Liverpool Lou

There's no need for you to have to explain anything to me, I understood what your comment meant, it wasn't difficult. It was you who apparently didn't understand the accuracy of my response to it using your own words. What you do on the forum regarding "mute" or "Ignore" means nothing to me, I do not care, but I will point out, once again, that my having a different view to others here and expressing it is not "attacking" those people, it's called having an opinion or, perhaps, exposing inaccuracies, inaccuracies that sometimes appear to be deliberately fallacious. It's odd that you consider that comments such as those "add something" to the conversation. It's also odd that you consider humour to be a requirement of posts and, as regards "originality", that it something that most posters seem to keep well away from.

Quite right, there are no prizes for any posts (or emojis received) on this forum, "Likes" and anonymous emojis mean absolutely nothing...except to the over-sensitive.

They can't, obviously, but many posters' opinions are presented by them as facts, that's where they go wrong.

..or their use of that emoji can mean "What the 'uck are you going on about?" as some posters "do not comprehend complex thoughts concerning instances of opposition between different concepts or aspects of something. Some lack reading comprehension skill and life experience. Or they are just dullards", to use your words. That applies to many posts seen here that receive the emoji!

I like Lou! He's a sweetheart.

Ain`t we on here lucky to know someone who is perfect........ Indeed you are.

No I won't!

You are quite right on the alcohol over consumption,but it would also have to be a clear contributory cause. I know, that's what I said. Just being over the policy's prescribed blood/alcohol limit is all the insurer needs for the policy to be voided.

Perhaps the family knows nothing about it and came to aid their son. Well, the family have been informed by the insurer that the policy was voided so it's more than likely that they were also told the reason for that.

On which occasions did he commandeer the plane as his own? How do you have that information?

It certainly hosts a lot of members who do not read the rules, whereyougo.

Yes, that is normally accommodated.

If that can be done. But you do seem to have it all in hand, so, as I said, you're laughing, absolutely nothing to worry about.

In the absence of his being able to effect a new land ownership law, regardless of his fees, what do you think he would be able to do with her property that you, presumably, gifted her? Maybe you have some sort of legal contract with her regarding the purchase and ownership of the property, in which case you're laughing.

"Run" or "ruin"?

How could you keep something that isn't yours to keep?

Perhaps three of the fifteen spent cartridges. Items 1, 2 and 3 may not have been cartridges.

why does the article say they were brawling then ? Ask them. The article confirms that they were not brawling, they were assisting a well-oiled friend.

Perhaps the family does know something about the circumstances of the denial of the claim from the insurer but are reluctant to include it in a request for money so that other people to pay the bills?

Consumption of alcohol does not necessarily void a policy, it is the excess consumption of alcohol (that would contribute to the incident) that generally does. But you are right, if a person is inclined to over-imbibe there is no point in buying a policy that doesn't cover those circumstances.

TL:DR but if its on the internet it must be true....... If what is on the internet? You said that you didn't read it.

That would be terrible if that was what actually happened. It wasn't. Hmmm...

So who drives the vans then? Robots? Those currently driving the vans are not the only people who could do the job, robots are not required.

Reading the link does make the sequence of events very clear and that is what a link to the full article is there for.

That may well be the case, but so what? It's still no reason for her to be unjustifiably disparaged.