stage 3 to see whether there is something that we could insert into the bill based on what she said that would help to clarify matters if she is prepared to do that, and I will invite her to respond to that. I have always taken an approach that I have kept an open door, and I have spoken to people across the chamber from all the political groupings around all those matters. I think that my principle here would be to not move beyond the examples given in the 2004 act, because I think that they provide clarity where we will want to make sure that people are aware. I take Graham Simpson's point about the different aspects that are highlighted and the information that we need to make sure that people are aware of. That is where, for example, every bit of information about the whole process can be put in the one place. We would be able to include those examples. Where I would be reluctant is to put anything on the face of the bill that goes beyond the 2004 act, but if there is any further information in guidance or on the website that Graham Simpson thinks would be helpful, of course I am happy to have that conversation. I am happy to have the conversation anyway, but I cannot guarantee that I would go beyond the 2004 act, but I am happy to speak to Graham Simpson further. I think that that is very helpful. I can see that cabinet secretary is struggling to agree with me, but on that base I am going to help her because I am going to engage with her. I will not press this amendment because I think that we can find some common ground. I hope that we can, ahead of stage 3. I think that that will be helpful to everyone. I think that, as members, no experienced members, no, certainly those of us who have been on the DPLR committee know that it is very difficult for not just MSPs, but members of the public to jump about between certain pieces of legislation. It is quite useful to have everything in one place. I will not press 20 on the basis that I think that we can work on something for stage 3. The member is seeking to withdraw amendment 20. Is that agreeable to the committee? That is. On that basis, I will move to amendment 4, in the name of Sue Webber, who is already debated with amendment 2. The question is, that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 48, in the name of Michael Marra, who is already debated with amendment 45. I call amendment 92, in the name of Ross McCall, who is already debated with amendment 83. Ross McCall, to move or not move. I call amendment 125, in the name of Russell Finlay, who is already debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so we move to vote. All those who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands. All those against, please vote. And abstentions, 2-4, 5 against and 0 abstentions. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 126, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 126, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and if you'll give me a second to get to my correct notes pages for 1, 2, 6. The amendment 126, in my name, intends to ensure that people nearing the end of their life do not have to wait unnecessarily to have their gender recognised in legislation. I submitted the amendment because I believe that the reflection period should be waived for people in that situation. I recognise that the Government also has an amendment in this area, and I welcome their agreement to work on this for stage 3. The definition that I have included is the one used in social security in Scotland, and I think that it's a good one. I won't press this amendment, but I'd welcome the Government's agreement to working with us to ensure that people at the end of their life get a gender recognition certificate as quickly as possible, and to consider the definition of terminal illness that we have put forward as outlined in the social security legislation. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. Whilst not a specific recommendation of the stage 1 report, the committee did highlight differing views to the reflection period and invite me to consider it further. I've noted the stage 1 evidence that the reflection period could be a disproportionate barrier where an applicant is needing the end of their life because of illness. As I said in earlier groupings, where you remain of the view that the reduction in the minimum period of living in the acquired gender to three months, six months for 16, 17-year-olds, combined with the introduction of a three-month reflection period, represents a balanced and proportionate way of reducing the length of the overall process. However, in the response to the committee's stage 1 report, I undertook to introduce amendments to create a dispensation to allow the waving of the three-month reflection period in cases where the applicant is nearing the end of their life. The amendments in this group, in my name, create that dispensation. They have been developing consultation with the national records of Scotland and reflect the process and provisions for similar dispensations applying to marriage under the Marriage Scotland Act 1977. That would require the Registrar General to be satisfied that the applicant is gravely ill and not expected to recover. In practice, that would be established through a letter from the applicant's doctor confirming that and the detail of that would be set out in guidance. Again, that reflects the equivalent process with marriage applications. Amendment 73 also ensures that a fraudulent application for dispensation would also be included in the offence that is created by the bill. The amendment from Pam Duncan Glancy seems to have a similar goal, but it takes a different and, in my view, a narrower approach. It applies the requirement for notification after a reflection period where the applicant is terminally ill rather than empowering the Registrar General to waive it. I would understand why that approach might seem more attractive. However, in practice, the Registrar General, in either version, would need to establish that the individual is near the end of life. We are also not seeking to provide a definition of an end-of-life illness such as this amendment does, recognising that someone could be gravely ill at the end of life due to old age, for example, not just through a terminal illness due to a progressive disease, as outlined in Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment. Although that is appropriate in the Social Security Scotland Act 2018, where a definition was needed to access disability benefits at a higher rate and on a fast track, I do not believe that it is appropriate here where we are waiving a reflection period for someone at the end of life due to illness or old age. The use of gravely ill and not expected to recover in my amendments matches the wording in the Marriage Act, and the Registrar General is familiar with making dispensations on that basis already. It is preferable to align this provision with that for marriage rather than for Social Security, because it is a more closely comparable situation. The provision is designed for cases where there is a high risk that the applicant will die before an important change to their legal status can be made, one that is important to accurately record before death. I would ask the committee to reject Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment and to accept the amendments in my name. I am, of course, happy to continue discussions with Pam Duncan Glancy, but I am hoping that what I have set out to the committee is a rationale for why it is more appropriate to align the requirements with that already recognised for marriage rather than Social Security legislation. On the basis of what Pam Duncan Glancy said, cabinet secretary, I am sympathetic to her amendment. I just want reassurance that are you expecting a Registrar General to make a clinical judgment on a person who is terminally ill rather than a healthcare professional? No, that is why I said that in practice this would be established through a letter from the applicant's doctor confirming that the person is gravely ill and not expected to recover, and the detail of that would be set out in guidance. It would not be for the Registrar General to decide. It would be on the basis of the clinical information provided to the Registrar General. However, it would not be on the basis of the bill. It would be in guidance. I thank the cabinet secretary for setting that out on the record. I am satisfied with the way in which you have described what you are trying to do. I was seeking to make this not narrower but broader, but I understand the cabinet secretary's rationale, so I will not press my amendment and I will vote for the cabinet secretary's amendments. The member has seeking permission to withdraw amendment 126, are we agreed? On that basis, I call amendment 127, the name of Russell Finlay, who is already debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we move to vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands, and all those against, please raise. Pam, you were yes, weren't you? A few seconds. Is it just so that I can get my papers in order? No, no, no, it's okay. I'm sorry to hold up proceedings. You said 117. Sorry, it's 127, Pam. 127, thank you. Let's just quickly take the vote again just to make it clear, because Clarkson needs to take a note. All those in favour of amendment 127, please vote. All those against and abstention. That's two for against and one abstention, so the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 128 in the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendment 71. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 128 and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 128 builds on point 278 of the committee's stage 1 report. It talks about the aim of this amendment is to require Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that appropriate support and information is put in place to support any individual who is considering and or makes an application to a gender recognition certificate. In my opinion, the wording of the amendment gives the flexibility that we need. It would be for Scottish ministers to determine what the appropriate support and information is, but this flexibility will ensure that the information support provided can be tailored to the needs of an individual and that it can change over time, as is required with the experience of the legislation. The committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government commit to appropriate support and signposting be put in place, and I strongly welcome that recommendation. It followed the evidence in the committee that you heard, particularly from the Children's Commissioner, who said in oral evidence that protection and participation rights are not mutually exclusive and we are looking for a process that recognises not only the growing autonomy of young people but the needs to support and protect them. The evidence heard by the committee reflects the concerns raised to me by constituents across the Lothians who have gone through the process of obtaining a GRC. They definitely welcome the simplification of the process for the future, but they have highlighted to me that one thing that would have been much more helpful for them would have been signposting and advice and support. They would have welcomed that before they transitioned, so they think that for future, particularly given that more people are likely to take the opportunity of a GRC, that we need to see support in place and provided for them. In some cases, it could be health support and intervention, but the latest public health Scotland data for June 2022 shows that only 70 per cent of children and young people referred to CAMHS were seen within the 18-week waiting time target. Similarly, the waiting times for gender identity clinics currently ranges from anywhere between one and a half and three years time, so there is a real issue here about could we make sure that a range of advice is available for people? I want to reiterate that it is not solely focused on medical support or intervention, although that is important, but there is a range of non-medical advice and support that could be provided to people who are considering going through the GRC process, including from the public and voluntary sectors. We are looking for signposting and a commitment in principle, but I have been quite careful not to be specific because I am conscious that, if it is too specific, the cabinet secretary will no doubt immediately rule me out of order. I am trying to frame that in a way that I hope will be helpful and reflect what the committee concluded in its evidence. I move the amendment in my name. Christine Grahame, to speak to amendment 71 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I speak to amendment 71, supported by Jackson Carlaw. This amendment inserts a new section, Publication of Information, about the process of setting out a duty mandatory on the Registrar General to publish online information covering inter alia, the effect of a gender recognition certificate, how to make an application for a scene, the requirement to make a statutory declaration before applying, the consequences of making a false application, and one of my amendments has actually changed that for 60 and 70-year-olds, which to date will not make that criminal fence. The catch-all, which is very useful when setting out these, is other relevant information that the Registrar General considers appropriate. This one is your all applicants can easily access information to inform them on their decision to apply for a GRC. I have also had clarification from the Scottish Government, and this addresses something raised by Sarah Boyack, that remains the intention that the national register would signpost 60 and 70-year-olds to appropriate sources of support. Similarly, NRS would signpost all applicants to information on how to make a statutory declaration, and addressing specifically the well-intentioned amendment of Sarah Boyack, I just think that it is too broad. For example, you say that ministers take steps. I do not know what that means. Have applicants access to appropriate support and information? Is that before the application process about transitioning more, or what about the appropriate support and information would be? Some of that has been dealt with in my earlier amendment in 39 about 16 and 70-year-olds, and of course anybody over that age, requiring taking advice and support and counselling from appropriate people, even from another adult. 16 and 70-year-olds, it is mandatory. It is not from other adults. I think that it is well-intentioned, but mine is much more specific and links into earlier amendments that were put in again for support and advice at the point when you even go and make an application itself. To some extent, that has tightened up the bill. That is all that I have to say, which was enough. I have said throughout the passage of the bill that it is essential that all applicants for a GRC have carefully considered this important legal step, understand the effect of doing so and are able to access information and guidance to inform that consideration. I welcome the discussions that I have had with Sarah Boyack. Sarah Boyack's amendment would place a legal requirement on Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that those who are considering an application have access to, quote, appropriate support and information, but it leaves open a lot of questions about what specifically that appropriate support and information would be. It is not clear, for example, whether it relates to the process and legal effect of gender recognition or wider support for people considering transition generally. It also raises the possibility of legal challenge to the specific meaning of appropriate in this context. Just to reiterate that NRS will signpost people to other organisations who can provide specialist support to applicants. It is for those reasons that I cannot support Sarah Boyack's amendment and urge the committee to reject. Christine Grahame's more specific amendment sets out the information that the registrar general should publish covering the process of applying, the effect of a GRC, the statutory declaration requirement and the consequences of false application. That is in line with what the registrar general has already committed to in evidence to the committee, so I therefore ask the committee to support Christine Grahame's amendment. I am very supportive of Sarah Boyack's amendment and I am disappointed that you have highlighted that it is inconsistency. Despite Sarah Boyack saying at the outset that it was a generalised kind of probing although she has moved it, I do think that it could be complementary by giving Scottish ministers the duty to report on some of the things that Sarah Boyack is trying to bring forward, because it complements the reporting requirements that Christine Grahame is seeking as well as the data collection. Normally, with data collection, the Scottish ministers are responsible for that. I seek to change your mind and to work with the Conservatives and Labour to work together for something that we can all agree on, because, quite frankly, the process has not really had much of a cross-party consensus. I think that this is one area that we can work together on. First of all, I do not think that Sarah Boyack's amendment is really regarding reporting as such. It is about the appropriate support and information that would be made available to people. We have to be clear about what that is and who provides it, what it is for. If it is about the process, then that is already going to be provided for the additional safeguards in Christine Grahame's amendment to lay out the process specifically for 16-17-year-olds. I think that all of that is there. On Rachael Hamilton's final point, I have spent a lot of time in meetings with members across the chamber, including herself and others from the Conservative group, including Pam Duncan-Glancy and Sarah Boyack, as well as others from the Labour group. I remind the member opposite that Jackson Carlaw supported that. That is cross-party. We considered that and came together about it. It is unfair to say that there has not been cross-party consideration in my mind. I remind the member that we had a free vote within our party. Christine Grahame makes an important point that there has been cross-party support for various aspects of various amendments. That is a good thing. I have said previously and I have said already today that my door remains open for further discussions in advance of stage 3. I hope that others feel that I have had constructive discussions on where I have been able to support and work with people around amendments. You said that there were words that you felt were legally challengeable and that you specifically specified appropriate support. What would be legally challengeable there? I have kept it as a word that is not heavily detailed to give you that flexibility in defining what would be appropriate. It would be the ministers to judge what would be appropriate. That is where Sarah Boyack, as I have said to Pam Duncan-Glancy when we have had this discussion. It is about what does that mean? Does it mean that Scottish ministers would decide which organisations people should be signposted to? I could see that that would get us into a great deal of difficulty. Therefore, I would be very resistant to that. If it is about the process, then I absolutely agree with Sarah Boyack. The process needs to be made very, very clear. However, if it is about the type of support that people should receive, then I really do not think that it would be helpful for Scottish ministers to start identifying organisations that would either not be or would be deemed appropriate to provide support. Those are where my concerns lie, which is why I point again to Christine Grahame's amendment, which focus on the process of applying the effect, the statutory declaration requirement and the consequences of a false application. Having said that, I would be happy to continue to have discussions with Sarah Boyack in advance of stage 3, but I would ask for today's purposes that Sarah Boyack's amendments are not supported and that Christine Grahame's amendment is. I go to Sarah Boyack to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 128. Thank you very much. It is good to hear people's views on that. I do not have any objection to Christine Grahame's amendment. It is really good, because it will give a formal process about the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. However, there are wider issues before somebody potentially even gets to that stage where they need information and support, so it is having the wider range of support that I think is critical. That is why I was keen for Scottish ministers to be able to decide what those steps were. For example, there is interdepartmental work across different Government departments, whether it is education and health, whether there is wider support that is needed. It is also thinking about the range of support that is available, because the Scottish Government will no doubt be funding support going forward, not just within the Government's work, but with third sector organisations, charities and the Scottish Government. Does that already? I was trying to be helpful to say that that does not happen at the moment. I do not know—forgive me if you were listening—that amendment 39, which has been agreed by the committee, is on additional guidance, advice and support for young applicants. That is prior to them making that application. It must be the position that confirms the register of gender. The applicant has discussed the implications for the applicant to obtain a gender recognition certificate within an individual who has a role that involves guidance, advice and support to young people. It is there at the beginning. I heard that debate. I was sitting in my office listening to all the debates, and I totally welcomed that, but the people who were coming to me were not young. It is not just—it is particularly an issue for young people, I think, in 16, 17 and 18, but there are older people as well who need that advice. That is why I am saying that the advice that you have recommended for the register general is good, but there is other advice as well. I think that particularly the range of mental health support that is needed is counselling, but I think that wider advice is needed. It would be from a range of organisations, both voluntary and statutory. It is meant to be a constructive amendment. If the cabinet secretary is saying that she is prepared to discuss the term appropriate and that that is what is wrong with my amendment, I would be prepared not to move it today and come back potentially at stage 3, but it is just to clarify that I do not see it as replicating either the amendment that you are moving now, Christine, or the one that you moved earlier today, both of which are good amendments. That is taking it further and opening it out to the wider community of people that I think need support. Can I confirm if you are pressing or withdrawing your amendment? If the cabinet secretary is prepared to discuss with me the term appropriate, I am happy to not move or to withdraw the movement technically at this stage.  I am. I am pleased to be able to have further discussions with Sarah Boyack, but I think that what we want to avoid, just for the void of any doubt, is listing organisations that we deem to be appropriate for support. I do not think that that would be a wise thing for Scottish ministers to do, so if Sarah Boyack is happy to have discussions with that caveat in place, then I am happy to have further discussions with her. Absolutely, because those organisations will change over the years and they will not be a set list of the perfect list of people. I think that legislation will lead to more organisations. It is how do people know that they exist and that is what I was aiming to do here. On that basis, I am prepared to not to withdraw my movement earlier, but I intend to come back on this one at stage 3 after subsequent conversations. The member is requesting permission to withdraw amendment 128. Is that agreed? Yes. That has been agreed. amendment 5, on the name of Sue Webber, has already been debated with amendment 2, are you agreed to move or not to move? I am not. I am not. I am not. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I am not. amendment 6, agreed to. I am not. I am not. I am not. I am not. Amendment 49, 50, 51 and 52, all in the name of cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 49 to 52 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 49 to 52? No objections, so therefore the question is that amendments 49 to 52 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed to. I call amendment 53 in the name of cabinet secretary grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 53 and speak to all amendments in the group. As the name suggests, the amendments in this group are of a minor technical nature. Amendments 53, 64 to 65, 69 to 70, 78 and 82 have been put forward at the suggestion of the Scottish courts and tribunal service. As introduced, the bill refers in a number of places to the role of the sheriff in either giving notice that a certificate has been issued or in giving copies of such certificates to the registrar general. While technically competent, the Scottish courts and tribunals service have suggested that, for the sake of clarity, those references should instead be to the sheriff clerk, as in practice it would be the sheriff clerk who would be carrying out this function. Amendment 79 relates to a consequential amendment to the 2004 act, which was inadvertently omitted from the bill at introduction. This amendment repeals the subsection of that act, which provides that, where a full GRC is issued by the gender recognition panel to a person who is a party to a marriage under the law of Northern Ireland or a civil partnership under that law, the secretary of state must send a copy of the certificate to the registrar general for Northern Ireland. The bill already repeals similar provision in relation to England and Wales and this amendment does so for Northern Ireland as well. I move amendment 53. I have no indications of amendment 53. Will the cabinet secretary to wind up and press up through amendment 53? There is nothing else to say, and I press amendment 53. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 56 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 93 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 57 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 58 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 59 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 33 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 34 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 8 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 8, please vote and all those against and abstentions. That is too far. Five against. The amendment therefore is not carried and section 8 is there for agreed to. I now call amendment 60 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 129 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 114. Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we move to vote. All those in favour, please vote and all those against. Too far, five against, no abstentions. It is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 61 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 62 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 94 in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAll to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 63, 64 and 65, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. In fact, the cabinet secretary to move amendments 63 to 65 on block. Does any member object to a single question that has been put on amendment 63 to 65? No member objects, so therefore the question is that amendments 63 to 65 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 95 in the name of Maggie Chapman, grouped with amendments 1, 3, 0, 96, 97 and 1, 3, 2, Maggie Chapman to move amendment 95 and speak to all amendments in the group. We heard many other witnesses expressed their very grave concern with the provisions in the bill as it currently stands to expand the definition of a person with an interest who could apply for a gender recognition certificate to be revoked. That increases the risk substantially that someone who disapproves of a transperson's gender recognition certificate application will seek to use the courts to have that certificate revoked. Such vexatious or malicious complaints to the sheriff court to revoke a GRC simply because they do not accept the trans status of the GRC applicant should not be enabled. And if such applications for revocation ever do happen, they should be viewed as vexatious and or malicious and treated accordingly. One mechanism to reduce the opportunity to make vexatious or malicious applications for revocation is to clearly and narrowly define who a person of interest is. The current Gender Recognition Act 2004 defines a person with an interest quite narrowly, a spouse, the registrar general and the secretary of state. My amendment 97 replicates this narrow definition, including spouse, civil partner, registrar general and the secretary of state. That is to limit the likelihood of unsupported family members or others who disapprove of a transperson's right to be who they are, having the mechanism to challenge a GRC. My amendment 95 seeks to put in place a step before any revocation application gets to the sheriff court by requiring it to go through the registrar general's office first. The registrar general would then determine whether it was appropriate to escalate such a revocation application to the courts. However, Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 130 is better than mine, so I will not press my 95 and will instead support hers. On the penalties for those who seek to revoke a GRC for vexatious or malicious reasons, my amendment 96 is essentially a probig amendment in an attempt to have a wider conversation before stage 3 to tighten up this bit of the bill. I will not move 96, as I think that Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 132 covers this more effectively. However, I do consider that we need further conversation to make it absolutely clear that malicious or vexatious attempts to revoke a gender recognition certificate will not be allowed and will be taken very seriously when they do happen. Pam Duncan Glancy, to speak to amendment 130 and other amendments in the group. I thank Maggie Chapman for her comments on my amendments in this group. Let me first of all say that, unfortunately, I will not be able to support 97, because I believe that narrowing the list of people could prevent someone who has a genuine interest in someone's GRC using the person of interest in good faith provisions on the grounds of genuine concerns of capacity. However, the aims of my amendment as I have already been alluded to in amendment 130 and 132 attempt to add safeguards and proportionality to the process that would prevent people from using it maliciously. For that reason, I would ask people to support my amendments. Had the member pushed 95 in 96, I think that they were reasonable. However, I would ask members to support mine. I know from the evidence provided to the committee and through our own consultations that there is a concern in the trans community where they see potential for the misuse of the provision in the bill for a person with an interest to apply to a sheriff for a GRC to be revoked. I can understand that. We have set out in our stage 1 response why the provision is in the bill and I will do so again very briefly now. The bill allows for a person who has an interest in a GRC to apply to the sheriff to revoke a certificate on the ground that the application was fraudulent or that the applicant was incapable of understanding the effect of it or that the applicant was incapable of validly making the application. The person seeking to revoke a certificate would need to have a genuine interest in the certificate. It would have to affect them personally or professionally and they would be required to produce evidence of the ground on which the certificate could be revoked. It is a common statutory requirement that a person has an interest in a particular matter in order to bring proceedings to court and the courts are used to determining what amounts to a genuine interest. Amendment 95 and 130 would give the registrar general a preliminary role in assessing potential applications to a sheriff and refusing permission to apply to the sheriff based on whether the application is malicious and or that the applicant has a genuine interest. However, we can see no precedent for this type of process and that would considerably expand the role and remit of the registrar general in a way that cannot be supported. It is for a sheriff who has appropriate expertise to make judgments on whether a person has a genuine interest and whether their claim is valid. I do understand why Maggie Chapman and Pam Duncan-Glancy have lodged those amendments but I do not view that as a reasonable role for the registrar general to fulfil and I therefore urge the committee not to support them. Amendment 97 would restrict those who can apply for the revocation to the registrar general, a spouse or civil partner or the secretary of state. That is presumably intended to echo the current provision in the 2004 act, though it is not clear why the UK Secretary of State should be included here in relation to GRCs issued under the Scottish system. The grounds on which an application for revocation of a GRC can be made under the 2004 act refer only to fraudulent applications. The proposals in the bill means the grounds on which an application can be made also include incapacity or where the registrar general has issued the wrong type of certificate. In relation to the committee's recommendation to define who may be persons who have an interest, we consider that seeking to list such persons in the bill could lead to an appropriate category of persons potentially being omitted. Under my amendment 60, the registrar general will be able to apply to a sheriff before issuing a GRC but it is not the role of the registrar general or his staff to assess the capacity of applicants. The courts will be able to make that determination considering all the evidence. It is important to stress that provision around the capacity of applicants to understand the effect of a GRC is there to protect those applicants and removing those grounds could have negative impacts for some applicants. Amendments 96 and 132 introduce either a criminal offence or a power for a sheriff to award damages on the basis of a malicious application. I consider that to be disproportionate. I have serious concerns about criminalising applications to a sheriff in any circumstances on access to justice grounds. I am not aware of a precedent for such an offence and there would be human rights implications to consider. It is important to remember that the courts deal with many applications in many areas, including where issues have arisen among family members. I do not necessarily consider that where issues arise in the family in those circumstances, criminalisation would necessarily be a beneficial outcome for any party. On the power to award damages, that requires further consideration as how malicious is to be interpreted is not quite clear, since it is not a commonly used term in this context. If a person were to make repeated, vexatious applications to revoke a GRC or GRCs, there is an existing scheme in the courts reform Scotland Act 2014 that would allow the Lord Advocate in the public address to apply to the Court of Session for a vexatious litigation order. That would require the person to get permission from the Court of Session before making a further application. I know that that is not exactly what is proposed in Pamdell Glansley's amendment, but it provides a safeguard against people abusing the system. For those reasons, I cannot support any of the specific changes made by amendments in this group to reiterate that applicants for revocation would need to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest and that the sheriff would need to be satisfied with that. They would also then need to provide evidence to prove the grounds of their application. Although I am sympathetic to the aims of those amendments, I do not currently see what additional provision could be made in this bill to address those concerns without raising wider human rights and access to justice issues. Obviously, if there is something that can be added, I would be happy to work with both members ahead of stage 3, but I would ask that those amendments are not supported at this time. Maggie Chapman, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 95. I have nothing further to add and I will withdraw amendment 95, if the committee agrees. Members requested to withdraw amendment 95. Is that agreeable? I therefore call amendment 130, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 95, Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed, so we will go to the vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hand. So it is amendment 130, so all those who wish to vote for amendment 130, please raise your hands. Okay? All those against. So it is too far and five against, so the amendment is not agreed. Call amendment 131, in the name of Russell Finlay, or he's debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so therefore move to the vote. All those who want to vote yes, please raise your hand. All those against and abstentions. So it is three, four and four against, so the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 66 to 70 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 66 to 70? Therefore the question is that amendments 66 to 70 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 96, in the name of Maggie Chapman, or he's debated with amendment 95, Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 97, in the name of Maggie Chapman, or he's debated with amendment 95, Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Moved. Question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 97, please vote now. All those against. That is one vote four and six votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 132, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, or he's debated with amendment 95, Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed to. So again, we move to the vote. All those in favour, please vote. And all those against. Too far and five against. The amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 9, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. So we'll go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote. And all those against. It's too far and five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. And section 9 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 10, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. Up moved. So the question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No. We are not agreed, so we move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 10, please vote now. And all those against. That is too far and five against. So that is not agreed to. And section 10 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 98, in the name of Ross McCall, or he's debated with amendment 83. Ross McCall to move or not move. Up moved. I call amendment 11, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so we go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 11, please vote. And all those against. Too far and five against. Amendment is therefore not agreed to. And section 11 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 7 to 1, in the name of Christine Graham, or he's debated with amendment 128. Christine Graham to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is, amendment 71, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. There is not agreed, so we move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 71, please vote now. Can I show that support? All those against. Okay, that's four, four, and three against. Amendment is therefore agreed to. Call amendment 12, in the name of Sue. Sorry. Could I withdraw my voting intention? That was meant to be a yes. I'm sorry about that. On 71, for Christine Graham's amendment, is that possible to do? If you can't do that, I can put it on official record that I supported. Okay, we haven't gone past the vote, so let's do the vote on 71. Let's do the vote on 71 again. Okay, no problem. Let's do the vote again. So the vote, the question is, on amendment 71, all those in favour of amendment 71, please vote now. Sorry. Okay, all those, all those. All those against. Okay, amendment 71 is agreed unanimously. Thank you. Call amendment 12, in the name of Sue Weber. Already debated with amendment 2. Sue Weber to move or not move. Okay, so the question is, on amendment 12, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Okay, we are not agreed. So we'll go to the vote. All those who wish to vote for the amendment, please raise your hands. And all those against. That's 2, 4 and 5 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to and section 12 is agreed. I call amendment 13, in the name of Sue Weber. They're moved. Moved. Okay, the question is, on amendment 13, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Are we not agreed? We move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 13, please vote now. And all those against. That's 2, 4 and 5 against. So that's therefore not agreed and section 13 is agreed to. So we made good progress and now seems like a good place for us all to break today. So that completes our first day of stage 2 consideration for this bill. We'll continue our consideration at our meeting next week. I want to thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance and that concludes our meeting for today.


Let's go brew crew beat the birds the next three days is gonna be the battle for first place in the nl central Let's get first place go brewers go


Big security. Simon, good afternoon and thank you for joining us. Now just hearing from the ECB, they've left rates unchanged but they're scaling back their asset purchases. Did this come as any surprise? Good afternoon Leanne, not really. We did see the initial volume of bond buying in Europe around that 60 billion euros a month. They did kick it up around about a year ago to do that 80 so they've brought it back down and so you know I don't think that was too much of a surprise. I think obviously that's still a significant amount of quantitative easing in Europe and still a significant amount of support for the global economy. Now it's all about the Federal Reserve next week. Everyone watching and waiting in anticipation and preparing you could say for this imminent rate rise. How are we seeing bond yields tracking? Well this is an interesting thing. I mean we've had over the last year seen a lot of commentary coming out from the US Fed and we just haven't seen that match by the market. We just haven't seen interest rates moving to prepare for these increases and that's led the market to believe that we wouldn't get the succession of increases even though the Fed was preparing it. For this time we're certainly seeing the market move in preparation for that and we've reached beyond 2016 levels, yields in our reaching levels we haven't seen since 2014 around the 10 year 2015. We saw initial movement in the short end of the US curve earlier this week. We're now seeing that reflected in the long end as well. So we're really seeing quite a broad readjustment of the yield curve reflecting the 100% chance we now have priced into that move by the Fed next week. And Simon if in fact they do get going do you think we can expect to see those yields continuing their move higher? Well seeing that reflected in the long end of the yield curve, seeing the 10 year move up, seeing the 30 year move up, certainly suggest that the market is starting to buy into the dot points or the succession of rate rises that the US Fed has suggested which is around three for this year. So I think you are starting to see that adjusted. That's quite different to last year where you had that initial move in December and then the market just wasn't prepared and certainly wasn't pricing in any further rate increases and therefore we didn't get another one until 12 months later. What about Aussie yields are we seeing them following US yields higher? This is really interesting absolutely. So we've actually got, especially in the longer end, the Aussie yields following us up. The Aussie 10 year is around 2.97. Now it hasn't been 3% since around July 2015 so almost two years. So that's certainly broken through that those highs we saw through 2016. So you know our yields moving up on the back of those US yields as well. Fantastic. And what about, as always, we speak to you about interesting Aussie issuance and so forth. Tell us what's happening today. Interesting. So a lot of focus on the Aussie housing market and we've seen Torrens which is the residential mortgage backed securities issuer for Adelaide, Bendigo Adelaide Bank, issue some RMBS stock. This is an ability for banks to move their mortgage books off balance sheet. So that's very, very positive. And we've seen one bank, a Korean bank, do issuance as well. So still a significant amount of opportunity for investors out there. All right. Excellent. As always, it's been great talking to you, Simon. Thanks very much for the update. Thank you very much, Leanne. Goodbye. Simon, Michelle joining us. They're live from FIG Securities.


Let's see, there is a protest going on. Oh, how are you? Why are you protesting in Ilhan Omar? We're protesting anti-Semitism. Oh, but you want Ilhan Omar out of Congress? We live in Libya. We know what it's like to live on the people like her. Actually, I have no idea what these Muslims are up to. Good luck to you. What do you think Ilhan Omar is up to? Call me. I'll give you my number. I think you need to read the Bible. Are you Christian? Absolutely. With what organizations? Men and women for representing democracy in America. Is that a pro-Trump group? Absolutely. Hello. Support anything you support? Well, I support you. I support you. I support Medicare and you. I love Medicare. I love my president. We both support Medicare. I love Trump. Sharia law is taking a hold in this country. And it has. And it has been practicing the facts. How has practice in this country encouraged female genital mutilation?  And when they're wrong, you're going to have to know you've left the people's criminal share of your life. We are suffering. We are suffering.  They claim that she is anti-Semitic when she is not. She has not said anything anti-Semitic. Yeah, she did. She said it three times. Three times. All she is saying is calling out the human rights abuses in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights. I think that they're trying to conflate being pro-Israel with being Jewish. And I think that by doing that, that's an active anti-Semitism. And you were deployed to Iraq. Yes. You know, the military always talks about courage. But to face the text that she has is, to me, the real definition of courage.


We are now getting to the deep brief discussion where tonight we're talking about single parenting and early pregnancy. To help us talk about this topic tonight we have evangelist Mutinda Charles who is a founder and relationship coach of Love Train family. Tonight we seek to understand what challenges do single parents face and most of the times when we talk about single parenting we focus on the women but tonight we try to also understand what are some of the challenges that single dads go through as they try to bring up their children by themselves. We also try to see how do we try to end the isolation or the stereotype that comes with people who are found themselves being single parents talk to us across our social media platforms that is at Y254 channel and also reach me at Patricia Muriochi. Welcome Charles to our interview tonight. I hope that you're well. So as we start off I'd first like to ask give us a brief background on what Love Train is all about. Thank you so much Patricia. You're welcome. You're looking good. Thank you. One of the things that the society has tried to look at is the regulation of the single parents and to be specific just you have said the single dads and the single moms and I've seen a trend in the society whereby you find a very good wedding very energetic very costly we go we dance we celebrate six months down the line even sometimes we don't even get the six months you heard so and so they broke up so you start looking and asking yourself what is this that is not happening you find by the time even they are breaking up maybe there was a kid involved and at the end of the day the kid now lives with the mother or the father and to make it even worse the church the people of the faith the people are born again the people are going to heaven are leading in this trend failed marriages so you find I was in a position to ask myself what can I do because we need this one to we need an action plan we need to be available if only we can help these people first focus with their foundation because the moment the foundation is wrong in when you're getting to marriage then everything will definitely fail okay so that has one one of the things that has contributed the other thing is you find that I like girl empowerment it's good it's strong but you find that as much as the girl empowerment is happening the boy child empowerment is not taking place okay so you find when these young people are getting into marriage or they're having a relationship when a kid comes they get confused and they run out they they just uh abscond their their their responsibility you end up finding there's a single dad and a single mom they are very young at age and there's nothing you can do so I got this person to just raise up try to come up and engage them try also to see those who are in challenged situations how can you help them because when you are if you are bringing up a kid and you are a single parent there must be a way to make sure this kid is getting the attention and all the resources are needed okay so that's what we do at love train okay so when you talk about I understand that you have a program that gets to focus on single parents and early pregnancies what are some of the things that you hope to achieve and how do you engage these single parents I'll give you a side by an example of last weekend we were engaged in a program in Akuru we were visiting a group of of young ladies age 12 and 17 you find they are in the deep end they are the place where they come from it's a place where changai is brewed it's a place where there's violence it's a place where there is no hope when you look physically so you find these young parents they are so young at their age somebody is having a kid at age 14 the parents are not responsible so you find they are in also confused state at that age so what we are doing with these young people we are supporting them to know some basic skills like crocheting you see these are people have not gone to school yeah how some of the dropped off because of the pregnancy and you find you have to engage them and help them to learn some new few things that can help them to grow so like they're also like you teach them tailoring so as they are growing up one they have some mentors who are standing with them okay the other thing also we try to look and see how we can support them these young girls they could not even afford to have things like panties underwears pads pads and one of the things let me I can say which stood out they are used to getting panties but around this time we decided let's let's give them bras and I'm telling you wow a kid of about 13 years she's getting she's just developing and she has a new bra it was lively in there so what we are trying to do is what we realize what are their needs and how can we reach out to make sure that we are helping them to grow we are helping them to see it is not the hand of life there is hope and there is stability for them because one of the things we do as you mentor them it is to be present and share your life share with them what are the things like me I being I was once a street boy I've lived and survived in the streets I know how hard it is they are not in the streets yes they have parents some of them single or some of them have no even they just live with their lattice but the kind of life they live they need to be given hope okay that you could have gone through the worst but yet achieve in life so that's how we do it okay I like the fact that you've talked about giving them bras because I'll say I've been involved in charity events before and most of the times we think about the pants we don't really think about the bras so we take a very short break on why 254 but when we come back we dive in more on this topic tonight please don't go too far away stay with us we'll be right back thank you for staying with us on why 254 updates and tonight on that debrief if you're just joining us we're talking about single parenting and early pregnancy talk to us across social media platforms that is at why 254 channel you can also reach me at Patricia Mariochi now I'd like us to talk about challenges that are faced by single parents we know that most of the times single mothers are the ones who speak out and say I am going through this and this the child has neglected the mother the father rather has neglected the child in your program and has you continue to interact with the single parents in the society what is one of the challenge probably that you've identified that is faced by single dads that people are not aware of one thing that we have seen is the single dads it's it's like they don't exist it's like they they they are not talked about nobody even thinks they are there I have a friend of mine and he is a he is a single dad and he took his time to share his story on his facebook profile and he wrote it in pieces and in pieces and when you listen and go through that story you realize men are suffering one of the reasons why they are suffering because they expected by the society majority that they should behave strong they should not cry they should be able to stand as a man and you find when somebody has got a passion for the kid sometimes they tried like this fellow tried to make the relationship work it didn't work so when they reach a place okay now I am a single father I have to take care of this kid the mother was not there he took all it took to just raise the kid and he shared his story and you could feel the pain and you could imagine the other men who are going through the same okay they never wished in fact one of the things that happens for you to be a single parent in most cases they never wish this in parents that's one thing the society does not understand and when now this person has already been identified as a single dad there is that kind of like is a failure how can how can such a good man like this have a beautiful handsome kid like this and be single so they fight so hard to show the society we are strong okay again when they also looking for some of them you see someone wants to settle down there is that like kind of baggage sometimes people think it's only we may know fair to say they have babies when they are dating when they are dating but you find by the time this guy is saying I'm a single dad I'm raising up my kid there is that like what did you do to the mother so you find they have to fight to explain and for this other person to start seeing it was not the the man or it was not the lady and because it's just one sided so they fight a lot to to define their position so society okay and then the other thing you find that let me tell you cooking is easy looking for food is difficult but the moment you are looking for the food and you have to the two things and you are the one person who is doing if not easy it's hard so you find that these kids as they are growing up probably this man has to raise a standard he has to also to like you know you have to raise a kid in a value to have some values that it matters you can be a good husband a good wife you find there is a challenge to this man okay he has to look for somebody probably who will also raise this kid like a mother and sometimes they don't get that you find they are their 40s they are 50s they are still single so that's one thing that the society has forgotten when these guys sometimes not that they want they are still looking for somebody who can fit in the shoes or who can help in the raising of their kids finances we one of the things that being a single mother I think would be one of the we could look at looking for finances you know when you are a mother you are carrying a baby there are some good Samaritan can just you can okay as a woman it is easy to to to ask help to ask for the help that's the one I was looking for but as a as a man to call someone and say you know I have a kid and he doesn't have me doesn't have pampas doesn't have panties it looks awkward so you find they also have a challenge in trying to prove to the society and to prove this kid I can provide for them and again distributing that time one of the things that I say women are blessed to do is be able to much task do this do that do that but a man when he's feeding the kids he's not I don't have the feed to feed the kid what's the news watch the do the lord so that's another challenge you'll find this man has to has to fit in okay I would like us to talk about co-parenting yes for single parents out there we've had cases where the single the the mother or the father that is now the person who happens to be the single parent is so bitter with what happened in the relationship because as you've said most of the times people don't don't make the choice to be a single parent as much as their people would want that probably you've lost your spouse a relationship did not work out you got a child and you people were not ready to commit to each other yes so how can our parents come together putting their differences aside and prioritizing the needs of the child to build an environment or create an environment where this child does not grow up with traumas that are probably going to be noticed later on in life something that people try people tend to really give a blind eye to but we know traumas are there and some of the sometimes your your reaction or your attitude towards something is because probably you lacked your father or your mother or you were treated in a certain way so how can parents build healthy environments for their kids even as they're separated one of the things is first is to accept the moment you have accepted that you are a single father you are a single mom and you have to to co-work together the accepting part is what matters most because you're able to face this challenge you're able to come out strong you're able to put your needs aside to accept that things never worked out now I have to re-engineer myself how do I bring this kid as a co-parent the other thing that you also look at is I tell ladies when they are dating or when they are outside they are whether they are not dating be a proud mom be proud that you have a kid it doesn't matter the relationship between the father and the kid and you it may be sore it may not be working but be proud mother be a proud dad because what these kids are looking for they are looking for people they can stand up for them they're looking for people are strong for them so the moment you are a proud dad you are a proud mom you also instill a lot of good things into this kid the other thing also that we also need to look at when these fights occur the kid was not there they should not be involved you should not be harboring bitterness because the father is not there or the mother is not there and sharing this one of the things I think this is done most by ladies because you have to vent out and you are disappointed you talk negatively about the father to this kid so this kid growing up he knows all fathers are bad my dad was a bad dude you know he messed up my mom so you find as they are growing up they have this negative energy they have no nothing good that comes from men so they end up presenting men just getting out of in just in messy situations okay the other thing is you have to identify the needs of this kid as much as you are single and you are parenting what are the needs this kid need what are the environments that you need to create for them because remember they are interacting with the other kids that are coming from families and if this kid is not getting some of the things that that a kid should get they may think this is a result because my mom is only one takes care of me or my dad will take care of me so you need to create environment that tells this kid yes we are co-parenting our problems should not create a problem for you for maybe the other one which I want to add is a I've seen you know you've seen it in the supermarket you've seen the shops in the cars baba baba we have baba in our kids so much you can't afford to baba the kid and we look at the society and how things are but we also mama thing is a parent I don't accept you to call my kid mama and my kid is called emailer and my son is called jabali call them by their names because when you call them by their names when you try to give them identity they will not grow up confused you are trying to instill some discipline be disciplinary that's one of the things I also say in parenting when he times to discipline kindly discipline them with a lot of kindness and a lot of love okay that's that's that's parenting that's a new one so if you're out there mama in and baba in anyway people have different styles when it comes to parenting as we as we wind up when you talk about early pregnancies most of the times people have talked about introducing a sex education in schools people have different perceptions about that what is your take what role do you think are introducing sex education in our schools is going to help us carb how is it going to help us carb earlier pregnancies let me say this and I say it with a very open mind and a very open heart the church needs to take its place and speak about these things with a because they have the authority they have the platform they have to let it be discussed because the moment you don't create a platform where we can be able to discuss things that are happening in our society they will run out mr google has become a very good friend to many people so they are starting to google info solution for mr google while the church needs to take its place and allow this discussion I believe it's good to discuss my kid she's seven years old she does not know how to read yet but she wrote something and I asked her what is it is she said I love mom I love dad and then what is the other then she left she said if I tell you you're going to laugh it and I was like okay tell me when I grow up I'll have a kid oh and then I was like oh okay a kid yes so what do we call this so we had a conversation so it's good to understand that is the church it we to understand these things are happening let's talk about them let's engage the society let's go at our level I let the term one of the things I'm an international husband married to a beautiful Tanzanian lady wow international by the name coco we are blessed with two kids and one thing I've seen that is you are doing some counseling and this man comes and tells you me I wanted to have four kids and this lady wants to have one kid so you start to ask yourself before you go to my head what were you discussing during dating so you find because they are not these basics they are not foundations these early pregnancy when they take place this person was not prepared okay and nobody took the position to enlighten them okay so I believe as the society especially the church should take the forefront allow sex education okay at different levels at different stages because look at the cartoons what are the cartoons doing you'll be amazed the things the cartoon that are being driven by the western world okay let me cut you short and just give you 30 seconds for a mother and a father out there with a single parent and made the decision to not be part of their child's life what message do you have for them 30 seconds as you wind up I want to encourage them that being a parent is a gift there are so many people are waiting or looking for how to raise up at their kids that they don't have the ability play your role put your differences aside create an environment for these kids so that when they grow up you can be able to rely on them or they can support you back because you will need them okay that is a requirement that is the law that's it's just a way to make a society better okay thank you very much evangelist Mutinda for finding the time to be here with us I think we're going to schedule for another interview to probably handle more because I just noticed that you have so much wisdom around parenting and stuff that we will talk about thank you very much for being with us tonight we wish you a very good night and see you tomorrow at the same time as we talk about business Tuesday my name is Patricia Mariochi do have yourselves a very good night why my shariq is coming right up


Nigerian rapper Jude Abaga, popularly known as M.I., has declared his solidarity for people from the southeastern region of Nigeria known as Igboz. The popular rapper took to Twitter to show love and support for Igboz, calling on other Nigerians to do the same, as he launched the hashtag I Am Igbo To campaign. This comes shortly after President Mohammad Abwari sent a warning that was perceived as a threat to Igboz. In reaction to the tweet M.I. posted a video with the caption, the narrative that Nigeria hates Igbo people is an outdated context that will leave with the old and bitter generation. He says, and I quote, today, let us stand with our Igbo family and say, I am Igbo too.


I've taken a look at many prominent chains of amusement and theme parks such as Cedar Fair, Six Flags, Merlin Entertainment and SeaWorld Entertainment and given my predictions as to what I think could be the next coaster to be removed from each of their respective parks. Today I will be doing just that, but this time I will look at different parks across the world that are independently owned or part of other chains. As always, I have to make a disclaimer here. I am not very familiar with most of the parks on this list, nor have I visited most of these parks myself yet. In fact, I've only been to two of these parks. My predictions are based on information I know about these parks, and I will make my best educated guesses about what I personally think will be removed next from each park, so don't get upset about one of your favorite rides being on here. This is purely 100% speculation, and none of these removals are confirmed in any way by these parks. And also, just because I think a coaster may be removed from that park next, it does not mean that I think it is going to happen at any point in the near future. If it does happen, it could be 10, 15, 20 years from now. With that out of the way, let's get into my list. Starting off as one that I'm pretty familiar with, this is Kennywood, and for Kennywood I think Exterminator will likely be the next coaster to be removed. This is a 1999 River Sean Spinning Wild Mouse Coaster, and this is actually a really fun ride. It has some pretty decent theming, it's completely in the dark, and it's just really cool. It gets really long line, so it's a pretty popular ride at the park, so I think it will be around for quite a while longer, but I do think it could be the next coaster to leave Kennywood when looking at all the other options in the park. Next up on the list we have Lagoon, which is in Farmington, Utah. And for this park I also selected their Wild Mouse. This was a difficult park to make a selection for me, but I did settle on the 1998 Mauer Wild Mouse Coaster. I just think that they could utilize this space for something much better. Lagoon has a lot of family oriented roller coasters, they have a great selection of family coasters in fact, and they could just use this space for something a little more unique I think. Next up we have Fantasia Land. In Fantasia Land I selected Crazy Bats. To me Crazy Bats is the only obvious choice in this park. It opened in 1988, it was formerly called Space Center up until 2000 and then Temple of the Nighthawk until 2018 when it was renamed to Crazy Bats. This is a Vekoma MK900 indoor coaster, it's actually pretty long, it's nearly 4,000 feet long. It's just an older ride, I think they could really utilize this space for a more modern attraction that's a little bit more in line with what they've been doing lately. All of their other coasters here are fairly new, the oldest one besides this opening in 1996 and most of them opening in the 2000s, so to me Crazy Bats was the obvious choice for Fantasia Land. Next up is Kentucky Kingdom. I think T3 is going to get removed from Kentucky Kingdom at some point in the future, it probably won't be for a while, they did get new trains for this a few years back, but this is a 1995 Vekoma SLC so it's a pretty old one and from what I hear this is also one of the very worst ones out there which of course that's not a good thing, especially being an SLC. Not much else to say there, Holiday World. This is a really difficult one to think about but at the same time I can't really see any of their other coasters going at any point in the very near future, in fact I don't even think this one is going anywhere anytime soon, but I did select Legend which is their custom coasters international monster that opened in the year 2000, but unfortunately I didn't get to ride this, it was closed for retracking when I went so hopefully that'll change soon and I'll get to ride this, but I did have to select Legend for Holiday World. Fuzikyu Highland. I think that their coaster called Voyage, I'm not going to try to pronounce the rest of the name, but I think that will be removed next. This was kind of a clear cut pick for me. This is a family type inverted coaster that opened in 2001, it's really unique looking, it was manufactured by Hoy Sangyo LTD and it looks kind of cool actually, it looks like a really fun small family ride, it just doesn't necessarily fit in well with the rest of the park and I just think if they're going to remove something to make more space this would probably be one of their options when it comes to their roller coasters. I wanted to cover Energylandia in this list. Of course the park opened in 2014, it's a very new park, but they have a ton of roller coasters. They honestly wouldn't be too bad off in getting rid of two or three of their coasters because they have so many very small kiddie coasters just thrown in there. The one that I selected for Energylandia though is Circus Coaster which is a 2017 SBF Visa oval coaster and that's literally all this coaster is, it's just an oval and one of the reasons I picked this one instead of the many other kiddie coasters in this park or anything else is that this one has zero theming unlike a lot of the other kiddie coasters which look to have really good theming here. Circus Coaster I think will be the first coaster on the chopping block for this huge park in Poland. For Hershey Park many people have been talking about Wildcat the very first GCI coaster possibly getting the RMC iBox conversion or even getting some sort of treatment by GCI whether it be a refurbishment or utilizing that new track they revealed recently. Personally I think that Wildcat probably is most likely to be leaving the park next and I do think there's a good chance it could get converted into something else. I really like the idea of GCI converting this ride into something new with their new steel track because this is the very first GCI so it would just make sense in a lot of ways but whatever Hershey Park does with this ride I'm sure they're going to do something with it in the future and I'm really excited to see what they do with Wildcat. Most people will say that this is a very rough unbearable ride and I think this issue will be addressed at some point very soon. For Port Aventura in Spain this was a really difficult pick for me I had four different options for this park that I think could potentially be removed next but I did go with Stampita which is a 1998 CCI Racing Wooden Coaster. Coomback trains were added for the 2007 season which I am aware of so those trains aren't really new at this point so I don't think that necessarily says that this ride is going to be around a whole lot longer. Although it probably will but I think this ride could potentially be a good candidate for an RMC treatment and they do have another wooden coaster in the park which is a smaller more family oriented coaster so they would still have a wooden coaster. For Europa Park I selected Alpen Express Enzion which opened in 1984 this is a mock powered coaster. VR was added in 2015 and when I see like these really old small powered coasters and then I see they added VR in fairly recent years it's like to me that kind of spells out a decline in popularity in recent years and it seems like maybe they're adding the VR as a little bit of a gimmick to try to gain some more popularity with it again and sort of market it as a newer attraction and looking at all the other coasters in the park I just don't see any other obvious candidates. For that reason mainly I went with Alpen Express Enzion. Last on the list I have Nagashima Spa Land in Japan. This was another difficult choice for me to make but I went with Jet Coaster which is a Togo coaster that I'm not even sure when it opened. There's no opening date on RCDB but looking at this ride it's a very very basic layout it's one of those old simple Togo coasters that just kind of doesn't really do anything to be honest it just looks kind of boring and I think this space in the park could be very well utilized for a newer family coaster at least or something much more modern something more exciting. It is kind of cool how this goes over the water but it'd be cool if they could maybe put something here to incorporate that have it go over the water as well. With that being said what do you all think about my picks for these parks? Be sure to let me know your opinions linked in the card above you will find a playlist which features along with this video all of the other videos from my next coaster removal series where I discuss Cedar Fair, Six Flags, SeaWorld Entertainment and Merlin Entertainment. Thanks so much once again for taking the time to stop by my channel and check out this video. This is CoasterDaddy, bye.


This is why narcissists devalue you so fast. For those who spend enough time around the narcissist, no one is immune to the devaluation. Where they begin to reduce or underestimate your worth or importance. Where they belittle you and put you down. When in the beginning they idealized you. They love bombed you. They put you on a pedestal. But then as soon as you believed that what they were displaying to you was real. They began to devalue you. They criticized you. They treated you with contempt and it seemed as though they were more interested in their phone than you even while you were sitting in front of them. They began to insult you and it was very confusing for you because you couldn't understand what you did wrong and in most situations they will never tell you. But their behavior will change very quickly just at the moment when you begin to accept them. Even though you may have been resisting them for some time. You may have thought it was too good to be true because you didn't want to be manipulated or exploited. But the moment you believed that it was real. That's when they pulled the ragout from under you and showed you that it was never real. That was when they began to devalue you and one of the main reasons why they did that is because they hate themselves. They have very low self esteem. So the moment you see anything good in them. It activates their contempt for themselves and for their lack of self respect. Which they then project onto you because they already know that I'm worthy. They already know they're no good for you. So the moment you see anything good in them it triggers them and it reminds them of that fact because they don't want to self reflect and deal with those painful emotions. So instead they projected devaluation of themselves onto you. If they really loved and respected themselves they would not be able to devalue you. How we treat other people is a direct reflection of how we feel about ourselves. So what you got from them was what they had to give. You can't get blood from a stone. They can't give you something they don't have. They don't love themselves so they can't love you.  They have no use for you so they get rid of you. The more time you spend around a narcissist the more your value goes down which is the opposite effect of being involved with a normal person because in a normal situation your value would go up. As they learn more about you as they identify your strength and weaknesses and you encourage each other to grow and become better that does not happen with narcissists. Instead even if you have many different strengths they will home in on your weaknesses and exploit them because there's so much self-hatred and self-contempt inside of them and they have to find a way to regulate their emotions but there's really nothing you can tell them.   All you're going to get from the narcissist is more gaslighting the more time you spend around them the deeper you go into the rabbit hole. To where things begin to make less and less sense as they run you in circles because the reality is that it actually has nothing to do with you as a person. If anyone else was in your shoes they would have experienced very similar results and we all do experience similar results. That's why these videos are so relatable because we've all experienced the same treatment from the narcissist but we can never get the answers we wanted from them. They never gave us any closure or validation because that would mean that they'd have to admit that they're deeply insecure and they're unable to make healthy attachments and that's why they're rejecting you and treating you badly until you observe the insecurities and decide to leave them which is just something that no narcissist is ever going to admit. It's one of the main traits that they all have in common. They're all in denial they don't admit their actions they don't accept accountability they just run you in circles they gas like you because the last thing they want is to have anything to do with themselves they run from themselves and expect you to run from them as well which is why they will often deliberately push you away because they already know that you shouldn't want anything to do with them they already know that they're no good but they're never going to tell you that they're never going to give an explanation because they're not even fully aware of what is happening they're more focused on you and how you're responding to it you may not have even realized it but the reality is that the victim always initiates the devaluation and the discard it's because you chose to not go along with that agenda maybe you questioned or confronted them maybe they feared that you're going to expose them or maybe you didn't even say anything but they could sense it they knew you were not along for the ride narcissists are highly attuned to other people's perceptions of them their predators they study people's body language facial expressions and tone of voice so that they can always be two steps ahead of you and then they know how you're going to respond because they're terrified of rejection and abandonment which is essentially anything that happens outside of their control so they already knew a long time ago that you were never going to accept them they recognize all of the things that you saw wrong with them and it affected them even though they may never have a real that to you it was playing on their minds it was eating a way at them until one day it became clear to you that they felt you were against them when you may never have felt that way towards them but it's because you just didn't go along with what they wanted you resisted the advances you were stood the actions that affects you held out against them while other victims of narcissists may have learned to pacify them by acceding to their demands to relieve and satisfy their feelings to keep them calm and stay in their good graces but you didn't do that you resisted you refused to be accepted or changed by them and the reason why is often because of childhood abuse because it typically results in social withdrawal and isolation where you lose desire and motivation and going along with the program especially with narcissistic people who have to maintain an authoritative role because maybe no one was there to protect you so you may have developed a fear or a distrust of authority you may prefer to make decisions on your own because you never witnessed a positive result from their decisions in the past but narcissists only feel comfortable if they have some form of power over you they need to be able to control you so when you're dealing with them they won't allow you to have any boundaries they will constantly devalue you and if you try to set a boundary they will discard you but even when they discard you because they're very insecure they will desire to keep control so they will try to hoover you back and if you fall for it the cycle will begin again they will idealize you they will devalue you and then they will discard you and that is something that is never going to change your end unless you take your power back and you decide to end the cycle but they will often try to confuse you into thinking that love and abuse are the same thing because that is their idea of love it's something that is owed to them and it depends on your unconditional adoration which will inevitably lead to toxic and one-sided dynamics because they devalue intimacy they reduce and underestimate the worth and importance of close personal relationships because they lack empathy so they don't even care many of their actions or behaviors are done without thinking they're just unconsciously responding to their own insecurities so that it will reflect back to them how they want to feel about themselves which is why they actually feel comfortable in chaotic environments because they have no regard for how it hurts you they have an inability to share your feelings or experience no matter how much they try to learn or study you they will always be that disconnection that state of being detached as though they're unable to connect to you or understand you because they can't feel what you feel they have no idea of how it feels for you and it's something that they will never be able to comprehend because they just don't possess the necessary faculties or components to achieve that which can be frustrating for them at times but it's also what ignites the addiction because they enjoy the excitement they enjoy the emotional rollercoaster of the toxic cycle it's a thrill for them even though it's a one-sided experience it's something that you are not even connected to because just as they can't understand your emotions you can't understand this you can't understand how another person's pain could bring some of pleasure that's just incomprehensible for an empath as long as we're in a sane state of mind but for the narcissist it brings them excitement and it's very addictive to where you may also find yourself being sucked into the toxic cycle because it may remind you of your childhood when you tried to please your unpleasable parent and it may feel exciting when you are idealized even if it's only for a moment but inevitably because they like empathy the devaluation and discard will follow and that will feel familiar too you will begin to feel like you're not enough just as you may have experienced with the narcissistic parent so you endure the narcissist cycle and it's not even for yourself or for your own needs but because you just want to show your love and devotion because you believe you're going to put it right and free them from error when that is never going to happen you just putting yourself in a situation where you are going to be harmed and that is not love they may make excuses for their behavior they may even tell you that they've experienced abuse and trauma and while that may be unfortunate and you may feel sorry about that it is not your responsibility you can't change their past all you're going to be to them is an object which they repeatedly devalue and then reject and while it never satisfies them or give them the advantage that they're looking for it's also affecting your mental and physical health so no one wins them the game but in a way they're actually okay with that they will tolerate it and they will sacrifice their own satisfaction and advantage if it means that they can get to you because although a lot of times it may seem like they're trying to win or achieve something they're actually just trying to prevent you from achieving something that they can't because they can't be satisfied no matter how much you try to love them they're never going to be happy it just triggers their self-hatred and then they devalue and discard you and the cycle starts and over again the only way that you can win and take back your power is by removing yourself from the toxic cycle you're never going to win with them no one ever has and no one ever will thank you for watching if you found this video helpful please give it a thumbs up share your thoughts in the comment section hit the subscribe button to receive the notifications if you would like to support the channel you can donate at paypal.me.narchsurviver you can book a one-on-one with me on my website it's narchsurviver.uk thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon