Into the long grass

 

Into the long grass

A reporter on the radio discussing something the other morning mentioned ‘kicking it into the long grass.’ Although I understood the meaning, of delaying a difficult decision, I wondered about its origins.

I thought maybe it had something to do with cricket. Many British expressions use cricketing metaphors – ‘playing with a straight bat,’ ‘having a good innings,’ ‘it’s not cricket,’ ‘on a sticky wicket,’ ‘stumped,’ and so forth, but I found nothing about long grass. Perhaps it was a golfing phrase? Hitting a ball into the long grass could be problematic, I suppose. ‘Kicking’ seemed to be a little inappropriate. Cricket and golf balls are not generally kicked anywhere, unless in frustration. So, I looked it up.

It certainly comes from a sporting background and originated from the game of golf. Hitting a ball into the unmown grass or ‘rough’ makes it unplayable or lost. Kicking it there, through spite, exasperation, or some other trigger, is not considered good sportsmanship. (Should that be ‘sportspersonship??)

It is also related to rugby, where it is known as ‘kicking into touch.’ The ball is kicked out of the playing area, stopping the game and reducing tension.

One site I found suggested that it was originally a term used in politics since the mid-20^th century, with the first recorded usage, presumably in Hansard, giving the date 1966, when the MP Geoffrey Rippon asked, "How long are the Royal Commissions expected to take to complete their work? In other words, how long is the ball to be kicked into the long grass?"

However, the Orkney Herald of 1948 used it in its Sports Shorts, as follows:

Orkney Herald (Kirkwall, Orkney, Scotland) of Tuesday 27^th July 1948:

MOWER NEEDED.
At a recent Parish Cup game in Bignold Park, a linesman lost the ball in the long grass (off the pitch), and the game was held up for some time till it was found.

Developments

 

Developments

Things are moving fast in the USA. It looks as though the administration is about to be overhauled and some elements removed and potentially imprisoned, Pam Bondi, for one.

One of the most astonishing things is that Trump is set to sue the Treasury for $10 billion dollars, to compensate him for the distress caused by the leaking of his tax return information. Extraordinary! American presidents are expected to declare their tax returns and always have done so. Trump’s naked greed is rampant.

Watching the breaking news on Thursday evening, I expected to see it making headlines in all the papers and news outlets on Friday morning. It didn’t. I began to think I had imagined it.

I note that more Epstein files have been released. The cynic would suggest that such a release is a means to distract attention from current events. Will the 25^th Amendment be invoked, or will Trump survive to stumble and ramble through another day, week, month, year?

Great Britain’s politics pale by comparison and seem very parochial. We seem to be grateful to be acknowledged by more influential countries as they continue their rise to the pinnacle. Our time in the spotlight has passed.

I don't know

I don't know . . .

 . . . where I saw this wonderful proverb. 

If I nicked it from your blog, I apologise. I thought it expressed so clearly what so many of us are thinking right now, in different countries across the world. 

Arrogant, dishonest or stupid?

Politics has suddenly become very entertaining for all the wrong reasons. MPs' expense claims have come under scrutiny and the exercise has revealed some extraordinary behaviour. Elliot Morley (Labour) suffered a shocking lapse of memory when he continued claiming interest for a further eighteen months after he had paid his mortgage in full. He felt that he had not committed an offence but had simply forgotten. Arrogant, dishonest or stupid?

Andrew MacKay (Tory) who thinks it 'very important that MPs are held in high regard' and whose wife Julie Kirkbride is also a Conservative MP, claimed second home allowance for mortgage interest on their London home up to the end of the last financial year. At the same time his wife claimed the same allowance for their Bromsgrove home. Effectively, they had two second homes and no primary residence. Arrogant, dishonest or stupid?

Apparently they had taken professional advice 'at the highest level', and though it is not clear which body provided such advice it is believed that the fees office was involved.

The people of the UK are appalled, amused, angry, disbelieving, shocked by turns. The concensus seems to be that because ordinary citizens would be charged with committing a criminal offence if they had behaved in similar fashion the same fate should befall their guilty representatives in Parliament.

I'm sure there are many honest and intelligent MPs but presently they are sadly overshadowed by their arrogant, dishonest or stupid colleagues.