x square plus y square. And I have to compare it with h of u minus h of u infinity, which here is just x square plus y square minus the same quantity taken at point x equals 0 and y equals 0. So it's exactly x square plus h plus y square. So as you can see, it is immediate to check that this quantity is bigger than 1. And so I can apply the EED inequality with c0 equal to 2. And I did use from this immediately, so as a consequence I can use the inequality which is here. And what I get is that x of t to the square plus y of t to the square is less than the same quantity at point 0, at times 0, sorry, times exponential minus 2t. And as you can see in this specific example, I get really something directly on the solution because now if I take the square root of this, this is really the natural distance, the L2 distance, or the 2 distance if you wish in finite dimension towards 0, and it tells you that it will be like exponential minus t. So you directly get the large time behavior, the quantitative large time behavior of the quantity here by using a tool which at some point does not refer explicitly to the equation. So in some sense this is a method which enables you to sort of forget a little about the equation and try to get things out of estimates which are directly written on numbers if you are in finite dimension like for ODEs, or functions if you are in infinite dimensional setting like you have in PDEs or integral equations. So let me now, since I want really to devote most of my time to the Lando equation, let me write down first an equation which looks somewhat like the Lando equation but which is much simpler, in fact it is linear and in which it is really possible to use all this machinery. So this equation is a standard Fokker-Planck equation which is something which has been written by physicists for many, many years. It was probably written first already in the 19th century. This is next example and this will be our first example in infinite dimension that is outside of the world of ODEs. Let's now suppose that you have a function F and I will write the variable V because it's typically a velocity which is the variable here in this function. This will be a density so it will always be non-negative and we will consider that let's say the natural setting will be the space L1 but I will not write it immediately. Let me just say that here V is an element of Rn so this can be written in any dimension basically. The operator A that was written down in the general abstract equation in that case it will be a differential operator which can be written in the following way. So this is a gradient with respect to the variable V here so more precisely this is the divergence of gradient F plus VF. F as n variable, I write down the gradient, here I multiply F by V so I also get a vector here so I have here an n dimensional vector and then I take the divergence of it. So this is the so-called Fokker-Planck operator and as you can see this is actually close to the Laplacian. This would be the Laplacian and the main difference is that you have this drift operator which is added to the Laplacian. If you had some training in probability maybe you saw the same operator called Orstein-Ulenbeck. Though Orstein-Ulenbeck is rather used for the semi-group related to the operator, let's say. Well anyway this is the same object. And so the first thing to observe is that this operator actually preserves positivity in the sense more precisely its semi-group preserves positivity in the sense that if now you look at the solution of the equation dF over dt equal af then and let's say F of 0 and V is given then F of t and V is positive for all time if the same is true at time 0. This can easily be seen because you, so the first term is Laplacian so the second order derivative you know that if you look let's say at the minimum at this point you will have a term which is non-negative and so you cannot go below the minimum and for the second part it's also easy to see. You can just see it by developing the divergence of Vf in two terms. So this is a property which can easily be seen at the formal level. Moreover you have a second property which is related to the fact that since this is a divergence if you integrate you will get 0 and so you will propagate the L1 norm of F. The integral of F of t and V if F is the solution of the equation will be equal to the same quantity at time 0. So because of this the natural space in which you want to work is the space E of functions F depending on V such that F is non-negative and the integral of F is a given number. So let's say 1 but you could put of course any other number. So this is a natural space E in which you want to study the equation here which is a Fokar-Planck equation. So the entropy or let's say the Lyapunov functional which is related to this equation has been known for a long time and this is actually what in physics we would rather call the free energy. So let me write it, so this is a free energy and this is defined as the integral of F log F like this plus F V square over 2. So if you are familiar with the entropy in kinetic theory here you recognize the traditional entropy and you add to this entropy the kinetic energy and when you do that you get exactly what is usually called free energy in physics. So let's check that H is indeed a Lyapunov functional an entropy for this equation here. So let F be a solution of the Fokar-Planck equation so this equation here. And let's compute the derivative of H of F.  So you can write it like this and you can replace dF over dt by its value which is af which is this divergence here.  Now you do an integration by part. You assume that there is no problem with the boundaries because basically you have taken a setting in which you are in L1.  So this is times gradient F plus VF dV. And here you recognize that you have two terms which are proportional, the coefficient of proportionality being F and so it's naturally something which is non-positive. Let me write it maybe here because it can be, I hope it can still be seen at this level. So this can be written as the integral of F times gradient F over F plus V to the square dV and this quantity is sometimes called the relative feature information for F so we call it just minus d of F and it's clearly something which is non-positive. So in this situation we now have an entropy structure and we have to check first that this entropy structure is tricked and then that we have hopefully an entropy-entropy dissipation estimate. So let's first check that the entropy structure is tricked so let's look at what happens when AF is equal to zero as we could see this is AF, this quantity here. So if AF is equal to zero then it's clear that d of F is equal to zero because d of F is just the divergence of this term multiplied by something and then integrated. So AF equal to zero implies d of F is equal to zero but now d of F is the integral of something which is non-negative so it will be equal to zero if and only if this quantity here will be equal to zero. So as you can see you will get up to points where F is equal to zero to gradient F over F plus V is equal to zero, F is equal to zero. And now as you solve this equation you get that F is of the form constant time exponential minus V square over two because you just have that the gradient of log of F is minus V so when you take the primitive you get that the log of F is like minus V square over two plus a constant and then you take the exponential and actually the constant can be computed because we suppose that F has integral one so actually the computation of the constant tells you that this is square root over two P to the n which can be computed easily thanks to the Gauss integral. So this thing is what I defined previously at the equilibrium that is F infinity. So as you can see the equilibrium is exactly a Gaussian function of V which is actually centered and reduced. We are in a good situation for showing the strict entropy structure because now it's clear that if you take an F infinity equal to this then AF is equal to zero and also DF is equal to zero. So this also implies those two things here. And the last thing we have to check is that H is at its minimum only when F is equal to the Gaussian. So remember that this is under the constraint that the integral of F is equal to one. So if you now use the Euler Lagrange theory at this level taking the derivative of this you get exactly log F plus one plus V square over two and this has to be equal to some constant time one So what you get is exactly that log F plus V square over two is a constant and this is exactly the same as saying that F is equal to F infinity. So a very easy computation let's say of variational calculus tells you that I don't know if it's really the English word for this but in French it's calcul de variation but anyway, so this gives you that H of F is sorry, H of F infinity is less than H of F for all F in E except of course F infinity. So we have the strict entropy structure in this Fokker-Planck example. Now what about the entropy-entropy dissipation estimate? As you see what we would like to get what we would like to get is that D of F which is if you remember the integral on Rn of F times gradient F over F plus V like this is it bigger than some constant C0 times H of F minus H of F infinity which is defined as the integral of F log F plus F V square over two minus H of F infinity which hopefully has been computed on my slide and which anyway should be minus N over 2 logarithm of 2 pi so here we should add N over 2 logarithm of 2 pi this is the entropy, the free energy for F equal to this so the question becomes is it true that for any F in E so any F positive such that the integral is equal to 1 can we show that there exist a constant which satisfies this so actually it happens that the answer has been known for now many years and this is exactly the logarithmic sobolef inequality of growth which I think was first obtained in the mid-seventies so it's an inequality which is known actually the proof is very interesting and I would also like to add the name of Giuseppe Toscani who in 94 first identified from the in the vocabulary of kinetic theory the use of this logarithmic sobolef inequality for the problem and as a consequence we obtained that this quantity decreases exponentially fast and actually the C0 is known so let me so the answer is yes and the number is 2 and so thanks to this it's possible to show that if you look at the solution of the Fokor-Planck equation then this quantity here decays exponentially fast actually with an explicit rate which is known which is 2 towards 0 so this is actually the example which is probably in terms of linear equations the closest to what will be presented then for the Landau equation but actually I would like to give a last example not sure that I will have time to finish it today but we can finish it tomorrow anyway it's called example 4 and this is an example which comes from the theory of reaction diffusion equations I would like to present it especially because I think that Alexi Vassar will present a talk on a model which is quite close to what I will now present so this is reaction diffusion theory and more precisely this is reaction diffusion coming out of reversible chemistry so the situation is the following you imagine that you have two chemical species which are called A and B and A and B can transform one into another reversibly and somehow the speed of the reaction depends on the catalyst which is spread in the chemical reactor but not uniformly so you denote by k of x the concentration of a catalyst of this reaction so what is the typical equation you want to write down so you call A and B the concentrations of A and B and those are actually functions of time and space x will live in a domain which is the chemical reactor so this is let's say included in Rn let's say it is bounded and smooth while t is just a non-negative number which represents time so what is the typical equation that one expects for A and B well first one takes into account the reaction so here you have let's say a linear kinetic reaction because you have no extra species entering in the chemical reaction so here you expect to have something which is proportional to B minus A and here the same with A minus B because I mean you will get A out of B and A will disappear when it transforms in B and of course a reverse for the secant equation and in front you will put something which is let's say proportional but let's write it directly like k of x so this is something which is proportional to the concentration of the catalysts so of course a crude approximation but let's say it's not absurd so this is for the reaction part and then you take into account the fact that the concentration of the species A and B they will diffuse in the reactor and actually they will diffuse but not not necessarily with the same diffusion rate because A and B for example can be molecules which have a different size or a different mass and because of this the diffusion in the reactor is typically something which is complicated and there is no reason why D1 and D2 should be equal and it's important here to take it different in order to get something which is mathematically interesting of course if you take the same basically you can subtract and add the equation and then it's extremely easy but if you take it different the mathematical theory is a little more intricate ok so I think I will finish with this let me just add let me just add the boundary condition which is here typically Neumann boundary condition which corresponds to the fact that you expect the species to remain inside the reactor they do not exceed the reactor and so you add those two things I think I will stop here and we will check that this satisfies the all the assumptions previously written down tomorrow thanks a lot


This is the scene as John Connolly takes the stage at his campaign headquarters on election night in Boston. Even though the election went in favor of Connolly's opponent Marty Walsh, it was still all cheers from the crowd. John Connolly, in the midst of defeat, remains positive. I'm proud of how we've run because we made the decision to always keep this focused on the issues, on the future of the city. There was no bitterness for the hopeful Boston mayor either. John Connolly had nothing but good things to say for not only his opponent and mayor-elect Marty Walsh, but also the soon-to-be former mayor, Tom Monino. Marty Walsh is a good man. He wants to do good things for Boston, and he will do good things for Boston. I have always known that Mayor Monino made every decision thinking about what he felt was in the best interest of Boston. We asked people to weigh in on what they thought about the election, including John Connolly. I think that Boston would have been well served by either candidate, but I think John Connolly had the bolder vision. I just think at the end of the day, the voters make up their mind, and I respect it. In addition to praising Mayor-elect Marty Walsh and departing Mayor Tom Monino, John Connolly thanked his many supporters for their hard work during this campaign. He also thanked his wife, Meg, who he said quit her job so that she could take care of their three children while he campaigned morning, day and night. Throughout his concession speech, John Connolly stressed that he wants a united city of Boston, which he believes that Marty Walsh can provide. Reporting for Boston University News Service, here at John Connolly Headquarters, I'm Steve Sisto.


Hello, everyone. Welcome back to a new session on dentistry and more. So, today's topic is Indian Dental Association. So, Indian Dental Association is for the well-being of dental professionals and dentistry as a whole and at the same time they are well concerned with the dental health needs of Indian civilization and their upliftment in that aspect. So, it is basically for welfare of a dentist and for conducting more programs which can benefit dentists. Actually, no law behind this like DCA dental council of India is totally a government body which is based on the dentist act of India which are supposed to maintain the quality of dentists in our country. But, IDA is not such a body, it is just for the encouraging dentist in their profession and as well as to have a quality dental treatment by providing a more of dental education materials and seminars and other programs so that the dentist can work in a productive way. At the same time they keep conferences and other programs for the encouragement and totality of dentistry. So, this IDA is unlike dental council of India, is not bound to any particular law. So, it was first started in 90, 28 by the father of Indian dentistry that is Aramath. So, it was first known as all in the dental association. After the dentist act and dental council of India came into existence, the name changed to IDA. So, this was the first started in Bengal. Bengal branch was the first IDA branch or all in the dental association branch in India. So, what are the objectives of IDA? So, it is as I said there is no law behind it. So, it is to promote encourage and advance dental and allied sciences to encourage its members to undertake measures for improvement of public health and education, maintenance of honor and dignity and the uploading of appalling of the interest of dental profession and cooperation between the members. So, basically these are the objectives and let's see the members of IDA. It has a CHEMPO committee. So, one president and one president elect, one immediate past president, president is the current working president, one president elect is the next, one was supposed to join after this president resigns and one immediate past president was completed his tenure last time and three vice presidents, one honorary general secretary and one assistant general secretary, one treasurer, one secretary of CDH and one editor for a particular journal, IDA journal. So, there are various branches of IDA. There are many local level branches and state level branches. There are 29 state branches, 7 union territory branches, around 450 local branches and one defense branches. So, how do we take membership? So, we can take honorary members. So, they are like or reserved for the pioneers of Indian dentistry and very reputed people and those who have contributed a lot to Indian dentistry, they'll be getting honorary members, life members. Once we taken this life membership, it is for final. We don't need to renew it. So, annual members is like how every dentist does that every year they renew their membership fees. Direct members and affiliate members we are practicing and our home is at that particular place we can join and affiliate members we are practicing at a different position and we are our home or our place at different place we can affiliate to another branch. Students members means students can participate in activities of Indian dental association by joining as a student member. Once they become dentists, they need to go for annual members. So, functions they keep annual conferences at national state and local branches they conduct various programs, conferences, webinars and other programs for the betterment of dentistry and they have paper presentations and talks on different topics expressing their views by the expert people and conduct programs such as continuing dental health education programs, seminars and hands-on training various lectures and panel discussions and they also conduct school dental health checkups and dental treatment camp for the community. So, they provide awareness program about dental health to the school children and even to the public and to conduct program on specific days like not tobacco day, cancer day, oral health day, oral hygiene day. So, all these days this idea will conduct various programs and conduct dental treatment and screening camps in association with various NGOs and they publish a journal every month. So, every local branch and national or state branch has different different journals. So, they publish journals it is for the students and dentists they can publish their work or research work or review in the particular journal. So, that is all about Indian dental association. So, little bit about his history, its membership, its branches and its committee and little bit of objectives. So, that is all about Indian dental association. The next topic is Dental Council of India. So, thank you.


he bill, and the consensus that we have seen from a range of stakeholders who have worked tirelessly on getting us to this stage today. I therefore strongly urge members to listen to the views of those stakeholders and to support their amendments today in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with the intention to establish effective oversight arrangements to ensure successful delivery of good food nation plans. I am happy to support amendment 10 in the name of Marie-Gougeon, which will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is only part of what is needed and it is clear that we all agree that the issue of strengthening oversight still needs to be addressed. At the same time, the committee report was not conclusive as to the best approach to oversight, and today we have a number of amendments taking quite different approaches. In order to develop a robust and effective approach to oversight, I am content to continue to work with the cabinet secretary on that, in line with the Bute House agreement. As part of that, I think that we need to take a fresh look at all options, including a food commission, as many organisations have called for, as well as a food commissioner.  I'm missing the cabinet secretary again. I call on the cabinet secretary. I'm keen to cut me out, but that's okay. I know that it has been demonstrated by the variety of amendments that have been put forward and lodged on the issue. I am aware that the creation of a new body such as a food commission or putting in place a new food commissioner is something that members of the committee and a number of stakeholders feel is really important for the success of the Good Food Nation Bill. I very much recognise the intent of those amendments in helping us to make the most out of the food plans that will stem from the bill, too. However, I know, as did the committee in its stage 1 report, that there is a broad spectrum of views that was put forward on the creation of a new statutory body. For example, some food business groups oppose the creation of a new body, highlighting the need to carefully prioritise government spending on food policies and other initiatives. Setting up a new statutory body requires careful consideration to justify both the role and remit and the costs of setting up such a body. We committed, as part of the Bute House agreement, with the Scottish Greens to consider the need for a new statutory body. I continue to work with colleagues in the Green Party and including Ariane Burgess on developing a way forward on oversight that balances the range of views from stakeholders as well as the associated costs that there would be as a result of that. As we can see before us today, there are a variety of different options and a variety of different models that can be considered for oversight. Those will vary in terms of efficacy and costs. Although I am not in a position to support those amendments today, as I set out during the stage 1 debate, it is my intention that oversight is addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. I would like to extend an invitation to those members who have lodged those amendments to discuss a way forward on oversight with me. I hope that we can work together to find a balanced approach that takes account of the costs to ensure the appropriate oversight and scrutiny of implementation of the Good Food Nation plans. We therefore ask that the members do not press the amendments today and, instead, to commit to working with me, as well as with Ariane Burgess, in the coming weeks to find an approach to the oversight of the implementation of the bill. I ask members not to press amendments 26A5683 to 103 and associated consequential amendments 1364 in relation to a Food Commission or a Food Commissioner. In the event that they are pressed, I urge the committee not to support them to enable those constructive discussions to take place in advance of stage 3. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up on amendment 26. I thank Rachael Hamilton for her support and for her attention to detail. The Scottish Food Commission should, of course, be the Scottish Food Commission, but it gives me the excuse to say that we should be aspiring that everyone should have a good, nutritious diet if the amendment were to pass the bill to undertake to correct it at stage 3. I listened very closely to what the cabinet secretary said, and initially, in her winding-up, she seemed to say that she would work with Ariane Burgess to reach an agreement on that. Laterally in her statement, she seemed to include the rest of us. Before I press or withdraw, it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary that she will indeed work with everybody who seeks to amend the bill at this stage, and it will not be a stitch-up between herself and the Greens. I was distracted, Rhoda Grant. Can you repeat that, please? I was somewhat concerned at the start of her summing up that the cabinet secretary seemed to say that she would speak and work with the Greens, according to the Bute House agreement, to reach a settlement on this section between them. Laterally in her summing up, he included the others of us with an interest in this section to this. I am looking for her commitment that this will not be a stitch-up between herself and the Greens, and indeed she will try and reach consensus between all of us who have an interest before I press or withdraw the amendment. Can the cabinet secretary like to respond? Yes, I am happy to respond to that. First, I regret the use of that language in terms of a stitch-up, because I am really trying to be open in working with all members in relation to the amendments that have been set out today. What I was outlining at the start of my remarks was obviously the commitment that we have in the Bute House agreement and the on-going work that we agreed to in relation to Food Commission. Given the amendments that have been lodged today, that is why I also said in my comments that I want to work with other members so that collectively we can find a solution before coming to stage 3. Thank you. Given how late on we are in the process and given the emphasis that so many stakeholders put on the requirement for an oversight body and also the parliamentary timescale has not been helpful, we had our stage 1 debate and we did not get a response from the Scottish Government until five weeks after our report was published. Can you commit to bringing forward amendments in a short timescale? Given that stage 3 will probably be in two weeks' time, will you commit to bringing forward a firm commitment to amendments that will address the concerns that have been raised today? First of all, I believe that a date has been set for the stage 3 consideration, which would allow time for that to happen. Of course, I have committed to discussing that with members and also I have made a commitment that we will deal with this conclusively by the end process of the bill. Again, I know that there are a variety of different options that have been put forward by members and that is why I am keen to have that discussion. I call on Beatrice Wishart to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 26A. Thanks, convener. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said and I believe that it is vital that there is an independent oversight body to ensure that Scotland as a good food nation is fair to everyone and the co-ordination across what we heard in evidence about the food policy arena being cluttered. I think that that would help the journey towards our good food nation and I am inclined to move to press the amendment 26A. Given that Beatrice Wishart wishes to press 26A, my withdrawing at this stage would prevent her from doing that. I will continue to press amendment 26, but I would welcome discussions with the cabinet secretary about finding a resolution that suits all our purposes. Beatrice Wishart, can we confirm that you pressed amendment 26A? I did, yes. You did. The question is that amendment 26A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will therefore go to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstaining. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call on Rhoda Grant to press or withdraw amendment 26A. Given that Beatrice Wishart's amendment has fallen and given what I said before about constructive discussions with the cabinet secretary, I will withdraw at this moment, but I reserve the right to come back at stage 3. Now, amendment 56, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is already debated with amendment 26. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against, no abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call on amendment 57 in the name of Rachel Hamilton and a group on its own. Rachel Hamilton, to move and to speak to amendment 57. The amendment would ensure that Scottish ministers and each relevant authority in exercising their functions under this legislation have regarded the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. Many groups are affected by communication disadvantage, including disabled people. The group camp Hill has stated that amendment 57 is vital, regardless of the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty, for the following reasons. If the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plan as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible, it is vital that amendment 57 is accepted. This amendment requires statutory duties to be placed on the face of the good food nation bill, which will provide that the Scottish Government and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation, have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. That would include its functions in relation to preparing the national good food nation plans and the good food nation plans, respectively. Secondly, the Scottish Government's consultation document on the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty stated that the regulations giving effect to the changes to PSED will not be introduced in the Scottish Parliament until late 2022, and the regulations will not come into force until 2025, by which time we would anticipate that the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans will already have been developed and introduced. Amendment 57 is therefore essential to ensure that the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation, have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. That will help to ensure that inclusive communication is used to help to shape and inform the preparation of the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans. It is unclear what the Scottish Government's proposed changes to the PSED will look like. If those proposed changes promote the inclusive communication and meet the needs of people affected by communication disadvantage towards camp hills, organisations and expectations, they are all well and good. However, I believe that this is an important one, and it recognises the importance of inclusive communication within it. Responding to that, I can absolutely understand the desire that is set out in the amendment for any consultation to be as inclusive as possible, and I absolutely support the aims behind it. That is an important issue, and I know what has been set out in the committee's stage 1 report. The committee welcomed the commitments made by both myself and officials that the Scottish Government's approach to consultation will be as open, accessible and inclusive as possible. As we set out in our response to the committee's stage 1 report, we intend that this will be the case for all future consultations on the good food nation plans and agree that consultation methods should be tailored for each specific audience. We already aim to be as inclusive as possible in the way that we communicate. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the amendment, I am unsure what the additional benefit is of setting out a requirement in legislation to have regard to that with regard to the exercise of all functions within the bill. For example, I can see how the duty would operate in the context of duties to consult, and I would support that aim. However, it is difficult to see how a duty to have regard to inclusive communication would operate in the context of some of the other duties that are outlined there. For example, the duty to review the good food nation plan and to have regard to the good food nation plans when exercising relevant functions. That goes beyond what was set out by the committee in the stage 1 report. I have some concerns that because of the wording of the amendment it may not be workable in practice. For those reasons, I urge the member not to press the amendment, and I would be happy to work with Rachel Hamilton in the run-up to stage 3 to try to find a workable alternative. I welcome the cabinet secretary's words. It is important that we listen to stakeholders, particularly when it comes to inclusive participation and communication for those people who perhaps are on the margins, including disabled people. I think that it would cement the ambition to achieve a wider and inclusive participatory process. I welcome your response to say that you will work with me to bring this back in a way that could be workable for the Government in possibly changing the wording. On that basis, I will not be pressing this amendment. I will start again. What I first need to do is ask our members that are content that Rachel Hamilton can withdraw amendment 57. Any objections? No. Thank you. I now call amendment 83 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 26. Colin Smyth to move or not move. I have to say that I share your frustration that just weeks before this bill is likely to become law, we still do not have a clear answer from the Government on such a fundamental part of the bill. Let's be honest, the reason for that is because the SNP and Greens have not yet come to an agreement. There has been no effort whatsoever from the Government to consult or discuss such an important issue with any other party, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming view from stakeholders that this is such a major part of the bill. At this stage, I won't press my amendment and if it helps you, convener, that's all the amendments right through the list to number 103. I do very much believe that the discussions that the cabinet secretary has committed to would have benefited from having something within the bill itself to discuss rather than the blank page that we currently have, but I hope that those discussions are genuine and across all parties and that we do seek to come to a consensus. That will mean compromise from the Government. I think that we owe that to the stakeholders who believe that this is such a fundamental part of the bill and we should make sure that we get that right. At this stage, I won't press the amendment but I do reserve the right, obviously, to bring those back at stage 3, but I hope that it won't be necessary because we can reach a consensus on this important issue. Thank you. Can I just confirm with Colin Smyth whether you are not moving? Amendment 83. I'm not moving amendment 83 yet. I call amendments 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103, all the name of Colin Smyth and all previously debated with amendment 26. I would invite Colin Smyth to move amendments 86 to 103 on block. And the question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Sorry, no, because he hasn't moved them. And I'll call amendment 27, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. And the question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And I'll call amendment 58, the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. And the question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Will therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining. And the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. And the question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And I'll call amendment 59, the name of Karen Adams, grouped with the amendments that are shown in the groupings. As previously advised, amendment 60 preempts amendments 61, 62 and 63. Therefore I cannot call amendments 61, 62 and 63 if amendment 60 is agreed. Karen Adams to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 59, in my name, proposes that Scottish ministers should be required to consult before making regulations under sections 4, 7 to C or 10 of this bill. That means that ministers would need to consult before making regulations to specify functions in the exercise of which they are to have regard to the national good food nation plan. Before making regulations to specify a public authority as a relevant authority, and before making regulations to specify functions in the exercise of which the relevant authorities are to have regard to their good food nation plan. Taken together with amendments 68 and 68 in the name of Alistair Allyn, which would require the use of the affirmative procedure for several regulations making powers that are currently subject to the negative procedure. Those amendments seek to answer the recommendation in this committee's stage 1 report for greater levels of scrutiny and consultation for the secondary legislation that will result from this bill. Amendments 61 to 67 in this group, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, present alternative routes to achieving that extra security, sorry, scrutiny, but it is my view that these go beyond what the report from this committee had suggested would be proportionate or necessary. I therefore move amendment 59. I call Alistair Allyn to speak to amendment 68 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. Like Karen Adam, my amendments here are seeking to respond to a call from the committee itself for more scrutiny in specific areas. The bill, as introduced, contains a number of regulation making powers. Amongst them are powers for ministers to specify functions or descriptions of functions for Scottish ministers and relevant authorities. Additional authorities are relevant and a time frame within which a relevant authority must produce a good food nation plan. The bill, as it stands, also provides that any regulations made using these powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee has agreed that that offers insufficient opportunity to scrutinise this secondary legislation. In our stage 1 report, the committee requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers, and any exercise of power conferred by section 7 to C to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. My amendments are 60 and 68, convener, for that extra scrutiny. They also ensure that, if Scottish ministers wish to make regulations to make a public body a relevant authority, that will be required to produce a good food nation plan. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I believe, convener, that this is the correct level of scrutiny for those regulations, and I respond to the committee's views on that. I urge the committee to support those amendments in my name. Thank you, convener. Those six amendments are in three pairs. Amendment 61 removes regulations under section 4 of the bill relating to the effect of the national plan from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 65 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 62 removes regulations under section 7 to C or 3B relating to the designation of specified public authorities as relevant authorities from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 66 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 63 removes regulations under section 10 relating to the effect of the relevant authorities' good food nation plans from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 67 adds those regulations to the affirmative procedure. In those three cases, my argument is the same. I believe that the affirmative procedure to be the most appropriate in those cases enables a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny over those regulations, and I believe that this is required for the good food nation bill to be as robust and effective as possible. I get clarification from Karen Adam. On 59B, the words have regard to, does she believe that they are strong enough should they be strengthened to ensure that recommendations from the proposed consultation are properly considered rather than leaving it to the whim of Scottish ministers? I have regard to, in specific, in 59B. I think that they are strong enough words. I was just wondering if Ms Hamilton was proposing something else. Well, I think that the words should be strengthened, and I would rather that you did strengthen them than that would be something to discuss, but it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary as to what her views are on it as well. First of all, I will address the point from Rachel Hamilton and the question that was put to Karen Adam there, because I think that we have covered this and the wording in previous discussion on other amendments today. Have regard to, those words have been used specifically because they have a legal effect, and I have already outlined today that ministers are held to account for that and to that, and they have been held to account previously, so that is why those words specifically have been used, because there is that strength there and the ability, as I say, to hold Scottish ministers to account. In relation to the amendments that are set out here, the bill, as introduced, confers several powers on the Scottish ministers to make regulations. As introduced, the bill provides that any regulations made using those powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee's stage 1 report requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers in any exercise of the power conferred by section 7 to C to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. An amendment 68 and 68 in the name of Alasdair Allan provide for that extra scrutiny. As I say, that is as recommended in the committee's stage 1 report, and accordingly I am grateful to Alasdair Allan for bringing forward those amendments and I encourage the committee to support them. The committee's stage 1 report also recommended that there should be a formal provision for consultation with regard to specifying additional public authorities, and I agree that additional scrutiny would be appropriate in this case, and Karen Adams's amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities, and I agree with this amendment and would ask the committee to support it. In our view, amendments 59, 68 and 68 add an appropriate level of additional scrutiny to the Scottish ministers powers to make regulations under this legislation. I would now turn to Beatrice Wishart's amendments. Amendments 62, 63, 66 and 67 would make regulations made under sections 7, 3, B and 10, subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has indicated that they are content that the negative procedure is appropriate for those powers, and for that reason I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. Beatrice Wishart's amendments 61 and 65 would make regulations made under section 4 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure, and as noted in relation to the other amendments in this grouping, in Beatrice Wishart's name, the DPLRC were content that section 4 was subject to the negative procedure. Alistair Allyn's amendments 68 and 68 are, in response to the approach that is recommended by the committee, namely that the first set of regulations made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, with subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I am of the view that Beatrice Wishart's amendments go further than the approach that is recommended by either the DPLRC or the committee, and for that reason I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. In summary, I would urge the committee to support amendments 56, 68 and 68, and not to support amendments 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 or 67. Thank you, and I'll call Karen Adam to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 59. Thank you, convener. As has been said, us as a rain committee felt that there should be stronger role for Parliament in scrutinising specified functions, and we'd recommended as a proportionate approach that the first set of regulations made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, and subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I move amendment 59. Can I speak to something that the cabinet secretary said about have regard to? It is to take account of the guidance and consider it, but it would be unprecedented not to consider it. However, I would like clarification possibly from the Scottish Government clerks as to whether that is specifically in legal terms something that should be considered by the Government. I do not think that I could probably add much more to what I've already intimated and the responses that I've given to the committee previously. We use that specific language particularly because it has that legal effect, and it's taking advice, I think, that that's the language that we would normally use in relation to consultations and where that's set out and other pieces of legislation too. Again, it's because of the legal effect that this particular language has is why that would be appropriate. I'm not content, convener, but that's probably what will reflect in my vote. Can I just ask Karen Adam to press or withdraw amendment 59? The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is seven for, two against, and no abstentions. Seven for, two against. I'm sorry, can we run the vote again please? Can you make sure you make it clear what your vote is? The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Thank you. We will go to the vote. Those in favour, raise their hands please. Those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is seven for, two against, and no abstentions. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I now call amendment 60 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 59. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move? Move. To move. I remind members that if amendment 60 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 61, 62 and 63, as they will have been preempted. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, and the result of the vote is five for, four against, the amendment has therefore been agreed. I now call amendment 28 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 84 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I now call amendment 65 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved, convener. I now call amendment 29 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 66 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved, convener. I now call amendment 85 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those in favour? Those against, abstentions, the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 67 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 30 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 26. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 64 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 26. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. And the question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not and we will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, the amendment is big apparent, that's four votes for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 68 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 59. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move? Move. And the question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 17 and 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? And the question is that the long title be agreed. Are we all agreed? And that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank you all for your patience and I now formally close this meeting.


I thought the first two matches, well I know the first two matches we had to hit them and out blocked them. We didn't pass as well in the third and fourth set, therefore we were out of system and they were in and once they're in system they're very difficult to stop. I liked how aggressive we were serving and hitting and went after them. I'm really thankful for the huge crowd. We had a great crowd and there was a point I thought we had them route a little bit and just didn't, we pulled that, we just didn't get off to a good start that third set. They, for the first time all year, they rotated two spots. They moved their setter from the one to the, into rotation three. So I don't know exactly why they did it. They were probably looking for a different kind of block that we were controlling the game that way but I'm not sure, so that's the only thing that they really did. It was more that we just didn't pass as well in the third and fourth set. This was NCAA type atmosphere which was really good. When we have four freshmen on the floor, some of the rotations, that's what we have to remember. If I would have looked back at our schedule and thought we're going to be 23 and 1 on October 17th, I would have been thrilled. But of course we got to the 17th, we were undefeated so I really would have loved to have this one. The inexperience sometimes really showed, I think we have a great mix of seniors working with freshmen and sophomores. So we have a lot of youth on the court and so I really think that they can just build from that and the more games you play in this kind of atmosphere and this kind of pressure, the better you're going to perform.


Hello, and welcome to ASL Storytelling with the Educational Resource Center on Deafness here at Texas School for the Deaf. My name is Lisa Cochran, and I will be your ASL storyteller. I'm really excited that you're joining me today. Reading is really fun. There's so many great books out there. The book we will be reading today is called Heckety Peg, written by Audrey Wood and illustrated by Dawn Wood. Down the dusty road and far away, a poor mother once lived with her seven children, named Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.   The children were overjoyed and knew exactly what they wanted. Monday asked for a tub of butter. Tuesday asked for a pocket knife. Wednesday asked for a china pitcher. Thursday asked for a pot of honey. Friday asked for a tin of salt. Saturday asked for crackers. And Sunday asked for a bowl of egg pudding. The mother kissed her children goodbye and said, Now be careful, and remember, don't let a stranger in and don't touch fire. The children locked the door behind her and began to play. Before long, a witch hobbled up the road pulling a heavy cart. She wrapped up the window and called out, Wash my leg! Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday called. Mother told us not to let strangers in. Hegody Peg took a pipe from her cape and stuck it in her mouth. Ow, sweet chickens! She called. All I need is a light for my pipe. Bring me a burning straw. We can't! Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday called. Mother told us not to touch the fire. Hegody Peg reached into her cart and pulled out a sack.  Look, if you let me in and light my pipe, I'll give you this. Leaning out the window, the children looked into the sack. They couldn't believe their eyes. They cried, for a sack of gold we'll let you in and light your pipe. The children unlocked the door and let the witch in. They ran to the hearth and brought back burning sticks of straw to light her pipe. But when it was lit, Hegody Peg threw the pipe to the floor and shouted, Now I've got you! And with that, the witch turned the children into food. Monday became bread, Tuesday became pie, Wednesday became milk, Thursday became porridge, Friday became fish, Saturday became cheese, and Sunday became roast rib. Hegody Peg gathered up the food and loaded it into her cart. Without looking back, she pulled the cart down the road, over the bridge, through the town, across the field, and deep into the woods to her hut. Soon the mother returned home carrying a large basket. In it were all the things her children wanted. A tub of butter for Monday. A pocket knife for Tuesday. A china pitcher for Wednesday. A pot of honey for Thursday. A tin of salt for Friday. Crackers for Saturday. And a bowl of egg pudding for Sunday. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, she called. But no one answered. The mother found the witch's broken pipe and burnt pieces of straw on the floor. Tears flowed from her eyes. Who has taken my children? She cried. A blackbird who had seen everything took pity on the mother and hopped down to the window sill. Follow me, the bird chirped. It's Hegody Peg. She's lost her leg. They let her in. Grabbing her basket, the mother followed the blackbird down the road, over the bridge, through the town, across the field, and deep into the woods to the witch's hut. Hegody Peg had just sat down to supper and was about to take her first bite when she heard a loud knock at the door. The mother called. I want my children back. You can't come in, said Hegody Peg. Your shoes are dirty. Then I'll take them off, the mother said. And so she did. The mother called. I want my children back. You can't come in, said Hegody Peg.  Then I'll take them off, the mother said. And so she did. Let me in, the mother called. I want my children back. You still can't come in, said Hegody Peg. Your feet are dirty.  And she went away as if to do so. But instead the mother hid her legs behind her and crawled back to the witch's door. Let me in, the mother called. I want my children back. When Hegody Peg looked down, she thought the mother had no feet, so she let her in. The witch pointed to the table. Here are your children, she said. If you can't guess them right the first time, I'll eat them for my supper. Keeping her feet tucked beneath her, the mother crawled to the table. How would she ever guess which food was which child? In despair, the mother looked in her basket. Here are the things my children wanted, she thought. And now they will never have them. Hurry, said the witch. I'm hungry. The mother looked at the food on the table. Speak up, said the witch. My supper grows cold. Suddenly the mother knew what to do. Taking the things from her basket, she said. I know my children by what they want. Bread wants butter, that's Monday. Pie wants knife, that's Tuesday. Milk wants pitcher, that's Wednesday. Porridge wants honey, that's Thursday. Fish wants salt, that's Friday. Cheese wants crackers, that's Saturday. And roast rib wants egg pudding, that's Sunday. Quick as a wink, the children turn back into themselves. Jumping to her feet, the mother cried. I've got my children back, Hecatee Peg. Now you'll be sorry you ever took them. She chased the witch around the hut, out of the woods, across the field, through the town, and onto the bridge. And Hecatee Peg jumped off the bridge and was never seen again. The end. I hope you liked this book. I look forward to you joining me for the next storytelling.


Hello, welcome to the sat and 11 show Everton play Arsenal at Goodison Park at half 12 on Saturday It's Shawn Dice's first game was ever some manager the first time I played Arsenal this season also their top of the league They're absolutely flying. So yeah, it's gonna be very tough game. Hopefully, you know, the new manager bounce and having a new You know staff at training and doing some new drills can give the players a bit of a lift and hopefully we can get a win I Have no idea what teams Shawn Dice is gonna pick I don't know who's gonna come in and say we're gonna keep what doing what we're doing But I'm gonna add my sort of you know style of play or we're gonna come in saying I want to play 4 4 1 1 No, I'm gonna play 4 4 2. I'm gonna make it simplify it.  I have no idea Obviously there's some plays there in the squad that he's worked with before and in the likes of Michael Keane Dwight McNeill Tarkowski whether he'll pick them again. Like I said, I don't know This is gonna be his first game forever team, but this is what this is what I would pick In my opinion of what Shawn Dice's type of football is So it's not it's sort of a prediction But it's more of this is what I would pick if I was gonna pick the team and play Shawn Dice's style of football So we go Jordan Pickford England's number one simple as that I know Shawn Dice at Burnley had Plays like Nick Pope who's a very big Goalkeeper likes to come and claim things good, you know, he's good one-on-one not the best kicking Tom Eaton Sort of similar is quite big Commanding goalkeeper Jordan Pickford's, you know, not completely different, but you know, he's smaller Still good at he's a good keeper, but he's I think his biggest his best thing is probably kicking So I don't think I can't see Shawn Dice going now. We're gonna pick a bag of it I think he'll pick England number one Pick that has to be better for me. Yeah past couple games certainly Southampton. Yeah, he needs to improve on So we've got a new manager now. Hopefully you can and he's had a couple weeks off as well So hopefully you can perform against the league leaders on Saturday my two fullbacks. I've got Sheamus Coleman and Vitaly Mika Lenko. I don't think Godfrey's face a few people talking about But in Godfrey at right back or left back. Sorry. I think Shawn Dice is the type of manager to play a left-footed player at left back I could be totally wrong, but I think Godfrey's not too fit anyway He said in his press conference that that he's getting there So whether it, you know, we're only on Thursday at the moment at the time recording So whether it's Saturday and he changes mind. I don't know I don't I struggle to see at the moment how you can leave the play at Godfrey out Surely because of it like reason athletes, you know, he's he's fit. He's mobile and you know, he's He's tenacious. He's a really good. He likes get stuck into tackle I think Shawn Dice likes that But I don't know if he'll play on the weekend I want to put Mika Lenko left back because he's left-footed left back whether Shawn I don't think Shawn Dice will be interested in vernacular to be honest thing He wants a more defensive type of left back and then Sheamus Coleman right back patterns still out of thing And Coleman, you know, he's captain isn't he? He's the natural placement. So yeah My two centre backs I'm going to go with Connor Cody and Tarkovsky simply because they've been playing together all season Meena. Yeah, I think me is probably our best offender But he's not been playing much simply because he's you know, he's you know, fitness problems injuries played against West Ham So whether he'll play it. I don't know but I'm going to pick if it was a back 30 I'd be putting me in there, but I'm picking Cody and Tarkovsky and then me two centre midfielders address a guy and a gay and Oh, Nana Too proper, you know centre mid so they you know, they can both get up and down the both mobile They both get stuck in they both get a lot of interceptions and tackles. They both pretty good on the ball So I want to go with them two in midfield It will be who has been playing with Phil also. I'm actually going to move out on the on the right midfield on the right wing No, that's to marry grey page. But yeah, let's just leave to my other day He's gonna be on the left wing demand a great cutting inside that gives you a threat to her You know someone who can get outside the box into a bit of space and shoot you can use his left foot as well I'm sure of it. Although I would like to see him or I'd like to see Michelin co actually going forward more important Some crosses as well actually didn't mention that before It will be I think he's playing with confidence This season so I think you could put them in the right wing And I don't think you'll have performance like it did two years ago We were you just went missing. I think you can still impact the game He's got a good cross on him and and to be honest until Towson comes back. I don't know who else can play on the right wing Dwight McNeill, I'm don't want him in the team to be honest I don't think he's good enough to get us out of the position we are in at the moment Certainly, he's not been performing good enough. Obviously, he's the player that showed ice has worked with before and even last season when Burnley got relegated The performance is under Sean Daish McNeill wasn't getting assists or goals.  It's actually favored by Sean Daish So I think you'll probably play that whether it's that sale and I don't know and then me to up front sort of like a 4 4 1 1 or 4 4 2 Whether it be to press out the front or one drops into the midfield and one presses on his own Dominic I would live in and Neil Mope It's more of a some people have said Alice Sims and Dom yeah to target men them I don't think you know They're not a much smaller players the two sort of plays you want to get the ball up too But who's one enough who's getting onto the flick on because the none of them really that fast in terms of like a Neil Mope a type of player like a split striker or a chalice and he would have been perfect to get back But you know Mope is the only one really really got we can play in that position. I think That might suit more payers, you know, we said about Brighton when he scored goals He was playing with other players off him or plays around him So if we can get the ball up to Dominic have it Louie, which we've got we have if you haven't seen so on dice You know master class and stuff You like to use Tarkovsky to get the balls up to the tracker if you've got Dominic have it Louie And you can win a flick on or get on his shoulder or header and Play in behind or play down to Mope you can get on to it He comes if it comes a second ball game if you've got fast plays like Mope or mobile play Mobile plays like Mope they can pick up those second balls and getting behind them and try and score goals If you've got two target man, it's gonna be difficult You rely on your wingers then to pick up the second ball and get in behind score goals But that's my formation. I'm gonna go with a you know 4411 slash 442 I think the difference between the 442 and 4441 one is how the two strikers press or two of them both pressing the full back So centre back, so I'm gonna drop into midfield and pick up the ball deep We know more pay likes to pick up deep and pick up the ball because we've seen it when He's played up front on his own We've ended up with no one up front because more pay drops in deep or Dominic I've got Lou and could drop in deep and and try and flick him in behind and have more paper on the shoulder Either way, it's gonna be something we've not seen this season in terms of 442 or that 4411. I'm Looking forward to it in a way I'm looking forward to seeing what he'll do if he picks that same team and it pays off then then great If he doesn't then let's just see what he does and what Everton can do All I would say is they've got a work hard and they have been in recent results because this is the league leaders Arsenal I think when we haven't played for a while sometimes be hype ourselves up like we can win then sometimes like a boxing day We get brought back down to earth and we lose the game. We can't do that on Saturday We've got to put a real good shift in and even if we don't win We've got a good put a good performance in to get that confidence back up So we can go to teams in the bottom half the table and beat them because Arsenal's got a very very tough game But yeah, there you go. That's my team. Let me know if you agree. Do you think Shawn Dice will pick a similar line up? Do you think he'll go to a back five or whatever? We'll find out on Saturday. But yeah, if you want more videos including the live daily exclusive videos Do join us on tov TV premier Make sure you like this video and subscribe to this channel And then there'll be a little QR code on the screen that you can scan that will take you to tov TV premier Thanks for watching. See you later


It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? From the CBS television news staff, Larry Lassur and Charles Cullingwood. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the right Honorable Selwyn Lloyd, British Minister of State. Mr. Lloyd, as British Minister of State and leader of your country's delegation to the United Nations, you're right in the cockpit of international affairs. Now last spring, it seems to me, there was a lessening of international tensions, and this year, this fall, there seems to be a stiffening of them. What shape do you think the world is in right now? Well, I wouldn't be as positive as you are about the present state of affairs. I think it's quite true that compared with 1951 and 1952, there was a definite relaxation in tension in February of this year following upon the death of Stalin. That went on in April and May, and I would say the present state of affairs is that we're marking time. It isn't quite certain which way it's going to go, and that's why I think it's very important that in each step we take, we're very careful indeed not to make things worse. Well, in the light of that idea that we're now marking time, what do you think the free world should do in the present situation? Well, the first thing, I'm quite certain what we should not do is to relax our efforts to build up our own defenses. I'm perfectly certain that one of the things which is making for peace is the fact that the free world has been building up its own defenses. I'm certain we must not relax in any way. At the same time, I think we've got to show ourselves ready to negotiate on any problem, at any time, at any level. We've got to be willing to try and negotiate, and that isn't the same thing as appeasement. Negotiation is not appeasement. We've got to try and settle some of the outstanding issues if we can. At the same time, we've got to be very certain not to be put in the position of negotiating from weakness. I don't think the Soviet bloc understands negotiating from weakness. We've got to be strong, but at the same time we've not got to lose any opportunity of negotiating if we can. Well, Mr. Minister, one of the places where both sides are certainly marking time and where not much negotiation is being done is in Panmunjong. Do you think that the chances of a Korean peace conference are hopeless now? No, I don't think they're hopeless. I myself feel that it's in the interests of both sides to get a Korean peace conference. I don't think it's in the interests of the Chinese communists and the North Koreans to have a perpetual state of tension there. I certainly don't think it's in our interests. And I think we've got to go on very patiently seeing whether we can set up a political conference. I think one of the ironies of the present situation is that it seems to take a very long time to negotiate even the simplest matter. And here we've been spending weeks and weeks trying to decide on the composition of a conference and the details of time and place and so on. Well, that's the way, apparently, negotiation goes the present time and we've got to go on seeing, trying to see whether we can't set up a political conference which I think both sides want. Well, Mr. Lloyd, there are certain dates by which certain things must happen in Korea. Supposing these things don't happen in the next two months, what will happen to the projected Korean peace conference then? Well, because that's a hypothetical question and I would prefer not to consider the worst. But at the moment they're trying to keep these explanations going. We, as you know, I think I've told you before, I went to Korea this time last year or June of last year. I saw some of these prisoners and I formed my own opinion as to their reasons for not wanting to go back to the North Koreans or to the Chinese communists. I think that many of them were perfectly sincere in their objection to being returned to the other side and that's why we fought so hard against forcible repatriation. Well, Mr. Lloyd, the situation in the Far East seems to be rather fluid, but in Europe it's rather more static. What do you think the prospects are of getting a European army there with German contingents? Well, I would hope that they're rather better now than they have been for some months. We believe that the European defence community really is a solution which should give grounds for a feeling of security. I don't think you can keep the Germans permanently disarmed. I don't think you can leave Germany as a vacuum in the middle of Europe, not knowing whether to go east or west. And I think the sensible solution is to have Germany integrated into a European defence community. That will be, I think, good for Germany itself and also good for the other countries of Western Europe. It will mean that the German contribution to defence will be within a European defence community which in itself is within NATO. And I think that should mean security for Europe and, incidentally, security for the Russians because it will mean that the German contribution will be integrated with a Western contribution and it's not the coalitions which make war as a rule. It's the individual states. Well, now if that's the British view, Mr. Lloyd, why is it that Great Britain herself has not seen fit to plunge full tilt into the European army scheme? Well, we have given every support that we can to the European army. We can't integrate our own forces in the European army because our interests extend very far beyond Europe. Not only are we a European country, but we're also a NATO country and also we're the centre or part of a great Commonwealth. And we have interests all over the world and it's not possible, therefore, for us to go into a European defence community in the same way as another country of Western Europe might. But nevertheless, we have every intention of being associated as closely as we can with this European defence community. And as you know, we've got large forces on the continent of Europe at the present time, which in fact are a very substantial element in the defence of Western Europe. And we have every intention of those forces should work in the closest collaboration with the European defence community and the European army. Mr. Minister, as you agreed before, the situation in Europe is fairly stable. It seems to me, except for the joint between the NATO forces in the Balkans and Italy, and I refer specifically to Trieste. Can anything be done about that unhappy situation? Well, of course that is, as you say, an unhappy situation. And like so many other situations, the irritating thing about it is that the interests of both sides are not dissimilar. For instance, the defence of Italy must depend to a considerable extent upon having a strong Yugoslavia allied with the West in front of Italy. And similarly, the defence of Yugoslavia must depend to a considerable extent upon having a strong Italy behind her. And therefore, strategically, the interests of both those countries would seem to us to lie along the lines of a settlement. And therefore we hope that even out of the present controversy, there may come a reasonable settlement for both sides. And we in fact think that the proposition of October the 8th was a reasonable settlement for both sides. And we hope in time that it may be realised to be so. Well, Mr. Lord, you, Britishers, have important interests in the Middle East. Can anything be done about stabilising the peace in that strategic area? Yes, we certainly have very important interests in the Middle East, as has the United States. And that has been a source of constant trouble since the war. One of the outstanding features in that trouble has been the row between Iran and Britain over the oil. Well, we hope that with this new government of Iran, with whom we are very desirous of entering into full and friendly diplomatic relations, we hope with that new government there may be prospects of settling that oil dispute. So far as Egypt is concerned, we've been negotiating for many months with General Nagib's government to try and settle that problem. And again, that's another problem where the interests of both sides are very similar. There's this great base with all these armaments and installations there. And one would think that they are an important element in the defence of the whole Middle East. And we're trying to work out a reasonable arrangement between Egypt and ourselves whereby that base should be available for the free world if any danger should come. And then the other factor in the Middle East is this unfortunate situation between Israel and the Arab States. And that's now being considered by the Security Council. Two aspects of it are. And once more, we would hope that these countries will realise that their interests lie in preserving the peace. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, for being with us tonight. I'm pretty good for being here. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Larry Lesser and Charles Collingwood, both from the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest was the right honourable Selwyn Lloyd, British Minister of State. Now, for the most important name on your Christmas gift list, the gift of complete acceptability is Lone Gene, the world's most honoured watch. Throughout the world, no other name on a Christmas watch means so much as Lone Gene, the watch of highest prestige among the world's finest watches. The prestige of a Lone Gene watch as a Christmas gift transcends price. It springs from the countless honours which Lone Gene watches have won. For excellence and elegance, ten World's Fair Grand Prices and twenty-eight gold medals. For accuracy, highest honours in the fields of precise timing. Yes, throughout the world, no other name on a Christmas gift watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honoured watch. And you may buy and proudly give a Lone Gene watch this Christmas for as little as seventy-one-fifty made to the unique Lone Gene standard of excellence with those qualities of greater accuracy and long life for which Lone Gene watches are famous. Lone Gene, the world's most honoured watch. The world's most honoured Christmas gift. Premier product of the Lone Gene Witner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lone Gene and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast. By more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Gene Witner Watches. There is only one Atmos, the perpetual motion clock created by LeCoultre. Atmos runs without winding, without electricity, powered only by unfailing daily variations in the temperature of the air. Atmos product of LeCoultre division of Lone Gene Witner. History repeated and you are there Sundays on the CBS...


For standard police martyrs, no fewer than 810 suspected criminals have been arrested by the Nassau State Police Command from January to December this year. Commissioner of Police in the state, Meyake Baba, made this known as the Command Headquarters in Lafayette, while parade and 16 suspected criminals who were recently arrested for various crimes in the state. He explained that most of the suspects arrested in the year 2022 were involved in armed robbery, kidnapping, railway tracks, and sleepers vandalism among others. While warning all criminal elements to flee the state, the CP commended the Nassau State government, traditional rulers and residents for their cooperation throughout the year. Baba also assures that the Command will continue to fight crime toward Stunt Still across the 13 local garbant areas of the state. On 25th, 2022, at about 2130 hours, while conducting raids of suspected criminal hideouts at Federal University, Lafayette, the 12th of the moment of Malik, 18 years, and 8 years, all maids were apprehended by a practice of anti-cultivism unit of the command. A search was immediately conducted on the suspects. On 22nd of November, action based on credible intelligence of practice at the command and the Ketnape unit arrested one Columbus Basile at four years, at some moment, at seven years, a maker has a 45 years, and the Manuel Joe 36 years, all maids of Acuanga, well-planned to kidnap a business man in Acuanga. Number of armed robbery suspects arrested 136, number of suspect kidnap arrests, kidnap pass arrested 112, number of firearms recovered 44, number of live ammunition recovered, 704, number of motorcycle recovered, 6, number of vehicles recovered, 5, number of courtes arrested 108, number of rapes suspect arrested 59, suspect arrested 4, all that's 100 offenses are 365, money recovered, 600,000, number of assets recovered, total number of cases charged to court 374.


Our effort to fight malaria is a great example of partnering. We collaborate with a number of partners to distribute our malaria treatment co-artum without profit to the developing world. We're also going beyond just delivering the medicine, and we're working together with several partners to remotely monitor inventory levels of antimalarials to help prevent stockouts in rural areas. For example, we work with diverse partners such as the Tanzanian Ministry of Health, IBM, Medicines for Malaria Venture, and Vodafone. And as a result, we've helped reduce malaria rates with our co-artum access program. This would not have been possible without partnerships. In healthcare, I expect we'll continue to see a shift toward greater collaboration. I think it's important to put aside self-interest and focus on working together to deliver good health outcomes that are also cost-effective. At Novartis, we're moving away from the traditional transactional approach of selling pills, and we're adapting our model to focus on delivering positive patient outcomes. We're working with governments, hospitals, and payers in new ways to deliver more services for patients around the world. For healthcare, as well as other industries, following the science is critical. Delivering real breakthroughs requires us to focus on what the science shows will be most effective. That's why we don't include finance or marketing teams in our discussions about research. We never want market potential to direct our R&D efforts. Science and unmet medical needs should always come first. Now, this approach has allowed us to look at so many areas of medicine where we can make a real difference, including fragile X syndrome, debilitating auto-inflammatory diseases that have a small patient population but affect whole families, and CML, a rare type of leukemia that can now be managed like a chronic disease in many cases.