Jump to content

Crazy Diamond

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crazy Diamond

  1. Spotted on one of the disability FB earlier, slightly OT, but thought it might make people smile (wryly, if nothing else!): I particularly like the pun Atos / Thanatos. Might have to re-use that one.
  2. You might want to mention that to a few peeps, I don't think they've read Orwell. Or even Wiki.
  3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette I beg you: don't let CAG become one of these.
  4. Free speech is apparently a thread being pulled as offensive (presumably), whilst one much more offensive has just been posted... I have reported it, hope to see it pulled as quickly as the other one was.
  5. Reporting as offensive under s 1.7 of the forum rules.
  6. Seeing the disappearance of a certain thread, I think my version of what free speech constitutes may be somewhat different to what the current's standards on here. Thanks for the link, Honeybee. So, nothing that was written earlier elsewhere was in breach of this then... Excellent. Looking forward to the thread reappearing then?
  7. thatcher's dead. Not unsurprisingly, people are rejoicing up and down the land, but it would appear that not on CAG, a site which wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for her and those who followed her. World's gone mad.
  8. I have a question: If anyone dares putting up a post that eulogises she-who-mustn't-be-mentioned, can we report it under section 1.7, then? Because it sure as hell will upset a lot of people if someone tries to sing her praises... Fair is fair, after all. Does it mean that in future, no-one should comment on anything in case someone else gets upset? Where do you stop pre-deciding what's going to upset people and what's best for us? All asked respectfully and reasonably, of course.
  9. She's no longer people, nor a company. Point in case, m'lud.
  10. What, not allowed to express our opinions in the Bear Garden now? Isn't that taking censorship a bit far?
  11. Yep, indeedy, I had forgotten that one. Interesting point about Godwin's Law, actually, which we've been debating on disability boards etc, what's your opinion? Godwin's Law supposedly invalidates an argument, right? But what happens when the argument is on how this government's policies are in direct parallel to the Nazi ones? When the rhetoric used is the same one Hitler used to hammer whole slices of the population? When it is in fact no longer a hyperbole, but a stark reminder that history is being repeated, and ignored by so many until it may be to late? I say it is perfectly legitimate to use the Nazi analogy now because it's no longer an analogy, but a direct comparison. What do you think?
  12. Oh yes, there was a cracking tearjerker of a set piece, yesterday I believe, was it in the Express or the Mail? where he made an even complete fool of himself, by trying to tell a sycophantic journo a tearjerker of a story on his struggles. Sounded like it had be written by the same agency that produces the Hovis ads, and was about as credible. Even the usual readership of the paper, normally gullible beyond description, were taking the pee out of him, it was that ridiculous. Edit: Here is the article if anyone has a stomach strong enough: IDS - Mein Kampf
  13. He also used to be a soldier............... Does it make ex-soldiers more likely to kill their children? And he's a, I don't know, white man... Does it make white men more likely to kill their children? A Northerner................................ Does it make Northerners more likely to kill their children? He has a moustache........................ Does it make moustachioed people more likely to kill their children? Antone might have used a hyperbole, but you seem to be quite happy to use sophisms!
  14. Who believes that these days, if they ever did? The 2 latest wheezes from this sharp shower are these: - Part-time workers (low income, tax credits) to be made to report to job centre every so often to "see" if they could find something that pays better / has more hours, with the possibility of sanctions if they don't try to. - People caught working whilst on benefit to get their wages stopped. Usually, one way to make things simpler all round (and cheaper for the DWP not having to prosecute unless they want to make an example) would be to make them sign off benefits and repay the money... This is so counter-intuitive it's unreal.
  15. They couldn't until it was done. Certainly, suspicion that you may decide to misuse it ("misuse" still having to be defined) wouldn't be a sufficient reason to say no. I mean, it's like saying that because I bought a chainsaw, I am going to turn into a serial killer!
  16. Right, just spent a while going through the documents you added, thanks for that. In no particular order: The policies are different from the one you got online to the one they sent you by e-mail, but it's because one is version 1 and the other version 3 (You can see that by comparing the ref number towards the end of the policy, under the master policy number). You don't say how long ago you booked, but I would put it down to carelessness, not deliberate: the insurers will issue new leaflets as they change policies and someone somewhere didn't bother checking the tiny print to make sure you they matched, OR they haven't updated their site to the latest pamphlet. Annoying, but they'll explain it away as genuine error, not misrepresentation. If you had a valid claim, you could argue it, however, and they'd probably adjust the amount. I agree the "which?" thing is a tad dodgy, and if this had a bearing on the reason for them not paying out, I agree you could make a fuss about that. The problem is, as others have pointed out, it's all irrelevant... All policies will have that exclusion and therefore it doesn't matter whether you feel you were misled or not, no policy would pay out under these circumstances. My advice would be to chalk it up to bad experience rather than fighting them on something which won't make a blind bit of difference to the end result.
  17. Maybe you should take your own advice and not quote "out of context". This is what Osborne actually said: (source here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035) Now, would you like to review your statement that he didn't link the two? Or are you going to keep on trying to defend the indefensible? Edit: Just to help you not dig that hole deeper, before answering, I think you should have a look at what Osborne's boss has said about it, because even he understood Osborne to be linking them: (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22041787)
  18. Small point: http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/package.jsp?name=fte/lincoln/lincoln ;-)
  19. It's more than just a misnomer, it's actually illegal for a business to state this.
  • Create New...