Claiming against someone else car insurance the process

[MrTurner]

OK, I admit, you are cleverer than me. You have successfully managed to strip my posts to pieces to make yourself look more clever. In doing so you have:

1) Made me realise that not all forums are freindly
2) Pointed out that if someone asks for a bit of info based on experience, to make sure every word is not ambiguous, so that people like you don't get offended, and to make sure I insert reams of information to support my opinions
3) Ceased my interest in this forum

 

[Softus]

I don't know why you think I'm offended, but I'm not. I also don't know why it's important to you to decide who's cleverer than who else, but it isn't to me.

You were giving wrong information about things that are potentially important. You're entirely free to have an opinion, and to write it down here, but I'm equally free to point out where that opinion is wrong, and especially so where it's presented in the guise of fact.

The Common Law / Criminal Law statement is an excellent example of where you're not presenting any fact at all - you implied that the definition of those terms has a bearing on whether or not a breach of the terms of an insurance contract is tantamount to breaking the law, and you've made no attempt to explain your thinking.

You seem quick to insult and slow to understand. This isn't the General Discussion forum, where opinion is paramount, but one of the DIY forums, where enquirers have a right to expect an expert opinion; your wild speculation regarding the behaviour of the police, insurance companies, and motor repairers is quite clearly very far from being expert.

If your last post is representative of your reaction to being asked to justify statements that you make (a) about the law and (b) about the workmanship of people you've never met, then you're not well suited to being a member of an open forum.