Liverpool Lou

Apparently not.

Not if they were produced by the company that has the contract to produce them, it would just be an error.

That was twenty years ago. This is today! "Fine print" does not exist in insurance policy conditions...insurance policy conditions do.

Stop making things up. You have offered no proof that the latest survey was biased. No, I am not making anything up, that "survey" of selected scientists was years ago and the proof is it's debunking that has been well publicised, that's the reason it's rarely brought up nowadays.

It is illegal and. consequently, there is no "small print" in insurance policies, only policy conditions that anyone can read.

No. Should have asked, but don't want to appear too intrusive. So you have no idea why the claim was denied so you just choose to irrationally slag-off the insurer?

How about 'because we've 'ad your money'? Such nonsense. How about because there were exclusions in the policy that "she read"?

No, any reasonable person would think that cancer would be covered only if it was bloody specified in the policy.

No, they do not, "small print" is a myth, policies do have easily read conditions, though, that some people don't bother to read and when a claim is legally denied (because it wasn't covered from the start) the claimants call it "small print".

Depends on the reason for the claim being denied, it wouldn't be "disgusting" if it wasn't covered by the policy. "Needless to say it's a Thai company". Needless to say many people don't read what their cover extends to.

Yes, I know, it's years old and something that is not usually brought up now because of the extremely biased group that were surveyed.

Because the forks didn't hit the rider, they hit the passenger, it clearly wasn't a head-on collision.

Who are "crooks" and why?

It's you that doesn't understand! It was 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, not 97% of all climate scientists.

Sorry I got a wrong link in, the right one comes here: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ Exactly, the right link that proves my point! 97% of a selected group, not "97% of all the worlds scientists"... "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change". All of the worlds scientists are not "actively publishing climate scientists".

Read here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted "97% of scientists" claim? That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.

Why shouldn't they ask for you to pay the correct price?

In the UK they, obviously, are responsible for the cash under their control but they were not made to make good shortfalls out of their own pockets (nor were they allowed to pocket "overs"), banks have provisions for those situations.

For the record, this is a reply from Revolut in response to my asking them directly yesterday whether Revolut is available in Thailand...it is not...

That would have a lot to do with it! 20°?

What would be the significance of that?

Of course he'll be courteous, he's charging you almost double the actual rate for electricity and everything definitely is not above board, it's illegal, even though many renters do it.

I would suggest that you do it as I know, and have proved, that Revolut is not available currently for new accounts in Thailand based on a Thai phone number, not new accounts for people in Thailand pretending to be in the UK who may have UK credentials.

perhaps she refers to the calls that you pay for to receive... I dont know how that works.... I've no idea what that means.

Me neither.