Cricket? Dare I even

mention the word?
The Senior Cat has a number of cricket crazy cousins. They are not happy. One of them in particular may still be pounding the walls in frustration.
"We can't b...... play!" "Another one gone!" "What's wrong with them?!" and (I suspect) worse. 
If there is cricket or Aussie Rules football on when he comes to visit he dashes for the remote control for the television set. 
"Why aren't you watching?" he demands.
The Senior Cat smiles and says, "Yes, I know. It's important."  The word "not" is never said but it is thought.
The Senior Cat was never a sports tragic. He didn't really play sport. He could never see well enough to see the ball coming at him. He dislocated his right shoulder twice trying to bowl the ball - not just painful but awkward when you are right-pawed.  
The Senior Cat sees no point in an activity which does not produce something useful at the other end. If you want physical activity then go and dig the garden or chop wood or saw timber in the shed. If you want to walk then, as he did, go for a walk with your partner. He is, at best, only mildly interested in cricket - and every other form of sport leaves him cold. 
Brother Cat played cricket at school. He didn't mind. He preferred to field, "because you can stand there and think about something else". He was never very good at any form of sport. 
Middle Cat played everything that was ever played with a ball  - including cricket. It was not her favourite ball game. She preferred faster moving games. 
But there is something about cricket I suppose. The psychology of the game interests me. The idea that you have to be an outstandingly good individual at so many things and still be able to play as a member of a team interests me - up to a point.
I can remember Cousin Cat's partner telling me, "We're going to the cricket."
This was in the summer of course. It was going to be a very warm day - hot perhaps? I looked at her. She shrugged.
     "He wants to go."
He likes her to go too.
     "What are you taking to do?" I asked her.
She grinned.
     "I have a book to read, a sketch pad and some new pencils. It might be a bit warm for knitting but I'll put it in just in case."
Now that is the way to watch cricket - but I am not sure it will help the team win.

I am getting just a little tired of

"sexual abuse" stories. The claims about sexual abuse have now reached epidemic proportions. 
Sexual abuse is vile. It is the ultimate act of betrayal of innocence. It is not to be condoned in any way, shape or form.
But - and yes there is a "but" -  allegations of sexual abuse are also being used to harm others. The allegations against the late British Prime Minister Edward Heath are the latest in a string of allegations against high profile figures. In this instance the man is long dead and cannot defend himself. So far none of the allegations have been proven. One person who was said to have made the allegations denies doing so. Another is apparently making claims that have proven to be false. There is the question of how so many allegations could possibly be true of a man who was constantly being shadowed by a security detail. If they are true then there has been a cover up of unbelievably massive proportions over many years. He may have been as bad as he is being painted or he may be innocent. Whatever the outcome of inquiries, the reputation of a former Prime Minister has been forever tainted.
I think I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog that the Senior Cat knows a music teacher and fellow magician who was accused of sexual assault. The two girls who accused him did not retract their allegations until it reached the point where the police were about to charge him. Told he would probably go to gaol for a lengthy period they suddenly got frightened and admitted that there was no truth at all in the allegations. They had chosen that as a way to try and stop learning music at school after their parents had told them they could not give up lessons.
But the allegations damaged his reputation and his career. The rules mean that the black mark against him was always on his record. The reputation of a man who had done nothing wrong has been harmed for the rest of his life.
A few days ago I discovered that a similar thing had happened to a man I knew in this district. He lived with his dog. He had never married. He was not gay. He was just a quiet, rather shy man who spent his spare daylight hours in his lovely garden - or rather, he did. Some boys damaged some of his garden and threw stones and bottles at his dog. He, rightly, was angry and reported them to their parents further down the street. The boys retaliated  by accusing him of sexual abuse. His life was living hell. Again it was not until he was on the point of being charged with serious sexual abuse that one of the boys became frightened and admitted that they had damaged his garden and made up the allegations to cover their tracks.  He had been on leave (without pay) from his job and he had to pay thousands of dollars for legal assistance. 
The police were not sympathetic. They took the attitude that he should not have reacted to the damage the boys did and that he had brought the situation on himself. Despite the retractions there were other consequences for him at work and in the community. People avoided him. His garden no longer gave him the same pleasure.  His dog died from injuries it received at an unknown hand. The note left with it was vile.
At present he is in a psychiatric unit because he tried to commit suicide. He left a note protesting his innocence and saying people still did not believe him.
The boys were let off with a warning because of their age. 
It is all too easy to make the most damaging allegations. Simply retracting them will not reverse the damage. 
Making false allegations to harm someone also makes it much harder for those who have genuinely been abused too. The media needs to stop sensationalising the issue of sexual abuse. Reporting proven facts not "alleged" facts might be a start.
 

Snakes

are a part of Downunder life. We have the world's most venomous snakes on our territory. They  do not merely hide in the scrub or "the bush" but infiltrate suburbia. They love undergrowth. They can climb too.
I am writing this because I have just seen a picture of someone I "know" holding a boa constrictor. The boa constrictor may be fine but I still wouldn't be happy to be near it. I do not like snakes.
When I was a kitten, a very small kitten, I was taught about snakes. My siblings were too. We were told they were dangerous from the time we were old enough to understand. We were taught never to pick up a stick - just in case that "stick" turned out to be something much more sinister. Even a small "stick" can administer a fatal bite. 
We roamed the countryside despite the snakes. We knew to tell adults if we saw one and we saw fewer than one might expect but we did see them. 
I can remember being warned about them before I went to school but I don't remember what precautions were taken then. 
I do remember what happened when we moved to a tiny rural community. I was ten at the time and we were being shown the two teacher school my parents were going to be responsible for. There was a school bell on a post outside the senior classroom. Next to it there was a long piece of wire with a special loop at one end.
"That's for the snakes," the chairman of the school committee told the Senior Cat, "Don't try and catch them yourself. Ask..... (he named some boys) to do it for you."
I remember too the day Brother Cat had taken the Senior Cat's cup and saucer to be washed at the school water trough. (No such thing as a tap in the school building.) Suddenly there was a clatter and then a scream, "Snake!" The boys who had been named caught a snake almost as long as they were tall. It was a deadly "brown snake". If my brother had been bitten he would not be here today. The boys calmly caught the snake and killed it. They cut the head off and gave the rest of us a lesson in just how dangerous it was by showing us where the venom was. I still shudder when I think of it. My brother was sent back to pick up the pieces of what had once been a cup and saucer.
We occasionally gets snakes here. They will travel considerable distances from the  hills behind us. 
In the city you are expected to call the snake catcher if you notice a resting one. You alert the neighbours. Children and other animals are kept indoors if it is seen outside.  Snakes will enter buildings. They can get into the most extraordinary places. There is a myth that snakes will not attack if you leave them alone. The reality is otherwise.
Stay well away.
 

Being a volunteer is

is apparently getting more and more difficult. I was talking to a member of my knitting guild yesterday and she mentioned that another member was no longer going to teach a class at a local council. 
It's one of those  useful "craft groups" set up to provide social support for vulnerable people. The person who has been running it was charging a very small fee for people to attend. I doubt it covered the expenses of running the group - some of the materials, getting there, tea and biscuits, and the other support provided.
Apparently the new rules imposed on the council mean that this person is now "self-employed". She has to have personal indemnity insurance and they are not permitted to pay for it even if they had the money. I doubt any council is going to consider the outlay for such a thing essential. 
If she "volunteered" she would be covered by their indemnity insurance. It also means there could be no charge for those attending that particular class.
Her view is that, however small the cost, paying something means that people will not only be more appreciative of what they are getting but they are more likely to attend. 
But, the group will cease. Other groups of a similar nature run by other councils will also cease. 
To date our council has not found an impediment towards the running of the monthly knitting group at the library. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog that group is also a social support network. I run a similar group at the local bookshop. I don't get paid for teaching at either group. It's just volunteering. 
But, I am waiting for someone somewhere to decided that there is a problem with these things. I have known other groups which have had to stop because there were potential problems. Are there any woodworking groups of that nature left? I wonder if there are any gardening groups?
Litigation is an issue but it has become the overriding issue in many instances. The failure to do things for fear of litigation is causing more harm than litigation might. By doing all this we tell people they no longer need to take responsibility for themselves.
It means we all miss out in the end.
 

There was a $79bn

announcement yesterday. It should have been good news. The government was offering to invest money in the state with the highest unemployment rate - a lot of money. 
I wish we didn't need any sort of navy - indeed armed forces of any sort. The world would probably be a nicer place without such things -  but the reality is we do have such things and money is spent on them. So, we build things like submarines and frigates and there is a history of doing it in the state with high unemployment.
The Downunder Prime Minister arrived and announced money would be spent - but not before the state newspaper had "leaked" it.
That was yesterday. 
This morning the negative comments rolled in. Some of them were along the lines that the present government has a record of broken promises so it won't happen. Let's ignore the fact that the present government is having a hard time getting the Senate to agree to anything. (Oh yes, both sides of politics can play that game.)
The unions were saying, "So what? This is what we deserve." (Let's ignore the problems with building the submarines.) The Premier of the state was claiming it was all the work of his government and that the federal one hadn't wanted to do it in the state at all. (Let's ignore the fact that the state Minister responsible actually made it much more difficult by betraying his electorate.) The Premier of a neighbouring state was complaining about the way they have been treated because jobs will be lost there. (Let's ignore the problems with industrial action there.)  An "independent" politician who gets plenty of press coverage was sounding off too. (Let's ignore the fact that he never has to put his promises into action.)
And of course everyone but the government is saying "It's political. The government is only doing it to prop up three seats in the state for the next election." 
Mmm...expensive way of maybe winning three seats. Isn't politics lovely?
PS  I forgot to add that one of the candidates for position of Speaker is also in a marginal seat in the same state. If he was given the role then it will be to "prop  up his chances of re-election". 

Oh right, that thing called "cake"

has appeared on the menu in the Clan Cat house. 
I rarely make cake. We eat very little of it. I did not make this cake. 
I went out with Middle Cat yesterday. I needed something from a place inaccessible by tricycle and she was going that way. Offered the opportunity I, unwisely, agreed. I say "unwisely" because travelling with Middle Cat always involves more time than I have to spare and, on this occasion,  it also involved money I should not have spent - the cake.
We did the essential shopping for me. Middle Cat did some essential shopping for the go-kart repairs for my BIL and the Nephew Cats. Then she decided we needed to find a place which was selling macaroons. It was not open. That did not deter her. She wanted a salted-caramel macaroon. Oh, she also needed milk. Right. We headed on to the supermarket. "They have macaroons there - smaller and you have to buy the box but I really, really want one." Yes dear.
And so we go hunting in the supermarket  in the section I usually ignore completely - the cake and biscuit and bun bit. She found the macaroons. 
And there was the cake. "The Senior Cat loves that," she tells me. I eye it off. Yes, I do remember him reminiscing about "Napoleon Cake" - the version of a state wide bakery. I eye it off again. 
It consists of a layer of pastry. This is followed by a thin smear of "jam". (I am not sure whether it is supposed to be strawberry or raspberry.) After that comes a layer of "cake" - of super sweet sponge like taste and consistency. Then there is another layer of "jam", another layer of pastry. The "piece de resistance" is a layer of pink icing topped with coconut.
I am not  sure what all this really is but it does not fit the definition of "cake" in my book. Against my better judgment we buy it. We take it back and present it to the Senior Cat. 
"Ooh Napoleon cake. I haven't had that for years." (This is true.)
No, Middle Cat did not want any. She has her salted caramel macaroon. 
So, we left it until "teatime" and I cut two slices then. It was, as I suspected, overly sweet. It was edible but I did not care for it. The Senior Cat ate his slice even more slowly. He had a far away look on his face. I knew he was remembering other things - things he associated with eating that particular sort of cake. No, he didn't want a second slice right then.
I wrapped the cake up tightly to keep it fresh.
"It was nice of you both to get it but it was rather sweet," the Senior Cat told me, "I think I prefer the sort you make."
Is it any wonder I love the Senior Cat?

The Speaker of the Downunder

Federal Parliament's House of Representatives has just resigned. As there are people who have asked, "Why didn't the Prime Minister just sack her?" I will try and explain.

The Speaker's position is the most important in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives cannot operate without a Speaker. It is a constitutional requirement for the Speaker (or his or her deputy) to be present. Effectively the Speaker "runs the meeting". The Speaker is answerable to the house rather than the Prime Minister. 

There are only two ways to be rid of the Speaker. One is by a vote in the House for his or her removal. The other is for the Speaker to tender their resignation to the Governor-General. (The question of whether the Governor-General can sack the Speaker would lead to a constitutional crisis similar to that of the sacking of the Whitlam  government because the Governor-General would effectively be sacking the parliament of the day. Nevertheless the Governor-General would have the "right to warn" - and that may even have happened but we will never know about it.)

The Prime Minister of the day cannot sack the Speaker. They can of course pull the Speaker to one side and say, "Go!" but the Speaker does not have to obey that command if he or she believes they still have the confidence of the House.

The Speaker who has just resigned had lost the confidence of the  House and it was a matter of resign or be sacked by the House.  Her resignation however had to go to the Governor-General - not the Prime Minister. 

If we think about it this is the way it should be. It means that the Prime Minister of the day cannot simply decide that the Speaker is not doing the job the way he or she would like and sack the person who is supposed to be running the meetings in an impartial fashion.

The Speaker just gone was considered to be biased - and there is perhaps some evidence of this. She was prone to ejecting members of the opposition far too often. (That said, members of the opposition were also baiting her deliberately as they never liked the choice of her as Speaker.)

One of the Speaker's most difficult tasks is to ensure that everyone is heard, not just those on the front bench and the opposition's front bench. 

And, if the numbers are evenly divided, the Speaker has a casting vote.

The Speaker is also the only person able to continue functioning in some roles once an election is called. Again, that is a necessity.

Normally the Speaker will come from the party in power. The Speaker can continue to be a member of that party and attend party meetings if they so choose. They won't hold any other party office.

The previous government of Downunder had such a slender majority that they asked someone outside the party to act as Speaker. That gave the government one of the extra votes they needed to remain in office.  (They also relied on "independents".)

But in all this the Prime Minister has no power apart from powers of persuasion. He or she cannot simply sack a Speaker. He or she can call in a Minister and sack them but not the Speaker. He can of course express an opinion to the Speaker but nothing more than that. 

The present controversy is said to have damaged the Prime Minister's leadership - and yes it has. The Speaker was the choice of the party in power. She is (or was) a friend of the Prime Minister in the way that any member of the party is. She has let the party down by abusing travel expenses in the most ridiculous way. 

But I have yet to see the media explain the role of the Speaker and the way in which, once someone is elected to that role, the Prime Minister has no control over it except as a member of parliament.  It is of course convenient for the media to fail to explain this. It makes for a much better "story". It is of course convenient fiction that the Prime Minister can be rid of the Speaker. Fiction is more interesting than fact in this instance.