Author: Kim du Toit

Here’s an interesting story:

Anonymous British woman asks if she is being unreasonable to think her partner should be helping her with finances at a time where she is struggling.

In her post, she explained that although she is normally financially stable, she has had a difficult time while waiting to be paid for a job she did a few months ago.  She’s eaten through her savings and is relying on credit cards – all while her partner has just come into a huge sum of money.  After inheriting £500,000, she expected her boyfriend to offer to help with her finances to allow her to afford food.

She explained that they’ve been together for two years and don’t live in the same house, but that he’s told her she’s his ‘life partner’.

Key word here:  “boyfriend”.  He doesn’t owe her anything, although on a personal note, I think he’s being a complete asshole.

Still, he is already supporting his own child (by another woman, ex-wife?), so maybe he’s just being wary — and in these modern times, who can blame him?

I think she should dump his worthless ass out in the street — how much worse can her predicament get if he’s not helping her out anyway?

And we’ve all been there, waiting to get paid while an erstwhile client’s accounting department waits and waits to pay their bills, thinking that this makes them heroes to management.  This bullshit cost me most of my gun collection several years ago, and thank gawd I had the guns to sell because otherwise I’d have been living in my car, assuming I could have kept up the payments on that, too.  (The amounts were significant, by the way:  I had a monthly nut of about $4,500, and this one single account payable was about $27,000;  hence, I think, the client’s shenanigans.  Quick to spend, slow to pay, the bastards.)

All round, it’s a lousy situation.

Taking a break from locking people up in their homes, beating them up in the streets and harassing them for not wearing paper face condoms, the OzPM does something right, for a change:

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison has backed what he called a ‘terrific’ bill that would ban transgender athletes from single-sex sports

‘The primary policy intent of the Bill is to acknowledge that categorisation by sex is a necessary and important mechanism to provide sporting participation and competitive opportunities for females. It seeks to ensure that women’s single-sex sport is protected and encouraged, and that a male person is not entitled to demand inclusion into women’s sport on the basis of gender identity.’

Predictably, the Usual Suspects have thrown a hissy fit:

Rights groups have slammed the bill and reacted angrily to Morrison’s comments, arguing that the amendment would see transgender people excluded.

Let’s just examine this for a moment.  While it is claimed that there are “thousands” of transgenderists in Australia (a topic for another time), the actual number of people who’ll be affected by this bill is a few dozen, at the most:  men thinking they’re women who want to participate in top-class competitive sport.