Welcome back to Nasdaq trade talks from your host Jill Malantrino global market reporter at Nasdaq back with us at the market site in Times Square in New York City we have Fausto Puglici is the founder of Cyber Trading University we're going to run through how to use Nasdaq total view how traders use this platform and also run through a number of stocks that have certainly been moving the tape over the past couple of weeks Fausto as always great to have you back with me at market site let's run through what total view is and how traders are using it. Absolutely Jill so basically we got right here is we're looking at a stock right here showing you how total view works now I've been using total view since the day ever came out and the thing that you have to be careful and use in total view is more or less how to set it up so if you notice I have three very important columns now let me just explain a little bit more what total view is first of all this is a full depth of book this gives you 20 times more data than level two does level two to me personally I've been out of business since the 90s so total view is the way you're supposed to look at it you basically shows you every single quote at every single price level and the big thing about it people always look at it and want to know how do you guess how do you see pre-market after market and this is where you get the total view of view of all the trades now basically what you're looking at regarding about all the data that you're getting you're seeing all the full book of orders you have basically I aggregate the order so you could see right here there's like eight orders seven orders four orders this is the sellers and these are the buyers so you basically could see who's looking to buy for the most who wants to buy for the least so now you're just basically seeing everything that's out there all the buyers all the sellers which once again how do things go up supplying demand and now you're going to see it in total view all right let's go to our next chart here we're looking at buyers which of course is support on AMD and again AMD one of the most widely traded stocks on the Nasdaq 100 that's always within the top five when it comes to volume and order flow and the question was how much lower can it go well it looks like if you take a look at exactly what gives you that exam the big thing is here's Jill is that people realize like okay when's a good time to buy it and everybody likes to look at a chart but nobody realize it well what makes a support level on the chart it's buyers so how do you justify that the problem with a chart it's the past it's not the future this is basically you looking at the orders of the future so to kind of justify it that looks like a support level it's hovering right around 3950 if you look down here at the buyers and you work your way down and then ban then you see oh my god what the hell is that is a 50,000 their share buyer at 3947 definitely explains to you why that there's a support level and that's why it goes from 3950 all the way to 4010 all right let's go to the flip side sellers which of course is resistance with Apple and again there's that question how much higher can Apple go and by take a look at total view on our next slide here all right there we go so everybody wants to know okay how do I understand how to trade Apple listen you could apply this to any stock okay so we're looking at Apple right here and even Apple has that resistance level so here you're looking at all these different orders to 510 how many shares looking to be bought at what price but the big thing is when you're looking over here and you work your way down 265 34,000 shares definitely explains to you why the stock literally went from 20263 all the way up to just right above 265 right back down remember to be a good day trader what we usually look for we look for support resistance and we look for buyers and sellers and when you're looking over here the only way to explain it even with Apple you can even see it all right and just to recap here for everyone watching if we click through one time we'll see the arrow pop up of where the most volume was and we click through again it's also going to show you another arrow where we have resistance right up there moving along to Roku why is Roku trending down well obviously people are selling so if we get to you next arrow we'll see exactly where that level is and then we'll slide to our next chart and we'll take a look at total so what happens when you have a hundred and twenty thousand share buyer in Roku so everybody's like okay like you're looking at it and say oh well these are 200 shares 300 shares but then when you work all the way down there if you do the math there are 35 different orders out there that make up 128,000 shares so in theory what he would you call that that's called a demand what does that make a supply on a chart that would usually help to trend it back up all right we'll take some more of a look on Roku going to our next chart over here all right there we go now we have all the hours in place you see how Roku just hit the bottom and just shot right back up the way to 15950 all right advanced one more time we'll show that arrow and then going to our next chart Disney can't stop talking about the house and mouth Disney's doing great I love Disney you know I feel like Disney's going to be probably the next thorn of Netflix so anyway making new highs what would the chart basically tell you here so what would you think most people like oh the stock's going up right trends going up great looking stock well the question everyone was asked when do I get out when it when is resistance levels when when do I take a profit so the only thing that makes that is sellers you can't see that on a chart but when you go to total view which go to the next slide yep if we go to our next slide here total view is telling us that story we could click through one more time we'll show that arrow there we go boom there it is you see a big seller right there sitting at 149 for with 59,000 shares and you could see it right here the stock hit that resistance level and came right back down to 148 and if you do the math as a trader especially specifically as a day trader when you're looking at this you know like you know that's a nice little profit from 148 to 14950 but how do you salvage profits by knowing where the sellers are at all times all right let's go along to our next chart because we hear this all the time there's fake orders out there they hear it all the time Jill so people tell me all the time how do you know these are real orders okay first of all I tell I tell my students that listen you want how real it is you come my trading room I'll find that guy and let's see if you execute you tell me how fake it is all right so they're all real now can somebody cancel an order absolutely there's this other window that you supposed to be trading with the top with the book viewer which is called the time in sales a lot of people in neglect the time in sales window because those are the confirmations of the transactions that take place so could anyone change their mind and cancel it cancel of course they could they could anyone you could do it I could do it anyone could do it but how do you know the someone got really executed well that's where the time in sales is and that's called tape reading that's what we that's what most day traders are really tape readers so how do we justify it by filing that time in sales window all right let's go to our last chart here again looking at Apple for time in sales so once again you're looking at the stock and you want to kind of justify how do you know the stock is going up how do you know that seller got done remember we saw a big seller out there well look over here look at all the transactions boom boom boom boom boom and that's why the stock you know Apple just literally just took off and went from 20 to 64 to 260 so people was asking well how do you know that sellers gonna get done how do you know he's not getting executed you have to look at those orders just like over here if you see right here on the sell side though here's a big seller out there for 34,000 that's why you backed off over there and look at all the transactions and purple red actually it's called purple lightning bleeding not too many greens yeah and that's your indication that stocks going lower and that guys actually getting executed all right well I suspect next time you're here for our next segment on total we'll be talking about some of the retail stocks as we're going through holiday 2019 some of the questions when does it make sense to buy the department stores and when do you start to sell out on the discounters and the online retailers no problem all right fast I was always thanks so much for joining us and thank you for joining me on trade talks I'm Jill Melendrino global market to a porter at NASDAQ


Yourself is a work of art and your boundaries are your frame. Your boundaries are the frame around the work of art that is yourself. And I know when we go to galleries and look at artwork, we focus on the paint in the picture, don't we? I always look at the frame because choosing the perfect frame to align with, to match, to not overpower, but to make the paint in the picture shout louder, be experienced better by us, is itself a work of art.  Join me, March the 7th for my live Zoom teaching and Q&A with you all about my top 10 hacks that I've discovered about boundary setting in my life. I want you to have a masterpiece life, but it's not possible unless you spend as much time framing it well as you do painting it. Send me the word in the DM or a comment, boundary, and we'll get you fixed up for March the 7th.


Hi there. My name is Tracy Pilts. I'm a former kindergarten teacher. Currently I do K2 technology integration for my district here in Billings, Montana. I'm super excited to share with you about how I use labels and CSAT activities. There's tons of different ways to use labels, so I'm just going to specifically share how I create a template for students that already has the labels in it so that they just open that template up and they can manipulate and move those labels around to complete the activity. So I'm clicking over here to a template that I already started. You can make these templates wherever you choose. People use all kinds of different programs. You could make it right in CSAT, maybe in the drawing section. You could take a screenshot of a worksheet or a page that you already have. I like making mine in Google Slides or Google Drawing. It's simple to use and then I can easily download it as a JPEG to get that into my CSAT activity. So I just downloaded that. I'm going to pop back over to CSAT where I already have an activity started. I've got my title in here. These are the instructions I want the students to see. If you're not familiar with these codes right here, the CSAT Help page has little shortcuts for all of these icons. So if you enter that code, this little visual will show up in your directions, which is great. I'm just going to go ahead and add my template now. So I'm going to add file. I'm just going to drag that little picture that I downloaded. And now I'm going to go ahead and click on the label. And I just want to type in here whatever it is that I want them to drag into the picture. That could be a variety of things. This one is a label to flower. So I'm just going to type in those words. So maybe petal would be one. Now I can also click on style and change the look. And that'll stay consistent with the rest of my text. Maybe I'll type seeds. We'll call it good at that. So I'm going to put in there whatever it is I want them to move. I'm going to do the check mark, check mark. And now this is going to save as the template for my students. So when they go to do this activity, they'll tap on the label and then they'll be able to move that around. It works really, really well. I'm going to go ahead and show you real quickly. I have slides with lots of other ideas for creating with labels. If you want to check this out, go to bit.we slash c-style labels. It is case sensitive. So make sure you've got a capital S and a capital L. You can see these slides with lots of other ideas and activities ready for you to use using labels in SESA.


Dog barks at babysitter, so mom hides camera in hair. The dog had displayed some bizarre quirks in behavior before, but what he was doing now was like nothing he'd ever seen. He had to do something, and just knew his wife would have a cunning plan. But after they listened to the recording, they immediately called the cops. Benjamin and Hope Jordan were living the American dream. They both had great careers, seven-month-old baby Finn was doing great, and their lovable pitbull Killian was always there for cuddles. All they needed was someone to protect their South Carolina home while they were out. But something was about to infiltrate their suburban paradise, and there was no way they could have prepared for it. With a young child to take care of, the Jordans knew they would need to hire full-time help to look after their home while they put in the hours at work and Finn warmed instantly to Alexis Kahn. As soon as her background check came through, they didn't hesitate to call Alexis and offer her the job. But in their excitement, the couple failed to notice how Killian was behaving around the new member of the household.  Despite what people say about pitbulls, Killian had never been anything other than loving and protective toward the Jordan family. So when Benjamin and Hope learned that Killian didn't act the same way when they were out of the house, they were seriously concerned. Benjamin received a phone call at work one day. It was Alexis, if you don't get this dog under control, I'm out of here. When he asked her to explain, Alexis revealed that Killian spent the whole day staring at her and would growl whenever she tried to clean or prepare food. It stops me from moving around the house. I'm scared of it, she said. Benjamin just couldn't understand any of this. He had never seen Killian do anything like what Alexis was saying, but her safety came first. When he returned from work that day, Benjamin spent the evening with Killian and noticed nothing odd about him. But when he received yet another complaint from Alexis the next morning, he knew that something must be going on. Benjamin had been a dog owner for as long as he could remember, so he had a wide circle of friends in the canine community. He reached out to members of a Facebook group he was part of. Some suggested it could be an old habit that the new person had triggered in him. While others thought he might be envious of all the attention Alexis was pouring onto baby Finn. Benjamin knew he wasn't looking at the complete picture, so he'd have to get some extra insight. Alexis reported more disturbing behavior from Killian, and they'd had to convince her not to hand in her resignation on several occasions, persuading her with bonuses. The 22-year-old claimed this was the hardest job she'd ever had because of Killian she even displayed scratches on her arm where Killian had attacked her. Finn and Hope promised Alexis they would find a solution if she could just hang on a little longer, and the Jordans had no choice but to do something quite drastic. It had taken them months to find Alexis. Finn could be quite badly behaved when he wanted to be, but he was so good when Alexis was around. She really brought out the best in him. Benjamin had considered keeping Benjamin fenced off while Alexis was in the house. But with the layout of the house and Alexis needing access to all rooms, it just wasn't practical. Then Hope had a thought, maybe he's trying to warn her about something? Once the thought had crossed her mind, Hope was certain that the only explanation was that there was some kind of danger in the house and Killian was simply trying to alert Alexis to it. Perhaps they had a wasp nest? Or maybe someone was staking the place out for a burglary? The more she thought about it, the more it made sense. They'd had Killian since he was a pup, and he'd always looked out for little Finn. In Hope's mind, there was only one way to prove once and for all what was causing Killian's weird outbursts. Hope's plan was to slip her phone under the couch and hit the audio record button to see if they could hear what was triggering Killian to bark so aggressively. They trusted Killian with their own baby, so they had to give him the benefit of the doubt before they followed through with Alexis' demands to get rid of him. But Benjamin wasn't so sure. They would need a better plan to be sure they were getting the most accurate information on their dog. Being an amateur electronics hobbyist, Benjamin used some parts from an old phone to build a tiny recording device so tiny that it would nestle easily under Killian's collar and be shrouded by her thick fur. This would allow them to listen to what was going on even when the dog wasn't by the couch. The pair couldn't wait to get home to retrieve the recording later that evening and shed some light on what was triggering their normally placid dog. When they got home from work that day, Benjamin and Hope made a beeline for Killian and quickly retrieved the device from his fur. Luckily, it was still in one piece. Alexis immediately complained about Killian, so they knew they would be listening to a valuable recording. Once Finn was in bed, Benjamin connected the device to his laptop, so they could listen to the day's activities. But when they heard the audio, the couple's jaws dropped in disbelief. The first thing they heard was a lot of cussing, Benjamin said in his statement. But that wasn't the half of it. As they expected, Alexis' voice could clearly be heard on the recording shouting at the dog to get out, while Killian responded with growling and barking. But there was more. Before they could even discuss it, Benjamin called 911. The secret bug they'd hidden in the dog's fur had revealed that Alexis had been cursing at baby Finn something they now realized she'd been doing for weeks. Benjamin played the recording to the police, who listened attentively and showed sympathy for what the Jordans were going through. But a simple audio recording was unlikely to hold up in court. Then the cops heard the rest of the recording, and they knew they had to do something. I wanted to reach through the recording and bust her there and then, said Benjamin, of the untrustworthy employee. As he held the evidence in one hand and looked at Killian in the other, he felt so guilty that he hadn't been able to act sooner. But now they had proof, it didn't take them long to work out what had to be done. Benjamin and Hope would get justice for what had occurred under their roof while they were gone. However, despite it being clear to anyone that heard the audio what was happening, the police didn't want to make a move until they had better evidence. Benjamin and Hope tried to find somewhere in the house they could hide a camera, but it would have easily been discovered as Alexis had cleaning responsibilities. Unable to build a stronger case, there was only one option to take, but it was a long shot. Once they got Alexis in an interrogation room, it didn't take long for her to crack. The Charleston city police detective accused her of not taking care of the baby properly, and the confession came flowing out. Alexis Kahn was sentenced and made to sign a register to stop her working in the industry. That is such good news, Benjamin said. To know that Killian was responsible for protecting our family. I had been allowing her access to our home for months, said Benjamin, remorsefully. Had Killian not sounded the alarm, had I not bugged in with the recording device. He added, trailing off. It was very clear to all involved that Alexis was not the right person for the job. Benjamin and Hope were just grateful that it ended the way it did. Needless to say, Killian was showered with all the treats he could stomach, some new dog toys, and a fresh bone. He was even awarded a medal by the local authorities for bringing an unfit babysitter to justice. But can we really rely on our dogs to alert us to unscrupulous people entering our homes? We can't all have pets that are as heroic as Killian.


I'm an artist just to make that clear and I work with scientists and engineers to sort of imagine different kinds of futures and make videos talking about these possible futures based on the technology I work with. The first project I'm going to talk to you about is a project that I did to explore this often times controversial and strange relationship between science, ethics, and mythology and religion. So I wonder how many of you have heard of the mythology Red String of Fate in this room? Yeah, it's a very famous mythology in China and Japan that says that two people destined to meet each other romantically have this Red String of Fate in between them. And we all think that's a very mythical thing, right, but as an artist I wanted to work with scientists to see whether it's possible to recreate such a mythology, the Red String of Fate. So the video you see here, this is a technology developed by Professor Hideki Sezutsu and he developed a technology to genetically engineer silkworms. So by adding the DNA of jellyfish and coral into silkworms, the silkworms eyes glow red and green and also the silk glows red and green. So basically by adding different kinds of DNA, he's able to produce silkworms that produce different kinds of silk. So I asked him, can you add a DNA that produces oxytocin? And oxytocin is well known as a social bonding love hormone. And actually he said, yes, that's possible. We could add a DNA that produces oxytocin in the silk. Also a DNA that produces RFP, red fluorescent protein and we actually genetically engineered a silkworm that produces oxytocin and the silk glows red. Then we were doing this project. We went to speak with Kandomeojin Shrine, the real mythology expert, obviously. And it's a very, very old shrine in Tokyo, 1300 years old. And they're very known for producing these IT protection spirits. So these protect your computers from viruses and crashes, very convenient. So it's interesting how people often think science and religion goes against each other, right? I grew up in Japan where shrines produce spirits like this to protect your computers from crashes. So I wanted to do a project that shows a diverse perspective on science. It's not necessarily going against religion, it sometimes could go like merge with religion. So along with the mythology expert and also with Professor Sezutsu, I created this story, this future mythology of the main character who has a big crush on the colleague, genetic engineer. And to win the heart of her colleague, she decides to genetically engineer her own red stringer face in her own lab. So I'm a musician, but I also wrote music. I wrote this year. If you go on YouTube, you could find videos of it. Do you want to tell me about it? So if you want to see the rest of the film, if you go on YouTube and search Sputniker red stringer face, you'll find the rest of the story. So thank you very much.


risen gyda sefydluniaeth, fel y gwirbod, erbyn yn ei wneud sicrhau gwneud gyfu'r cymaint i ddechu'r gallu gwirbyniadau'r cymunedau, yn fwyllty pedig, ac dylai gymryd, a chwybod wir yn dechrau am y strydydoedd fod arall y cysylltu. Mae'n gweithio'md, i gael gwrdd, ac mae'n gweithio'r cymuherwydd i gael beth sydd ar ei ddim yn digwydd.  Roedd sut dechrau hyn teuluon ni wasgwch ar gyfer y blaen? Mae hwn, mae rhai hwn, ond rhan o'r dwynt phryd pan fyddai i ni i wneud wneud eich fadebryd Aberdeen, Glasgow a Edinburgh, i Beirdeunau iawn ynddo i dwi'n meddwl i'r gan ei ddechrau i gael y cael ei ddechrau. Rydyn ni dd Greeks yn iawn i'r prydyn, yn dweud i chi atoedd ac yn i'r byw. John Wilson? Mae'n ddatgani'r cyfrifath ei arquod, mae'n tyst i'n ffordd i'r llwybr chi'n ei wneud bod iawn i'r llwybr i'r llwybr, mae hynny'n edrych, iddyn nhw ddau'r helyne a'r gwagwyd애ddol i berthoedd o bethau dysgu i gyllidol i'r ilygu. McElichan sgwrdd oedd i hynny yn ei wneud o'r ilygu, y pethau o'r rhai a'r ilyw i'r ilygu i'r ilygu, yn ddigonol nhw o'r ddyflog honno o ddegon. Mae'n gael gweld wrth gwaith i'r eich gael eich cyfan i'r ilygu o'r ilygu i etymigmatau cyfrifol i'r ilygu i'ch gyfan ei ffin. David Torrance. Mae'n fawr i'r cyflawn i bwysigio sy'n ei paryswyr yng Nghymru, absytawy ar gyfer y fyrdd iawn, ac mae'n gwaith i'r cysylltu'n gwylliant ar gwyllwyr yng Nghymru, wrth fynd o'r cyfle hasiellol, bobl o bwysigio ar gyfer yr hwyl dros gyflawn hwyl. Felly mae'n bwysigio ar y byd, yn yr hyn. A'r gweithio ychydig. Jackson Carlaw. Gwymut Gwymut. Mae'r ni'n gwybod adfaith o Bromwr, ac efallai mae fyddaf maen nhw nhw'n gwybod Fel wnaeth beth sy'n anghybeth ei wneud hynny yw roi deall y mae'r rai gweithio gyda'r defnyddian nhw yn ei chyflonu dyma'r llun oedd ysgrifost ddarganiad yn eu gyllid. Oherwydd mae'n blyw i ddod yn glasgymbr umdeg yng Nghyrch chi hyn. Felly, mae'n bryd fawr a'r ddaf yn mynd i ddulle o ran bydd y llunio. Felly, ddangos gweld yn amlwyno, mae fydd yn ddigwyddent o'r eu gyllid yma a nhw'n o'ch gaint i gthey mwy oaf Afterwards Management? Felly, invitellaodd cerdraeddur o unig oherwydd am empadiau o Oxford�on i contains mynd i gweld gan y d живill yn cynnig i wneud critical a chi oedd digwyddтивilegio iりlen mwy oherwydd y d tahun i gyflasgawd pethau ysgoleth brandwc ddiwedig yn llai'r o laen o gaelgau i gaeliol yn y gaelgiau amser, i gaeliwch yn ei ch Almostu, ond rwy'n arwain o 52.00, mae'n gaeliwch o'r gael fion o'r newid fod yn gyntafol a fydd yn oedd i ni o'r dod o'r cyhoedd o'r amser neu oedd i ni oedd wedi'u ffugiddio o'r cyhoedd, ond rydyn ni'n many Scots living in parts of Scotland who might feel that they are not getting the same level of service as a result? Y pwynt am wnaeth ddweud y farchfydd hwn o'rych. The other side of the coin is the sort of infrastructural providers. Presumably, if you are doing this in a larger scale, there is a sort of economy instead of a scale from provision. So, is it worth writing to BT and a number of the other providers to see what their view on this would be? I know, obviously, in my patch in Hands In Islands, following the BDUK money, mae'r gweithio ar gyfer Ileidau Llywodraeth yn Ileidau Llywodraeth. Mae hynny'n dweud hynny'n dweud 100 miliwns y pwg ar y Ymgwrth Gwlad Ymgwrth Gwlad, maen nhw'n ddwy'r ddweud o'r cyhoeddfa, a'n ddweud o'r ddechrau'r ddweud? A gael, mae nid o'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'i ddweud. Rydyn ni'n ddweud o rydyn ni'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly mae'r dnewid yw'r twelальнаяeth, mae'n ffwrdd i'r ddod rwynt y mae'r ddau i ddiweddol, a'i rhaid i ddweud o unrhyw o reilio i ddetallu cyffredinol arall, oeddod y bautyr o'r cynod ei cyfrifol. Pwy oedd gennym yn cael ei gŷn yma yn ddod ābyddol ac yn dda o gyffredinol i eich ddau y gynall a oedd ei ddweud, ac wedi gofio ar gyfer dyma i'r ddechrau sydd yn ddod, i mi'n gweithio am dda ni ym mfawr i'n rhaid i'r ddweud. Mae'n rhaid i'r ffrindfyrdd o Mr Macfarlane. Rwyf y gwaith y cenderfwy ar gyfer gyntaf y maen nhw ac yn gweithio i ddiogelu'r cymdeithasol. Rwyf yn ei confirmio gyda'r gweithio'r cyfrifiadau. Rwyf wedi'i medyng y cenderfwy ar gyfer gyntafol, mae'n meddyn i ddysgu'r gyllideb ratrhe MODIn a nhw'n ddych i'r gwaith i'r gydir i'r methu sy'n byddan nhw'n gallu bod ei ddim yn diogelw i'r ond we hope that he gets home safely and we've made provision for that. I'll suspend first for two minutes to allow our new witness to join us. If we could restart the committee, our second new petition is PE1525 by Catherine Fraser on access to justice. Members are not by the clerk, the spice briefing and the petition. We have apologies for Mary Scanlon who has met Mrs Fraser and she spoke to me earlier, Mrs Scanlon spoke to me earlier just to say that she's very supportive of this individual petition. I welcome the petition, Catherine Fraser, to the meeting. Also for the record, could I make it clear that I've met Mrs Fraser before? She came to see me as one of the regional MSPs for the Hanson Islands. Before Mrs Fraser speaks, it might be worth stating on the record that the committee cannot become involved obviously in individual cases, that's not the rule of the committee. Members are aware that the petition was involved in the court action that the committee consideration must be about the general policy issue and not specifics of any court case. That just reflects our current standing orders. Mrs Fraser, if you could perhaps give us a five minute maximum presentation and I'll kick off a few questions and ask my colleagues to be involved. Good morning and I would like to thank the convener and the committee for inviting me here today to talk about my petition, access to justice for all. I felt compelled to raise this petition primarily due to my own personal experience in trying to access justice and through this the realisation that there is in fact a major feeling in the way the justice system operates specifically in defamation cases. Under current legislation defamation cases are excluded from receiving legal aid other than in very exceptional circumstances. Justice is about fairness and impartiality and regardless of the nature of the case justice should be accessible to all. If a case is deemed to be of public interest when it goes through the court process there must be provision in place for people like myself who try to challenge a decision but are prevented from doing so because legal aid is refused purely on the grounds of the nature of the case. The right of appeal serves very little purpose if it is not accessible to everyone who has gone through the court system. No innocent person should ever be left in a position of being found guilty and wrongfully punished with no means of challenging the decision whether it be a criminal or civil matter. The validity of every decision should be of equal merit to the justice system and there should be no discrimination. A person's inability to find an appeal should never be a barrier in accessing justice as this can only be described as prejudice and unethical. To have the knowledge that the court decision is wrong is devastating in its own right but to be unable to challenge this because a person cannot afford to is immoral and makes a total mockery of what the justice system stands for. All cases go through the same justice system and therefore equal rights should apply when trying to take up the right of appeal. What is the purpose of legal aid? Surely it is to enable people who do not otherwise have the financial means to pursue their right to justice. Why should defamation be any different to any other case? History proves that human error occurs in all aspects of the justice system and it is a model that innocent people are left to stand alone in their fight very often for many years before the truth is eventually heard. How much worse for people who are not even afforded the opportunity to have the judgment of the court scrutinised? Surely a court decision should be reached on logic not lack and on evidence not opinion. To reach a court decision based on the balance of probabilities and the perspective of one sheriff does not guarantee justice. How many members of the public are actually aware of the failings and inadequacies within the system which leaves people open to the very real risk of suffering and injustice? From meetings and conversations with professionals within the legal justice and law enforcement professions these failings are acknowledged and it would seem widely accepted as just the way the system operates. Although these people are part of the system they seem powerless to take any action to make changes to improve the modus operandi. On a personal note while trying to access justice the many words of sympathy along with the standard response of seek legal advice was of no benefit whatsoever. To be advised by several people within the system that the truth is not always heard in court and that a different sheriff may take a different view of the evidence and reach a different decision is of no consolation to anyone who has suffered an injustice. Words are easy but unless provision is in place to allow everyone with no exception to have access to justice any words are meaningless. Every taxpayer will have their own views on how their taxes should be spent, what is worthwhile and what is a waste. While my petition was open for signatures there were some very negative views regarding this. I would challenge any of these people and anyone else who is of the same opinion to continue to hold their current views if they had an injustice inflicted upon them. I am confident they would reconsider and their opinions would change. I too am a taxpayer and believe I along with others who have suffered injustice should be afforded the same protection as every citizen of this country. To have a healthy justice system all aspects of it must be transparent, open to scrutiny and accessible to the people who depend on its integrity. Only then will the public have faith and confidence in the justice system and believe that it is more than just a lottery. For the reasons I have outlined I would urge the committee to support me in my petition to have the law changed to guarantee access to justice for all. In summary, do you agree with me in summarising your petition that you feel that our new citizens without substantial means are disadvantaged in defending defamation actions, particularly for facing large organisations or wealthy individuals? Yes. You will be aware that there was a UK test case on this, which was successful, as I understand it, under the European Convention of Human Rights. It was still and more versus the UK, the so-called Mac Leible case. It is understandable that that did lead to some changes in legislation. Do you feel that that was a helpful move in the right direction? Yes, but probably it has not gone far enough. I am not a legal person and I do not know all the ins and outs of the law. I can only talk from what I experienced. The bottom line is that I could go nowhere because there was nowhere open to me because I could not get legal aid and I could not afford to find and appeal myself. I can understand the issue around not getting access to justice, but the other point that I picked up on conversations that we had earlier was that you felt that there was a lack of expertise in the area and that you really needed to go to some of our larger cities to get lawyers who are specialised in that area. Would that be fair comment? Yes. Again, from my personal experience, there was absolutely nobody in Inverness who was willing to even touch the case or look at it. At least the people who did look at it could see where I was coming from, but again, there was nothing they could do because that is just the way the system is. Obviously, I am aware of my earlier comments just to talk about the wider situation in Scotland. There may be some issues around provision of justice in rural areas perhaps that we need to have a look at as well on this committee. For me, I feel like I have said in my petition that every person should have equal rights, regardless where you are or what the case is about. I believe that everybody should have the same right in challenging a court decision. I just believe that the means should be there to do that. Finance should never be a barrier to challenging a court decision. Thank you for that, and I bring my colleagues in. A couple of brief points from a briefing. It is not the case that legal aid is not available for limited cases of defamation or, indeed, encounter claims of defamation. How would you determine—I know that you said it was a broad sweep, but clearly that opens the door for what might be bona fide, certainly in some bona fide cases, but some not so bona fide claims of defamation. How would you or would you differentiate between the different elements of defamation? Well, no. Again, I think everybody has the right. If a person knows that they have been judged wrongly and there is nothing that they can do about it, how can anybody justify that? How can the justice system say, well, that's right? It's okay for the odd one or two to slip through the net, basically. I understand what you're saying, but there has to be some determination, because we know that there's a broad sweep when you apply defamation in terms of costs, relevance, and so on. Do you not agree that there has to be some determination as to what is a bona fide counterclaim or, indeed, a bona fide claim in terms of the legal aid act of 2007? Well, I'm not a legal person, so there are some of the things that you're saying, but as far as I, for myself, I believe that I have been defamed because the judgment against me is on public record, it is on the internet for anybody to read, and if there was any way that I could counterclaim against that, I would. I know, we can't go into your specific case, but we all have different frames of reference when it comes to looking at what is defamatory statements or not, and some of them might be in defamatory in my eyes, but might be true in somebody else's eyes. Do you not agree that that's part of the issue is rather than have a sweep up everything, that there are cases that are all drawn not being defamatory? I think that is where the court, you know, that's part of the whole process of going through the court to try and get to the truth of the matter and what is defamation and what isn't defamation, but if the wrong decision is reached, then there should be provision there for anybody to challenge the court decision. It's just like it's the door is closed, and why should defamation be any different to any other case? Well, one question, when you throw, the door might be closed to some, but if you throw the door open, we might be considering cases that don't meet the criteria that you're looking for. Thank you, convener. I think perhaps for clarity, and I think this is the point that you're effectively saying, is that there is some funding available and civilly-laid for advice and assistance, but that doesn't extend to representation in the court unless there's some much wider arching issues. I think that's the issue you're getting at. Can I ask further questions and points from members? The point that we're at now, then, is at the summation point where we decide what the next step is, so we've reached the end of the door for questions and points. It does seem sensible for us to ask the Scottish Government, the Scottish Legal Board, the Lost Types Scotland and perhaps the Scottish Human Rights Commission for views on this particular petition. First, I'll ask if the committee are agreeable with that course of events, and secondly, whether there's other people we should be writing to. In general, I think I'd seek, if I could, further clarification of the ECHR commentary particularly. We've had the situation in the case that you've mentioned, convener, but I'm not too sure that it is being or maybe interpreted correctly. I think that my understanding, I think that it was in the spice briefing, is that following the sort of test case of Steele and Morris led to further legislation in Scotland was my understanding in the spice briefing, but we can certainly get further clarity from Spice. Please take the on the action that you have mentioned. I suggest that when writing to the Scottish Government, could we seek clarification on what the term exceptional circumstances apply in relation to defending the situation that Ms Fraser brought to us today? Clearly, in the spice briefing, if we go back to the spice briefing, there is a reference made to the, I think it was then, Justice Minister in Parliament in 2007 made a statement that funding would be made available in exceptional circumstances, and I think that took on board the situation that you mentioned in terms of the legal case around a liable situation, but clearly it would be useful to find out for a clear definition of what exceptional circumstances would be, because Ms Fraser's outlined circumstances where she's found herself, and I know there are others who find themselves in similar circumstances where they feel the judicial system and justice is not served because they cannot afford to challenge decisions because the legal aid board is taking a decision not to fund the actions. So it would be useful just to get a clarification on quite clearly and also possibly ask how many exceptional circumstances have there been since the legislation in 2007 was enacted. Not the first time Mr Wilson's predicted my recommendation. I think we need to look at the actual numbers, but the main point I would emphasise, as pointed out earlier, is that there is some funding for advice and assistance, but advice and assistance is no much use to you if you're not able to representation in court. It's very, very difficult in a civil or criminal case to represent yourself, and the old cliché is, if you represent yourself, you've got a fool for a client, is a very key one. It's very, very difficult to represent yourself in respect of how good the advice and assistance you've been given in advance is. Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, convener. I was actually going to make a similar point to John Wilson, because I do think that if we simply write to the various bodies that we are suggesting on the most general principle underpinning the petition, then the response we're going to get is that there are no plans to change it because it would open the floodgates and it would be unsupportable. So I think it would therefore be interesting in writing to them to follow the point that John Wilson has done, but also to ask what discussions or consultations there have been, meaningful consultations or discussions there have been about the potential expansion of the criteria that would allow for a degree of additional support to be offered in circumstances where I think there would be, in the sense that we've understood the evidence this morning, likely cases we would wish to have seen supported as opposed to those that could end up simply tying the courts down in unnecessary time, and in fact proving an obstacle to other justice being progressed. That's a good point. Are committee members agreeable that we take that course of action? Any further points that we've missed that committee members wish to raise? Well, thank you for that. I want to thank Catherine Fais for coming along and providing evidence for us. As you can see, we've taken this petition forward. We will write to these various bodies, we'll get the information back and the clerks will keep you in touch with on-going developments on the petition. I want to thank you again for travelling through today and taking the time to come and give us your evidence and answering the questions. I'll suspend for two minutes to allow our witness to leave. If we could resume our committee, with the committee's agreement, could I defer for a few minutes the PE1098 and PE1223? It's just that Church Stevenson was hoping to come, as you know, to Church Stevenson's. We've been very strongly supporting this petition and there's a lot of expertise in this area. Obviously, if he doesn't come within the reasonable time, because I'm aware we've got the petitioner here, I don't want to delay him as well, so perhaps if we could give it half an hour and I'll take the other petitions, would that be agreeable? Thank you. The next petition is PE1506 by Alison C. Tatum, half the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, on renaming Glasgow Presbyter Airport to Robert Burns International Airport. Members have been noted by the clerk and the submission from petitioners. Could I, I think particularly like to ask to Brody to speak on this, because I know Mr Brody is taking a very keen interest. I know other members have as well, but I will start with Mr Brody. Thank you, convener. I think more than a keen interest. I made my position very clear. While I understand the position of the cabinet secretary regarding the name in the short term, we've now had a situation that was predicted by some, me being one that Glasgow airport, Aberdeen airport and Southampton airport would be up for sale, largely because of Heathrow Holdings investment, they hope in the next runway. That provides a dilemma because what I would not wish and I'm sure those that support this would not wish to happen is that we get confused with what's going on in Glasgow. The rationale behind Glasgow Presbyter Airport, and I said it would, you'd never use that again some months ago, but Glasgow Presbyter Airport was largely because of the airline or the major airline that used Presbyter Airport and it's belief that the attendant name of Glasgow would attract more and more passengers, just as it happened in Frankfurt, Sweden, France, et cetera. My view is quite clear and I've made it very clear that this airport will be called at some stage Robert Burns international airport. It seems inequitable that we have a situation where Belfast, and I was over there just three weeks ago, has its airport named after George Best, we have John Lennon, we have Charles De Gaulle and yet we hear we have the icon of Scottish culture known whose words are translated into 195 languages across the globe. So while I understand the continuity while the airport is going through some change, and I have to say that there are some exciting things happening, but I do believe and I will do everything I can personally to make sure that this petition that comes to fruition and ultimately that airport, that successful airport, will be named Robert Burns international. I think that Jackson Cowell, you've got an interest to this. Yes, convener. I listened to what Mr Brodie says with interest. At the end of the day, however, two things have happened since we last considered the petition. The first is that there have been further commercial announcements regarding the actual operation of the airport, which have been hugely detrimental to the likely success of the business plan that we are hoping will yet manage to secure the future of this airport with the removal of a very significant level of passenger traffic. There are different views about the way in which this airport should proceed with many feeling that it's most likely successful route is as a freight hub rather than a passenger transport hub and that in partnership with Glasgow there could be a successful future for it in that light. The second thing that's happened is that the Management Committee charged with the responsibility of securing the future of this airport has considered the very nature of the petition and concluded that that would not be in the best interests of any plan to secure the future of the airport. A decision that has obviously been endorsed by the cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, not someone I would normally agree with, but I understand and suppose that she has taken all this information into account together with those people who've been charged with the responsibility for taking this forward. It's concluded that that's not the way to go, in which case I feel we should close the petition. Mr Brody, I think you wanted to... It's just on the point that has been made. I think those of us that have been perhaps a bit closer than Mr Carlaw to what was going on would understand why Glasgow airport requires to increase its attractiveness by increasing its revenue. While I agree that the key elements of maintenance, repair, overhaul or maintenance at Presswick are very important, it escaped his notice, not just the other two items that he mentioned, but the Presswick has now been nominated as one of the potential six spaceports, and we have to look forward as to what's likely to happen. While I understand in the short term the need for continuity with the attraction and there are interests already being shown both in terms of the freight, the repair and overhaul facility and indeed passenger at Presswick, I think that I would wish that we would keep the petition open and monitor this on a regular basis. The slogan burns in space doesn't really altogether sit comfortably with me as a metaphor for even carrying it. I'm not surprised. I'm reluctant to intrude in family grief. I think that it might be useful for perhaps other members of the committee to get involved. Mr Wilson, do you have any suggestions for a ways forward? Since you're saying that I've been very diplomatic today, as I always try to be, particularly with yourself, convener, I think that Chick Brody is in many respects right that what we might have got from the Cabinet Secretary is a decision that didn't fully consider the views and aspirations of particularly the people of Ayrshire, but also the people of Scotland, because after all this committee today is meeting in a committee room named after Robert Burns. We took a decision as a Parliament to name the committee rooms and number one on that list was Robert Burns, and this is why we now meet in committee room one that is now known as Robert Burns committee room. So there are views out there that actually support the move to name the airport after Robert Burns because of its location, because of the world's renowned reputation that Robert Burns not only has as a poet, but also the views that he actually expouses about Scotland and the views that are expected all over the world, so it is a well-known name. Other airports and other locations have decided to name their airports after famous sons or daughters of those areas, and I think we should write to the Cabinet Secretary once again to ask whether or not there would be a possibility of her to reconsider the decision and to enter into dialogue and seek views of others, not just commercial views, but the views of the people in and around Prestwick and Scotland to find out whether or not it would suit the best commercial sense for that airport to be renamed after one of Scotland's most famous sons. Can I just bring us in? I will bring you in, Mr Carroll. Can I ask David Torrance what your view is in John Wilson's suggestion? I'm happy to go along with that and keep the petition open as well. Thanks, convener. I'm not right sure. We could write to the Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy First Minister, sorry. However, we have done that and she has given our decision, so I'm not really sure on what's going to overturn that decision. For her in particular. Thanks, convener. I mean, I certainly take note of the Deputy First Minister's comments at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in June, where she stated that it was concluded that there are strong commercial reasons to retain the Glasgow-Prestwick airport name rather than to rename it the airport. However, rather than to rename the airport, so taking that on board, you could perhaps argue that there is a slight argument to contact the Cabinet Secretary once more to see if it would be possible to, while retaining the Glasgow-Prestwick name, have a sub-name, if possible.  Well, I think we have a majority for that, but I'm bringing in, for one more time, Mr Carlaw and Mr Brody, but I said I really don't want it on the huge debate on this, but Mr Carlaw. I just want to make the point that it is the commercial future of this airport that has got to be the thing that is secured. The Cabinet Secretary, together with those people charged with the responsibility of securing the commercial future of this airport, have concluded that changing the name would not help. And whilst it is true that other airports have changed their names, they have usually been successful commercial airports who, in tribute to somebody, have subsequently changed the name. They did not change the name to JFK in New York because it was a failing airport. They did not change the name of Charles de Gaulle in Paris because it was a failing airport. The name change took place in tribute to the individual concerned, not to secure the commercial future of the airport. I think that it is wrong for us where those charged with the responsibility have concluded that the commercial future of this airport is best secured by retaining its name, argues to the contrary. Thank you for that. I can allow Mr Brody in very briefly, but I said I really don't want to have a huge debate on this. I think that we could spend a number of hours debating airports across the world if we know so. That will be very brief. I mean, one of the disappointments of Prestwick in the past has been the lack of marketing and the selling of its capabilities, which are quite considerable, and the branding is very important. Of course, Mr Carlaw, and I don't disavow that the cabinet secretary, Deputy First Minister, took a decision on the basis of short-term continuity of commercial needs. It does seem paradoxical, however, that the theme of the airport is going to be based on burns. I thank members for that. I think that that was quite an interesting argument. Clearly, there are different views on this, but, nevertheless, there is a majority suggesting that the petition will be continued and we write to the Deputy First Minister on the terms outlined by John Wilson. If I can go back to our previous petition, Agenda item 2, which is PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingsea Community Council, and PE1223 by Ron Beatty on school bus safety, members have a note by the clerk and submissions, I welcome Stuart Stevenson to the meeting, who is a long-standing constituency interest in Mr Beatty's petition, and I also welcome Mr Beatty, not least for his very great help earlier, an earlier petition that we had. I again thank Mr Beatty for his dedication, commitment in relation to this petition. He is a great example to other petitioners of just having a solid view of continuing a petition over a number of years, so thank you very much Mr Beatty for that. Mr Stevenson, can I ask if you could give us a very brief summary of the issues? Thank you very much, convener, and I think that you are perfectly correct to refer to this as a long-standing issue. It in fact was submitted to the committee 2,037 days ago. There have been 24 discussions so far in the committee, 55 occasions on which correspondence has been received by the committee, and on 26 October, when I then minister responsible for the subject appeared in front of the committee, we ended up with 16 pages in the official report. I am just going to very briefly quote from a couple of things that came from that. We had discussion and I, as minister at that point, made reference to the development of a toolkit, which I think has taken a little longer than we might hope. Perhaps one of the people who appeared in front of the committee on that date was chief constable Gia Nasi of South Wales Constabulary. He made the point in relation to the signage on school buses that the legislation is fairly broad and permissive. Local authorities could go much further in specifying what signage it would like to see in vehicles. Of course, the UK transport minister, Mike Penning, was there, and chief constable referred to what he said. The legislation about minimum signing and local authorities could go much further. There is a great deal more that could be said on the subject. The bottom line is that the heart of the subject is protecting our youngsters in their transit to schools. We have established beyond doubt, and we have heard it from the UK minister. We have heard it from chief constables in south of the border, chief constables north of the border and from the current transport minister and myself in my time as transport minister. There is no legislative barrier to more being done to make signage on school buses more distinct and offer more protection to children. We have simply got to stay on this case and find a method by which we can make it a duty, if not necessarily a legal requirement, on all our local authorities to do more. We have examples, and I have been speaking to Mr Beattie earlier this morning, where there are school buses that do not even carry the school bus sign on them, and I think that that is something that will be recognised around the table. We have to get a change of culture.  In the present climate, a policy that is going to deliver improved safety for our youngsters without spending large amounts of money is a policy that should be adopted without further delay 2037 days since the petition was tabled. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. That is very helpful. Obviously, there are three courses of action outlined, but before I look at that, I can ask if any committee member wishes to raise any specific points or if any view on other courses of action should take forward. Mr Beattie, I mean my views known about this. This has probably taken longer than the gestation of an elephant, and I defer to the superior knowledge of Mr Stevenson. I thank him for the clarity with which he presented the case for this continuing and for us being on the case. Thank you for that. Any other member, Jackson Carlaw? As simply to say, convener, I was encouraged by the letter that we received from Keith Brown, minister, in the sense that the principal point around which we seem to have made no progress with this petition, namely the agreement between the Scottish Westminster Parliaments, has now been resolved and the process can effectively begin to allow the legislative devolution competence to transfer to this place and for that and the other actions that are associated to proceed. I think that persistence has eventually resulted in our being able to make progress with the aims of the petition. I think that we should be pleased that that is the case. Thank you for that. Any other members wish to contribute? Our member is then happy with the courses of action which are outlined and are just to summarise very briefly. In relation to PE1098, we will continue to monitor the progress of the devolution of powers relating to seat belt provision and write again to minister of transport and veterans to seek confirmation that progress has been made in line with the timetable that was set out in the previous response that Jackson Carlaw attached on that. In relation to PE1223, we will write to COSLA and the Association of Transport Co-ordinate Officers to seek their views on the difficulty in identifying a local authority to take on the pilot scheme outlined in Transport Scotland's most recent response. Finally, in relation to the same petition, the committee wishes to write to the Welsh Government to seek its views on the specific issues of signage and lighting on school transport and what action is taken in this area. Are all members agreeable? I thank Mr Simpson for coming on again. He is now a non-vol member of the committee or perhaps an on-remember of the committee. I thank Mr Beattie again for his work, and I think that it has been excellent. Although Mr Simpson is quite right to say that this has gone for a long time, I do not think that it was about speed, it was about direction, Mr Simpson. We are in the right direction. Thank you very much, convener. I think that Mr Beattie is an example to us all and to all petitioners. I wish him every success. I am sure that he will not leave the case until he is delivered for the people who have led him to this particular cause. Thank you both very much indeed. If I can move on to our next petition, it is PE1509 by Lee Wright on Aberdeen, Timran, S-Rail travel improvement. Members have a note by the spice briefing on compulsory seat reservations and standing in trains and the submission. I have a couple points before I do that to ask of members of any general points that they wish to raise at this stage about that particular submission. I think that it was a particularly interesting one about a ticket that gives you a right to travel but not necessarily a seat, with the exception of Eurostar and, clearly, in high-speed trains, you would not want people to have to stand for any particular distance. The regulator does not seem to be that concerned about health and safety issues, but I thought that it was quite an interesting argument that we are making. Do members have any specific points that they wish to raise? Perhaps I could just ask—first, I understand that there is probably some pressure to close the petition, and I do accept that there has been an improvement plan put forward, which is certainly welcome. I had a couple of specific points. The first one relates to the lack of redoubling of the Inverness end. Much of the problem that we have on that line is that it is effectively—we lose the road equivalent—it is a single-track road. That is the main problem. For example, one train is currently scheduled to wait for 13 minutes at Nurn because it is single-track. Clearly, there are issues of doubling up the line, and there is a similar argument for the train south. I would just like perhaps if we could clarify that point with the transport minister. The lack of path for freight is one, and there is a climate change issue if we can get freight off the road and on to rail. That really helps to achieve some of our climate change targets. I will give a bit more detail to the cleric, but would members be agreeable if we could do a note with a view to perhaps closing this at a later period? If I move to the next petition, it is the Pt 1513 by Ron Park on equal rights for unmarried fathers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Obviously, there are a number of options that are outlined in the suggestions from the clerk. The key thing that I would put forward, and members will know that I did a social work background in my earlier life, is that I would be with some of the submissions that we have gotten. Clearly, the key element of Scott's law is that the best interests of children are the key focus that we should be focusing on. The other factual thing that I picked up in the submissions was that the vast majority of fathers in Scotland do have parental rights and responsibilities, which is quite important just to specify. There was some view that we should avoid some sort of parent-centred approach in our submissions in Scotland to be child-centred. I think that that is just picking up some key points on the submissions, but could I throw them to questions and points from committee members? That is absolutely right in terms of what we have to consider the children involved. My concern was that it should be parent-centric. When I look at some of the evidence, the fathers' rights are certainly less than those of the mother. I know that somebody made a point that it takes too to provide conception, but it is only one to deliver. That is, as we know, true. However, in terms of looking at a child, it does not stay as newly born forever. It grows and, as there will be requirements to ensure that a child's rights are protected. Part of that protection is, I would submit, having the relationship with the other parent—in this case, the father. I do, in looking at Professor Elaine Sutherland's report, that her request to empower the court to order DNA testing of the child so that the registration of the father should be applied in terms of the article that she has written. On that basis, it does protect the interests of the child on-going. I know that, in some cases, there has been mentioned, again, rape, etc. That, of course, is negated, but, by and large, if we look at 97 per cent of fathers are registered. I do not see why we assume that the other 3 per cent are all subject to cases of domestic abuse of violence. Of course, I do think that that right should be protected, and I support Professor Sutherland's views on her article, which I find most constructive. There are, I think, a lot of sensitivities, as well as practicalities associated with the petition, and there are a number of recommended actions that I see to us. I would, on this occasion, given the sensitivity of the subject and also that of the petitioner himself, I would, on this occasion, like to write to the minister asking whether, in hindsight, they potentially regret conflagrating those children who are born as a result of rape with those children who are born as a result of a brief but consensual relationship. I think that the petitioner was entitled to feel a certain injustice from that conflagration of those two categories, and I think that it was unwise and actually unhelpful. Thank you for that. Do other members wish to contribute? Are members then happy with the suggestions on writing to the Scottish Government? I think that there are four points there that I can summarise, if you wish, and the additional point with Jackson Carlaw. Just for the record, to summarise that, we are continuing this petition and we are seeking the Scottish Government's views on, first of all, the point that Jackson Carlaw raised, and the other four points are families need fathers Scotland's proposal that mothers should provide a reason when registering a birth without providing the father's name, that the Lost Society Scotland proposal that courts be given the power to order DNA tests when seeking to determine paternity, and that planned child loss suggestion at the question of whether all fathers should automatically have parental rights and responsibilities referred to the Scottish Law Commission for consideration of inclusion in the future programme, and finally, why it considers that the prospect of other raising proceedings to remove parental rights and responsibilities from one from which I said a brief consensual relationship would be unfair. Is that agreed that we action this petition this way? Thank you for that. I will just move on to our next petition. It is P.E.1514 by Norman Boney on making time for reflection representative of all beliefs. Members are not by the clock and the submissions. Obviously, I invite suggestions from members, but there is a potential course of action, which is that standing orders also provides that the committee may refer the petition to anybody to take any action that considers appropriate. I would recommend that the committee may wish to refer the petition and submissions to the Parliamentary Bureau to the account of its review. If such referrals made the committee to close the petition, but in doing so should know that any individual or group is able to contact their own MSP or the Poseidon officer directly with suggestions who may be invited to lead time for reflection. The next petition is P.E.1516 by Malcolm Lamont on referenda for Arkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Members have a note by the clerk on the submission and could invite contributions from members. There is a potential option set out, which is that the committee may wish to defer any for action that is the result of the referendum and the pen, since it is known. Can I ask the views of the committee on that course of action? Are members agreeable that we do that? I also think that we take recognition of the submission from the Scottish Government, which indicates a whole raft of proposed changes. I think that we should wait and see what happens. I am prepared to go along with that. I am not altogether clear of my own mind as an issue of principle whether the outcome of the referendum on September 18 is relevant. The issue of principle is whether we believe that the Scottish Government should be funding additional referenda for the islands. I imagine irrespective of the outcome of the referendum before us. I am not altogether clear that the case for that has been made, I have to say, and I would otherwise have been inclined to close the petition. The Government has made quite clear what its position is, and it does not support the petition and outlines a lot of work that has been done with our islands and our future, which is a very positive agenda that has a lot of cross-party support. We have a number of options. We have two options. We can defer this until after the referendum, or we can take Mr Carlaw's point and we can close the petition here and now. Can I get views from the committee on which option? I agree, and based on what has already been done, we should close the petition. Mr Wilson? Mr Tords? I would prefer that it was left open until after the referendum. I would be content to close the petition. I also add that it is possibly unfortunate that the petitioner did not consider bringing this forward when the Edinburgh agreement was being negotiated. I think that it is rather late in the day now to even be discussing this. Thank you. By majority, the committee wishes the petition to be closed, and that is the decision of the committee. The final comment today is on P1522 by Simon Brogan. I am proving bulk fuel storage safety. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. I think that we had a very good submission from Mr Brogan at a previous meeting. I mentioned then that I had actually met him wearing my regional hat, and I certainly know from discussions I had in Orkney just last week when this was raised directly to me. I think that there is quite a lot of issues across island authorities about safety. It is quite complicated issues about who is responsible, but I do note that the Scottish Government is looking to review the work in this area, which I certainly support. I would suggest that we give all the information that we have in relation to this petition to the Scottish Government, and then we will look at it again in the future. Are members agreeable? Thank you very much for that. I think that that is the end of our meeting. I formally close the meeting, and if members could stay behind just very briefly, I will allow members of the gallery to leave.


Hi, I'm Gene Bergman. I'm the Ward 2 city counselor. That's an area in the old north end and I've lived in the old north end for most of about of over 50 years and I'm really happy to be here with you tonight for the first of the Burlington Progressive TV hour or show that we've had since the the pandemic started. So I'm really happy to bring this back and what we're going to hope to do in the course of the time is bring guests here to talk about really important and current issues facing the city, maybe facing the region and the state and perhaps the country and get us to be talking about things that may not be talked about generally. So I'm really excited about the the opportunity to do that and the first show that we've got is with Tyler Pastorock who's over here, hi Tyler, and he is with people for police accountability. He'll explain a little bit more who he is but this is to talk about the petition initiated and ballot item that was placed on the ballot will be on the the town meeting ballot this March in front of Burlington voters so that people can vote on the creation of a community control board for the police department and in particular police discipline. So thank you for being here Tyler how about if you just sort of introduce yourself briefly. Sure, thanks Gene. Yeah so I'm Tyler Pastorock, I'm a resident of Ward 8 so I live in downtown and I work in Burlington. I'm also involved in some mutual aid projects in downtown and yeah I've been engaged with different issues and city politics in Burlington for a few years now and among those I'm part of a group called People for Police Accountability and so we got together in the fall of 2020 and we're the group that has kind of been carrying this police oversight proposal forward through the the initial city council process and then gathering petition signatures over the last couple years and getting it on to the ballot. Great. How about a little bit more background for folks on the people who've been involved and the process that brought us to you know having this on the ballot now so including the petition. Yeah so back in 2020 folks will remember that all over the country policing and police abuse really came into focus around the country and Burlington was no exception to that and so particularly in the fall of 2020 black members of our community led a movement that brought into focus the fact that our city charter gives the police chief unchecked authority over disciplinary decisions in the police department and this movement focused on some pretty disturbing use of force cases with public body cam footage where members of our community sustained some life altering injuries or death and so because of the the charter and that the police chief has the the sole authority over disciplined decisions the best the city could do at this time was pay one of the officers $300,000 to resign and so as this particular part of the city charter which is kind of like our city's constitution and its state law so yeah part of that focus and the police chief having sole authority there the sort of demands and asks shifted to addressing that issue in the city charter and establishing a board of community members that in cases of police misconduct would have the authority to conduct investigations and make actual disciplinary decisions but so essentially at at the time you know protesters were we're bringing this into focus and then certain city counselors were picking up on the issue and wanted to work with them to develop a proposal and then you know also at the time you yourself were we're offering some legal advising in terms of the you know wording and nitty gritty of the proposal to help match you know what community members wanted to to build and then also there were influences from organizations like the ACLU Vermont had some guiding principles on on effective citizen oversight and so this was really a collaboration of members of the community who have actually experienced harm by policing you know currently or generationally from our city counselors and legal experts and and other organizations yeah I mean it's interesting that people complain now I think very wrongfully that this hasn't been vetted there hasn't been enough process but as you said I was involved with the community group and also as a staff person for for the city counselor who was putting it forward Perry Freeman and so there was actually a lot of vetting there were a lot of meetings of the charter change committee there was a lot of public input there was a lot of testimony at the the city council there were also involvement with the police commission so the the the argument that the people haven't sort of seen this and this just sort of has come out of the blue is really a rewriting of history which is is unfair it is unfair to you it's unfair to to Perry it's unfair actually to the city attorney the city attorneys who you know looked at this and and and worked at on it so um I'm I'm talk to me then to the sort of not quite fast forward we um we get to a point where the council votes seven to five to put this on the ballot for the I think it was the 2021 ballot and the mayor vetoes it and his veto is sustained talk a little bit about what people did um after that because it's been now a year year and a half or so since yeah so at that point I mean at first it was a big win that the city council passed it and um a shame that the the mayor mayor prevented people in the town from from actually voting on the proposal and so at that point that group of us that you know we've been calling ourselves people for police accountability we decided well there there's this other route to changing the city charter and if so if a proposal gets five percent signatures from five percent of registered voters in Burlington which amounts to I think it's um the actual number is is just under 1800 people but inevitably some of them become invalid or or things like that and so we had signatures from just over 2000 people and so we spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours talking to our neighbors knocking on doors going to public events gathering signatures um and so we actually did that for the year of 2021 um and didn't quite have the organizing power to to make contact with that many people it's not hard to find people who are willing to sign it and in support of the proposal but it it just takes a lot of time to talk to that many people um so then at that point and so that's a whole year of public engagement and hearing feedback and thoughts about this proposal um and some of the amendments that city council had made when they passed it and so at that point we decided well you know at this point we've we've gotten all this input and there are some edits that we we think could be made to this and and to make it more robust if it ends up going to the state and to incorporate some of the feedback we've gotten um so we sat down again um with you know legal advising and and and made some edits to the proposal to improve it and incorporate feedback that was gotten and so then we had to start from scratch in 2022 um kind of kicked off on town meeting day you might have seen us out at the polls um gathering yeah gathering signatures and so we spent the year 2022 gathering signatures um and we were successful that time around um and so once we submitted those signatures and the city clerk vetted them and validated them then it goes directly onto the ballot for the 2023 town meeting day yeah and and I would say before we get into the the the next point that that process the process that you've got has been in the charter for quite some time and it's really an effective um democratic uh a process that people can use if their government is not being responsive so um I mean it's really to you guys credit is not easy anybody who thinks that this is an easy process is has not spent the time to do it uh obviously now it goes before the voters so what in general before we get into particulars um are voters being asked to approve and uh expand if you you know on the reasons for it so we can reiterate yeah yeah so this proposal it focuses on the section of our city charter that gives the police chief um disciplinary authorities and so the first thing that that's sole yes gives the police chief sole disciplinary authority nobody else in the town not the mayor not the entire city council uh nobody at all has the authority to to discipline officers um except for the police chief and so this focuses on that section of the city charter the first thing that it does is strike that language and then it starts fresh by establishing a board now before I go forward that language comes back the the police chief still has the authority to discipline of all kinds and is still the first the the police's internal process is still the first process for for disciplinary decisions and this board has the authority to to step in and review or take up cases as they see fit um so get into those details a little bit yeah so this establishes a board of community members that uh in cases of police misconduct at their discretion can review investigations initiate their own investigations and make actual disciplinary decisions um so that I think includes um uh suspension uh reduction in rank and removal um are the the the three options there okay and uh again uh why yeah so I mean so the this movement in 2020 really brought into focus what happens what can happen to a community and trust in our public safety systems when when people in the community feel unsafe with with police officers you know having this level of authority and and using excessive force or things like that and if the police chief doesn't act in a way that feels alignment with what the community feels the city government the community nobody in the town has any recourse for that or or solution to that um and so that has uh resulted or perpetuated a pretty strong you know distrust um in this aspect of our public safety system particularly among folks who have experienced harm historically and and currently um and yeah so this this would allow community members away to step in and say hey this is not a person that we feel comfortable giving the authority to to you know respond to mental health crises at my home or respond to incidents armed and um you know we don't feel safe with them having that authority and and gives us gives the community the option to to say no to that um I would say that you know this is a fairly uh I'm gonna say current problem in that you know it's not something that just happened you know like years ago or even like three years ago I'm looking at a channel five story that says it was just a nightmare Vermont mother outraged over police response to teen in crisis and it's it's a very very disturbing story that channel five news on February 6 2022 um wrote about the responses and if you read the story the the transcript of the story um you'll see just how many problems there are with the current oversight system um and just for for folks to to understand um you know we're talking about this but all of the charter changes are um going to be there there the actual language is posted on the city's website and it's in an official copy that you can find on the clerk's website there is such a document there called the official copy and that was part of the warning for the hearings that a lot of people came out and were very supportive of of this proposal and um every charter change is listed in it and this one in particular which I think is going to be number seven on the ballot um starts on page nine and so you can just read through it and so I mean what people are asking me when uh you know when I'm talking about this well what do you want to leave people with and that I say you should read the you should read it and then you should call if you have questions about it or questions about why you can call Tyler you can call me you can you know reach out to at least get an understanding of what it is that is said in here if you want more clarification about it and how it all fits together so um and if I could add um a really easy way to find the full language of this proposal if you type in people for police accountability dot com there's a website has the full language of the proposal and other you know descriptions of the rationale timelines of events surrounding police in our town um so that's available great great so um want to get into some of these details now yeah um and I think and I think that the the way that I I'd like to to approach it is actually by um posing the criticisms that the mayor has uh has raised and then ask you to give your thoughts about them so yeah we're just gonna run gonna run through some and that that sounds great if I could just build on the the why very briefly um regarding the mayor so this the problem with the police chief having sole disciplinary authority isn't a problem that only a minority of people think is an issue um back in 2021 after uh he vetoed this proposal the mayor himself acknowledged that this is a real problem um and he said and and this is a quote that the current charter is problematic and that there is urgency to amend it he further stated that such monopoly of important authority is an aberration in our democratic system and we are likely to face continued disputes over future disciplinary actions until this issue is addressed and he was right about that um and at the time he promised to address these issues with our charter uh and since then racial disparities and policing have persisted um but here we are over two years later and even the mayor's latest public safety plans have no mention of addressing this fundamental issue with the charter um and so it's really critical that we take this opportunity where thousands of voters have put this on the ballot um to to move this forward you know it's ironic it was just posted today there's going to be a resolution I will be opposing this resolution on this coming Monday night that actually blames the lack of progress on strengthening the role of the commission and and and oversight on this petition as if this was somehow the people's fault but as always it seems um an easy way you blame the victims happens all the time and so here you all put this in in December I think it was like at the end of December and it's like barely a month and a half and they've had two years and all of a sudden you're starting to hear from the other side this um desire for oversight I'm actually stunned but let's let's go over some of the ideas because we're running uh shorter of time they say that the proposal gives exclusive authority over BPD to the community board is that true no that's not true um yeah so the the existing processes for the police chief and internal investigations uh still stand that those processes still exist in the police department and in fact as long as those investigations and disciplinary decisions and processes feel sufficient to this community control board they won't have to do very much they're there to review that process and step in if they feel a need to I mean I would say and I'd point people to page 12 and 13 of the the document I was talking about where the details are laid out that the real focus is on extreme abuses of authority the excess excessive force abuse of authority unlawful arrests start stops and seizures and the like and those things the board can but it does not have to take jurisdiction on and if it doesn't then the chief gets to do what he does otherwise the board the board can and will and I think should take up those important matters because this process is much more open and transparent and will I believe build build truth but I mean trust in the community but there's a whole section on what the powers of the chief are in the disciplinary process and I would ask people to look at what the existing charter says because we took what exists now and plopped it right into the chief's authority so you know the the claim that it gives exclusive authority over bpt to the board or that it excludes the chief from all discipline is just flat out wrong and and I would just let you know that if the you know they talk about this having exclusive authority over the the department but that's also just flat out wrong because what this is about is in investigations of discipline and then the due process to figure out what to do when just cause is found to to do some discipline and so all of the other things the the management and control the rules and regulations the the directives those are all still with the department so I I'm actually stunned that you that they're making that claim they they claim that the board is empowered to discipline without input from the chief or any opportunity to appeal I mean yeah so so when a board when this board picks up a case they're going to be picking up cases that have already begun investigation with the chief in the police department and in order to truly understand what is going on they're going to need to work closely with officers involved with the police chief to understand these things um and in terms of appeal um the the decisions of the board can be appealed and they go to court um so but yeah both of these are are just untrue I mean I mean the the other thing and I I heard this criticism today um that this undoes all of the grievance um rights that the the BPOA have um and that also isn't true because any discipline that is given by the chief can still go through the arbitration and grievance process I mean what is brought into the court system are the decisions of the board but all of that authority of the chief that is still embedded in this proposal go the way that it has been so again whether people are reading the proposal or they're just deciding to throw whatever they can on the wall to to to try to defeat it um it really isn't fair and it's one thing to have a debate about the merits but I think we should have a debate about the merits and um let me let me let me flip to something in terms of another argument that they say because it gets to merits and gets to changes they say that this is binding on um you know on if you if it's a past it's binding and it can't be amended by the mayor or the city attorney or the city council but it still goes to the legislature right so talk about that yeah so it is correct that if this is passed by the voters city council and the mayor cannot make edits to it but the next step in the process of changing the city charter is that this goes to the state legislature and at that point the legislature deliberates in order to pass it they are in all likelihood will make changes to this proposal I mean that that's part of their deliberation process um I yeah it's it's hard to imagine they're not being changes made to this and you know we we stand by what is in this proposal and we'll be there to advocate for those things but um you know this is not all set in stone and so you know where opposers want to hone in on very specific nitty gritty details of the proposal and say this is why it shouldn't be passed there will be further deliberation and changes to be made here and what's critical is that you know we've been talking about police oversight for years now or officials not talking about it for years now after acknowledging it's an issue and so this is our opportunity to move it forward and some of these details can further be worked out at the next phase I mean I think that one of the issues and we have a very short period of time now so we won't get too much more is whether law enforcement people can be on the board there's a lot of opportunity for members of law enforcement now and who are previously in law enforcement to have input and impact on the entire process that the board would have be that advice be that the training um etc but um that would be an area that um you know there probably um could be some some changes and while you guys have not advocated for that um it would not you know that that's just part of the process that that we've we've got here um I'm trying to uh to to bring us close to a to a close because I know that time is definitely short um one of the arguments is that they that they the proposal creates no standards or requirements to give due process and let me just say without um Evan wasting time asking is that you know there's a hearing process uh under the board so the chief has his own process which is exactly what it is now but under the board there's a hearing process there's investigation there's the evidence production there's the whole thing when you think about due process you think about the right to defend yourself against charges and to bring people to come and speak on your behalf and to cross-examine witnesses and the like and that's what it is and when you talk about things like excessive force and I speak to you know cases that we've seen um this is critically important um and um it's uh it's just not fair and right to attack this proposal on on that basis um Tyler give us a closing thought short yeah I think I just again want to underscore um that we we've talked to thousands of our neighbors and have found overwhelming support for this proposal from individuals and local and statewide organizations alike we as a community put this on the ballot together and we have a rare opportunity to decide for ourselves to make our current policing system incrementally better for all people I hope everyone will join me in voting yes for community oversight of police question number seven on town meeting day and in sending a clear message to our elected officials that we deserve public safety systems that will keep everyone safe thanks Tyler I'll I'll be joining you in voting yes and I suspect that many many other people will as well well thank you for the time thank you cctv for the opportunity and I really look forward to uh to our next show and uh bringing as someone to talk about something as current and important as community control of police so thanks very much and have a great night and thank you good night


Income tax 2022-2023, business expenses, insurance. Let's do some wealth preservation with some tax preparation. Most of this information comes from the tax guide for small business for individuals who use Schedule C, Publication 334 Tax Year 2022. You can find on the IRS website, irs.gov, irs.gov. Looking at the income tax formula we're focused on line one income. Remember in the first half of the income tax formula is in essence an income statement, but just to outline other forms, schedules flowing into these line items. One of those, the Schedule C, having business income minus business expenses, the net business income from the Schedule C, in essence flowing in to line one income of our income tax formula. The Form 1040 noting that the Schedule C flows into the Schedule One that flows into page one Form 1040 line.