Liverpool Lou

That would be dependent on the small print in the policy. That would actually be dependent on the policy conditions, there is no "small print" in UK insurance policies.

No the reason that the insurance companies make profits is because they do pay, on average, 90% of all claims...that is why they are so profitable, if they didn't pay out most claims they'd have no new policy holders confident enough to take out new policies to give them that profit.

UK insurers are highly regulated and there in no "fine print" that the ordinary man in the street should not be able to understand.

Just because you'd like to doubt it doesn't mean that it cannot be established.

Nonsense. Insurers have no issue paying legitimate claims which do not have any significant effect on their bottom line...the insurers are insured.

In the majority of cases that does not happen, most insurance claims are met. The usual reason for claims being denied is because the policy holder did not comply with the policy conditions and voided the policy.

Yeah, right.

Under what jurisdiction are these timescales? Which timescales? Police cannot detain anyone against their will unless they arrest them.

Yes they can. No, they cannot without arresting and charging them with something.

They can keep you at the police station for a certain time if they suspect something and want to question you. Not against the will of the person they can't, unless they are arrested and charged!

Yes, perhaps they do have other businesses that operate profitably but does their financial status have to do with you, what's your point...is it illegal to operate multiple businesses?

I doubt that it is illegal to be no more than the owner of an establishment that is being operated illegally after hours by others such as the management of the club who were arrested. If the owner wasn't physically present, illegally operating the club, what do you think that he could be charged with?

No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao. This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it. "No real evidence the Burmese 2 were guilty on Kho Tao". Based on the evidence, the court thought otherwise. "This guy looks as guilty as hell, they just can't prove it". Exactly, everyone thinks that he looks guilty as hell, and he may well turn out to be, but without any evidence at all, which is the case now, he isn't even in a position to be charged, never mind guilty as hell.

Based on he is a murder suspect, they can keep you in jail for a while to question you. No, they cannot keep anyone in jail just for questioning unless they arrest and charge that person. They can consensually question persons of interest, that's all, they cannot detain them without charges and those parties do not have to respond to any questions.

You don't usually need evidence here, circumstantial evidence is still evidence though. "You don't usually need evidence here..." Yes, you do. "...circumstantial evidence is still evidence though". What circumstantial evidence are you guessing that they have and, if there is some, why wouldn't the British police have used it?

Based on no charges or evidence? Yeah, right.

And the link in the OP!

All ears. Don't keep it a secret. You don't need ears to read.

What the <deleted>!? Reading the article properly is never a bad thing before hitting the keyboard... "The investigation has been at a standstill for three years because attempts by police to travel to the country were delayed by the legal permissions needed and travel restrictions imposed due to Covid. Mr Harland said getting to Thailand was what "they had been waiting to do for what seems like a lifetime".

With 20-25,000 deaths a year that's quite a lot of health oops (whatever that is). He did not post that they were all health related.

Well said.

No, they're not all dead, a child survived and he could be the beneficiary of legal proceedings.

Webfact can always be relied upon.

Why?

Completely irrelevant to the OP's circumstances.