Chongalulu

We've seen the way tryiing to accommodate Muslims, spending billions on the banlieus in France has worked out...

No it wouldn't. If you were drunk sitting in a roadside bar which a car ran into injuring you there would be no contributory factor. The insurer would have no grounds to reject the claim and the ombudsman would rule as such

Travel insurance will cover you for a lot so it's unwise not to buy it based on your reasoning. It will exclude say skiing but you can pay extra to have it included. The "small print ” isn't that small and there's always a separate section,not difficult to read, identifying the exclusions. Very many are too lazy to spend the ten minutes or less to read it. You post intelligently and would have no difficulty at all.

Each case has to be evaluated on the circumstances, although some insurers (Tif) have a poor reputation. If football wasn't proscribed in the policy as a dangerous activity ( unlike say scuba diving while not qualified) then there's no basis for refusing the claim. If you were injured in a road accident not your fault but weren't wearing a seatbelt,your damages would be reduced,not denied,on the basis of contributory negligence. Quite a minefield!

It's quite common that someone having an affair awakens the sex drive with their normal partner. Practically,a gambling addiction is probably much more difficult to end than promiscuity.

In essence you are correct,though there are several incidents of insurers failing in their duty to claimants,as ruled by the ombudsman. Google Tif insurers whode medical expert has been sanctioned by the GMC for several failures in dealing with badly injured clients one of whom died as a result

It helps you realise there's no point buying it! ????

You are quite right on the alcohol over consumption,but it would also have to be a clear contributory cause. E.G. if he was a passenger in a car or just sitting drunk in a roadside bar and a car ran into him the insurer would have no cause to refute the claim. Drunk and falling from a balcony is a whole different matter.

An original and thought provoking phrase there ....

Thank goodness no wing mirrors were damaged in this incident. That would been 40 times more serious.. ????

Yes,that makes it perfectly acceptable then. Later on I'll be arriving at your house pointing a loaded gun at your head. I "probably ” won't pull the trigger (use it) and so you'll be perfectly fine with that I guess...?

Accentuate the positive - he's not ALWAYS going to wake up...

Anecdotal evidence of one is no substitute for properly compiled statistics. You are misguided

How you 'feel' is a poor argument in the face of the actual statistics .

Yet you can produce no substantiated counter argument …? The RTA figures for Thailand (25,000 deaths per annum) are a substantial support of mine however.

The locals seem not to learn from the experience of crashing into each other though. The tourists seem to leave their good senses behind when "holiday brain" takes over and they suddenly think that wearing helmets etc. rules/consequences are miraculously suspended because they’re "on holiday " and everyone else is doing it.

The poor should learn to "count" on themselves not to slaughter each other so mindlessly. 99% of the solution is in their own hands.

There was plenty of regulation and building inspectors would have been involved during the construction. Not something done in Thailand.As I understand it the cladding didn't contravene regulations at the time. The instances are far apart in equivalence in that respect. Rarely would you find a house collapsing in UK from a thunderstorm!

At the time of installation of the cladding I understand this didn't contravene the building regulations at the time. A far cry from this Thai house where the fundamental structural construction was severely flawed. Yours is a false equivalence

The OP was talking about a UK pension and the responder claiming theft was Britman 2 , suggesting his was referencing a British pension too, which is what I based my response on. Otherwise I agree with all you said.

No, YOUR financial advisor might have been a crook and if he Indeed did embezle monies from the fund then you would have been entitled to compensation from the association they have to be part of via the FCA.

Not really,in that case it was the cladding to the wrong spec rather than fundamental construction. Not to diminish the catastrophic consequences of that error.

It's MORE expensive when you have to build it 2 or even 3 or more times to make it last as long...

I've finally concluded that there's either a genetic flaw in the spacial awareness make up ,or else the "thick gene ????”. The two are not mutually exclusive as two of the drivers here have demonstrated...

So you're in the pub talking to a mate and another friend walks in but you'll never notice him....? Or you're driving but can never glance down at the instruments? Oh dear,you are one dimensional chap!