Liverpool Lou

maybe a problem with understanding English https://www.huffpost.com/entry/life-lessons_b_5120740 There Are Always Two Sides To Every Story There sure is on your behalf and thank you for confirming my point. You said "there are always two versions of a fact", not "there are always two sides to every story". Stories are not facts.

Fair comment Lou. Should have said most of us know. And "most of us know" would have been just as much garbage.

But of course...covid insurance cancelled because too many claims Really? Your policy? Which company? We were discussing the false claim that "insurers added exclusions to existing policies after their issuance in order to deny claims" and that did not happen. In the case of what you're referring to, what actually happened was that no claims were denied because they were pulling out of the market and premiums were refunded to those affected by cancelled policies.

Because he's not in the country where RTP have jurisdiction.

It wasn't closed, it was "sealed off", by the bikers.

it is a hard thing to do since you only have only 2 pedal ...or three.

No, it sounds like shi_te.

Because he killed him!

"As we all know..." Such garbage. Just get so sick of posters saying "as we all know", as though what follows that is ever accepted or substantiated fact, eg. "the truth has little or no value in Thailand".

No, but the robbers may take him to the location of where the money was kept The bank?

Embassies will not provide legal assistance, they direct their citizens to lawyers.

Never heard "the old saying" that goes, "there are always two versions of a fact". Where did you find that gem?

I have seen innumerable cases where during the term of a policy, and after making a claim, a Thai insurer decided (often on pretty flimsy grounds/big leaps of logic) that they had uncovered proof that the condition was pre-existing and therefore refused to pay Ok, that is not what you claimed in your post that I am commenting on! Discovering a pre-existing condition (and those are obviously excluded from cover by any insurer) is not "adding an exclusion to a pre-existing policy"! The pre-existing exclusion would always have been a policy condition, not an add-on to deny a claim!

There's always one keyboard hardman for us to laugh at!

Which "prosecutors" have already found him guilty? By the way, prosecutors do not issue judgements, they recommend prosecutions. Why do you suggest that there will not be a court case when there, obviously, will have to be?

You're suggesting that those two cases, only one being a murder case, are not being investigated? You're very badly informed if you are.

If someone broke into your house and held a gun to your head or your wife and kids heads. Your liberal attitude would change quickly . You would probably ask nicely to please put the gun down. You would not like the results. That is incorrect, read my comments to you again. What you suggest is not my attitude but my attitude is not what I was commenting on. My comments related to your ridiculous claim that in the US (and other countries) an off-duty police officer could kill an intruder with no questions asked. That is not the case.

That's not what was being discussed when he made his comments so why would you think that was what he meant? "being allowed to introduce exclusions after the policy was issued based on claims etc etc." You're suggesting that, after a policy has been issued and during its term, exclusions can be added by the insurer that changes the contract between the insurer and the policy holder without advising the policy holder in order to deny claims? Really? Do you have something empirical to support that assertion?

USA. If someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a firearm, You have every right to kill the MF. Yes, I know that but that is a lot different from the intruder being killed "with no questions asked"! There would be a lot of sodding questions asked! My comment was not about the legality, it was about your ridiculous claim that "there would be no questions asked". That is false.

Sand would be available on the beach I'm aware of that. I don't believe bags are, though, that was my slightly facetious point.

Yes, no commercial banks run any risk of going out of business due to decentralised finance. Have you got anything sensible/rational that would support your assertion?

His Albert Tatlock mantra!

Common sense in almost any country except this one What? You're claiming that it's "common sense" that, in almost any country, an off duty police officer killing an intruder to his premises would be processed "with no questions asked"? Could you give an example of a country where that happens, please?

Get your story right about what I actually said and try again. I have no personal experience of health insurance claims, i.e. claims of my own, that's what I said. According to your posts here, it seems that you have no personal claims experience, just a couple of "friends'" "stories". I do have many years of experience in the insurance industry, here and in the UK, including general claims and life claims so I do know, forensically, how those claims are processed and what the stats on successful claims are. That's also what I said.

Shot dead with no questions asked? What do you base that on?