A Royal Commission?

Pic courtesy CPA

We're hearing, gentle reader, a clamour for a Royal Commission after the Bondi tragedy.

I have written that this clamour can be classified under the heading of "cashing in" on that tragedy, but beyond that, perhaps the notion has some merit. 

Let's put aside the politics and the ghoulish behaviour of most of the media, (especially social media) and consider terms of reference for a Royal Commission.

The generality of the call is all we're hearing at the moment, not the specificity* of its terms of reference.

Here are my humble suggestions of what those terms of reference should be -

1. Was there a connection between the events of October 7th 2023 on the Gaza/Israel border, the IDF's response since, and an increase in anti-semitic rhetoric and behaviour in Australia?

2. Was there a connection between the activities of Islamic State Franchises in the Philippines and Australia and the radicalisation of the shooters at Bondi?

3. Was the granting of a firearms licence to Sajid Akram an oversight on the part of the NSW firearms registry?

4. Are the various state firearm's registries competent to ensure that militants don't gain access to weapons, and are they sufficiently resourced to ensure this?

5. Are the National Intelligence Community (NIC) agencies competent to cooperate and share information that will prevent a recurrence of this atrocity?

If this is to be a good faith enquiry to prevent another attack like Bondi, these are the factors that need to be examined. The brief of the commission needs to be narrow and specific to prevent it weaponizing the politics of the situation.

A simpler brief will also allow the findings to be expedited. A Royal Commission needs to heal divisions, rather than exploit them, to unify rather than to blame, and to provide a strategy to prevent this obscenity from happening again.

Any outcome that doesn't ensure the last one is futile. 

*With apologies to Kevin Rudd.

 

Not the Pajama Game

 

Pic courtesy The Weekly Times

I had expected, gentle reader, to be listening to test cricket today.

I say "listening", because watching it on television means being unable to do much else, whilst listening allows opportunities for other simultaneous activity.

No doubt this is a product of a lifelong habit which began when as a child, I made a crystal set, and listened to the cricket with the earplug that was part of the kit.

This had the advantage of not disturbing anyone else when Australia was touring in the UK, and the broadcast was going out in the early hours of the morning. As the eldest of six, this was important, as school residences (in which I grew up) were designed for smaller families. Sharing a bedroom with a sibling was routine.

I'm not listening to cricket today, of course, because the Melbourne ashes test lasted only two days, following the pattern established earlier in the series.

There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth, from Cricket Australia and the barmy army. The former has lost a motsa, and the latter group has spent a great deal of money on travel and accommodation, only to find big gaps in their planned itinerary.

There are solid reasons for tests not lasting more than a couple of days. It's an obvious trend, which in my humble opinion is a reflection of the influence of white ball cricket.

I don't know a lot about cricket, although I've been following it for over seventy years and played as a schoolboy at boarding school. I was a hopeless batsman, because my eye/hand coordination has always been poor, but I fancied myself as an off-spinner.

Almost all the test players play the pajama game which demands a very different approach to both batting and bowling than test cricket. They have developed a set of skills which suit the shorter form of the game, and much of this approach to the game has leaked into test cricket.

Hence "Bazball" with its range of shots including the ramp shot, the switch hit, the helicopter shot and the reverse sweep which are now appearing in test cricket. From the bowler's point of view techniques such as bowling dry and angle creation have come into favour.

I guess cricket is evolving. To be honest, I would prefer to listen to test cricket which is closer to what I was used to back in the day. Test cricket should be cerebral rather than physical. 

What really irks me is male cricketers being described as "batters". What's wrong with "batsmen?" To me "batter" has always been a method of cooking fish.