naseem in jail was it the correct verdict

[johnny_t]

Secondly, whether or not the policy holder's own car is covered by the policy is a matter of contract. Whether or not the contract is voided by dangerous driving is also a matter of contract, but I doubt that it would be (voided).

Interesting that you say that, as I agree with and understand everything you've written, but my natural assumption is that this would void the insurance.

If I stuck a lit rag in my petrol tank, and the car blew up, I'm sure the insurance company would argue that I had been behaving illegally and recklessly and not pay out.

If I had failed to have an MOT for five years and one of my shock absorbers rotted through causing me to crash, I'm sure they'd do the same.

If I was driving at 62 in a 60 zone and had a crash, I'm sure they still would pay out.

Naz's offence obviously lies somewhere on a continuum between these, but I would have asssumed that it wouldn't pay for his losses as his accident would have been a direct result of his actions. Have to go and read my small print now.

 

[Softus]

I agree with and understand everything you've written, but my natural assumption is that this would void the insurance.

It's sometimes unwise, in matters of law, to make assumptions.

If I stuck a lit rag in my petrol tank, and the car blew up, I'm sure the insurance company would argue that I had been behaving illegally and recklessly and not pay out.

This has nothing to do with recklessness, but everything to do with crime. If you wilfully set fire to your car then the insurance would be within their rights to decline to pay out, on the grounds that your claim was fraudulent. I expect that they would inform the police, who would probably obtain sufficient evidence for a prosecution to be sought by the CPS.

If I had failed to have an MOT for five years and one of my shock absorbers rotted through causing me to crash, I'm sure they'd do the same.

No they wouldn't. They would invoke the contractual clause that obliges you to maintain the car in a safe and roadworthy state at all times; failure to do so voids your contract and indemnity.

If I was driving at 62 in a 60 zone and had a crash, I'm sure they still would pay out.

I'm sure they would. I'm sure that they would also hike your premium at the next renewal.

Naz's offence obviously lies somewhere on a continuum between these

No it doesn't - you haven't defined the boundaries of a continuum, merely a selection of possible and apparently arbitrary scenarios.

but I would have asssumed that it wouldn't pay for his losses as his accident would have been a direct result of his actions.

By your reasoning no insurer would ever pay out for any incident, because some or other driver is always responsible, even if all he/she did was to drive the car along the road.

 

[Moz]

He should of got a stiffer sentence in a proper nick ..

 

[Winstonchurchill]

Since you want to persist in this...

Ellal wrote.
Your comment doesn't in the least bit surprise me in that it contains filthy language. Still I can't help you lacking class.

Filthy language?..lacking class?

At least you haven't denied telling lies, but then that would be difficult for you now.

Where have you pointed out a lie?..you are obviously a fellow student of 'pedantic semantics' (where there is a sith, there is a master - which are you?..), and you have quoted nothing that suggests a lie - merely playing with quotes/words to try and justify an argument that has run out of steam ( even if there was any there in the first place..)..!

If you are going to litter the forum with lies and abuse you can expect to be pulled up for it.

Funny, I was just wondering the same about you (and PB of course)!

I'm sure everyone's bored with this, but if you want to continue making a fool of yourself, be my guest..

edit:..

Ellal, then to a lesser degree, others, have deliberately fostered ill will. They have behaved wth the instincts of a pack, not because of the topic or PB's opinion, but solely because it was him.

If you think that, then you are sorely misguided..

I take each issue on it's merits, will put my view forward, and don't make a point of 'going for someone' irrespective of whether they are of the same opinion or not - that appears to be your warped vision of this!

In this case, the first antagonistic post (you of course will disagree) was PB's (and yes I have re-read..)..the rest, as they say is history!

Yes I am prepared to carry on with this, if you can tone down your filthy mouth.

Could you kindly broaden these comments as I don't quite follow.

I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread, but I think you'll find that those comments were justified given the posts directed at me..and also some of the wild accusations/conclusions in them.

Specifically which accusations/conclusions?

Others have also agreed that your posts leave a little to be desired in the credibility stakes, so I think that the words pot, kettle & black come to mind..

Where have others agreed that PB's posts leave a lot to be desired in the credibilty stakes? Are you saying you are speaking on behalf of others?

Links please.

 

[markie]

In my opinion thet should make people who want to drive these high performance cars take a test, to see if they can handle such a car.

 

[Moz]

I took my wife too Bury's World Famous Market ,
the other day ,
for a nice day out ... lol
an was nearly hit 3 different times by the bus drivers there ,OMFG!!!!

I aml awaiting my reply too the letter I sent to their head office ,

all were in the wrong an drove horrendously ...

the last time I tried to ring 999 on the wifes mobile but being in a sh*tty town NO reception ...
Hmmph

My advice is AVOID BURY AT ALL COSTS IF YOU VALUE YOUR CAR/ LIFE ..LOL

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am more concerned about the general abuse of and bad language directed towards fellow members.

Foul language has no place on a family forum.

Something that had to be deleted by a moderator

Something that had to be deleted by a moderator with the comment "Abuse will not be tolerated"

It was because of a certain gosh**e who always thinks he/she is right

You should all have the b***s to be more upfront and truthful.

Give me an "H"
Give me a "Y"
Give me a "P"
Give me an "O"
Give me a "C"
.
.
.
.

 

[Winstonchurchill]

BAS, you were deliberately awkward and sarcastic with PB on this thread because of your previous spats with him.

Likewise you are now trying to demean me too.

I don't really have the time or the inclination to be bothered with bored individuals. I also don't recall the circumstances or context of the above alleged quotes.

I do however distinctly remember this one though.

F**ny instead of bum

This wasn't bad language, the thread was about the differences in UK/US language. In the US B** is called F****. I did not use the bad language you accuse me of at all. Here is the thread in question for those that haven't fallen asleep due to this tedium.
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=281788&highlight=#281788

The above is obviously taken out of all context, which clearly means you are no better than the liar you are trying to defend.

 

[noodlz]

Wanabe Churchill, read your past posts, and as BAS has clearly illustrated....what a hypocrite!

For someone who isn't taking sides, you have a warped view of the facts...read thread again....slowly.

Initially, PaulBrown was offended by Ellal's use of which he perceives as an offensive icon...
Yet, it was quite understandable to use such an icon in response to such a ridiculous view (read it again).

The first really personally offensive post was this...

ellal,

You have issues which are more to do with wealth than anything else. In a word you are jealous.

WC, point out where exactly you perceive the lies, deceit and anomalies?

How do you conclude that my views are that of a left wing idealist?

Because I oppose right wing extremists? Someone who rants interminably defending the right to free speech of racists then whines to mods to censor others when it suits them is disingeuous, as are you WC.

 

[Softus]

you are now trying to demean me too.

Oh, I think we all know that you've achieved that without b-a-s's help.

I also don't recall the circumstances or context of the above alleged quotes.

How very handy.

 

[Winstonchurchill]

you are now trying to demean me too.

Oh, I think we all know that you've achieved that without b-a-s's help.

I also don't recall the circumstances or context of the above alleged quotes.

How very handy.

I am not sure why you are getting involved softus as you can clearly read the link and see BAS is taking quotes out of context.

Likwise noodlz can do the same.

I have not used the bad the language BAS said, as I have shown above.

Irrespective of all the above, BAS is completely of thread. Is he admitting he has a grudge as he is bringing comments over from elsewhere?

 

[Winstonchurchill]

Wanabe Churchill, read your past posts, and as BAS has clearly illustrated....what a hypocrite!

Believe part of what you read and all of what you see, you are being misled. BAS as linked a lie.

 

[markie]

Thats not like bas

 

[Softus]

Softus, I am not sure if your reply was aimed at me or not.

I am not sure why you are getting involved softus as you can clearly read the link and see BAS is taking quotes out of context.

I'm involved because (a) I was making posts of relevance to the topic, and (b) because you addressed a post to me.

I apologise if i'm off thread, but my thoughts are nothing to do with the thread itself

Irrespective of all the above, BAS is completely of thread. Is he admitting he has a grudge as he is bringing comments over from elsewhere?

No. He has no grudge. It's just that you're a crashing hypocrite WC.

 

[Softus]

Believe part of what you read and all of what you see, you are being misled.

OK then - get specific. Please quote one single part that is a lie, and provide a link to something that substantiates your claim that it is a lie.

BAS as linked a lie.

Oh, I can't wait for the most honest person on the forum to read this one.