Liverpool Lou

"...this is not Thai bashing, just an observation". Yes, it is an observation, a Thai-bashing observation. You can't really believe that no one else, whatever nationality, sometimes talk in load voices?

"I've driven motorbikes thousands of miles and never was near falling asleep..." Well, you weren't the rider in this case so your less eventful experiences are irrelevant but why does "it take more actions"...what does that mean? A helmet and visor would have kept the wind off his face, wouldn't it?

how would she know , presumably she was sat behind him, He may have simply lost control, Sitting behind him it's not unlikely that she would have noticed if he had been showing signs of nodding off prior to the accident, i.e. the nodding and jerking of his head as he dropped off and woke again, it's always plainly obvious if a person is dropping off but trying to stay awake.

Perhaps his passenger who reported the accident told them.

The same way that some people fall asleep driving cars or trucks.

you will work it out. I did "work it out", long ago, it's you who needs to work out that the word is "drivel".

Dribble? Drivel.

Would anyone?

Amazing thieving, dishonest Azerbaijani.

So what?

Can't read, eh? The notice says "NO taste"

There is no "small prints" [sic].

No, that is a problem with policy holders, not insurers, insurers, as private businesses, have no obligation to take on any risk it deems uneconomic.

That was your own fault for accepting what a commission-based salesman told you without reading the actual policy terms.

No more so than "all policy holders" are. At least all insurers are regulated which is more than can be said for those making dubious claims on their policies.

...for which the policy holder pays an appropriate premium, it does not cover pre-existings FOC!

They're businesses, not charities, they charge according to their risk.

No, it was not. And idiotic posts from AN members claiming knowledge of the reasons, without any evidence, count for nothing, no matter how many times those unsubstantiated assertions are made.

No, it was not. And idiotic posts from AN member claiming knowledge of the reasons, without any evidence, count for nothing.

Naw, it was related to suspicion of money laundering. And your source for that false claim is what?

Pathetic. I'm not lying, no foreign banks are known to have refused to do business with Trump, if they had, you, sure as <deleted>, would have quoted them.

There has been absolutely no suggestion that their decision to not offer him service was anything to do with "bankruptcies, fraud, and legal baggage" rather it appears that the decisions were purely political to make his political, and business life. as difficult as possible.

Where did you get that invalid, and likely completely inaccurate, "statistic" from?

Huh? How could you possibly know that non-sensical assertion to be the case?

Er...I am well aware of what I did not include; not staying at the scene (and, by definition, not assisting the rider) does not put him at fault for the accident that, from the reports, appeared to have been nothing to do with the truck driver apart from his being at the wrong place at the wrong time.