The Prime Minister got "egged"

on Tuesday. 
The girl who did it has, rightly, been charged with assault. She caused an elderly woman to fall. Had that woman broken a hip or wrist or otherwise been injured she could be facing a charge of "assault causing actual bodily harm". That  would  be a far more serious charge - and it would be a well deserved one. This girl is getting off lightly in my book. 
It is the second such incident of this election campaign. The "accidental" Senator - the one who got in on just eleven votes - was also assaulted in this way. Some might say he deserved it because of his views - and most right minded people would find them abhorrent. 
But no, you still don't assault someone. Instead, don't vote for them. Don't give them media coverage if something like that happens. (And perhaps, change the system so people with just eleven votes are not eligible when people with far greater numbers of votes don't get in.)
I was heavily criticised in this morning's paper for pointing out that someone who had been disendorsed by his party was still on the ballot paper despite making vile "jokes" about rape and other equally distasteful comments. If he wins - and he might because of the leanings in that electorate - then he will undoubtedly be welcomed back into the fold or, at very least, his vote will be accepted. Other candidates have been disendorsed, for lesser offences, but a hung parliament would see the vote of any of them accepted if it meant forming government or staying in office. I know all that and so does everyone else. What I was commenting on was the delay in disendorsing the candidate. The party leader only did it when it became clear that the story was a distraction.
And the story about the leader's mother...the one that he was tearful about? I think his mother was one of those hardworking women who, like many women in her generation, didn't manage to start out on the career path she would have liked.  
My mother would have liked to go to university. Like this man's mother she would have liked to go to university but had to go to teachers' college instead. I was never taught by my mother but people said she was a good teacher. She finished her career as the head of what was known as a "Class 1" school - the top of the tree - so I must assume the assessment of her abilities was correct. 
The leader's mother wanted to  be a lawyer but first went to teachers' college and then taught. Now, note that word "first". She later did do a degree in law and did practice as a solicitor - and very successfully from all accounts.
The problem with the story? The leader left the latter half, the lawyer half, out of what he was saying. He was trying to give the impression that she didn't manage to do as she wanted because of her circumstances. In reality her situation was no worse - indeed better in some ways - than many women of her generation who were left to fend for themselves.
Was the media right to raise the omission? Opinions vary. My own view is that using a story about your mother in a less than completely open and honest way says something about you as a person. When you get upset because people question it then it says more still. It might have been better to say nothing.
I have to go out to deal with more people and their postal votes this morning.  I have to keep my mouth firmly shut. It has to be their choice on the ballot paper. I cannot influence it in any way. 
But, heavy rain is forecast. I will be a wet, cross cat because I know that these people will be upset by the leader's behaviour.