Ekona

Hate to say it, but they're wrong. NCB is a No Claim Bonus. You get that if you don't claim. If I don't claim, then it cannot be lost. Let me give you another example, this one in real life. I was insured on a car owned by someone else a few years back, and I binned it. It was repaired and everyone was happy. He lost part of his NCB as it was his policy and he claimed, however because I didn't claim my NCB was completely unaffected. My insurer knows about the accident as I have to declare it, but as I've not claimed on any policy then my NCB is still 100%. I agree that an insurer can see that a car is insured with someone else, no arguments there. However Dave and Julie are not linked by their policies, so when Dave claims on his policy, that has nothing to do with Julie's policy. Julie's policy covers HER, not the car, and Dave's policy covers HIM, not the car. I don't see any way that an insurer could claim part-payment from another insurer when it had nothing to do with their client, at all. If the vehicle is stolen then yes, that's the only awkward time however as long as only one person claims on their policy, then there should be no issue. And if there was, the ombudsman would settle it very quickly.

Do you mean by having two separate policies? That wouldn't be the case, as only the person claiming on their policy would lose out. Think of it like this: Dave buys a car. Julie wants to insure herself on that car, which Dave is okay with. Dave is the owner and the registered keeper. Julie drives the car into a small ditch. Clumsy Julie! Julie claims on her policy, and loses her NCB, but the car is repaired by her insurer. Dave does not have to tell his insurer as he had no accident, nor did he claim. A year later Dave drives the car into a wall. Silly Dave! The car is a write-off, and Dave's policy pays Dave the market value. Dave now loses his NCB, but Julie keeps the one year she's gained. Julie cannot legally continue to insure something that doesn't exist, so she contacts her insurance and cancels the policy. Dave and Julie decide that car driving isn't for them, emigrate to the Maldives and live out their days cuddling baby turtles.

Of course you are. You're just not allowed to claim from both of them for the same incident. As long as you declare the facts to an insurer, no problems at all.

Leave my be-winged barge alone, it looks f*cking awesome :p

I didn't have Jo insured on any of my cars for years, purely because she was too young. She was on there for the final year of the 911 and has been on ever since, but purely as an emergency measure in case I break my leg and can't drive my car home, or hers breaks and she needs to get somewhere. But basically you either have to change insurer or live with it. Alternatively she could insure herself on the car on a completely different policy, but then that's not going to be a cheap option.

None, at least none Islamic-extremist related that myself or Wiki can see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain There's a few Iranian-related ones, but that's as close as I can see. Is IS not a bit different though? I mean, I can totally see your point over non-interference, but I think we can all agree that IS is a Bad Thing Indeed with no reasonable aims. Unlike the IRA, or even the Israel/Palestine situation, they're not interested in a political goal or taking their land back: They just want to see us wiped out completely. Sitting down with them and agreeing concessions is simply not an option, so what's left? Either sit back and do nothing and watch them murder innocent people in a foreign land, or use military force to wipe them out as best you can (accepting you'll never get 100%)? Tbh neither answer is particularly palatable in my eyes, but is there an alternative I've missed?

Just copy what your sources did. After all, they're the best as they've already done the hard work and no-one on here will know what they're talking about. But seriously, just pick an example you like and copy that.

Ridge Racer or GTFO

That's different: You then have a contract with the manufacturer if you pay for something! My original point stands. No contract, no legal recourse. At all. EDIT And again, if a manufacturer chooses to offer direct warranty assistance that's out of the goodness of their heart, not because of any legal requirement.

Because we don't rely on kebabs and olives as our main ways of raising cash

@JP: So you'd be happy for everyone to have everything monitored all the time? Also, this link may make for interesting reading for some not aware of why mass arrest and internment doesn't really work. Not aimed at you JP, I suspect you're aware of stuff like this.

It's illegal to go off to train to kill people, and people have been arrested and charged (and taken out by drone) for that. Thousands of people speed each day, despite knowing the laws. Making it illegal to look at bomb-making on the internet won't change people looking for it, they'll just go underground to the dark net and it'll be hidden. Would you be happy with the government tracking every single part of your life? I'm not exactly a tinfoil hat guy, and in general I'm very much of the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear mindset, but even I baulk at the thought of The Man knowing every single thing about my life all the time. That's ultimately what you're advocating for.

Define get tough? Let's assume the police knew about this guy. Let's assume they can see his internet search history and he's been looking at ISIS sites, and chatting with ISIS mates about how the West is evil and someone should teach them a lesson. At that point, however much we may like it, he's done absolutely nothing wrong and tbh I wouldn't want to be in a country that arrested someone in that stage. Now when he starts buying bomb parts it's different, he's committed a crime and can (and should) be arrested. It's a slippery slope if you start down the road as the Thought Police. Where do you stop? Should I be arrested and detained if I say I'd like to punch Katie Hopkins in the face? Or how about if I say I hate all pikies? The line is a careful one, and we should be wary of stepping over it and becoming what we despise.

That's the Bond I grew up with.

At 37 I'm totally down with the kids too. Definitely not old. Nope. But no, I would say that outlook is down to the person, rather than a generational thing or even a 20s/30s/40s/whatever thing. In general, I've a very positive outlook on life (although I may not choose to share it with the internet!), and very rarely do I ever look at world events and be remotely bothered by them. I'm far more annoyed if I drop the last Jaffa Cake on the floor than I am by a million starving kids in Africa, for example. I'll make the best of whatever events the world conspires to give me.

In that case, go forth and modify sir!

That makes us no better than them, and then they're also free to go and do what they want surely? We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about him. Still, he was punished for his crimes and tbh that sentence would seem reasonable to me.

But who is they? The actual terrorists sure, but they're all going suicide attacks these days, so who is left? You may have many people who sympathise with a terrorist cause, but would never dream of carrying something out. Should they be jailed for their thoughts and inactions?

Real hate preachers are very few and far between. Sure, we know Abu Hamza, but who else? No-one that I can think of, and certainly no-one in the last few years since ISIS took over from Al Qaeda in being the biggest concern for terrorism. We can't just jail people because they've said a couple of dodgy things, else you'll quickly find yourself put in prison under the same laws.

It's not the ones walking around preaching hate that I'm worried about, it's the ones that aren't.

Oi, Little Mix are ace! Apart from their current album which admittedly is terrible, but the last few have been superb. I can understand your concern, I really can. Not an easy decision, but personally I feel we shouldn't change anything we do to let the b*stards win. Easy for me to say though, I don't have kids.

I was looking to pick up some tickets to one of Grande's shows as well but they all sold out too fast. In terms of an attack, it couldn't have been a more perfect target. Heartbreaking to see images on social media of family desperately searching for their loved ones

AWESOME But RIP to the OG PS

£45Bn a year on interest alone. Insane.