Liverpool Lou

PM sent.

Were the agent and the hospital underwriting the policy? If not, their opinion would be irrelevant.

Completely untrue and how this misleading thread is allowed to continue is unbelievable.

What was the reason for denying your claim? What you posted there is not an insurer's reason for doing so, neither is it how an insurer would explain the reason!

Neither the agent not the hospital decides on the validity of a medical insurance claim, only the insurer does that, perhaps your claim was not, in fact, valid? Just because you say that it was legitimate, with no details, doesn't make it so, neither does it make "medical insurance in general a scam".

The number of posters who are unable to read the link that confirms the officers' sackings is unbelievable.

"General Suwat, revealed that ... the process will lead to the removal of the former police chief at Nakhon Sawan Police Station and his subordinates from government service. The officers have already been removed from the police force but retain their rank".

"General Suwat, revealed that ... the process will lead to the removal of the former police chief at Nakhon Sawan Police Station and his subordinates from government service. The officers have already been removed from the police force but retain their rank".

They're not! "General Suwat, revealed that ... the process will lead to the removal of the former police chief at Nakhon Sawan Police Station and his subordinates from government service. The officers have already been removed from the police force but retain their rank.

Further, I think your point is wrong that it is OK for the judge to not let victims be called victims, but let them be called looters. I assume you call it a fact that they are not victims but are looters. Loaded terms should be not used if they can reasonably be avoided. That would be reIevant if I had said that "it is ok for the judge to not let victims be called victims", I did not say that, I quoted your comment, you said that! I assume you cannot read.

Was he charged with being a vigilante and looking for trouble? No, didn't think so. He was charged with shooting three men who were trying to kill him, though.

possess is not the same as own Who said it was? I sure didn't.

Rittenhouse was there because it was a BLM protest. He was not charged with anything to do with the BLM protest specifically and he was there to try to protect property. He was charged with shooting three people who were trying to kill him because he shot a white man who was trying to kill him!

It was BLM protest against a police shooting of a black man. The BLM protest is not on trial! There was no BLM or racial aspect to the case brought against the white Rittenhouse for shooting three white men!

He wasn't legally allowed to own any gun. Read the law in question in this case.

Out of curiosity, where do u get ur news? It's dark and musty!

You are aware of how this started, right? The sad truth is many get their info from right wing media sites which distort what really was going on. Hmm.... You are aware of how this started, right? The sad truth is many get their info from left wing media sites which distort what really was going on. Hmm.... Left wing media are known for not distorting the truth?

The three people who tried to kill him got it better!

There is no law in that state that stipulates that he had no legal right to carry that gun; the law in question does not allow him to carry the weapon only if it is short-barreled, it wasn't.

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years". Jesus... "The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help". Jesus... Yes, those facts, terrible things. Let's keep facts out of trials! "I think the racial point is relevant". Jesus... There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

"Rouge"? Katoey truck drivers always fixing their makeup, you mean?

Samsung A2 Core. Inexpensive (B2,500-ish), basic, does everything you want it to do. I've got two of them as emergency spares just in case anything happens to my (Google-equipped) Huawei.

For some models, not all.

Thanks for that clarifying link. It confirms that, although HSBC had to pay a settlement to the US authorities, the bank was never indicted and that its operations were never suspended in the US...as GrandPapillon claimed.. "HSBC has signed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for breaches of the US Bank Secrecy Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act and assorted money laundering offences. This is in effect putting the bank on probation," he said. "But if HSBC had been indicted for these offences [it wasn't] that would have meant that the US government and others could no longer have conducted business with it, which would have been humiliating and highly damaging." https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20673466

Where? Which news? Specifically, if it's true. Edit: Don't bother. Another poster has quoted the decade old link that confirms that HSBC's activities in the US were not suspended, as you falsely claimed, because the bank was not indicted, it just had to pay a settlement to US authorities for it's transgressions.