A fool and his money..... Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 12 minutes ago, Gladys said: The insurance industry would dispute that because insurance is based on indemnity, ie to put you back in the position you were in before the loss, not to profit. There is an anomaly with life assurance which are not contracts of indemnity. Note the difference in the name, you are assured of receiving the insured sum in the event of your death, subject to the policy terms. I think you're right, comparing the gambling industry to insurance is wrong. The gambling industry is a very greedy, immoral and dirty industry who produce nothing but huge profits for themselves and misery for everyone else. Whereas the insurance industry is a ........... ........... Well actually he's got a point. The only difference I can see is that you're forced to have insurance for your vehicle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebushy Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Max Power said: We have the Civil Defence! The worlds most polite army? 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 minute ago, A fool and his money..... said: I think you're right, comparing the gambling industry to insurance is wrong. The gambling industry is a very greedy, immoral and dirty industry who produce nothing but huge profits for themselves and misery for everyone else. Whereas the insurance industry is a ........... ........... Well actually he's got a point. The only difference I can see is that you're forced to have insurance for your vehicle. I am not defending the industry, just explaining the difference. Do you not think that motorists should carry third party insurance, employers required to have employee liability insurance or some professions be required to carry professional indemnity insurance? Most other insurances are voluntary so up to you if you accept the terms or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 6 minutes ago, Gladys said: Do you not think that motorists should carry third party insurance, employers required to have employee liability insurance or some professions be required to carry professional indemnity insurance? I see the point in principle, but I think the motor insurance industryplays on the compulsory aspect and have been taking the piss for years. I'd be happy for them to abolish the legal requirement to be fair. I'd be all for compulsory driver education though, CPD for drivers sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Just now, A fool and his money..... said: I see the point in principle, but I think the motor insurance industryplays on the compulsory aspect and have been taking the piss for years. I'd be happy for them to abolish the legal requirement to be fair. I'd be all for compulsory driver education though, CPD for drivers sort of thing. Third party motor insurance has been a loss making part of insurance for years. It is the cheapest level of cover but has exposure to the highest claims, personal injury, death etc. The only way they would abolish it is if it was replaced with some kind of bond arrangement, where you deposit actual money against causing a loss to another. Would that suit you? If you really think that it would be acceptable for people to drive around without the means to pay out after causing serious injury or death, then you really need to reconsider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 The idea that motor insurance is loss making is typical of the bullshit insurance companies talk all the time. It's compulsory to have insurance, not provide it. If it was loss making, they wouldn't bother. Life's a risk, we have the NHS and the welfare state, if you don't don't accept the risk of driving or being around vehicles then don't do it, no one will go out of their way not to pay out if you are injured more than an insurance company. They really are crooks and shouldn't be encouraged by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said: The idea that motor insurance is loss making is typical of the bullshit insurance companies talk all the time. It's compulsory to have insurance, not provide it. If it was loss making, they wouldn't bother. Life's a risk, we have the NHS and the welfare state, if you don't don't accept the risk of driving or being around vehicles then don't do it, no one will go out of their way not to pay out if you are injured more than an insurance company. They really are crooks and shouldn't be encouraged by law. Because they make the money on the enhanced cover. Life is indeed a risk. A driver may decide not to accept the risk and stop driving, a pedestrian is still vulnerable to those who choose to drive. Those drivers may not have the means to pay out in the event they cause death or injury, or any other damage and loss. It is a facile argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 4 hours ago, Fred the shred said: We haven’t got an army ….apart from that….😑 So who is Field Marshall, Admiral, Air Chief Marshall Juan Watterson now commanding? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 minute ago, Passing Time said: So who is Field Marshall, Admiral, Air Chief Marshall Juan Watterson now commanding? Major Disaster. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Living hope organizing protests and giving out free lunches! How many people do the need to exploit to build their new office? He gets about does Phil! https://www.thorntonfs.com/phil-craine/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 52 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said: I see the point in principle, but I think the motor insurance industryplays on the compulsory aspect and have been taking the piss for years. I'd be happy for them to abolish the legal requirement to be fair. I'd be all for compulsory driver education though, CPD for drivers sort of thing. Yeah right Say your child, partner, parent or friend suffered life changing injuries through the actions ( intended or otherwise) of an uninsured driver ( because it was not compulsory ) which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to give them any sort of quality of life. Do you think all those, directly or indirectly, affected by such a situation would say “Oh goody there will be no monetary compensation to pay for all these costs, because those responsible for it don’t have that kind of money, but the individual responsible will have to take a driving retest or whatever” I find your attitude irresponsible. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 I wonder if the golfers will get invited to the free lunch quite a few wealthy bods golf at Ramsey Y’know . If the lunch is at 1.00 and the service starts at 10.30 am it will be quite a long sermon. Are dogs allowed ? Asking for a friend with a very friendly pit Bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 They looked like a lot of Hillybillys just bussed in from the back of beyond what a rabble and the state of the sign on a piece of old cardboard was unbelievable it looked as if a five year old had written it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 6 minutes ago, Fred the shred said: They looked like a lot of Hillybillys just bussed in from the back of beyond what a rabble and the state of the sign on a piece of old cardboard was unbelievable it looked as if a five year old had written it. Were they insured? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevlar Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 5 minutes ago, Fred the shred said: They looked like a lot of Hillybillys just bussed in from the back of beyond what a rabble and the state of the sign on a piece of old cardboard was unbelievable it looked as if a five year old had written it. Do you have to do a professional protest in the IOM when protesting against a greedy multi billion pound industry? Perhaps spend £500 on some nice sign written placards or maybe get a mate to run them off on the laser printed in a nice typeface? Would the protest have been any more effective if people would have paid a little more attention to presentation? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.