Dear Bank you really

have no idea have you? 

This should be a simple transaction. Here is the bill. We wish to transfer the money I take out of this account to another account in order to pay the bill...and you cannot do it. You cannot do it because the account is with another bank.

This is what you tell me. Your bank is connected to the other bank via Osko but you cannot do it. I can pad over to the other side of the bank and they "might" do it - for a fee. Alternatively you can (please make sure you are sitting down) "write (me) a cheque" for a smaller fee. 

I opted for the cheque as there was no choice. Internet banking will not do this particular transaction so Middle Cat and I will have to wait.

And we wait, and we wait. We wait because the young man behind the counter is on his first day in the job. He has no idea what to do. He cannot even update the details I give him. He does not know how to feed material into the electronic reader. When he fails that test I tell him, "Think of the machine as a person. It reads that sheet in exactly the same way - from left to right and from top to bottom." He looks at me bemused. How do I know so much?"

"Turn the screen around so I can see it," I tell him. He looks fearfully around and the person next to him - dealing with another "complex" issue tells him, "Let her see it. She seems to know what she is doing."

I get him to a point where he can find the money which has been deposited on my card. It means we can make the actual payment. The "teller" next to him now comes to help...but insists on him doing it all himself. They both forget to ask for my "photo ID" and I pass it over telling them, "You need to write this in there or it will not go through."  Oh. The new boy painstakingly fills in the details.

By then I feel old enough to have forgotten the relevant PIN. Middle Cat heaves a sigh. I try to be nice to the new boy. Has he had any training at all? No. 

The cheque gets written. We head over to the other bank - outside the main shopping centre. Middle Cat takes the cheque in and deposits it. 

Back in the car she looks at me and says, "The nice woman in there wanted to know why the other lot had not used Osko."

We would like to know too!  

People need spaces to

pursue their interests. There are few people who would disagree with this but it has become even more obvious to me over the past few days.

The Senior Cat left a large shed full of machines and timber and the things that go with "making stuff from wood". My brother was bequeathed the machinery. He took what he could use and what timber he could use. A young nephew-by-marriage of Middle Cat took the other machinery and some more of the timber. The priest at the local church, encouraged by the Senior Cat, took up woodwork as a hobby and he took more timber. There were also screws and "biscuits" and glue, paint, tools and the like. Much of it has gone.

But there is still timber in the rafters and along the shelves at the side. It would make wonderful toys. The "Toymendous" group would like to have it. This group makes toys, lots of toys, for charity. They make very, very good toys and they always need timber. Middle Cat called them. They have nowhere to store the timber, indeed nowhere to go themselves. Their current location has to be vacated by October.

I have a valuable collection of craft books. I will not have room where I go and I offered them to a local group. I did not get a response to either email which was strange - and discourteous. It is a group I know well enough to know they could use the collection. Yesterday I phoned and was curtly informed they had discussed the matter and did not want the books. They have "no room" for them. I was not even thanked. Perhaps they were embarrassed at having to turn down something of value to their members?

Groups like this need spaces. They need room, permanent room. We spend millions of dollars each year on sporting facilities. Many of them have "club rooms" built with funding from government. Sport is considered to be a good thing, something that brings people together in an active and healthy way. Ask the government to support an equally important activity that brings people together, supports mental health, gets people out and involved and there is "no money". 

It is time to rethink our priorities when it comes to people. We need to stop assuming that everyone is interested in and capable of playing sport or that, at very least, they want to watch it. It is time to get people involved in other activities as well.  

It is more difficult to volunteer

now than it once was.

I was interested to read a front page story in this morning's paper about the concerns of our "Country Fire Service". The CFS is the organisation which is responsible for fire fighting in rural areas. They do an absolutely essential task and they do it almost entirely on the willingness and skills of volunteers. To be a CFS volunteer requires commitment and training. It is not one of those things you can simply "go out and do".

The CFS is, rightly, concerned about the increasing number of times they are also being called out to do things the police or ambulance services would once have done. "There's been an accident? Is it serious? Look we haven't anyone available right now but let's call the CFS and get them to send a vehicle out to check." Some poor individual on the volunteer roster then has to head out and check, make some decisions they are likely not qualified to make and then send in a report. 

It is not what they are there for. It is not what they are trained to do. It is not a responsibility they want or the police or the ambulance services want them to have. It is a manpower issue.  

The CFS is struggling to retain volunteers and get new recruits. This is hardly surprising.

I thought of all this because I volunteer in other places as best I can. Many years ago now I began as a volunteer at the state's annual show. This was something I never intended to do but it was one of those things which happened. I am not indispensable, far from it. Earlier this year, when asked to go again, I almost said no. The reason for that was the increasing requirements on volunteers. When I began I simply arrived and was told what to do and how to do it. It was the same for everyone. 

Three years ago they introduced a requirement that everyone did an "occupational health and safety" certificate. It is a very basic thing but (1) it takes time and (2) it is almost entirely irrelevant to the area in which I work. There are other questions they could ask which would be far more relevant. None of us are driving a fork lift or operating electrical equipment or using liquids. Nevertheless we all had to be able to show we had done the certificate and we have to carry it with us.

This year we were told that not only was that necessary but we all had to have a valid "working with children" certificate. As volunteers we do not have to pay for these but again they require time to fill out the form and follow it up if the police do not get back within a certain time.  I have mixed feelings about these certificates. They do not prevent the wrong people from working with children. It simply means that those with ill intent have not yet been caught or convicted of any offence. Still, I put in the paper work. I have my certificate. The really strange thing however is this, in the area in which I work children are not allowed. They are only allowed in an adjacent area if they are under the care of a "responsible" adult - a parent or guardian. 

There are "training days" run by at least three organisations of my acquaintance. I recently refused to do something for them because I would have been required to do a training day in order to go and help people who have "left their glasses at home" fill out a form... something I have been doing for years. The person in charge understood but the "training" is completely irrelevant to anything I would ever do there - or even could do there.

I was speaking to someone on Tuesday about this. Like me she has volunteered for a long time and said, "I have never even spoken to a child there." The certificate is just an added burden for her. It may even be that some people will simply cease volunteering. This will not be because they have done anything wrong and cannot get the certificate. It will be because it is "just another thing which makes it difficult".

Now I just wonder what one of those many committees charged with such things will think up next. It might be better if they volunteered instead. 

 

Do we really need the Olympics?

Anyone who knows me also knows I am no sports fan. The closest I come to being interested is a faint (almost invisible) interest in cricket. Cricket interests me more because of the psychology involved than the game itself. I do not know anything about the finer points of the game. Yes, I have achieved one thing in the field of sport which would leave many cricketers envious and disbelieving. I assure you however that it was not intended. It was a fluke, a lucky accident. (Nevertheless I have dined at High Table at an ancient university on the strength of that incident.)

But sport apart from that does not interest me. I could not care less how fast, how high, how long or how anything someone can perform on the field or in the pool or on the water. If people are foolish enough to spend years of their lives training for such events then it is up to them but do not expect me to admire them for it. I would prefer they dug gardens and walked dogs and created more permanent things, beautiful and useful things. 

Sport is expensive. It is very likely that some of our "best athletes" will never see the Olympics, never compete in them. They are hidden away there in the background. They run and jump and swim for the fun of it. That's fine with me. It may well be that they are actually much happier than those on whom there is an enormous pressure to succeed. We apparently have a fourteen year old competing in "skateboarding" of all things. To me that is simply wrong. She should be in school and skateboarding should be something which is simply "fun". 

I see sport as a form of war. The pressure to "win" is too high. It is why drugs are used and why people go to great lengths to try and hide this. Like it or not there is a limit to the breaking of records. Without the assistance of drugs we would have ceased to break records long ago.

So news media please don't fling the "how marvellous all this is" in my face. It is not in the least bit wonderful. I have better things to do with my time than watch people "perform". There are books to be read. I am going to escape! 

An 8am knock on the door

was not likely to be good news or it would be somebody needing something. It was not good news and somebody did need something. 

Another of the dog walkers was standing there. He had one of those small "dolly-trolleys" used to cart boxes and the like around. On it were several large boxes. 

We looked at one another and I could see he was very, very distressed. I was about to ask if he needed some help when he burst into tears. 

As I had absolutely no idea what the problem and I did not even know his name the idea of giving him a comforting hug did not seem right. I just put a cautious paw on his arm and waited. He did not seem to object to that.

After a moment he pulled out a handkerchief, blew his nose and said, "Sorry. It's still too much."

I waited. Asking any question seemed the wrong thing to do right them.

"It's our grandson. He... "

"Come in. If you want to tell me I'll listen. I'll put the kettle on."

"Tea please."

And so he sat there at the kitchen table. I made tea and I listened to an appalling story of a shy, sensitive teenage boy who had admitted he was gay. His father, this man's own son, had converted to a very strict religious sect some years ago. It was the cause of much tension in the family. I already knew that. Now it seems that, unlike the grandfather, the father was not willing to accept he had a son whose sexual orientation was not "normal". 

"I know you don't feel that way...that's why I'm asking. I've seen you laughing with R... and G... and  you talk about your cousin and his partner. I just wish D..."

D... had been shunned at home, made to eat alone and not spoken to at all. At school he had been bullied without mercy. It was all too much. 

In the boxes there were jigsaw puzzles. Seven of them are something apparently called "the rainbow project". Each of them are a thousand pieces. They do not look easy to do.

We talked about them, about how this man had planned he and D... should do them together. "I wanted him to know we accepted him, all of him."

Eventually we divided the jigsaws into two. The rainbow series are going to a local church which has a music and activities program for very young children. They will be used as a fund raiser for that program as it supports young parents as well. The others will go to the local library as it always has a jigsaw puzzle out for people to put together. Middle Cat will take them to both places today.

I watched this man wheel his empty dolly-trolley off across the street and wondered if there was any chance of him mending the relationship with his own son. Is it too late? 

 

So "Biden has quit" ?

 It would be a little more polite to say "President Biden has withdrawn from the race" or something similar. He is after all still the President of the United States of America.

His withdrawal was inevitable perhaps and I am relieved he has had the good sense to realise that. The question now will be whether it is too late. 

"They won't be ready," Mr Dog Walker told me this morning. (I was contemplating whether it was possible to add anything to the bins.)

I disagree. I am quite sure that, behind the scenes, people have been working towards this. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Anywhere and everywhere in the world there are presidents, prime ministers, dictators and more there are contingency plans. Who takes over if the top man (or woman) dies?

Sometimes that must appear obvious, the way it does for the monarchy in the UK or some other European countries. It is not quite as obvious as that here. The assumption is that the Deputy Prime Minister would take over - as they do when the Prime Minister is out of the country. In reality there would need to be an endorsement of the Deputy by the governing party. Would that always happen? 

Prime Ministers Lyons and Curtin died in office and Prime Minister Holt is presumed to have died in office. (He disappeared while swimming in the ocean and his body was never recovered.) There were "caretaker" Prime Ministers (Page for Lyons and Forde for Curtin) but they were never actual Prime Ministers. When Holt disappeared John McEwen was caretaker Prime Minister for just twenty-two days.  I have some memories of that but Lyons and Curtin were well before my time. It is more a matter of why McEwen took over than how that remains in my mind. The country went to an election soon after Holt's disappearance and things went on much as before.

Politics in Downunder has been reasonably stable I suppose. There was some jiggling around in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years but the government did not collapse. We went to elections which have always been fairly peaceful even if they are not quite as free from fraud and nastiness as people would like to believe.

I therefore look at America and I am grateful I do not live there. I am grateful we do not need to vote for a Prime Minister in the way they vote for a President.

So there is a "right to disconnect"?

Apparently there is a "right to disconnect", a right not to work outside your designated hours. It was brought in by the Greens and it went through parliament in a day. Workers now have the right not to work outside their designated hours except when it is "unreasonable".  It is also one of the many things which is making it unreasonable for small business to go on employing so many people. 

As small businesses are vital in keeping the economy running I wonder about this. I wonder about the work ethic of some people. It reminded me of an experience Brother Cat had one summer. He was working in a tyre factory in order to get enough to buy his books for university that year (in the days before computers) and the factory buzzer went for morning break. The men around him dropped tools and left a half-finished tyre in a mould. It would be wasted that way and Brother Cat, not understanding union ethics or the way things worked, was shocked to discover this was common. You stopped work as soon as the buzzer went. It did not matter what you were doing. It did not matter if something went to waste. The incident put him off-side with the men working there. To him it just did not seem the right attitude towards work.  

Brother Cat mentioned this recently and also mentioned he would not have reached where he did if, as a teacher, he had worked only when the students were there. It was the same for me and for Middle Cat. We had the example of our parents who worked long hours outside the school day. We saw that you went on working until what needed to be done was done. It is just one of those things about a job like teaching or nursing or many other "professions". 

The "right to disconnect" is of course about more than that. It is about being able to leave the work phone behind when you go on annual leave. Any good employer will make sure you can do that but is it really unreasonable to call an employee who has gone home for the night and say, "A water main has broken across the street and we need to get some things out. Can you come in?"  Surely things like that should be part of employment because it means the employee will still have a job in the morning. A good boss will make sure the employee is thanked too. 

Not so long ago Nephew Cat was given a "warning" because he failed to attend a hastily convened meeting. He happened to be flying back from Singapore at the time - on a work trip. It was impossible for him to be there and the "warning" was completely unwarranted.  It was the final thing that made him look for another position in another place.

The "right to disconnect" is something that might prevent an unreasonable employer from making even more unreasonable demands but they will be out of business before long.

 

Cash not card

and how many people reading this could actually pay for something that way?

The "IT outage" should be a wake up call for all of us. We press buttons and flick switches and we expect things to happen...and happen as they should happen.

What happened yesterday was not a short term power failure. It was an apparently catastrophic break down of communication systems, systems we rely on for just about everything.

I have lived without electricity. I was born in a tiny rural "town" which was really no more than a village in Upover terms. There was a severe housing shortage at the time. Building materials were in very short supply and so were the workers to build them. In rural areas this was even worse. The Senior Cat had just married and now needed somewhere else to live. He had been sharing a "room" - an enclosed verandah - with another male teacher but that could obviously not continue!

My parents were offered a galvanised iron "shack" on top of a hill. The farmer offered to cover the dirt floor with linoleum and put up a partition so that there were two rooms rather than one. My parents moved in. It took me nearly three years to arrive and they must have been worried about taking a baby into those conditions. It was much too warm in summer and much too cold in winter. It was windy almost all the time...and there was no electricity. I am not sure how Mum coped - but she did. She even did days of relief teaching and I would be cared for by one of the woman "down the hill".  

Just towards the end of the time there the Senior Cat, the farmer and a couple of other locals connected the windmill which pumped the water to a power supply of sorts. If it was windy enough there was some power but it was not reliable. My parents were moved shortly after that into government supplied housing in the town. The house, a fibro-asbestos one, is still there. At the time it seemed like the height of luxury. There were four such houses in one row and four more backing on to them in another row...and they all had electricity. Despite that we still relied on a wood burning stove for cooking and heating.

Fast forward another decade and the Senior Cat and my mother were appointed as the teachers in a two teacher school in a very remote area. Once again they found themselves without power - and without running water as well. We spent the first six, perhaps seven, months of our stay there with no electricity. Mum cooked on a wood-burning stove and did the washing by boiling water in a copper and wringing it out with an old fashioned mangle. The Senior Cat chopped the wood and brought in buckets of water from the "temporary" tap which was just outside the property. (The water came in an "inch" pipe across the top of the ground and was too hot to put your hands into on many hot days.) My parents prepared lessons at night under the light of kerosene burning lamps. We children simply went to bed when it got too dark to do anything.

Eventually we did get electricity - in the form of a 32v power plant. It was Brother Cat's task to check the batteries each morning. He was diligent about that but the power was still unreliable. We could not quite believe it when, on moving two years later, we went to a house where you could simply reach out and push something and a light came on. Three years later though we were back to a 32v plant for another four years.  

I think it has made all of us more aware and hopefully more appreciative of our power supply. Perhaps it is also why I always carry some cash with me. I have never had a credit card. I do have a debit card but that small amount of cash is designed to "get me home" or "get something essential". If I had needed to go shopping yesterday in that foul weather I could have bought milk or bread in a "cash only" lane. It might be "old fashioned" but it has worked for centuries.  

I would not wish death on

anyone. The comments made by some about President Trump are something I find deeply disturbing even though I am equally disturbed by the idea that he may once again be President of the United States of America. 

It would not concern me in the least if he was found ineligible to be President again but I cannot wish death on him any more than I can wish death on other people I regard as dangerous or incompetent - or both.

I said that this morning to the dog walker who often comments on such things. He is of the view that "someone should shoot the b.....". I cannot agree. He is also of the view that the current President, "should go with a bit of dignity..."  Yes, perhaps he should...and he possibly will.

I thought of these things as our morning conversation moved to another topic, "What about this mum with the disabled kid - the one who needs somewhere to live? Wouldn't it be better to just euthanise the child because he's just going to be a burden isn't he?"

I suppose I should have known this would be Mr Dog Walker's attitude. He is one of the many who think that way and one of the few who will actually say it outright. His own children are just fine thank you very much.

And I went back to thinking of "The Empty Hours", the book written by my late friend Maureen Oswin. I remembered the day I first met her. She came to talk to us about her work uncovering the horrors in the old style institutions for children with disabilities. More than fifty years ago there were still too many of those.

"These children are loved," she told us but we found that hard to believe as she went on to describe what she had seen and written about.  It left us in shocked silence.

I went on to work in the same research unit as this remarkable woman. We became friends as she struggled to write what she wanted so desperately to say. Sometimes she would wander in to my little corner and ask what I thought of something she had just written. In all of it I saw those first words, "These children are loved." 

I think of that when I look at the so-called leaders who become dictators and despots, who do more harm than good. They were once children who were loved by someone and some have children who love them. It matters.

 

The CFMEU

or Construction, Forestry, Mining and Engineering Union should never have been allowed to develop in the first place. It is much too big.

It is also much too powerful. Anyone with any knowledge of past politics in this country knows that the "Labor" party grew out of the union movement. It is still beholden to the union movement. 

Unions once had a place in society. They really did speak for the workers. They were essential in making sure workers really did get better wages and better conditions. In the past the working conditions of many people in so-called "civilised" countries were often appalling. 

Not everyone was like my paternal grandfather. We have a photograph somewhere of Grandpa and his staff in the tailoring business. There are thirty-eight people in the photograph. Most of them are women. He had an extraordinary reputation for making sure they had the correct amount of annual leave and sick leave for the time. If women were married and became pregnant they had what amounted to "maternity leave" - not perhaps at the generous rates of today - but knowing they would be welcomed back. Many of the women also worked from home, coming into the business once or twice a week to bring in what they had done and take away more. His business was held up as an example of how things should be done. 

Nobody on his pay roll belonged to a union. They didn't need to belong but Grandpa was not opposed to unions.  He thought they had a place "until government regulates employment". 

There is plenty of regulation in place now. The law of employment gets more and more complex. Even "volunteers" are covered in ways that were unheard of not long ago. As a volunteer at the RAHS Show this year I need a valid "Working With Children" certificate and an "Occupational Health and Safety" certificate. I need to wear a "hi-vis vest" and shoes with "closed in" toes. 

It is all part of "keeping people safe" and it all comes about because of legislation. Unions no longer play the same role. Is it any wonder then that union membership has dropped to around 13% of the workforce in this country? Does anyone else find it extraordinary that any union is still genuinely powerful? 

The CFMEU is still powerful. The "construction" sector can quite simply bring the country to an economic halt...and they know it. Their members recently achieved a twenty percent pay rise in another state...along with other perks. Many of them earn more than a range of professionals who work much longer hours and take on far greater responsibilities. 

Now the CFMEU's "construction" division is "outraged" because some journalists have been delving into its murky depths and come up with some potentially serious pollution. Interestingly however the current government is not saying this section should be "de registered". Why would they? The Labor party benefits from the funds - and there are still sufficient members of the CFMEU to inflict hard economic damage on the country. 

It is all very different from the way Grandpa managed his business or what he thought unions should be about.  

When is late too late?

Is visiting at 9:43pm too late?

I am an "early to bed, early to rise" sort of cat. Even as a teenager I did not want to lie in bed. Most of my adult life I have had to be up and about early, often very early indeed. When you work on a global time scale rather than a local one you do not have the "luxury" of late nights and late mornings. 

I don't do as many of the 4am starts as I once did but the early to bed habit will probably be with me for the rest of my life. I also like to read in bed before I turn the light out.

So, last night I was tucked up in bed reading the next chapter in the latest library book and the door bell rang. It was 9:43pm. Who on earth would be calling at that hour? It had to be some sort of emergency or the police with bad news or....

It was cold out of bed too. I went to the door but did not open it. I called out. Someone walked off rapidly. It was all a little disturbing but I thought of two more possibilities. One was that it was my Chinese neighbour. He keeps distinctly odd hours as he makes his money by playing the international stock markets. He would not even be aware of what the actual time was perhaps - or not until he had already rung the bell. The other possibility was that someone had mistaken this house for a unit of the same number in the "court" opposite. That seemed more likely.

I still don't know. My Chinese neighbour might turn up this morning but a stranger visiting the court will not. 

I am trying not to think about the third possibility - that someone may think the house is empty.

All of this makes me wonder about visiting hours and when it is polite and proper to call on people or phone them. When do you do it? I try to keep phone calls before 8pm and visits even earlier. It depends on the person I want to speak to when I might call them in the morning. Later than 8pm feels like an intrusion of their privacy. Perhaps I am wrong. I don't know - and I still don't know who rang the doorbell.  

Our gun laws are

some of the toughest in the world. I am still not sure they are tough enough or that they would save us if someone was really determined to do a mass shooting. It would take more than that.

Even when he was announcing the change to gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre the Prime Minister of the day was not wearing a bullet proof vest. He was apparently told he should but, on consideration, declined. He knew the vast majority of us supported the move.

People really do not need guns in urban areas. If you want a hobby then find something other than "pistol shooting" to do. Farmers who have livestock perhaps need one to put down a badly injured animal as do wildlife officers. For years our police were not armed. They are now and I am sorry it is seen as necessary.  

All this makes me wonder even more at the way Americans see the need for so many guns. Even when someone tries to shoot a presidential candidate there are those who support their "right" to carry arms, indeed they try to say this is a reason why people should be able to carry a lethal weapon.

I wonder too how the father of the young man who allegedly tried to shoot Mr Trump and was instead shot feels. It was not the only death and any half way decent human being is likely to be beside himself in despair and grief.

There are still multiple pages about "the incident" in this morning's paper. I have not bothered to read them. One reason for this is because it is largely speculation and ill-informed "analysis" by people who really know very little. This is unlikely to help anyone.  My own view is that the "attempted assassination" (if that is what it was) will only strengthen Mr Trump's campaign, even a strong candidate on the other side would find it difficult now. 

I hope I am wrong but I don't think I am.  

"This is why we must never vote

for a President in a republic," one of the dog walkers has just told me.

It is very chilly out this morning. It was around 3'C when this conversation took place - I was putting the full to overflowing bin out. The dog, one of my "friends", was in a good thick coat but still looked cold. I wanted to get inside too but the other human seemed impervious to the cold as he stood there and told me this.

He was of course talking about the "attempted assassination" of Donald Trump. The event took up most of the news last night, so much so I ended up muting the sound and waiting for the analysis I knew would come.

The idea that the election in the United States of America is now as good as over really alarms me. If that really is the case then America is not a democracy. Nobody should win because someone has attempted to kill them. It would be better to ask why that happened. 

The analysis from David Smith, an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre, was about what I expected. This will do Trump's campaign far more good than harm. It may well be that the race is over, especially if the current President does not drop his bid to be the candidate. It will cause further divisions in American society. He went on to talk about other likely consequences. None of it made good listening. 

The dog walker agreed with this analysis. I do as well. I know I should not be commenting on American politics like this but I don't believe either man is fit to be President. It is a huge responsibility. 

One man is simply no longer able to hold down the job without visible and often embarrassing failures. I never want to say someone is "too old" but perhaps he is. He is not like the Senior Cat's father who worked until he could no longer see well enough to do his job. The Senior Cat went on teaching until three days before his death at ninety-nine. There was an Emeritus Professor at my law school who was well into his nineties, still very academically able and advising the High Court. The father of my cousin's partner was out doing field work in geography (something to do with land forms) several weeks ago. He is ninety and has only just given up his own office at the university. I would like to be as alert as them at that age.

The other man is, at least in my view, not fit to hold any sort of public office. He is a very poor loser. He has a serious criminal record. He lacks judgment and is impulsive with it. It also seems he believes he can act alone, that listening to advice is not necessary. He reminds me of the person who was once appointed to a position she could not cope with and how the rest of us suffered. Yes, she apparently had the qualifications for the position - on paper. She was the token female and the token person with a disability but it seems nobody looked at her track record. Had they done so they would have seen a litany of complaints about the abrasive way she handled people and her highly autocratic behaviour. 

I thought of all this. No, we do not vote for "President" in this country. The Governor-General is appointed by the parliament and the monarch of the day agrees. We have had one or two G-G's who have not been satisfactory but generally they have taken their duties seriously and done an excellent job. The latest appointment is a very political one but that comes as no surprise given the attitude of the present Prime Minister. Even so the new G-G may find there are constitutional restrictions that will not allow the Prime Minister to ask her to do as he would wish. Those things will go to the High Court - and that is, for most purposes, genuinely independent.

It is all very different from what goes on in America. I think I prefer it our way. There are serious flaws in our electoral system but we don't have to find those millions upon millions of dollars and vote for a President.  

Why didn't you ask the question

which might just have saved an awful lot of money?

There was a story in this morning's paper about a roundabout which is not fit for purpose. Big vehicles cannot get safely around it. Now that the word is out they are having to do lengthy and cost detours.

There is apparently no real concern relating to their use of that stretch of road. It was not put in place to stop them from using it. The roundabout was the alternative to traffic lights in a semi-rural location. It made sense...but the design does not make sense.

The roundabout was apparently designed by council engineers. Apparently they failed to ask one of the most basic questions of all. Who uses that intersection and for what purpose? It would not have taken more than a minute to discover that some very heavy vehicles use it. Those vehicles carry heavy and awkward loads.

The drivers of these vehicles did raise the issue but council engineers being council engineers they did not listen. It was going to be "all right" - except that it is not.

It makes me wonder if they will now listen to concerns about a problem near me. There is a local railway crossing at issue here. There are four stop signs in that location as well as the boom gates, a central island and a pedestrian island. One of the streets leading into the crossing already has turning restrictions. The other is used as something of a race track in peak hours as well as having some people park all day and catch the train to work. 

Now they want to put in traffic lights. Traffic lights won't stop the problem of people in cars queuing across the lines in a dangerous manner. They may prevent some people from failing to stop at the line but there will still be people who believe that, unless the boom gates are down, you can cross and often at speed. 

I need to use that crossing. I do not like it but there is no choice sometimes. Do I want traffic lights? Will it solve the problems? 

A resident of that street, a now retired railway man with an incisive mind has a much simpler and much, much cheaper solution to the problem. Even I can see it would work well. He has drawn detailed plans with detailed arguments. He has data to support the proposal. The council is asking for "feedback about the proposed changes". Will they listen to J...? He is not holding his breath and neither is the other retired railway traffic engineer he has consulted.

We will probably end up spending a great deal of money because those responsible for implementation of a solution are not asking the right questions - or listening to solutions.  

Being "in care"

should mean being in a safe place. It should mean being cared for by someone who actually cares about you.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that it does mean either of those things. We apparently have an increasing number of children who, having escaped one abusive place of residence, find themselves in another abusive place of residence.  

Even allowing for the exaggerated press coverage of the issue it is clear there is a problem and that the problem is growing. Why?

Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire situation. It might mean making some very hard choices. Is it really right for a fourteen year old girl "in care" to become pregnant, give birth, and even be encouraged to keep the baby?  

I think of my friend S... whose son H... has made what has to be described as a "poor choice" of partner. The girl in question is emotionally unstable, very "needy" and demanding. H... and his partner made the disastrous decision to have a child. It was perhaps done with the best of intentions but all it has done is make matters much worse. H...'s partner has now realised that having a child is a life-long commitment. There is a realisation that you give part of yourself, your relationship with others and much more. She is coming to realise that it also requires time, time she would rather have for other things. It requires a financial commitment and she would rather spend the money on other things. Her career is on hold for now at least. Constant calls to her partner because the child wants attention are not going to solve her problems. No, this girl does not have post-natal depression but she is telling everyone she wishes they had never had a child, that she does not love him, that he is a waste of her time and more.

S... is now, rightly, worried that the relationship will break down completely and S... and her family will be left to care for another child. S... is already into her seventies. It is a problem she does not need. Whatever happens it is likely this child will be cared for by family rather than go "into care". 

That may seem the obvious solution in this case but what of the girl who already comes from a situation where family relationships have broken down? Is she really mature and stable enough to care for a child, finish school, go on to further study or employment? The answer is almost certainly not.

In all this isn't it time to care about what happens to the child? I know adoption doesn't always work out well but it does work in more cases than not. Having a child in your care for years, as some do, always knowing they can be taken from you to be returned to their birth mother is emotionally draining. If you are doing the job properly then it is a situation where you are constantly on edge. It does affect relationships. I have talked to teenagers "in care" and they say the uncertainties cause too much tension.

Do we actually need more "tough love"? Would it help?  

I am facing homelessness

but I am still better off than the mother who is crying out for help in this morning's paper.

This woman and her husband have a profoundly disabled child. He needs machines and medical equipment to survive. It is said they are about to lose their rental property of eight years in September because their landlord cannot afford the repairs needed to make it safe. They are "priority one" for public housing because rentals will not provide for the sort of adaptations they need. 

There is obviously more to the story than we are being told. What made the story more newsworthy is that a member of the government department responsible for housing apparently sent an email to this woman. Nothing unusual in an email perhaps. There have probably been plenty of emails between the department and the family. This time however the writer suggested that the mother "manifest" a suitable house.

I had to look twice and then twice again at that. I thought I knew what it meant but it seemed so unlikely I had to check. Yes, the writer was suggesting the mother actually sit there and try to get accommodation by "thinking about it often and with focus until you receive it".  I am sure that is going to work! 

If I was a mother in that position I would be appalled and very, very upset that anyone could be that thoughtless or insensitive. Yes, there are some lazy. irresponsible, dishonest and thoughtless individuals who believe they "deserve" something like that and it can be got for nothing. This woman is caring for a child. I could see no evidence of tattoos or piercings and I am quite sure neither she nor her partner smoke around a child with breathing difficulties. The story suggests they are doing their absolute best for their child.

I do not suppose this sort of "advice" is condoned by the department in question but I wonder how anyone working in that area could think it was appropriate. Where are the social workers like the one I once knew, the woman who would visit a family and do the ironing for the mother while they talked? 

We have a housing crisis. I am part of it too but I know two of my siblings will make sure I have somewhere to shelter at night. I want to see a woman like the one in the story able to provide shelter for her child first. Something is very, very wrong if we cannot do that. 

So you want to "work from home"?

Why do you want to work from home?

One of my neighbours is complaining bitterly because his departmental boss has told him he must return to the office to work. He does not want to do this at all.

It comes as no surprise to me. Working from home suits him. He takes his children to school and often "picks up a coffee" in the shopping centre on the way back. He will stop for a chat if anyone is around. He walks the dog...and he collects the children from school. "Yes," he tells me, "I can do all that and put all the time in."

Perhaps he is putting the time in at other times but how effectively? I know about working from home. I have done since family circumstances caused me to come back and care for my parents in 1989. I had to actually create a job which allowed me to work from home. It was very, very fortunate for us that the Senior Cat's cousin was still in charge of one of the biggest government departments, knew the situation and suggested something that "might work". Yes, it worked and that department has done extremely well out of me because I had no choice but to sign the "contract". 

Working from home has not been easy. It requires discipline, especially when things are going disastrously wrong around you. It requires the capacity to make decisions without being able to call on the person at the next desk or in the next office or on the next level. In my case it requires the capacity to do your own research. Before the internet I had a day set aside to go to one of our universities to use (with permission) the resources there. I also saw students face to face on that day. It was not always convenient for me or for them but we had to make it work. 

The internet and all the connections now available have made it all much easier but Zoom meetings and tutorials are not the same as face-to-face meetings. Supervision is not the same. It is why I have turned down a request to supervise another doctorate. I just do not believe I can do the best for the student and that matters. 

Workers from home are now complaining about the expense of having to commute again and the cost of lunches. They are saying they find it more difficult to "maintain a healthy work/life style balance" and that all this is "stressful". At least some of these people say they should be paid more to work at home as they get more work done. I wonder about that.

Are at least some of these people now feeling the pressure of having to perform again? Is more really being expected of them? Yes, they need to pay for the commute to work but isn't that part of having employment? Not everyone can avoid a commute - builders, plumbers, electricians all need to commute. Not everyone can avoid the workplace - doctors, nurses, teachers, police, shop assistants and more need to be in their work places. Why should other people be any different?

And perhaps those who say they want to work from home are missing the actual point of having a job at all. They are being paid to contribute something for the benefit of other people and that almost always requires some form of human interaction.  It will be interesting to see how my neighbour copes with his part-time return to the office. He might find it has some benefits as well. 

Local councils are not

supposed to be "political" in Downunder. They are there to provide services to the local community. Their concern is supposed to be for the "other three Rs" - or "rates, roads and rubbish". They are also supposed to support things like library services, senior citizen services, activities for children and teens, the annual "Carols by Candlelight", the memorial gardens, parks, community awards...and citizenship ceremonies. 

I will repeat they are not supposed to be political - but our local council is rapidly becoming just that. We have had names changed, quite incorrectly, to "aboriginal" names nobody can pronounce or remember. It may well be that it is "respectful" to give indigenous names to places from time to time but, if so, then make sure you use the right name and not a name from some other tribe. Make sure you are doing it for something more than "well one of the local indigenous activists/spokespeople is saying that is what we need to do for reconciliation".  When the "local indigenous activist's" claim to be "indigenous" is no more than "one great-great-grandparent might have been..." I find it a little worrying expensive renaming of places with names that only might be correct is taking place. 

The same council has recently employed someone to teach a local indigenous language. I do not know first hand what was taught but a neighbour went out of curiosity and came back shaking his head. As he was once a teacher of such things at university level I have to take his word for it that it was "an initiative doing more harm than good". 

And last night there was a council meeting. One of the motions up for debate was "changing the date" of our national holiday. Apparently it would "save money" if we did the citizenship ceremony on a day close to it rather than on the day itself. It would save "about $9000" because it would not occur on a public holiday. According to the councillor putting up the motion this is also what our would be new citizens want. They apparently believe that this issue is so "sensitive" they do not want to become citizens on a day  that some find "offensive". 

I do not for one moment believe this. Very few, if any, would be new citizens would be that heavily influenced by the politics of a minority. Most new citizens I have met are simply relieved to have their permanent residence in this country confirmed. Actual citizenship with the duty to vote means safety and security for many of them. 

Council meetings are held at night and I have no way of getting there to listen to what is said but I will be interested to see the minutes when they become available. Will the councillor have succeeded in turning what should be a politics free occasion into a political statement instead?  

Dear Bank - it is MY money,

not yours. 

I went into the bank yesterday afternoon. This involves a long pedal there and bank. It is not inclined to put me in a good mood when I get there at the best of times.

The bank no longer deals with "customers" in the way it once did. There is a dragon at the door which might allow you to enter if they think your "business" is important enough. Apparently mine was, I was permitted to enter.

Then I had to wait and, once having explained what I needed to do, I was told, "You can't do that."

Really? It is my money. I would like to take it out then. Oooh you can't do that either...at least not straight away and we will charge you to do that. 

Now I know banks can work that way. There are no doubt good reasons for it but in this particular instance it was not what I had been told when the account was set up. The bank knew why it needed to be set up and what the purpose was. It is there in their records. I was told the money would be "accessible immediately at any time". It is not. Yesterday I was told that I "should not have been told" this.  Oh, thank you very much.  And that is as far as I could get. 

We now need to go through the complicated business of Brother Cat paying half the bill and me paying half. It is complicated by the fact that the person who is owed the money banks with a "credit union" which it is apparently impossible to transfer money to "bank to bank". That means Middle Cat and I need to go to another bank (where "customers" can still get cash) and get cash and take it to the "credit union" in question. 

All this is absolutely ridiculous. Writing a cheque would be much simpler - but the bank has now stopped issuing those as well. In all this they seem to have forgotten it is MY money they are using to make THEIR obscene profits. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.  

Is the Senator eligible

to sit in our parliament at all?

The current row over the hijab wearing Senator who has "quit" the Labor party in order to sit on the cross bench has shown how unaware most of us are about what the purpose of the Downunder Senate is.  It has become something it was never intended to be.

The original intention of our founding fathers, those who wrote the Constitution we are still using, is that there would be two houses of parliament. There would be the House of Representatives which would be the lower house and the Senate which would be the upper house. The lower house was to be the house where people would have the local representative they had elected to represent them at the local level. The upper house members were to be elected to represent the entire state.

It was never intended that the Senate would become a place of party politics. Of course it has become precisely that - perhaps to our detriment.  

It is because of this there have been calls for the Senator to resign and allow her place to be taken by someone from the political party to which she once belonged. That her actual role is that of Senator for a particular state and not a particular party is not being mentioned of course. To do so would be to acknowledge the Senate is not supposed to be a place of party politics. It is also what allows her to go on taking a place in the Senate. 

On the other side there is also an argument that the Senator herself does not understand her role. She is there to represent a state. She is not there to represent another country, another government, another political group, a terrorist organisation or any other entity outside the state she has been elected to represent. If she wants to do those things then she has to do them elsewhere - and not in her role as a Senator.

There is also the interesting (and entirely legitimate) question of whether the Senator is actually eligible to be there at all. The Constitution does not allow citizens of another country to enter parliament here. There are good reasons for that. The Senator is almost certainly a dual citizen and the claim that the government of another country has not permitted her to renounce her citizenship of it is not good enough. There were problems with other members of parliament not so long ago. It was politically expedient at the time to make a huge fuss about that. This time the matter has barely been mentioned. The reasons for this are surely something which need to be questioned? 

Those cashless debit cards

may not have been such a bad thing after all but will they be reinstated. 

There is a report out suggesting that the "cashless debit card" (which prevented some welfare recipients from spending all their money on alcohol, gambling and the like) might have been a good thing. The question of whether you should be entitled to spend "your own money" how you choose will no doubt again be debated. But of course if you are get a "handout" from the government is it really your money or is it money the government has provided for essentials?

I remember visiting one of the towns where the "research" was done. At the time my parents were the two teachers in a small school about seventy kilometres away. We went on a school excursion to the weather station and the loading docks. The train went there in those days. There was an "area school"...and more than one shop. The parents who had loaded us into cars to take us there (because there was no official school bus) filled the car boots with things that were not available in our tiny "general store". (And yes, we bigger children had wriggling younger children sitting on our laps all the way there and back. There were no seat belts back then.)

I remember all this and I remember the "aborigines". They roamed the town. They lounged around. At least some of their children were running down the beach and in and out of buildings. They were not at school. There was still a prohibition on selling alcohol to the indigenous population back then. Some of them had somehow managed to get some anyway.  

We quiet little country kittens came away from that sight feeling a little frightened. On the second occasion we visited the town it was to take my maternal grandmother to the little airport. It had been a very difficult visit. She had been with us for a very long fortnight. Mum used the occasion to make sure she stocked up on things we needed and she suggested we might all like ice cream. Ice cream was a real treat. It was not available where we lived. We children actually hesitated because there were aboriginal women begging outside the big general store and the "milk bar". They were moved on by the police as we were getting out of the car but the Senior Cat stayed with the car while Mum did the shopping. It was like that even then. 

People who live there say the problems are worse now. Some of those who were at first opposed to the cashless debit card now say it was a good thing. I have met indigenous women from another area who strongly support the card. It has given the women around them a chance to feed and clothe their children. Their children are (reluctantly) going to school. The levels of domestic violence and other crimes have dropped.

Is it just possible that those cashless debit cards are not as humiliating as being a victim of alcohol and gambling induced crime? 

A nice warm quilt

or two or perhaps just a few more?

I went to a craft fair yesterday. It was not something I had really planned to do. Yes I had seen it advertised and yes I did think it might be nice to go. At the same time I was all too conscious of the hot water issue and the fact that, even at a "concession" rate it would cost me something to do. No, I was not going...until Middle Cat told me she was giving me a "taxi" ride there and back (in her car). 

"Just get out of the house for a bit and go and look at something nice," she told me. 

I went. I also took my lunch. If you are familiar with such events you will know that they sell food and drink but why pay $10.50 for a sandwich made yesterday and $6.00 for coffee in a cardboard cup? My lunch cost me less than a third of that...and it was better food.

I had bought an "on line" ticket which meant I could prowl straight in. There was all the "cake decorating" in front of me. Yes, I can appreciate the skill involved but, even if there was actual cake underneath all that icing, I would not want to eat it. The good thing about all that though was the children's section and quite a sprinkling of male as well as female given names. I prowled on past people demonstrating this and that - a sewing pattern system, a card making technique and someone demonstrating a Japanese quilting technique were all there in first aisle. 

At the end of the aisle someone was selling yarn. I looked of course but I did not succumb. A friend here sells better yarn at better prices. This is a problem with craft fairs of course. They might tell you it is a "special" price for the fair but really?

I turned into the next aisle after talking to three people I know from previous such occasions. More cards of course, inks and dyes and glitter and paint too. I stopped to talk to the woman who was weaving on a very small loom. We looked at some of the work she had done. She mentioned a problem she had and I said, "Have you tried...?" That sounded like a possible solution...could I come back later and see if it worked? I went on as she had customers. 

There were inevitable men from that unmentionable company which tries to sell very expensive chairs to people. More Japanese quilting materials - beautiful but wildly expensive. It is just as well I do not sew. There were bag making supplies - where was my friend S....?

Ah, the quilts behind the low white picket fence. I prowled in and took my time. I saw S...'s mother and then S....three more people I know but I prowled alone. I could spend the time I wanted to look at workmanship, at colour, at design. I could read the small explanations next to each quilt and think about what I might have done. All of this could be done while I was still happy not to actually have to sew any of them myself. 

I stopped looking at them about two thirds of the way through. It was too much to take in. It was also time to eat something. As is the way with craft fairs I sat at one of the tables with people I had never met before. They told me about their quilts...and said they did not knit!

A little later I prowled back past the book stand. Yes, I looked. No, I did not buy. I looked at the button stand too - very disappointed in that one. I looked at the rest of the quilt and tried to convince someone that a piece of magnificent whitework in the display by the Embroiderers' Guild really was handmade.  I am not sure he believed me. 

I stopped to talk to the wood turners and ask if one of them would come and see whether there was any timber left that they might want. One of them will phone me this coming week and come to see if they can use any of it.

Then it was back down the last aisle and around to where the weaver was working. She smiled at me. I waited until she had finished serving a customer and then she showed me what she had done. Between us we had solved her problem. I thought that was a good end to my day.  I phoned Middle Cat and arranged to be "taxi-ed" home again.

I did not spend any money apart from my entry fee. That made it a very good day. 

The Senator is not there

to represent her own views. She is there to represent the state which elected her...or is she?

A Senator in our national parliament has just resigned from the party which helped her get elected. She is now apparently going to sit as an "independent" on the cross bench. Her resignation came because the government would not support a Greens motion to recognise a Palestinian state. 

The Senator in question is a Muslim. She wears the hijab. She has stated in an interview she prays five times a day. And somewhere along the line she has confused her faith with her political responsibilities...or that is how it seems.

I have been asked more than once whether I would like to join a political party - a political party of more than one persuasion. It has usually been when I have taken a particularly strong stand on an issue which is "party policy" for one side or the other. My answer has always been "no thank you". I will then get something like "But you would be useful...." 

I have no desire to be "useful" to any political party. It is much more satisfying to be able to hold my own views on all sorts of matters. I have no desire to "toe the party line" in any way at all. There are occasions on which I have altered my views when something changes or a situation develops. There is also something to be said for "stirring the pot" occasionally. I dislike complacency, especially in politics.

All that said however if you are elected as a member of parliament at any level you are not there to represent yourself you are there to represent the people who elected you. If you do not like the rules of the party that helped you get elected then you can try and change them from within. 

In this instance the Senator in question is saying she voted according to her "conscience".  That may very well be necessary if it is a matter which will otherwise negatively affect the members of her electorate. It is neither necessary or acceptable when it is not. 

The Senator in question fell into a political trap set by a minor party on which the government must rely to get legislation through the Senate.  She has given the minor party more power...and their policies are not those she is there to represent. Her "conscience" is apparently not troubled by this but then she has four more years of excessive pay to consider as well.  

There is no hot water

and in the middle of winter this is not exactly a happy state of affairs.

The problem became obvious yesterday morning when water suddenly began to flow off the roof. I had a suspicion I knew what was wrong. There was a similar problem once before and it was, to put it mildly, expensive to fix.

The water is heated by solar panels with an electrical back up. It was the system recommended at the time. The Senior Cat had doubts, my BIL had doubts but it was government policy so they went ahead with it. There is a three hundred and twenty litre gravity feed tank in the roof. There is more than enough water there for the size of the house. It is assumed to be enough for a family although there have never been more than three people living here. 

The problem is the solar panels and the way they must be connected to the tank. We have had some very cold weather recently and the various connections do not like it. 

My long suffering BIL who knows far more than I do about such things had to come over after work and investigate. "Not good news Cat," he told me after he had climbed up to have a look. I watched anxiously on - more concerned about him getting down again safely than anything else. Yes he was wearing a head light and his helmet but...

He came in and turned off the tap which feeds the hot water into the house and the back up - which only works if the sun has not done enough work - and said, "Sorry, you will have to use a kettle. I'll see if I can get hold of my mate J... tomorrow."

I have cold water. I have a kettle. I have not had a shower. Grrrrrr. I thought of the way my BIL had installed a gas hot water service at their place. No, it might not be environmentally friendly to have gas but it has not failed in all the years they have lived there. Our solar is much less efficient and it has failed completely and expensively on two occasions now.

It is yet another reason to find somewhere else to live. This house has reached the stage where things are starting to go wrong on a regular basis...and I am not a ladder climbing cat! 

"We don't want to be apprentices"

the young are apparently saying.

The media today is reporting that the number of young apprentices is actually declining under the current Labor government. Labor of course is the very side of politics which should see increasing numbers of young people taking up apprenticeships. What has gone wrong?

I can think of a number of reasons. It would be easy to say it was a sense of entitlement with respect to employment and pay for some. It is equally easy to say it is also a sense that "I am never going to get a job so why bother?" at the other. There is the lack of hope for the future and much more.

But there is something else we could do something about but almost certainly won't. We could return to the "bad old days" of the "technical high school" (a type of "secondary modern" in Upover). 

Were they really such bad places? Did students in those schools really feel no sense of pride or hope? Did they really feel they were getting a "second class" education with no hope of going to university? Did all the students who attended them actually want to go to university? Is it where everyone should aim to go?

A former governor of this state, a man I have met and talked to at length, was a "technical high school boy". It never held him back. He told me he had never regretted attending the secondary school he attended. Why would he? He worked incredibly hard and was awarded with the state's most prestigious job as well as a knighthood. Another man who attended the same school is a multi-millionaire. He used the skills he was taught at that school to set up his own business.  The Senior Cat's cousin, once "Apprentice of the Year" reached the very top of an international engineering firm and worked overseas for many years.

There was more than one similar school for girls with similar success stories. There is a woman who ran a hospital, another who had her own fashion business - and they are just two I have met. There are many others.

Now it seems this is not possible. "You need to go to university if you want to succeed" is what young people are being told. They are told they need university degrees to be electricians, plumbers, bricklayers and "roofing experts" - whatever they may be. Carpentry skills are no longer needed. The parts come in from China and you "just bung them together". Really?

I think it is much more likely we really need electricians who can wire a building to the requirements of those using or living in it. When this house was built there were additional power points put in. They were designed with aging and disability in mind.  The light switches are lower than usual for the same reason. The electrician who did the work was surprised by what was asked for and admitted he had to think about it. He also said that even then not everyone could have done as asked. You needed to be fully trained and qualified and able to take a real interest in your work.

I once knew a man who described himself as "rough carpenter". He did the basic work, the work that nobody would see on buildings. He must have done it well because he was always in demand. His home also had furniture he had made. At the time I knew him I didn't know much about carpentry because the Senior Cat did not have much time for one of his hobbies. Now I realise this "rough carpenter" had real skills. He was by no means "low level" he was an "essential" worker. 

We have been too busy telling young people that such work is somehow less important. It is not. It is essential. The dentist and the doctor are not going to be able to work without builders, electricians, plumbers, instrument makers and much more. Perhaps we need to rethink this and tell young people how essential these skills are - and that they can be proud of achieving them? 

   

Do you use your title?

There was an odd little thing which came up on a friend's blog a couple of days ago. She said it annoyed her when people who were not doctors used the title "Dr". By this she meant people who have a "Doctor of Philosophy". She felt they were not entitled to be called "Dr". 

It is an interesting thought. Are they or aren't they? They are of course. They are the original "doctors". It was only later the medical profession started to use the title. They even go on to become "Mr" (or the female equivalent) again later when they rise through the ranks.

But a "doctor" back in say the fourteenth century was someone who had studied and reached a high level of learning. It probably goes back even further than that but I have not bothered to look it up. By no means all of them had written the theses required today. "Dr Johnson" of dictionary fame was simply known as "doctor" and there are plenty of other examples to be found among the men of science. Women of course did not get consideration!

The use of the title "doctor" varies. It is more common in some countries than others. It is much less common here than it is in Italy for example. If people write to me here they are much more likely to address me by my given name (and that will often be spelt incorrectly.) They might address me as "Ms" - a term I find intensely irritating. (That apparently began because the late Winston Churchill once said, "Well write "m" stroke "s" then if you don't know if she is married". ) If colleagues in Italy (and elsewhere in Europe) write to me I can get not just "doctor" but "doctor doctor".  Once I even had a letter which used "doctor" four times. It was apparently considered correct etiquette" in the situation!

I certainly do not sign myself off as "doctor", especially in social situations. It is not considered appropriate here. I have a friend in Cambridge who pointed out that it is considered quite usual there - but it is one of the oldest university cities in the world and it is considered quite normal there.

The other problem is the danger of being expected to act as a doctor in an emergency situation. This happened to someone I know. After attending a conference in Athens she was flying back to London. There was a medical emergency on the plane and she was called on. Fortunately there was a medical doctor on the plane and she was actually able to help him because her late father had suffered from the same condition and she knew what to do. But, it was a close call. The head of the research unit we both worked in at the time sent a message around to the staff advising them not to use their doctor titles when travelling abroad.  It is possibly even more important now when litigation is so much more common.

I suppose it is up to individuals themselves but I also thought of housekeepers. Many housekeepers, especially in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries, were given the title of "Mrs" even when they had never married. 

On the whole I think I will leave titles to the medical profession and when it matters in academia. I call my doctor by her given name and do so at her invitation. Last week the barrister, a KC working for us introduced himself by his given and last name and then said, "It's J..." (his given name) so we knew what he preferred. In court I would be more formal. Even the judge involved was relaxed outside the formal court proceedings. It all just indicated there is a time and a place for titles. Getting it right is the problem.   

The person behind the camera

does not usually appear in the photograph. (I am ignoring "selfie sticks" and mirrors here.) 

It came as a real shock to me yesterday when I realised I do not actually have a photograph of a very, very close friend - now deceased. I was asked to provide one for a newsletter  and could not do it. In the course of trying to find one I contacted someone else. No, she did not have one either.

My wonderful friend was always the person behind the camera. Looking back I also realise that even she took very few photographs. As I avoid having my photograph taken if at all possible there are very few of me but Middle Cat could provide one if necessary - and the state newspaper could hunt in their morgue and pull up a few I suppose. All the same I will avoid the camera if I can.

E... was not camera shy. I suspect it just never occurred to her that there might be an occasion in which she also needed to appear in the record of the event. Her sister was never interested, indeed refused to use a camera at all. 

And so I had P... hunting yesterday. She is elderly and I felt guilty at even having to bother her about something so apparently trivial. There was a good reason for it all however, a rather sad reason. We are winding up the scholarship fund set up in her name. It was not something I wanted to happen but it simply is not possible to continue it. Over the last few years it has allowed almost two hundred girls in two "developing" countries to finish their secondary education and make them eligible for tertiary help from other places. The first country was one where E... and I both had a friend, a nun who ran the camp for unaccompanied children. The other country was one where E... herself had worked. It has all been a lot of very, very hard work but a great adventure helping those girls. Some of them are now teacher, nurses, pharmacists and even a doctor. 

I thought of this as P... promised me to ask another member of her family this coming week. I also thought - perhaps we do have a photograph of her, many photographs. She is reflected in all the girls she taught and those who had the further benefit of her bequest.  

Be polite to the shop assistant

please. The person ahead of me in the supermarket was on her phone. The call was obviously to a friend. They were discussing a wedding both had been to and dissecting the clothing of some of those who had attended. 

I could ignore that at any time but I found it much more difficult to ignore two other things. The first was that her precious child was making very rude faces at the shop assistant and the second was that she was also ignoring the shop assistant completely. She dumped her items and her bags and simply went on talking. The shop assistant scanned them, packed the bags and returned everything to the trolley. The woman tapped her watch to pay the amount and simply walked off without even looking at the shop assistant. Her child simply ran ahead almost knocking over an elderly man.

It is one of the worst examples of how not to behave in a supermarket and it is not the first time I have come across something like that. It worries me.

I usually shop in the same supermarket. It is owned by a family, not a chain. If I shop there on Thursdays I get a small "senior's discount" which means the prices are about the same as elsewhere. It has the added advantage of being particularly well laid out and well lit, the green grocery section is good (but not as good as my favoured green grocery) and they stock local products where they can. It also has one other enormous advantage. The staff in there tend to be helpful and friendly. 

I know quite a lot of them by name. Some of them are part of the student cohort who only work a few hours a week but others are full time employees. If they see me outside the supermarket they know me well enough to acknowledge me. It is nice, especially when I have had to go in still feeling wet, cold and miserable because of the trauma Middle Cat, Brother Cat and I endured last week.

"You okay Cat?" the girl who had just been ignored asked me. I managed to smile and nod but I had to blink hard. Here was someone who had just been ignored in the rudest possible way asking me if I was okay. I swallowed hard and asked her how her father was instead. He has been in hospital. Her face lit up and said, "He came home yesterday and he's already driving Mum crazy."

That made me feel so much better but I pedalled off a little later thinking that it is a tough job to stand there scanning groceries for people who cannot even be bothered to look at you. Is it really that hard to do? Wouldn't it be polite to say "thank you"?

Is social media responsible or

should the users of it be held to more account?

There is currently a government inquiry in this country into social media. It is covering a wide variety of issues but there seems to be a common theme among those who use it - that the tech giants like Meta are to blame for all that is wrong with it.

Really? Is alcohol to blame for all the negatives surrounding it? Is tobacco to blame for all the harm it causes? Is vile pornography in itself to blame? Or is it perhaps the people who use it and abuse it. 

I have a Facebook page. It is a pretty tame sort of page. I have some good friends there and they have been very supportive. During Covid lock downs it was a social lifeline of sorts. I suspect other people I know also felt like that. If I lost access to that communication I would lose a great deal. 

The people I know use Facebook and Instagram and other such sites in a responsible way, in the way those who set them up intended. The problem lies elsewhere but it lies with the people who use them every bit as much as the people who created those sites.  Just as alcohol in itself is not to blame for the car crash which kills someone Meta is not responsible for the suicide of the person who has been bullied. Meta may have a responsibility to do what they can to limit the behaviour but to try and make the claim they are responsible for the consequences of the behaviour of others is surely a step too far? We should have made it much harder for children and young people to access the platforms involved. 

Not so long ago I suggested that the technology was surely there to prevent children and young people accessing a great deal of social media. The suggestion was met with silence in places where something might have been done. Nobody said it was impossible to do just that. They simply ignored what I suggested. 

I suspect this had more to do with a severe reluctance to actually stop children and young people from using so much social media and the sort of social media they use. I also suspect that the reluctance to do this might relate to two issues. One is of course the revenue people get on the back of the likes of Meta but the other is the issue of power. If you have an audience you can influence them. You have power.

If you doubt that then why did I get a text message on my mobile phone this morning. It claimed to come from a Senator for this state and it was asking me to respond to a survey so as to "serve you better". I do not know which Senator it came from. I wiped the message without responding.

I suggest the current parliamentary inquiry is trying to avoid taking responsibility every bit as much as the "tech giants" are. Those involved will, for all they say otherwise, be more concerned about power than people.  

Who remembers David Hicks?

 Yes, some people will recognise his name. He has almost certainly faded from the memory of most people. They will have nothing more than the vague memory of him as "some guy who got banged up in Gitmo".  

That was the way he was described to me just a moment ago. Hicks was the mercenary who went to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan. He had been a mercenary elsewhere as well. When he finally decided that he was tired of the life he was found at a "bus stop" and taken into custody. He spent time in the prison in Guantanamo Bay and he spent time in prison here. He eventually had a terrorism conviction against him quashed.

It still has to be said that Hicks brought his problems onto himself. I don't know what he is doing now but I doubt he is a happy man.

Assange is not going to be a happy man either. The euphoria he currently feels at his "release" is not going to last. It is all very well for his partner to suggest that he wants privacy right now. That will not last either. He has been in the public eye for years now. He has been too aware of crowds of supporters, people who believe that what he did was right. They will expect him to do more of the same.

We need to be absolutely certain of something. Hicks was no "hero". He was not simply a "mixed up kid". He made a decision to go to war as a mercenary.  He made other decisions. They were bad decisions. I have no idea whether he killed anyone but he fought with a group which is widely condemned.

The one thing he did not do was publish thousands upon thousands of documents and put the lives of many others at risk, the lives of sometimes innocent people. After Assange published the Wikileaks documents I became aware of several things. One was that nobody in a team I had been working with had heard from someone they knew. It is only in the last few days we have become aware that he was taken into custody and has since been executed. The other is that other people I knew of through my own work left their posts or were moved by their own organisations. They were not people I worked with as such but they were key to some of the work which was being done. 

It would be easy to dismiss their departure as "just one of those things" but the reality is that they were named in Wikileaks documents. What is more at least some of them would have been completely innocent of any "wrongdoing" in the eyes of whatever authority was watching over them. Others may not have been but the leaks put the lives of all of them in danger. 

The idea that Assange has done no harm, that he is somehow a "reporter" who has "uncovered war crimes" does not align with reality. I have no doubt some illegal behaviour was uncovered but was that all? There were many more people who were "uncovered" who were simply out there doing their job - and their job was helping others. 

Assange has been convicted of a crime. There should be no pardon. I for one will not be "donating" to pay his legal fees.

More spam from

a supermarket I do not shop at came up on my mobile phone. It also asks you to "unsubscribe" if you do not wish to receive their oh so important messages. 

Come on Cat! Why haven't you spent your (non-existent) "loyalty" points? You are in danger of losing them!

I think I can remember the last time I went into that particular supermarket chain. It was just after the Senior Cat's death. Middle Cat and I had been out and about dealing with things that needed to be dealt with. I am fairly certain the only thing I bought was milk - and I know, for reasons I need not mention, I paid cash. 

So this message is nothing more than an attempt to make sure I "unsubscribe" and thus actually do the opposite. It will simply ensure that I am permanently on a marketing list for something I do not use.

I had occasion to use Middle Cat's computer last night. We had come back from seeing the barrister who will be assisting us in court today and I needed to check my work email for a message.  Her own email stream came up first. There were hundreds of messages there - almost all of them marketing spam of one sort or another. Apparently this does not worry her. "I just ignore it", she told me.

I report such things as "spam" and the server does not allow it to reach me. My inbox contains a lot of mail but it contains almost nothing of that nature. It would irritate me no end to have to scroll past all those "marketing" messages. I am paying for a service but it is not an advertising service. 

The phone provider is apparently unable to do the same. Requesting a "stop" just seems to encourage the advertiser. 

I really do wonder though just what they get from it. While I do not believe I am immune to advertising because nobody really is I do believe I am perhaps less likely to succumb than many people. Why? There is a simple answer to that. I do not have the money to spend anyway!

 

So Assange is "free"

 or has he really just committed the ultimate crime?

I believe the entire Assange saga has been very badly handled from the start. He is not the "press freedom" saint that he is claimed to be by any means. He did endanger lives. His actions could well have led to major global conflict. They almost certainly assisted the Taliban in their takeover in Afghanistan. They almost certainly led to deaths elsewhere. You simply do not publish the sort of information he published and get no consequences. He is responsible for those consequences.

Not everyone is going to agree with me. That's fine. Most journalists I know (and I know a few) do agree. They do not consider him to be a professional journalist. 

That said there is a belief that the whole thing was badly handled. He should never have been able to seek "asylum" in an embassy. He should not have been isolated for so long in prison. The authorities in the United States should have been more careful and more flexible in what they charged him with and how they did it. 

It is easy to say all of that in hindsight. All of it pales into insignificance now that this supposedly such principled man has been willing to plead guilty to something in order to win his freedom. If he really had the principles he claims to have he would not have pleaded guilty. He would have stayed in prison. 

I am reminded of a criminal case here. A man was, wrongly, convicted of murder. He spent many years in prison. He could have been granted parole - if he had agreed he had committed murder. He refused to do that. It took many years, most of his adult life, before he was eventually shown to be innocent. He was then granted an unconditional pardon. Asked why he had not simply agreed to say he had committed the crime and left prison years before he just said, "Because I did not do it. I could not agree to lie about it."

Of the two men I can admire the second, not the first.

I hope there are some strict conditions on Assange's release. I hope there is a "no interviews", "no memoirs", "no internet" condition being placed on his release...and that if any of those conditions are breached he will be returned to prison. He is no hero.