A very good evening aspirants. The much awaited Shankara A.S. Academy's free main scholarship test 2020 starts from today. Let us move on to today's Hindi news analysis. These are the list of news articles chosen for today's analysis. It has been provided along with the page numbers of different editions of Hindi newspaper. Let us move on to today's first news article discussion. Our first discussion for today is based on these three editorial articles which are with reference to the contempt of court proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court on its own against and advocated the Supreme Court. That is Mr. Prashant Bhushan. And this move of Supreme Court has provoked public outrage and many have even criticized this move. And that is why it becomes an important topic for discussion. So today we will see the definition of contempt of court. We will also see a brief background of what happened and then the opinions of the authors in the editorial. It is important because one of these editorials is authored by a retired Chief Justice of Delhi and Madras High Court and who was a former chairperson of Law Commission of India. So the editorials provide expert opinion which we will see today. Then we will see whether contempt of court is still relevant or required. And finally we will also see what the Law Commission's report say about this contempt of court. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. Now first what do we mean by contempt of court? We will see its definition as per the contempt of court act of 1971. And according to section 2 of this act contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt where civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or it is the willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Then a criminal contempt means the publication of any matter or doing any other act which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or even tends to lower the authority of any court. Now here the term scandalizing the court refers to something that brings disrepute or disgrace to the authority and administration or that brings disrepute or disgrace to law by the courts and which creates distrust and disbelief in the minds of litigant public and the general public at large. And this criminal contempt also includes the publication of any matter or doing any other act which prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings or which interferes with the administration of justice or which obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. And in this the publication could be by words, it could be spoken or written or even by signs or by visible representations such as cartoons etc. Now as you have heard contempt of court attracts punishment and know that a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to 2000 rupees or even with both. But this punishment is moderated for a civil contempt. So for a civil contempt mostly fine may be ordered and if not in rare cases instead of simple imprisonment the person may be detained in a civil prison for a period not extending six months. For this is the definition of contempt of court and punishment for it according to the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. See the objective behind contempt of court is to safeguard the interests of the public because if the authority of the court is denigrated or belittled then public confidence in the administration of justice will be weakened or it will be eroded. But we can observe that the definition of criminal contempt in India is extremely wide and it can be easily invoked. So this is the background about contempt of court. So what is the issue that led to the proceedings of contempt of court against Mr Prashant Bhushan? It is because of some of the remarks by him that were reportedly considered as criminal contempt by the Supreme Court. See he has published some personal remarks in Twitter that is the social media platform and in that he had mentioned that some persons who held offices of Chief Justice were corrupt. Secondly he has also seemingly made remarks against the Office of Chief Justice of India with reference to a picture. You would have also seen this picture in social media. In this picture the present Chief Justice of India is seated in a costly motorcycle and is about to drive it. And in this particular picture the Chief Justice of India is reportedly found without a mask or helmet and this picture was linked with the lockdown and access to justice in Supreme Court during the lockdown. And that is why one of the editorials which we are discussing now is titled as a motorcycle and the art of court management. Now based on these personal remarks the Supreme Court bench has issued notice of contempt of court to Mr. Prashant for undermining the dignity and authority of institution of Supreme Court in general and for undermining the dignity and authority of the Office of Chief Justice of India in particular. So this is the issue. Now what is the opinion of the authors? Broadly authors say that this move is unwarranted from the Supreme Court. This is because in a democracy even the courts have to be tolerant towards criticism. We should be very careful here because some allegedly made remarks might be interfering with the administration of justice or such remarks could be obstructing the administration of justice. And such remarks should be treated as contempt and they have to be dealt accordingly. But criticisms other than such interfering remarks have to be tolerated by the judiciary particularly in a democracy. And this viewpoint is also highlighted by the authors who mention that courts in two democracies that is USA and UK are not resorting to use of contempt laws. It is because the courts in these countries consider that no one is above criticism and they consider that using laws court should not silence criticism and dissent. For instance if we consider during the Brexit issue in 2016 with reference to a Brexit judgment the Daily Mail published a photo of three judges with the caption enemies of the people. Even in this instance also contempt proceedings were not initiated. So authors try to convey that judiciary has to tolerate such criticisms. And because of this authors call that initiating contempt proceedings for criticisms is not required in this modern age and there is also need to revisit the law of contempt of court. And this is to make amendments so that healthy criticisms against judiciary need not be seen as criminal contempt of court. And even if you see in the recent scenarios many criticisms made against judiciary is relevant because of lack of transparency in the functioning of Supreme Court. For example judges at present need not say a reason why they recuse from hearing a particular case. Then we also saw issues with a segment of sensitive cases to a particular judge in Supreme Court. Then we also saw a case where the alleged former Chief Justice of India presided a bench that looked into the sexual harassment allegations made on himself. So these actions certainly warrant criticisms on the judiciary and its functioning and such criticisms have to be taken in good spirit so as to bring reforms and it should not be taken in a bad sense to punish those who make such remarks. But here we should know that over the time Supreme Court has been tolerant even than the high courts. But the recent actions against Mr. Prashant is seen as unbecoming of the Supreme Court by many experts. So in this scenario we should know about the recommendations of law commission. In its 274th report titled as review of contempt of court act of 1971 limited to section 2 of the act law commission reviewed the section 2 which deals with the definitions and which also has the definition for civil contempt and criminal contempt. I know that this commission at that time was chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice B.S. Chauhan and this report recommended that there is no requirement to amend section 2 of the contempt of courts act of 1971 and this is because of some reasons. And one reason is that there are high number of cases of civil and criminal contempt and this justifies the continuing relevance of the act. Then contempt proceedings at the international level even though they are used rarely they still exist in law books in one form or the other. For example, they even exist in law books in UK. So this was cited as one of the reasons. Then thirdly the report mentioned that the present definition in the Indian law gives much clarity and apart from this the act also provides for several safeguards to protect the misuse. Now this suggests that the courts will not prosecute all cases of contempt and more importantly the law commission observed that contempt of court acts of 1971 just outlines the procedure in relation to investigation and punishment for contempt. But the power of Supreme Court and the high courts to punish for contempt is a constitutional power under articles 129 and article 215 of the Indian constitution. So because of this law commission noted that even if this act is amended the power will remain unaltered because it is a constitutional power. So for these reasons the law commission felt that the section 2 glossy of the act which defined criminal contempt need not be amended. And these observations are debated in the current scenario because the present notice to Mr. Prashant is considered by many as a misuse and unwarranted move from the Supreme Court and many even suggest to amend the act to allow healthy criticisms on the judiciary in the democracy. So from these observations what we can say is contempt of court is relevant but its usage should be restricted. That means the law can be modified to restrict its usage. So that is all about this discussion. Today we had a detailed discussion on the contempt of court. Moving on to the next discussion. This news article discusses about the decision of Poland to withdraw from a European treaty on violence against women. So in this discussion we will see what this treaty is about and we will also see some other relevant mechanisms at the international level for protection of women's rights. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. See the news is that the justice minister of Poland has said that Poland will take steps to withdraw from a European treaty on violence against women. Just know that this treaty is also known as Istanbul Convention. So why this decision is taken by Poland government? It is because according to the news article Poland's ruling law and justice party is closely aligned with the Catholic Church and they promote a conservative social agenda. And because of this according to the news article they are against most radical reforms like gender equality, gay rights etc. And because of this the present government of Poland is saying that the treaty is disrespectful towards religion because it requires teaching liberal social policies in schools. So citing such reasons now Poland government has decided to quit this treaty which it ratified in the year 2015. See even though the Poland government has decided this the people of Poland are certainly against it. Even protests are happening in Warsaw which is the capital of Poland against this decision because many of them feel that withdrawing from this treaty is like legalizing domestic violence. So now let us see some of the important features of this treaty. See as you know violence against women including domestic violence is one of the most serious forms of gender-based violations of human rights and these violations deprives women of their ability to enjoy fundamental freedoms and these violations also represent a serious obstacle in achieving equality between women and men. So to address these issues only Europe has a convention which is called as the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence and as we already saw this convention is also known as Istanbul Convention and as the name indicates this treaty was launched by Council of Europe in the year 2011. Just know that Council of Europe is Europe's leading human rights organization which was founded in 1949 and it includes 47 member states and out of these 27 members are also the members of European Union. Now this treaty is very important because this Istanbul Convention is a legally binding international treaty to combat violence against women. See just now we saw that this convention was launched by Council of Europe then how we are saying that it is an international treaty. It's an international treaty because this treaty is open for signature by the member states of Council of Europe and it is also open for the non-member states which have participated in its elaboration and it is also open for the member states of European Union obviously and apart from this this treaty is also open for accession by other non-member states and know that this treaty entered into force in the year 2014. Now let us see the purposes of this convention. As you can see here this convention aims to protect women against all forms of violence and it also aims to eliminate violence against women including the domestic violence. Not only that it also wants to promote international cooperation with the view to eliminating violence against women and also domestic violence. So these are the other purposes of this convention we have given it here for your preference. So what are the important obligations under this treaty? See those who are signatories to this treaty they will have to provide helplines, shelters, medical care and legal aid for women who have suffered violence. So what are the kinds of violence this treaty addresses? It addresses the crimes such as rape, domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, sexual harassment, forced abortion and also forced sterilization. And not only this according to this treaty the signatories have to strengthen the prosecution of those who are responsible for domestic violence also and more importantly this treaty rejects excuses on the grounds of culture, custom, religion and honor. So that means the member states which are party to this convention cannot state any excuses for carrying out the crimes which we just mentioned. But how this convention ensures that the member countries are going to stick to their commitments under this convention? This convention ensures it by an independent expert group which is tasked with ensuring that the treaty countries are sticking with their commitments. So from this you can understand that this treaty is a comprehensive legal framework to protect women against all forms of violence. But what is the provision based on which Poland has decided to withdraw from this convention? It is the article 14 of this convention which mandates the parties to include teaching materials on gender equality. Like as you can see here the convention mandates that necessary steps have to be taken to include teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-sterotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution and interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and that should also be teaching material on the right to personal dignity. And all these have to be included in the formal curriculum and at all levels of education according to this convention. So we can see that these are all the progressive steps for achieving gender equality and for empowering women. But unfortunately Poland has decided to take a regressive step. So this is all about this news article. But from examination perspective you should also know about some important internationally agreed norms and standards which are relating to ending violence against women. It includes the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, then world conference on human rights, then declaration on the elimination of violence against women, then beaching platform for action, etc. Now in this the 1993 declaration on the elimination of violence against women is very important because it is the first international instrument which explicitly addressed violence against women and it provides a framework for national and international action on this issue. But before that we have the CEDAW that is convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. But this convention does not explicitly mention violence against women. And other than this there are also other internationally agreed norms and standards which we have given here for your reference. So that is all about this discussion. In this discussion we saw about the European Treaty on Violence Against Women that is the Istanbul Convention. Then we also saw why Poland wants to withdraw from this convention. And then finally we also saw some international norms and treaties related to ending the violence against women. With this we come to the end of this discussion. The respect practice question will be discussed in the last session. Now let's get to the next discussion based on this news article. It mentions about the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The news is that the NCDRC has ordered the developers of a housing project to refund money since they failed to construct and deliver houses in time. So in this manner let us see about NCDRC from exam perspective. First know that the NCDRC that is presently functioning was set up in 1988 under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. But as we know this act has been repealed and replaced by the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. And we saw about this 2019 act in our 21st July in the news analysis. And we also saw that government has notified most of the provisions of this act. And one such notification is the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules of 2020. So let us see the provisions related to NCDRC from this 2019 act and the 2020 rules. First it provides about the composition of NCDRC. As per the 2019 act, NCDRC shall consist of a precedent and not less than four members. And the upper limit of number of members is to be fixed by the central government. And now it has been fixed at the maximum of 11 members as per the 2020 rules. The rules also state that at least one member shall be a woman. Then it also mentions that NCDRC shall function at the national capital region that is NCR. And the regional benches of NCDRC will be notified by the central government in consultation with NCDRC. And according to the act the term of office of the president and the members shall not exceed five years and know that they are eligible for reappointment. Also know that the president shall not hold office if her age exceeds 70 years and the members shall not hold office if their age exceeds 67 years. And apart from this the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and other terms and conditions of the service of the president and the members of this commission will be notified by the central government. And this is as per the 2019 act. Now next is the jurisdiction of NCDRC. So you know that the commission has both original and appellate jurisdiction. So generally when we say a court has an original jurisdiction it means these are the courts where civil and criminal cases first originate and they impose punishment according to their liability. And when we say a court is having appellate jurisdiction it means the court which reviews the proceedings of a trial court when there is an alleged error of law. And this simply means the court can hear appeals. Now this NCDRC has original jurisdiction over complaints where the value of goods or services that is paid as consideration that is payment exceeds rupees 10 crore or any other value prescribed by the central government. And it also has original jurisdiction over the complaints against unfair contracts where the value of goods or services that are paid as consideration exceeds 10 crore rupees. And this NCDRC has appellate jurisdiction or appeals against the orders of any state commission and the central authority that is the central consumer protection authority. So that means after the orders of the state commission and the central authority if the agreed person wants to appeal they can appeal to NCDRC. But if the agreed person is not satisfied with the NCDRC order then the person can appeal only in the Supreme Court. So based on this discussion we can say that NCDRC is a quasi-judicial commission. When we say a quasi-judicial body it means it is a non-judicial body which can interpret law and it has partly judicial character because it can hold hearings and it can conduct investigations into disputed claims. So in this manner NCDRC is a quasi-judicial commission. So these are some of the important information that you should know with respect to NCDRC. With this we come to the end of this discussion that is the practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion which is based on this news article it talks about the recent guidance document released by the department of biotechnology. This guidance document is made based on the recommendation of review committee on genetic manipulation in short RCGM and the central drugs standard control organization that is CDSCO. So this document deals with applications for development of vaccines diagnostics and therapeutics under rapid response regulatory framework for COVID-19 of Government of India. So in this context now we will discuss about this document. Know that the document first talks about the preclinical data which are generated outside India. See here preclinical data means research using animals to find out if a drug procedure or treatment is likely to be useful or not and the preclinical studies take place before any testing in humans is done. So the document tells that such data will be considered in the regulatory submission of applications. It also says that the individual application will be examined based on quality of data generated. But it is to be noted here that the conduct of a limited preclinical study may be asked later if required after examination. This means now Indian companies which are willing to import or test the potential COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed internationally then these Indian companies will not require to conduct many India specific tests and trials. Here you should note that normally a vaccine that has been licensed in another country would still need to repeat all the human safety tests in India also. But this guidance document eases such restrictions. Now the document also says that the applicant may submit parallel application for conducting appropriate phase of clinical trial to the CDSCO. This is for the consideration at the time of conduct of preclinical trial studies. Now in addition to this the document also talks about the consideration of data available on clinical trials. Now in this clinical trials means conducting trials on human beings directly. So now these data which are generated outside India will be considered and examined. But it will be based on scientific rational and level of completeness of data in the human trials along with the satisfactory preclinical data. And also know that the application for clinical trial will be approved subject to the no objection certificate from the RCGM after the examination of data of preclinical studies. Now in this scenario we should know about this RCGM that is review committee on genetic manipulation. Know that this committee functions under the department of biotechnology under the ministry of science and technology. And this committee monitors the safety related aspects of ongoing research projects or activities that involves hazardous microorganisms or genetically engineered organisms and cells and their products. And this RCGM includes representatives from DBT, ICMR, ICAR, CSIR and even other experts. Then RCGM also brings out manuals of guidelines specifying procedure for regulatory process with respect to activities involving genetically engineered organisms. This includes activities in research use as well as for the industrial and environmental applications. And this is with a view to ensure human health and environmental safety. Now all the ongoing research projects involving hazardous microorganisms, GE organisms or cells and products should be reviewed by this committee to ensure that adequate precautions and containment conditions are being met. Apart from this RCGM also lays down procedures that restrict or prohibit the production, sale, import and use of such hazardous microorganisms, GE organisms or cells. So that is all about this discussion. In this discussion we saw about the guidance document released by department of biotechnology which is with respect to the clinical trials and we also saw about review committee on genetic manipulation. With this we come to the end of this discussion that is play practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion, this news article talks about the investment proposals from China which are awaiting security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the news article around 200 new investment proposals are waiting for clearance and this comes after new rules on foreign direct investments were notified in April and the news article also talks about the recent amendment to the general financial rule of 2017. So in this discussion we will see about the recent changes made to the FDA policy of India and we will also see the changes made to general financial rules. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. See as you know foreign direct investment is an investment from a party in one country into a business or corporation in another country with the intention of establishing a lasting interest. Now here this lasting interest is what differentiates foreign direct investment from the foreign portfolio investments because in a foreign portfolio investments the investors passively hold securities from a foreign country. So foreign investors can invest directly in India either on their own or they can invest through joint ventures in all the sectors except in very small list of activities where foreign investment is prohibited by the government. So in this scenario you should know about the foreign direct investment routes because FDA's can be made through two routes one is automatic route and the second one is government approval route and the FDA in majority of the sectors is under the automatic route that is it does not need regulatory approval prior to such investment. So what is the government approval route? This means certain activities that are not covered under the automatic route require prior government approval for foreign direct investments and some of the sectors or activities which require government approval include mining, defense, broadcasting, print media, civil aviation, satellites, telecom, pharmaceuticals etc. So you can see that all these sectors are important and in one way or the other they contribute to the national security. Now based on these two routes FDIs are divided into three categories category one is sectors in which 100% FDI is permitted under automatic route then category two is sectors in which FDI is permitted up to 100% under the government route then category three is sectors where FDI is permitted up to a certain limit under both the government route and automatic route and based on the FDI policy the Indian company should report to Reserve Bank of India within 30 days of receipt of money from that foreign investor. So this is the basic background you should know about foreign direct investment in our country. So what is the recent amendment? The government has made amendments to the existing FDI policy to block the looming threat of opportunistic Chinese takeover of Indian forms and the amendment is that the investment by entities from countries that share a border with India will require a clearance from the center. That means all the FDIs from the countries which share a border with India have to come through government approval route only. In addition to this a new policy also blocks the indirect acquisition of investments by entities based in China. That means change in ownership of the investment will also have to be cleared by the union government. So it blocks the indirect acquisition. Now here you should note about the Ministry of Home Affairs framework for security clearance policy on investments. The objective of this national security clearance is to evaluate potential threats which are visible or embedded in proposals received by the Ministry of Home Affairs. And as per this policy the promoters owners and directors of the company are mandated to give self declarations regarding any criminal history on their part. Now what is the change made to the general financial rules of 2017? Now first know that these general financial rules are a compilation of rules and orders of government of India to be followed by all while dealing with the matters that involve public finances and these general financial rules or GFRs lay down the general rules which are applicable to ministries or departments and also detailed instructions relating to the procurement of goods are issued by the procuring departments broadly in conformity with these general financial rules. Now the recent amendment which was made last week to this GFR enables imposition of restrictions on bidders from countries which share a border with India and this restriction is in relation to the public procurements and this amendment impowers department of expenditure under the Ministry of Finance to impose restrictions on grounds of defence of India and on matters that directly or indirectly relates to the country's national security. So if department of expenditure feels that for safeguarding national security it is important to impose restriction on some public procurements then it can do so and if such restrictions are imposed then no procurements shall be made by that ministry or department. So from this whole discussion you can see that how the government is taking every step to safeguard the national security especially related to investments. So that is all about this discussion. Now we have come to the last session for the day which is the practice questions discussion session. Now this question asks is the UN will convention recently seen in news is related to the first one is diplomatic relations second one protection of human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury then third one preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence then the fourth one preventing of pollution from ships. So the correct answer is option C preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and know that the first one that is the diplomatic relations convention is known as the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations of 1961 then the second one is related to the Minamata convention on mercury 2013 last one is the Marpole convention of 1973. Now this next question is based on national consumer disputes redressal commission established as per the provisions of consumer protection act 2019 three statements are given and we have to choose the incorrect statements it has original as well as appellate jurisdiction this is the first statement now this statement is correct we saw this during discussion if you know the first statement is correct then you can easily arrive at the correct answer because the question asks for the incorrect statements so one should not be in answer so eliminate option a b and d so the correct answer is option c 2 and 3 only now the second statement mentions its precedent and members are not eligible for reappointment this statement is wrong because they are eligible for reappointment now the third statement is a person agreed by an order made by the commission may appeal in any of the high courts in India now this statement is wrong because they can appeal only in the supreme court now this next question is with reference to review committee on genetic manipulation two statements are given the first statement is it reviews all the ongoing research projects involving hazardous microorganisms GE organisms or cells and products GE means genetically engineered and this first statement is correct this is one of the functions of this committee now the second statement states it functions under the ministry of health and family welfare now this statement is incorrect because this review committee functions under the department of biotechnology which functions under the ministry of science and technology and here the question asks for the correct statements so the correct answer is option a one only now this is the first question for Shankar IS Academy's main scholarship test 2020 read this question carefully and answer accordingly this question is based on GS paper 2 the question asks a need has arisen to revisit the provisions of contempt of court in India discuss and this question is a 10 mark question you have to write the answer within the word limit of 150 words now for writing the answers you can take the printout of the mains answer sheet which is available in the link given in the description and in the comment section and if you do not have access to the printer then you can simply draw margins on an a4 sheet now to know about how to draw margins you can access the link given in the description and in the comment section and we hope that all the registered aspirants are aware of the process to upload your answers in the portal and here know that the answer upload portal link is available in the description section as well as in the comment section and remember this link will be disabled tomorrow evening at 6 p.m so make sure to upload your answer before the upload portal is closed now once the upload portal is closed no answer will be accepted through the email and our regular viewers don't post your answers in the comment section or send it through email like you normally do because if answers are posted in the comment section or even sent through email they will not be evaluated and your answers will not be considered for this scholarship test a new portal link will be shared for tomorrow's question so ensure that you upload your answers for today's question before 6 p.m of tomorrow and most importantly before uploading the answer rename the file name to your unique id and before uploading check whether you have written your answers as per the instructions which we saw in the beginning we wish you all the best if you like this video don't forget to like comment and share and do subscribe to shankar eyes academy youtube channel for more updates related to civil service examination preparation


Hoot a Cobra Commander 788 here, it's time for another vintage GI Joe toy review and this week we are going old school and the reason we're going old school is because I've put a lot of extra work into my last few videos and frankly 788ers, your commander is tired and a little cranky and it's time for his nap. When did I start referring to myself in the third person? So this week we are getting back to the basics.  This show is about GI Joe, it's not about Mrs. Hooded Cobra Commander 788. This week. This is a great figure to review to get back to the basics. We're going all the way back to 1983, the second year of the vintage GI Joe toy line. Let's look at the Helicopter Assault Trooper Airborne. This is a figure that I've had ready to review for a long time. It's a figure that I like, yet every time I think of reviewing Airborne, he keeps getting put lower and lower on the priority list. Well, it's about time I get to him. So let's give Airborne the spotlight he deserves. HCC 788 presents Airborne. This is Airborne, GI Joe's Helicopter Assault Trooper from 1983. He was first available in 1983 and was also available in 1984 and was discontinued for the year 1985. That is to say, there was no new Helicopter Assault Trooper in 1985, however, if you see Airborne as a paratrooper, there was a new paratrooper in 1984, Ripcord. If you see Airborne as a basic infantry soldier, there was a new infantry trooper in 1985, Footloose. There was one other figure called Airborne in the vintage GI Joe line, but I would not call it a second version of this Airborne. The 1990 Airborne was not the same character, it was a new guy with Airborne's code name. The 1990 Airborne was part of the Sky Patrol subteam, so he came with a working silver parachute. As a Helicopter Assault Trooper, Airborne is often paired with the GI Joe Helicopter from that same year, the 1983 Dragonfly Helicopter. The Dragonfly did come with a pilot, Wild Bill, but you will often find Airborne in the Gunners seat. Indeed, his file card suggests that is the proper place for him. Airborne was the first Native American GI Joe. The second was Spirit from 1984, and although these guys share some colors, they have blue and tan, other than that, there really isn't very much similarity between these two figures. Spirit has a much more stereotypical Native American look. Let's take a look at Airborne's accessories and let's start with his weapon. This is his XM16, which may be based on the XM161E, which was an early variant of the M16 rifle. This one has a bayonet and a collapsible stock. There is a fair amount of detail on this accessory, certainly pretty good for the time. Airborne's XM16 is at about the same scale as the M16 rifle that came with the 1982 and 1983 Infantry Trooper Grunt, and I think that rifle is slightly underscaled. It looks a little bit too small. Since rifle was very popular, a reissue of that rifle came with the 1987 Mailway Exclusive Steel Brigade. The Steel Brigade rifle is almost identical to the rifle that came with Airborne. It is in a very slightly lighter gray color plastic. Another issue of that rifle, an even lighter gray plastic, came with the 1985 Tactical Battle Platform. Then the rifle was issued in blue for the 1985 Rifle Range Unit. Then there was a very light gray, almost white accessory pack version, and this would be a pretty good rifle to give to an Arctic Trooper. Next let's look at Airborne's helmet. And this helmet is very similar to the standard GI Joe helmet in light green, but it has some great additional sculpted detail on there that I really love. It's got some goggles and the strap that holds the goggles on, and it looks like there's some cloth folds in there, just a really beautiful helmet. Finally let's look at Airborne's backpack, and I also really like this backpack. It has a sculpted bed roll here, an entrenching tool. When we were kids we used to pretend these backpacks were parachutes. Airborne's backpack, like his rifle, was very popular and got reissued many times, and sometimes the reissues of that backpack were almost identical to the original. For instance, Duke came with the same backpack in almost exactly the same color. One way you can try to identify a real Airborne backpack is by matching the colors. The Airborne backpack should pretty closely match the color on the figure as well as Duke's. The Duke's backpack should pretty closely match the color on that action figure. However, this plastic can yellow over time and with sun damage, so matching the colors doesn't always work. Another way you can identify an Airborne backpack is by looking at the backside. Airborne's backpack has this cross pattern, Duke's backpack does not appear to have that, at least not any issue of Duke's backpack that I've been able to find. So that cross pattern appears to be unique to Airborne. Airborne's backpack showed up on Steel Brigade, Steel Brigade borrowed a lot from Airborne. The backpack was also issued with version 2 of Duke, Tiger Force Duke. There was also a brown accessory pack version of the backpack. Let's take a look at the articulation on Airborne. He had the standard 1983 G.I. Joe articulation that means he could turn his head from left to right and he could swing his arm up at the shoulder and swivel at the shoulder all the way around. He had a hinge at the elbow that allowed him to bend at the elbow about 90 degrees. He had a swivel at the bicep that allowed him to swivel his arm all the way around. That was a new point of articulation in 1983 referred to as swivel arm battle grip. The figure was held together with a rubber O-ring that looped around the inside that allowed him to move at the torso a bit. He could move his legs apart about so far. He could move his leg at the hip about 90 degrees and he could bend at the knee about 90 degrees.  His skin tone is slightly darker than that of Caucasian G.I. Joe action figures and I think that is intended to reflect his Native American heritage. The coloring here is a little bit odd though. It is darker but it looks to me like kind of an olive tone. Compare Airborne's skin tone with that of Spirit. It was also Native American but they gave Spirit the Caucasian skin color which I think is an odd choice and I think this is kind of an odd choice of skin color for both of these guys. On his chest Airborne has a light blue vest over a light tan shirt. Some green straps. He has a knife and a grenade and I do like this chest. I know collectors have mixed feelings about this blue vest. Some love it. Some don't. I'm okay with it. I probably would have been better in another color but in 1983 I thought the blue made the figure stand out and look special. Airborne's chest was used for version 1A of Steel Brigade and the vest on Steel Brigade was done in green instead of blue and so this gives you an idea of what Airborne would have looked like if they had gone with green instead of that light blue and I think this would have looked very nice on Airborne. Airborne's arms have that tan shirt and he has forearm pads and I like that a lot and he has rank chevrons on his left arm. There is a variant of this patch on Airborne's arms. Some have thick stripes, others have thin stripes. I guess this rank insignia is right for Airborne. He is a sergeant but for some reason the chevrons are upside down. It also has what looks like maybe an eagle wing detail on it and maybe this designates Airborne as a paratrooper but it does not look like an army parachutist badge. Arms arms were reused for the 1984 scrap iron just recolored. If you turn them around you can see those forearm pads. Changing the color of these arms really changes their look and character. This is a good reuse of parts. On his waist Airborne has tan trousers and a brown harness and this is probably intended for use in repelling out of helicopters. His legs continue that light tan color. He has an unpainted pistol holster on his right thigh with a black pistol. He has a pocket on his left thigh. He has knee pads and this is one of the features that really sold me on this figure when I picked him up way back in 1983. I think these look great. He has some standard army combat boots in gray. Airborne's lower legs were reused for scrap iron, recolored of course, again another very nice reuse of parts. Once again Airborne's parts show up on steel brigade. Some versions of steel brigade used both the upper and lower legs of Airborne. Full versions of steel brigade used the lower legs of Airborne with those boots and knee pads. Let's take a look at Airborne's file card. This file card of course was printed on the back of the card on which the action figure was packaged. You can see some of the artwork from the front of the card there. It has his faction as GI Joe. It has a portrait of Airborne here. It says he's the helicopter assault trooper codename Airborne. File name Franklin E. Taltry, primary military specialty Airborne infantryman, secondary military specialty helicopter gunship gunner. I think this right here indicates that Airborne should fit very well in the gunner seat of the Dragonfly helicopter. Navajo reservation covers portions of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. It's mostly in the northeast corner of Arizona. This paragraph says Airborne's parents are oil rich Navajos who indulge their eldest son with skydiving lessons. Taltry also studied law and passed the Arizona State Bar Exams. That's pretty impressive. I can attest that is not an easy thing to do. He joined the Army and opted for Airborne training, commenting, I'd rather jump out of airplanes than write legal briefs. Graduated top of class from Airborne School, Fort Benning, and Fort Benning is where the US Army conducts the basic Airborne course. Qualified experts use helicopter chain gun M16, M60, M1911A auto pistol. This bottom paragraph says Airborne jokes around and gets loose, but he's serious too. Dead serious. You look at him sometimes and he's looking right through you. The Navajos call it the far-seeing look. Spooky. They just can't help it. Whenever they have a Native American character, they try to imbue him with supernatural powers. I haven't been able to find any reference to the Navajo doing anything they call a far-seeing look. Maybe it's something like Brave Star's Eyes of the Hawk. Eyes of the Hawk. And maybe he isn't doing the far-seeing look. Maybe he's just bored. It's Airborne's background with that of Spirit, whereas Airborne was a rich kid, Spirit's family was so far below the poverty line that they never realized they were poor. Despite their very different backgrounds, they do have one thing in common. Both their file cards have supernatural elements. Airborne did appear in GI Joe Media, though I wouldn't say he was a star. He had a few appearances. In the animated series, he was mostly in the background and usually did not have any spoken lines. There was one episode that focused on him, Operation Mind Menace. And in that episode, again, we have supernatural elements. Cobra kidnaps Airborne's brother, who has psychic powers. In that episode, Airborne is not figure accurate. He's shown wearing some kind of blue jumpsuit. In the comic book, he first appeared in issue number 11, which introduced a lot of new Joes for 1983. I liked that appearance. He piloted the Falcon glider, even though the toy came with version 2 of Grunt, Airborne. In that issue, he corrected Snowjob when Snowjob asked if Taltry was an Indian name. Airborne said, no, it's a Native American name. I liked that. Airborne appeared with Spirit in issue number 31, where they surveilled Snake Eyes in the High Sierras and intervened when Snake Eyes was attacked by Destro, Fred, and Firefly. He had other appearances in the Marvel Comics series, but he was usually not the focus of the story. He was usually seen in helicopters, either as the pilot or a gunner. Looking at this figure overall, Airborne is an often forgotten figure and character. And it's not easy to explain why. He has a good pedigree as a fighter. He was the first Native American character, and that Native American background is part of what made Spirit popular. So why did that not make Airborne popular as well? In the later years of the G.I. Joe toy line, bright colors like the blue on Airborne really started to annoy me, but I was never bothered by Airborne's blue vest. I think the reason is because the year before, in 1982, that first series of G.I. Joe figures, everything was green. Not that that's a bad thing, I liked those green figures, but in 1983, the second year of the line, now we had figures that had blue and white and brown and those colors just made those figures seem special. So I didn't mind the blue because at the time, I didn't know that G.I. Joe would spin off in all these Crayola color directions and lose track of its more military origins. So why isn't Airborne popular? I think the figure's popularity suffers because of when it was released. If Airborne had been released in 1982, amongst all those green figures, those colors and that sculpting really would have been a big hit. But in 1983, Airborne was competing against much stronger figures. You had Gung Ho, who had the blue and the chest tattoo. You had an Arctic Trooper. You had Duke. Duke was available as a male away that year. And with all those other much more spectacular figures, I think Airborne just kind of gets lost in the shuffle. The Airborne action figure has a feeling of blandness. It's not a bad figure. It's not a top tier figure either. I'd put it in the middle tier. These parts were apparently good enough to be reused on a lot of other figures. I say Airborne is a bland figure despite my strong affinity for the figure. I remember getting this figure and really enjoying it. It seemed like an upgrade from those 82 figures. Excuse me. Airborne had swivel arm babble grip. He had an updated rifle. He had a cool helmet. He had a backpack that was huge compared to the 1982 backpacks. But despite my appreciation for the figure, he often gets forgotten on my toy shelf. And as I read through G.I. Joe Forra, collectors seem to rarely even mention Airborne. I can't imagine Airborne being in anyone's top 10. Even mine. Even though I really like this figure, he would not crack my top 10. So I put the question to the viewer. What do you think of Airborne? Do you perceive him as being as unpopular as I do? And if so, why do you think that is? That's it. We did it. We reviewed Airborne. We did it old school style.  Thank you all for sticking around and welcome to the new subscribers. This is kind of how we used to do things and maybe we'll do things like this again every once in a while. But whether the video is old school or new, I still promise to always deliver to you the best video that I'm capable of making. Some will be better than others, but you deserve and I will always give my top effort. Please give this video a thumbs up on YouTube, subscribe on YouTube, like me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, comment and share this video. That's what keeps this channel going. And until next time, remember only GI Joe is GI Joe.


Hey guys, welcome to snow break containment zone and this update is courtesy of Billy Billy So we have a August 21 update. It's going to be for four hours. The time here is not, you know Stated on which time zone it's going to happen But it usually happens for 1 p.m. To 5 p.m. UTC plus 8 to take note of that But again do not quote me on that because it's not indicated here This was just translated from Chinese to English. So please bear with me guys Um, I'll cover a few important things For this update. So let us start off with the Vanguard pass So as you can see here, this is referring to the vanguard pass reaching at level 50 So you can still contain we can continue to obtain voucher experience for every 1000 points Obtained There is an additional material package. We don't know what the package is now We'll just have to wait for more details on this one for each level elementary voucher and advanced voucher So going to our our pass we have basic and advanced pass So there are rewards if you only have basic therefore you're going to be getting additional rewards for basic but if you have both you're gonna have both rewards Beyond 50 for every 1000 points So take note of that guys that is very very nice since we have been earning extra points Right after we finished 50 So it's but natural that we also earn something beyond level 50 Okay, so for those who were earning points before this was eliminated There is a There are actually rewards happening as well.  So the calculation will start on the day the certificate reaches full level at 359 So this is going to start what when you reach 50 and the cut off is going to be at 359 august 21 This is actually vague, but it's going to be on august 21 So from the day you reach 50 the excess points they're up until before the update Basically, you're going to be rewarded back that but the conversion is going to be 1000 points of general voucher experience Are compensated every day This type of experience is not included in the weekly experience Okay, so and less than one day is counted as one day. Okay, so again Compensation time after maintenance reminder within three days after receiving the compensation You can enter the voucher interface and will automatically be converted into corresponding Number of additional material packages based on the voucher experience received optimized content. So again, if if you Receive points already, they will be accumulated and they will be rewarded even though It was before This patch was included So that is basically the meat of this update We have a few other announcements here. So optimize the content Of logistic resumes and reopen logistic resume function I think this is the one that we are I think asking for Optimizing the uio buying resources with the data go to reduce misunderstanding. This one is um Let me go to the game here. So when you go to This one, uh, not the pass this one quarter master um, they're I think they are going to Um, redefine this one Versus this one because the packages here some of the packages here don't have the exact amount that you should buy It's like you should assemble a amount then you buy it here. So they're gonna be um, they're gonna be tweaking this out And see if they could have specific packages for each Sorry specific amounts with specific Bit gold for the packages that you have here. So those are very good, especially for this one For the um, the what they call this the skin The skin should have an exact package here That you should purchase you don't have to you know, convert or they should be able to put a monetary value on the skin Outright so that you don't have to convert as well. So those are the things that they are Taking care of in this update. Actually, this is a long update And the some of them are performance. Um In-game performance updates So you might be able to see this I will be waiting for the update to you know to show in the um English translated version so that we will have a what they call this a more detailed look at what are these Small fixes are so I'm not sure if they're going to add to the update apart from this one But as for now Those I think are the most important to the vanguard pass and the updating of the currency and the packages in The shop or the store. So that is it guys. Hopefully I was able to help you again guys if we find this Video informative, please put down your comment your comments also put a like to this video and Thank you very much guys for staying this far. Take care. Stay safe. That's the word it and I'm out of here You


I welcome everyone to the 8th meeting of the Justice Subcommittee in Policing in 2015. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. No apologies have been received. Item 1, decision on taking business in private. The subcommittees invite to agree considering item 3 and our work programme in private. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. Item 6. I hope that we can go up to about item 6. Item 2, I6. I've compressed it too much. We've got really just till 1.15 or 2pm on this, so bear that in mind. It's an evidence session on the I6 programme, Police Scotland's national ICT project. I welcome to the meeting Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson, Chief Superintendent Haymes Macpherson, Program Manager for I6, and Martin Leven, director of ICT. We have your most recent update in the programme, so I'll go straight to questions from members who know far more about this than I do. I tried to look informed, but I'm just a punter as far as this goes, but I know others are. John, you're at the starting block, yes? I'm also a punter, so for that reason, an afternoon panel, can you tell us a bit more about why you needed to change the hardware and the most lay person's terms that you can find, please? I'm happy to start that, and if you want a bit more detail, then I'll pass to somebody that knows more technical sort of detail than I do. The bottom line is that this was something that was a vendor change, so in a sense hardware that was supplied by an external supplier, not Accenture in other words, introduced a change of conditions to that piece of hardware, which effectively meant that they were not going to support it in the long term. Effectively, that caused some concern for us moving forward with a brand new facility, with some hardware that was reaching end of life. It was unforeseen, nobody saw that coming, it doesn't just affect I6 or indeed Scotland, it's a global issue, and as a consequence we were faced with a decision of what to do with that. Clearly it was going to necessitate a change of that particular component, and the real question is, do we do that now or do we do it later? The assessed position around those things is that once you go live and bearing in mind the scale and length of the roll-out, the level of risk to the business doing it after we've gone live is pretty considerable, so for all reasonable measures it's better to try and do that before we go live. In essence, that was a decision that was taken. We will receive an alternative that will not affect us in cost-wise at all. In fact, the component that we will get in its stead is actually a higher specification than the one that we had planned. There is no other difference in terms of compatibility. That remains exactly as specified, but it did involve a change in the plan delivery. As you will recall, we had intended to do what we were describing as a pilot in K-division prior to going live, and that was ostensibly just to test some of the faults and make sure that the live operation was seamless before it actually went live. That change of hardware has meant that we couldn't do that according to the initial plans. That said, we have developed an alternative approach that we believe will be every bit as robust, so prior to going live we will have full confidence in the equipment. It is the same company that is providing the upgraded version that was providing the original. Has that been looked at? It is the nature of the industry that I am sure that things are upgraded a lot, and there is always a newer, better, shinier model on the go. Has that been assessed across the range of other equipment that has been bought? Is there any potential for this to happen anywhere else, given the scale of contract and the time that it is taking to run through? That is not a criticism, it is just that there can be a lot of developments in a fairly short period. It is a perfectly valid question. I mean, I guess, the reality, the gentleman on my right and left will know far better than me, it is a reality of the delivery of any kind of ICT capability that things are subject to change and they evolve all the while. We could not have foreseen the change that we have just talked about. It was out of our hands. It is one of those things that you occasionally will be confronted with and you just have to make sure that there is sufficient flexibility that you can adapt to these changes and ensure that you can still move forward according to plan and without significant change to your intended outcomes. We have been able to do that on this occasion. I cannot promise that we will not be faced with anything else in the future, but according to our assessment, and again, there are some safeguards there in terms of the contract, because, again, to be clear, it was not us who procured this piece of hardware, it was the company that we have contracted to do this, albeit that we were involved in the agreement about what kind of hardware was required. Ultimately, there would be safeguards in place so that, if we were faced with that kind of eventuality, there would be discussions that could take place to mitigate our exposure. Does it show the contract is robust, the contract that is in place then? I believe that our contract is very robust, yes. Which company is it? That you have contracted with, who have now contracted with the other company? The supplier for i6 is at Centra, and that is our primary partner. Any losses, any problems that are all borne by them? I would not go first to say that. There is a robust contract in terms of making sure that we take our own respective responsibilities for delivery, and that is all written into the contract. I did mean that if there were any hiccups caused by the person that they are contracted with, that is between those two contracting companies. They are your agents as it were working, so that I see that there is no cost to Police Scotland here in this. There is delay but not cost. How robust is that contract protecting you, as it is where the innocence in this, if I may put it that way? As you know and as we have discussed at this committee previously, there have been a number of twists and turns on this long journey that we have had. The contract has been pretty robust throughout all that journey, and it has kept us in a very strong position. I believe that that is still the case as we sit here today. Mr Leven, you would accuse the air somewhere to come in, whether you liked it or not. Negotiations took place between our distributor and the manufacturer of the kit that has been discontinued and the manufacturer of the kit that we are bringing in to replace it. It is two separate manufacturers of the kit. The company that it has been discontinued from has basically agreed to provide the refund that we originally was put towards that, and that money has gone to the other company to provide us with kit, which is actually of a higher specification than the original kit that came in. The decision for us to swap out in advance of launching I6 is absolutely the right decision, because the kit that we were originally going to use was going to come at the end of life, so support would have been withdrawn for that during the first year of I6's launch, so it was absolutely no-brainer for us to make sure that this was swapped out in advance, so we have got fully supported kit through the duration of the project. If I could answer Mr Finnie's question as well, as it is likely to happen to other stuff that we have got across the board, that is pretty unique. In all my years in industry, this is quite unique. It is something that is sold and developed as a flagship product, which has been withdrawn by the manufacturer. It is unique, but it is also a very unique component part of I6 as well. The hardware solutions that we have got have got full product life cycles ahead of them, guaranteed by the industry, and they are full product life cycles, so that was a unique situation. I would be very surprised if anything like that happened. Many thanks indeed. I have got Kevin, followed by Margaret, followed by Lane. You keep talking about hardware, components, kit. What is the actual piece of hardware that has been withdrawn? It is a part of storage. Within the I6 portfolio, we have got a part of the system that we used to search all the data that is gathered within the system. We know the size of I6. We have got the briefings in front of us, so there is an incredible amount of data covering people, objects, locations, events across every action that will be entered into that. We need a way to be able to search that when it is in the system. In order to do that, we need a big disk for it to spin on. It is storage, so it is trying to put it into non-technical terms. It is a big disk that we store everything on that will allow us to search for it fast and pull them back. If someone wants to look for a red car that was involved in an incident at this particular time, they will be able to look into that. It will pull the information straight back out for us, so it is a key component of the system, the searching facility. I hope that that was not either to patronising or to technical. I hope that that was not a big disk, rather than servers storing the information. Can you explain again to somebody who does not understand that there is a big disk? Does that require a bigger slot? I do not know this stuff. I have to say that it is a bigger slot to put it in a bigger container, so it is more than just a big disk? I am despecking the technical description of that. It is a storage array.  That is the component that we have had to replace. It is a physical thing. It is not software, it is a physical piece of kit that we can then, in years to come, add more to it so that we can give it bigger storage. You are brilliant, I understood that. Thank you. I think that that goes a long way in explaining. Can I ask you in terms of the go live date and the roll out date, which are both listed as the 7 December 2015? Could you explain to us the difference between go live and roll out date and why it is both on the same date? That might well just be a matter of wording in the briefing note. The go live date is the 7 December. It has consistently been, and that is what we have been planning towards. Go live is the 7 December. Roll out is simply the term that describes the kind of period that will be the best part of a year, which enables us to ensure that the I6 capability is available across the Scottish geography. All policing areas would have access to and able to use I6. That is what is referred to when we are talking about roll out. Clearly, the roll out will start on go live, but it will not be completed for several months thereafter. In terms of the delay, it means that you have not been able to test the system as much as you would have liked before the go live date of the 7 December. How are you going to make sure that all of this is robust enough in terms of the 7 December go live situation? That is a good question. I will ask the programme manager Hamish to unpack that a little bit, but it would be wrong just to clarify that we are, as a consequence of that change of hardware, moving ahead without it being tested. That is not the case. What we had done is planned to do what we described as a pilot, but, as I say, that was effectively rolling out the capability within a defined operational area in order to test that what it says it can do, it actually does, and we do that in an operational sense. We have had to pull back from that original plan, but we have replaced it with an alternative, which is, effectively, what we are describing as a model office, and perhaps on that I will ask Hamish to unpack that detail. I will probably try to touch both things, if I can, and members. The user acceptance testing that we discussed the past time has continued. It is obviously going to have within it a pause when we swap out the equipment, but the user acceptance testing will continue. The same number of scripts that cover every test condition that our test manager has identified is required to prove that all the requirements that were within the original contractor met will still happen. The bit that was problematic was that we were then going to do what was basically a pilot. What the pilot is, is not user acceptance testing, but having tested the application is then how does the application work in an operational environment, along with all the processes that underpin it. When you have a custody, you still print a custody form, and you will still file it. That is still quite an important piece of work before you are off to cross the whole of Scotland to make sure that it actually works with your processes, because frankly, we still have eight different processes across eight different legacy systems, across eight different legacy forces, so it is really quite important to be nailed the process part. We obviously are not keen to do that, whilst replacing the hardware, that would just be folly. We would introduce risk, so instead of that, we have replaced us with model office testing. What that is, if you like, is that we have a full custody bar with my office in Anderson, which is where the projects run from, etc. We have identified lots of different processes that we want to test and would have tested within K division in the go live, so we have replaced that with that model office testing. All who we scripted and staff will run through those scripts to ensure that all those processes are followed. Okay. If that makes sense. It makes perfect sense, but obviously you are not going to have the ability, as you hope to do, to run it live in a real life situation in one of the divisions. Is that a real impediment? I understand all of the model office situation and all of the other testing that you are going through, but to ensure that it is complete and utter robustness, it would have been better to have that live situation in one of the divisions, surely? My preference would always be a combination of both, to be honest with you. I quite like model office testing anyway, and I have done that certainly with previous projects and then supporting a go live within an operational division. For that reason, within the role of what we have done is reduced the first division in the next row, in the 7th of December. We were originally rolling out against two divisions at that time, but reducing that to one division and what we are doing is increasing the amount of business support resource that is in supporting that go live. I do not see that as introducing any further risk. We want to be able to support that risk when we go live with it. So go live on 7th of December will cover one division? Yes, indeed. And then how long will it take to roll out across all of the divisions? It is exactly the same period as before. The contractual period between go live and roll out finishing on 29 August next year is still within the same plan. So it is over a period of time where you will constantly be able to check to ensure that the system is completely and utterly robust? Yes. Every go live will be supported by the same resources. As we roll out, the business support resources roll with the project and we will move into the next division to support them. Each division in turn has identified a number of staff to support their own roll out as well who will support their own staff going through, if you like, higher trained people trained to actually floor walk during that period. So that is not no change from the original plan to be honest with you. That was always the intention anyway. Okay, thank you, thank you, convener. Margaret Stanley Lane, please. Good afternoon gentlemen. Kevin has touched on the user acceptance testing and there were a number of defects and that. Do you want to elaborate a little bit on what actually this involves because I'm a bit patchy on that and exactly what the defects were because it seems to cover a lot of very pertinent scenarios like missing people, vulnerable people, various crime, custody events? I'll let Hamish give some of the detailed answer to that but I'd like to come in and make a comment about that if I can as well to conclude. He was passing in the back. No, no, no, I'm quite happy to accept that question. User acceptance testing, I think last time I tried to take you through a test cycle and explain to you how a test cycle works within a software program where several parts of the test cycle are the responsibility of the supplier. So as something is built, the supplier will carry out a thing called unit test, it tests the individual components, they link the components carry out assembly testing, they then carry out a product test which is a factory acceptance test to the application. The supplier is responsible for that. User acceptance testing is then our responsibility which actually carries out test scripts which match operational environment. The point which I'm sure Mr Richardson will come back to just now was when we finished product test we should have had no critical or major faults. What we found and as we've said within the paper we've given you what we've found in user acceptance testing is we have a higher number of defects than we would have expected at this point in time and we also have a higher number of major and critical defects which are obviously we will never go live with major, minor or critical defects. Now that's an issue for the supplier so we've challenged the supplier to say how are they managed to burn down that defect rate in time to hold the go live date and that's basically with them. The result of that is bits of user acceptance testing have been problematic because we've had scripts blocked with errors on the supplier. You're saying that wee bit, I mean I understand that, tell us what, go back again and don't bother about patronising me, I can't speak my mum, you're all much better at me than this. What's a test script, give an example of a test script, I take it that an officer sitting with a route plan to put stuff into the system, is that what it is? That's exactly so a test script, I'll give you a basic example maybe that we record a crime, so enter the system, record a crime, test to make sure the whole of that crime recording works perfectly, having recorded a crime attached and accused to the crime, so the crime is detected and accused, attached, having attached accused we create a Scottish prosecution standard prosecution report and we test all that a prosecution report, having created a prosecution report we send it to the Procurator Fiscal and through obviously this is your interface testing and we would receive a statement request, having received a statement request, it gets split up to the officers, the officers complete their statement and that's just one example, we would have the same for a missing person, for a vulnerable person etc. Sorry? So what went wrong? Well we have a number of defects in there that's actually stopping those processes, so for instance part of the interface between our creation of a prosecution report and passing that to the Procurator Fiscal is actually faulty, so the data is not appearing in the right fields and the manufacturer as a result has to go back and sort the defects. You always get defects at this point in time but quite frankly the defects are of a higher magnitude than we would have expected at this point in time and actually a higher criticality, some of them are majors and actually stop the scripts from even running, that's the issue. Mark, I needed to know that, but I needed to know that. Yeah, I know that, but I needed to know that. For example, they're always good. And if I may just sort of, I'm supposed to top and tell that, I mean in terms of the committee's interest in I6, I'm very grateful for that and on an on-going basis I know you've sustained that interest. It's certainly been incredibly helpful to enable us to keep the profile and keep the momentum necessary and it helps to also reinforce the criticality of this programme. Why don't you tell us we're helping the police? We're not supposed to be here doing that. Indeed, but that's the reality from my perspective and again, you've heard me say before and I'll say again today that this programme as we've gone through remains on scope, on budget and on message and we are following a schedule for delivery and all of that is great. In fact Audit Scotland have picked that up by using I6 as an example and a recent publication they've brought forward, but as well as part of that and hopefully the committee will take some reassurance of the rigor that is put in around making sure that what we are doing delivers the outcomes that we're seeking, but I should also just on the context of defects highlight to you that we've always acknowledged the complexity, size and scale of this programme, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time we have an expectation that there is an effective level of contribution to address difficulties and overcome the unforeseen obstacles moving forward. It seems to me where we are at the moment that the supplier has not perhaps been delivering the performance that I had expected, certainly in breaking down some of these defects within the timescales that we expect, I expect and as a consequence there was a fairly robust board meeting, the last board meeting was the 28th of August, during that and again to be clear that they have been consistent in their messaging that this is resolvable, that they have got available resource to draw down in order to get this dealt with prior to go live. However, there is an experience that we've had so far where we have had caused challenge, quality issues and an overambitious approach to certain things and as a consequence I was not reassured at that board meeting that what they were bringing forward was a credible plan to enable them to do what is necessary to enable us to go live on 7 December. That's a fairly significant issue and as a consequence I've asked them to come forward to a special board meeting that I've asked for on 15 September and at that board meeting I will expect them to provide plans and an overwhelming assurance that what they have in place will enable them to do what we require them to do to enable us to go live on 7 December. It would be wrong of me to come to the committee and not flag that up but I suppose just to moderate that you know because of previous discussions this has been an incredibly difficult journey in 30 years in policing, this is the most complicated delivery programme I've ever experienced and that continues so in a sense I wouldn't want to put flags up around this. Accenture have been consistent in their message that they can do what's required, they also at that board meeting indicated in excess of 90 per cent confidence rating for delivery so what I'm describing to you is I suppose just the rigor of the programme arrangements to say we are not at the moment satisfied that what's being presented is of the appropriate standard on quality and therefore we will come together on the 15th. If on the 15th they manage to secure that confidence then we will carry on exactly as we've highlighted to you, if not then we might need to consider some revision and if that does happen I will clearly inform the committee. If there are further delays to the implementation and there's a knock-on effect to the training of officers and you've obviously considered that this could be a possibility, are there contingencies in place to negate that necessity? There are contingencies and there is kind of just because of operational realities where unforeseen things can happen that mean that we can't progress training, this is no different to that so from the outset irrespective of what I've just described there was a degree of flex built into the training requirement to enable us to kind of adapt to what I'm certain will happen anyway just in terms of life events and things that the police will need to respond to so there is perhaps Amish could provide some further detail around that. I certainly can members, I wouldn't be doing a job of it in building some kind of contingency so there is contingency in with for example the hardware swappa, we have contingency within there, we have contingency within the general plan that takes us up to the 7th of December and also we have contingency thereafter as well so theoretically we do have some movement which again as Mr Richardson's expressed the supplier says there's no reason to have that concern just now because they are you know they have resource and they have you know in the past we have had a high level of defects in product tests they very very quickly turned on resource and burned those defects down and held the date but however how do you foolish of us not to plan some contingency so we have contingency in training and as much as from the last person being trained or the first person being trained to the day to the go live we can actually extend that and still fall within best practice for training if that makes sense. Yes although burned defects down is a new one on me but I'll be a bit of a mind, Alison resolve. You really just a supplementary there when you talk about the board you mean the I6 programme board? Yes, that's fine thanks. I have other questions but I'll wait in the queue.  Just on the you mentioned about the storage array which has been changed what sort of backup is there for your system? Yeah full backup we've got backup solutions that will safely guard against any data loss and will allow easy recovery of the solutions and obviously there's different legislation with how long we should retain data and then when we should destroy data so our backup solutions have got all that fully built in. There's backup elsewhere at a data farm or whatever that's accessible by crowd user? Yeah the I6 data model operates between two main data centers obviously I can't cover the locations of public environment but there's two main data centers that will replicate data between the two data centers. What about you know the progress being made with the transfer of legacy data? How's that going? So the transfer of legacy data you'll notice in your briefing papers that refers to something called the IDAP programme which is utilising some technology which allows us to access legacy data in real time so if anyone is looking for data records that for example are four, five, six etc years old then that information will access the legacy data sets and produce that as in real time on the system. There's no delays or anything? No the user wouldn't know they're browsing an external data set at that stage it will all be as if they were browsing the original I6 database I don't know if you want to expand on it. There's possibly some that there's no delays in there that's completely tracking on track what I would say is a rollout so the intention when I6 goes live that will cover specifically vulnerable people because we currently have a national vulnerable people database and it's quite important as I6 rolls out obviously some people will be on the existing system some people will be on the new system so it's important that the people on the existing interim vulnerable people database can see the stuff in I6 and vice versa so vulnerable people will be there for go live and missing people will be there for go live so we have a national view of missing people as the system rolls out and bluntly also on economics of when legacy systems software renewal was due etc etc we will replace the other data sets and then by the time the last of the legacy systems is due to be if you like decommissioned by that time the whole of iDAP will be formed and all legacy data will sit within there if that makes sense to members. And you were absolutely certain that the program will be fully rolled out by the 16th of September of what it was by September next year is it? There's no possibility because obviously been slippage in the past there's no possibility that can offer the slippage given that there's still some issues within the system. Well again notwithstanding what I've said already this is always subject to kind of variation and change and the journey so far has presented a series of challenges that we've had to find a way to overcome but we have done that and we've managed to stay on message I suppose from my perspective and the committee is aware of this I6 represents a game changing capability and it is literally a generational shift for all police officers and staff delivering service therefore the prize is incredibly high and the priority around delivery is as strong as it can be so again I would wish to take some reassurance that we will move heaven and earth to make sure that this is rolled out and provided to staff across Police Scotland as expeditiously as we possibly can but again I absolutely guarantee will be around this table again in the future talking about some other foreseen, unforeseen changes that undoubtedly will happen. The experience of new IT systems throughout the public sector has not always been happy and there have often been unforeseen issues which have caused problems and cause delays and so on. That's absolutely right although again where we are in terms of this particular programme is that we've gone through a great deal of work and the system is constructed, it's built, it's designed and we are at the testing stage so there's a significant amount of momentum already there. Much of the change moving forward we should take some confidence again from although the K division pilot as described has been changed the work that was done by K division officers I think was exceptional they had themselves in a position of readiness, they'd done appropriate communications, people were ready to roll with that pilot and again observing from my perspective I took considerable reassurance that if that is an indicator of how the other divisions when they reach that point absorb the requirement then I think there's real reason for optimism. Can I ask you a daft lassie question? Is Accenture that develop the systems? Are they the systems people and the hardware providers? Are they the systems people? There's probably a blend, I'll let Hamish answer. Accenture are our primary customer. What I'm trying to get at is this, I think you mentioned Chief Superintendent McPherson the 29th of August next year is the date for the roll-out to be completed. Yes that's correct. I took a note of that but then and I quite rightly my colleague pressed you on what if there's further slippage and what I want to know is it's very easy for instance I see somebody to build a wall for me and they say I'll build it by the end of September and it's not built and there's slippage and it goes on and it goes on you know there's nothing perhaps I've got them in a contract that says you know do it by that time penalties come into place and you want to have me in the front foot so I want to know with Accenture that if it goes beyond that well you can't roll the whole thing out for right reasons are there any penalty clauses not just that you don't pay a bill but you have penalty clauses in place so that money comes back to Police Scotland because they've got a bit of elastic that can keep stretching in terms of the contract. Perhaps convener I can answer that yes the the go live date of December is actually it's a contractual go live date the previous milestones regarding I'm talking about the complete rollout I've heard that bit I'm talking about 29th of August if it doesn't if you can't manage for reasons that the system defects are something other penalties in place to funding to come back to Police Scotland because you're on all this hassle. Sorry convener that's what I was trying to come to to be honest with you. As soon as the date passes in December if it's not fit for rollout at that point in time in our first contractual go live the supplier is automatically liable for penalties so there are penalties can be attracted from that directly to Police Scotland. Yes. And are there further bits down further down the line in the contract with other penalties? Each of the milestones has penalties against them including the final rollout. I mean that's obviously commercial and yet they put it this way they would not want to reach that position. We would certainly not hope to cover that. The issue we have just now just for clarity for earlier on regarding the hardware if you like the hardware is it's a turnkey contract through Accenture and the hardware was specced by them but agreed by Police Scotland. No I understand that distinction I was just interested to separate the difference between there are no costs to you in terms of the pay out more what I'm looking to is do you have a sort of damoclies to some extent over Accenture who may have won over the hardware but so that you say here's a deadline now you don't have it by then you pay money to us. There are significant contract points shall we say which would make it particularly unattractive run past any of the milestone dates passed to go live. Because that makes people focus on delivering on time. I'm so sorry I just thought we were getting away with there's no additional cost too much and I wanted to know about the other way around. Margaret? Since we have a little bit of time I wonder if you could explain just now or confirm just now. I know that divisions are still using their legacy computers until I6 becomes operational and that the national element to the custody process has resulted in what they see as additional pressure on busy custody suites recording identical information both on hard copy and electronically. Now is that continuing just now? Is it likely to continue to roll out and will that be resolved when the new system is eventually rolled out? Yes, when I6 is rolled out fully obviously we'll have a single integrated custody system across the whole of Scotland and anybody in custody across the whole of Scotland can see the white board of the custody suite anywhere else in Scotland so but obviously to reach that point there's a rollout so as the first divisions go live they gain the benefit of I6 but the other ones don't but what we have is business processes in place to ensure they still maintain the visibility of people in custody across the whole of Scotland. I'm not going to claim I'm an expert in that area because that obviously belongs to custody division but obviously my business change staff if you like work with custody division to actually deal with those business change elements during the rollout. I think it was both the hard copy and electronically they felt was a duplication that was adding to to work when they're already under pressure so that's continuing and likely to continue to the rollout as a belt embraces is that the idea? I mean I think it's in terms of context there is absolutely no doubt that I6 underpins reform and in fact it's critically important moving forward to enable national capabilities but I6 isn't the only area and there are a number of areas where the forces you know interim measures had to be put in place and it will take time to move to a position where all legacy forces can communicate in a slick common fashion but actually that we've made significant progress around trying to address as much of that in a prioritised way as possible and in contrast to where we were before without kind of wagging fingers at all in relation to legacy arrangements but the reality around trying to deliver national solutions in the legacy setup was inordinately difficult because there was no single line of decision making so there were very few successful deliveries of national programmes under legacy arrangements since we've come into being as Police Scotland we've rolled out 21 national systems some of these being interim arrangements but they have enabled a communication and a flow of information and process across various business areas to enable the business to flow so yes there are still some areas where there is a less than optimal kind of reality for staff who might have to duplicate to some extent but we have plans in place to address all of that and once we get I6 coming on stream for example then much of that will be reduced but it's not just I6 there are other elements as well will enhance that but it is just important to stress that fact that none of this happens overnight I6 has actually been on the kind of books now for some six years it's taken us to get to that point of delivery and so I guess we need to be realistic and patient about how we can improve and address all of these concerns in a national way yeah I understand that but specifically on the custody process are they still having the hard copy and the electronic copy and how long is that likely to continue it's going to be different in different parts of the country but it's just it's difficult to know without an exact the Dumfries and Galloway system will get replaced when I6 rolls out and prior to that they will maintain the system they've currently got because it is you know as you say it is possibly not the most efficient way but it's definitely built in braces to ensure that people are kept safe within custody and if there's any chance of you know I think there's always a danger leaving that burden earlier and you're quite confident that would be okay you're always looking to do that we would always look at something what you don't want to do is introduce something which actually in itself creates a risk to create efficiency and there is always a balance okay give me I want to move on you got a last one have you what is topic two is I wonder just um finally convener um in terms of where you're at now and the entire process you've previously in Police Scotland well not Police Scotland but in the police forces had bad experiences with trying to create these kind of systems is Elaine pointed out earlier the public sector as a whole has had some pretty bad experiences with the rollout of new systems during the course of all of this and I know that you've had lots of gateway processes in place and all of the rest of it to make sure that this runs as smoothly as possible are you also at the end of this going to have a post mortem of where things went right and where things went wrong and are you going to share your findings not only with your own colleagues in Police Scotland but in other parts of the public sector as well in terms of the delivery of such a complex system I mean the simple answer to that would be yes we certainly are although we're not waiting until the end to do a kind of post implementation debrief this is almost an ongoing reality for us so at the various stages we are having a look at the learning that's come from different stages of this and making adjustments as we go this will continue to be difficult and it is going to take time before we get to the ultimate rollout position and so I have no no doubt that we will need to remain focused and continue to put the effort in to make sure that we get the outcomes that we seek I have on a number of occasions been in discussion with colleagues from out with policing around our general experience and I believe that that's something that is incredibly worthwhile actually just sharing in the kind of public sector context specifically some of that learning to hopefully safeguard others or give others a bit of a helping hand with regard to avoiding some of the pitfalls that undoubtedly are there thank you that's fine that's a good place to conclude thank you very much I thank you for your attendance so we're now moving into private session so i'd ask the public gallery to clear please


The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba has declared a duty elumerable of the PDP winner of the 2023 House of Representatives election for Nyochau-Shimeli federal constituency. The tribunal, in a judgment on Monday, nullified the victory of Ngozi Okole as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission. The tribunal held that Ngozi was not duly sponsored by the Labour Party as he was not. A member of the party as of May 28th last year, when the party's primaries were purportedly held. He was not duly sponsored. The second grant also is, as we urged the tribunal, the tribunal also found in our favor, was that Ngozi Okole was a public office. We didn't resign, we continued to collect salaries and emollements in breach of the law. The tribunal had built the trust. So for these two reasons, this election was not a fight. Hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.