National demonstration against the rising cost of insurance

Diabhalta

Just came across this:

http://www.ireland-underground.com/2016/05/national-demonstration-agains-rising.html

2nd of July. Blocking the M50 perhaps? Would be better to do that during the week.

colm_mcm

I don't think anyone would notice I someone tried to block the m50.

Diabhalta

I'm sure people would notice that the traffic is standstill. For an hour. At 8am in the morning.

bazz26

You don't travel the M50 much then.

_Brian

Blocking the M50 is a stupid idea. It's just inconveniencing the very people who are being screwed by the insurance hikes and they need more hassle like a hole in the head, why don't they just key their cars as they sit on the blocked M50, that would teach them for paying excessive insurance premiums.

Surely any protest would need to be brought to the insurance companies and blockade their offices or similar that impacts on their daily activity. Maybe <snip> etc.

alta stare

The insurance issue needs to be tackled for sure, is this the way to do it? I'm not so sure. I agree with the poster above, blocking other road users may not be the way to go but converging on Leinster House is a good idea. Time to pressure the political parties into acting in this free for all.

Henry Ford III

The issue is the cost and frequency of claims. High premiums are a result of these. No insurer is cleaning up financially.

Slashing court awards and legal fees is the only way forward.

Blocking any road is stupid.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Big Nasty

Not a bad idea in theory but realistically it'll end up with a load of scroates achtung da cvnt and insurance co's will just turn around and say 'point proven'.

shietpilot

I'll bring a few cones!

Corvo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The issue is the cost and frequency of claims. High premiums are a result of these. No insurer is cleaning up financially.

Slashing court awards and legal fees is the only way forward.

Blocking any road is stupid.

Exactly, the changes must come from those above the insurance companies, i.e. regulators and namely the government.

Quick example - whiplash in Ireland results in an average settlement of €14,000. In the UK that is approx £4,000 - £5,000. Even less in Scotland.

That's not the fault of the insurance companies, thats due to court awards etc.

Hence the rising insurance premiums in this country.

biko

Block the entrances to every insurer's building in Dublin for a day
Demand management answering why there are such increases

Cee-Jay-Cee

Corvo wrote: »

Exactly, the changes must come from those above the insurance companies, i.e. regulators and namely the government.

Quick example - whiplash in Ireland results in an average settlement of €14,000. In the UK that is approx £4,000 - £5,000. Even less in Scotland.

That's not the fault of the insurance companies, thats due to court awards etc.

Hence the rising insurance premiums in this country.

And not even a recognised condition in France so you zero compensation if you try and claim for it.

I don't entirely agree that the insurance companies aren't to blame. I have 25 years driving experience, zero claims ever, never had an accident and I've never had a penalty point or speeding ticket or even a parking ticket. I drive an 11 yr old car that I've owned for 5 years, it's a 2.0 Petrol Legacy. My insurance went up from €510 last year (full comp) to €780 this year which is roughly a 60% increase. It's completely unjustifiable and wrong and the insurance company are wholeheartedly and entirely to blame. I am not a risk yet I am penalised heavily.

Diabhalta

Blocking m50 is a bit too much I know, just an extreme measure.

But blocking their offices is a great idea.

I think ins. companies don't really pay that much on compensations so they have to raise the premiums the way they do. Didn't they admit (somewhere) that they want more profits and it's not about more claims?

I used to have a 1.0 Micra and paid anually 400 euro, renewal in January was 650 euro. I asked him in the office why is it going up by +-60% and he couldn't give me an answer. What a scam.

uck51js9zml2yt

Maybe if Paul murphy got involved they'd do a way with insurance all together:)

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

shietpilot

A few straight piped V8s and some revs outside insurance offices :P

bazz26

Is there anything to be said for saying another mass?

Special Circumstances

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

And not even a recognised condition in France so you zero compensation if you try and claim for it.

I'd imagine they don't recognise sprains,strains,cuts,grazes etc due to third party negligence either so. Where is the line between "sorry about that, should really have covered that hole, ah well walk it off lad" and "yeah you might be entitled to compensation for physio etc" - broken bones?

robarmstrong

The claim culture has just ran rampant throughout this country.

I had someone roll into the front of my parked car (I had two witnesses inside), other driver gets out, apologizes etc, I wave her off as there was literally not a scratch or anything on either car - it rolled into the front of mine at snail-like speed ffs!

Two weeks later she claims that I hit her car from the rear and has whiplash, my insurance company seemingly ignores my witnesses (and assessors opinions that there wasn't even any sort of incident!!) and she's just been paid her compensation and I've had my no claims bonus shafted.

longshanks

robarmstrong wrote: »

The claim culture has just ran rampant throughout this country.

I had someone roll into the front of my parked car (I had two witnesses inside), other driver gets out, apologizes etc, I wave her off as there was literally not a scratch or anything on either car - it rolled into the front of mine at snail-like speed ffs!

Two weeks later she claims that I hit her car from the rear and has whiplash, my insurance company seemingly ignores my witnesses (and assessors opinions that there wasn't even any sort of incident!!) and she's just been paid her compensation and I've had my no claims bonus shafted.

Appeal the decision.

Chiorino

biko wrote: »

Block the entrances to every insurer's building in Dublin for a day
Demand management answering why there are such increases

And they will tell you it's due to the cost of claims. The figures are available and very few (if any) insurers in Ireland are making any money from car insurance.

It's not what people want to hear but we've come out of a period where three companies (Quinn, 123.ie/RSA & Setanta) pitched prices below what was sustainable long term and everyone else followed suit to be competitive. Two of these essentially went bust and the third was bailed out to the tune of some €250 million by it's UK parent.

We now have a situation where the increasing cost of claims and the return to more normal pricing has resulted in sudden, sharp increases.

Protesting outside a personal injury lawyers office would be more appropriate.

robarmstrong

longshanks wrote: »

Appeal the decision.

I've been onto my solicitor who informed me that it's not worth pursuing, I have a years ncb since, but the fact it's been settled paid out etc, there's no way to prove someone doesn't have whiplash and that's what these goons do...

Still astounded at the audacity from her to go through with that, hope karma ravages her tbh.

bigboss1986

robarmstrong wrote: »

I've been onto my solicitor who informed me that it's not worth pursuing, I have a years ncb since, but the fact it's been settled paid out etc, there's no way to prove someone doesn't have whiplash and that's what these goons do...

Still astounded at the audacity from her to go through with that, hope karma ravages her tbh.

Dont get me wrong but you should get dash cam.It can solve maaany problems with dodgy drivers .Believe me.:cool:

robarmstrong

I'm getting it on my next car when I get it hopefully within a week. Just irked me that she had no witnesses and I still was screwed over!

Liam McPoyle

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The issue is the cost and frequency of claims. High premiums are a result of these. No insurer is cleaning up financially.

Slashing court awards and legal fees is the only way forward.

Blocking any road is stupid.

EXACTLY.

Its not just motor claims that are crippling the industry either.

I saw a claim this morning that involved a woman in a night club that attempted to do a back flip and ended up landing on her head and split herself open.

Now the injuries were severe and will likely result in life long scarring but it was COMPLETELY her own doing.

She has brought a case against the owners for a breach of duty of care, there is an outstanding reserve of €100k plus costs on the case.

Of course the company will defend the claim but that's not the point, its the mentality of people.

A fcuking idiot smashes herself up because of her own stupidity alone yet still has the gall to try and get compo for it.

That's the mentality that insurance companies are dealing with on a daily basis.

Until the court system gets reformed and nonsense cases like the one mentioned above get thrown out there will be no changes.

And IMO there will be no changes to that because of the parasitic legal system and the ineptitude of the judges making the awards.

There is too much money in it for the legal system.

Special Circumstances

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/irish-motor-insurers-are-charging-more-to-boost-profits-1.2631682

The motor insurance industry is raising the cost of premiums to “boost profitability” in the wake of the economic downturn, Minister for Transport Paschal Donohoe has been advised by officials.
...
The Injuries Board showed a “modest” 8 per cent increase in new claims for 18 months to the middle of last year, while in a 10-year period from its establishment in 2004 “70 per cent of personal injury claims are no longer litigated”.
...

So, don't believe the hype folks. Ireland is a very expense place for any medical or legal type stuff. The answer is to fix our broken systems, not to decide that payouts will only be given in the case of permanent debilitation or death.
I'm sure anyone who has had a slip or trip or fall and fell a strain or sprain afterwards knows that soft tissue injuries do exist and can occur from fairly low velocity stuff depending on individual physiology and just pure bad luck. The fact that they can be treated quickly, efficiently and professionally in countries with real health systems doesn't mean people here shouldn't be looked after.

ThisRegard

Diabhalta wrote: »

Blocking the M50 perhaps? Would be better to do that during the week.

It's an asshole thing to do and won't get any support apart from those partaking in it.

What the hell do the organisers think that would achieve?

Kiangriffin

Hi Guys, I'm the one organising this. We have no intention of blocking up the M50, we'll try to avoid it as much as possible. We'll be going directly into the city. We chose a Saturday as more people are available to go without having to rearrange work commitments and it also will have less of an impact on the ordinary workers of Dublin.
The idea is to show numbers, not disrupt everyone. Also we are very adamant that anyone coming along will not be allowed to do any messing in their cars whatsoever. That message is being drilled to all the local organisers. Any messing would (obviously) be counter productive.

Liam McPoyle

Kiangriffin wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'm the one organising this. We have no intention of blocking up the M50, we'll try to avoid it as much as possible. We'll be going directly into the city. We chose a Saturday as more people are available to go without having to rearrange work commitments and it also will have less of an impact on the ordinary workers of Dublin.
The idea is to show numbers, not disrupt everyone. Also we are very adamant that anyone coming along will not be allowed to do any messing in their cars whatsoever. That message is being drilled to all the local organisers. Any messing would (obviously) be counter productive.

Presumably you have done your home work on the insurance industry?

You would be familiar with Solvency 2, the collapse of Setanta, the changes to district and circuit court awards that have more than doubled the limits that can be awarded, the prevalence of claims farming, the requirement that insurance companies have to reimburse the social welfare system for claimants, the increased costs of reinsurance, the worldwide financial downturn that has resulted in significant reductions in interest rates that means previously profitable investment streams for insurers are now near useless.

You know, the things that are effecting the insurance industry rates.

Im sure you are completely au fait with all of that and have a cast iron way that insurers can write policies and not lose money.

Instead of protesting you should contact the biggest insurers in the world because they will pay you what ever you want for information like that.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Presumably you have done your home work on the insurance industry?

You would be familiar with Solvency 2, the collapse of Setanta, the changes to district and circuit court awards that have more than doubled the limits that can be awarded, the prevalence of claims farming, the requirement that insurance companies have to reimburse the social welfare system for claimants, the increased costs of reinsurance, the worldwide financial downturn that has resulted in significant reductions in interest rates that means previously profitable investment streams for insurers are now near useless.

You know, the things that are effecting the insurance industry rates.

Im sure you are completely au fait with all of that and have a cast iron way that insurers can write policies and not lose money.

Instead of protesting you should contact the biggest insurers in the world because they will pay you what ever you want for information like that.

Would ye be open to releasing any kinda sanitized facts and figures? Top 10 loaded everyday cars. Top 10 loaded areas. Top 10 loaded occupations?

There's a lot of opacity for something people are legally obliged to spend 800 on average on.

ThisRegard

Kiangriffin wrote: »

Hi Guys, I'm the one organising this. We have no intention of blocking up the M50, we'll try to avoid it as much as possible. We'll be going directly into the city. We chose a Saturday as more people are available to go without having to rearrange work commitments and it also will have less of an impact on the ordinary workers of Dublin.
The idea is to show numbers, not disrupt everyone. Also we are very adamant that anyone coming along will not be allowed to do any messing in their cars whatsoever. That message is being drilled to all the local organisers. Any messing would (obviously) be counter productive.

Again you'll only be inconveniencing the general public who'll just be pissed off with you, regardless of your well intention motives.

And I'd drop the 'ordinary workers' phrase, it has associations with unions and certain corners of the political spectrum.

Kiangriffin

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Kiangriffin

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Presumably you have done your home work on the insurance industry?

You would be familiar with Solvency 2, the collapse of Setanta, the changes to district and circuit court awards that have more than doubled the limits that can be awarded, the prevalence of claims farming, the requirement that insurance companies have to reimburse the social welfare system for claimants, the increased costs of reinsurance, the worldwide financial downturn that has resulted in significant reductions in interest rates that means previously profitable investment streams for insurers are now near useless.

You know, the things that are effecting the insurance industry rates.

Im sure you are completely au fait with all of that and have a cast iron way that insurers can write policies and not lose money.

Instead of protesting you should contact the biggest insurers in the world because they will pay you what ever you want for information like that.

The primary issue we have is with the excessive and fraudulent claims. It's currently cheaper for insurance companies to simply pay out claims they know to be false. that's where change has to begin, in the justice system. Insurance fraud has to be properly tackled and the massive payouts have to be reigned in.
I don't blame the insurance companies for increasing charges to keep up profitability, thats the whole point of business. The aim here is to start a real discussion at government level about what can be done in legislature to ease the costs on those same insurance companies. I would, of course, expect the companies to pass those savings onto us, should anything come of this.

robarmstrong

It just needs to be regulated, too many companies have saturated the market.

Each company uses different risk analysis statistics from what I'm aware of so that's why the quotes vary when realistically it should be regulated so they all at least use the same software/algorithm.

Chiorino

robarmstrong wrote: »

It just needs to be regulated, too many companies have saturated the market.

Each company uses different risk analysis statistics from what I'm aware of so that's why the quotes vary when realistically it should be regulated so they all at least use the same software/algorithm.

It is regulated, heavily some would say, by the Central Bank. More companies = greater competition and lower end prices for the consumer. Why would you want to reduce this?

Companies may use different underwriting criteria because of the type of market/customer they target. Are you saying all insurers should quote the same prices?

Special Circumstances

It would be interesting to see if they would consider ANY engagement with Joe Public, rather than the "anyone driving a 15year old car is a scammer" type interactions they favour.

Insurance grouping? A little transparency maybe?
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/insurance/car-insurance-groups/volkswagen/passat/saloon-2005/

Chris_Heilong

Good for the protesters if they get noticed, its not the people's problem to 'fix' the system from its root, they should protest the Government and let them investigate the reasons and solutions. An overhaul of how insurance works here would be the best option.

Cortina_MK_IV

We ask you to write to your local TD's to ask their support for this.

I wrote to my local TDs in January about not being able to see a GP so I wont hold my breath on this.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would ye be open to releasing any kinda sanitized facts and figures? Top 10 loaded everyday cars. Top 10 loaded areas. Top 10 loaded occupations?

There's a lot of opacity for something people are legally obliged to spend 800 on average on.

People around these parts are fond of describing the insurance industry as a cartel. If they did as you suggested then a cartel would be what would develop.

Think about it.

Insurer A suffers a disproportionate amount of claims in a particular area on home insurance due to theft.

It was a roving gang that has since moved on but of course, the companies cannot know this.

The information goes out into the public domain and two things will happen.

Firstly other insurers won't want the business because its not a black spot leaving people uninsured.

Secondly it will become a target for criminal gangs due to the fact its been documented that there were a number of successful break ins in the area.

The same could be said for motor insurance.

One insurer may suffer disproportionate losses based on a particular vehicle make, that doesn't necessarily mean the particular vehicle make is more likely to crash, they may just have been unlucky but if its in the public domain then other companies won't want the business and the customers lose again.

If they all operated from the exact same criteria then a cartel would develop.

It will also mean an increase of fraud as people will try to lie / bend the truth to suit the acceptance criteria.

We are going through the insurance cycle, see diagram below. We are currently in the hard market but as things improve then it will change.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

People around these parts are fond of describing the insurance industry as a cartel. If they did as you suggested then a cartel would be what would develop.

Think about it.

Insurer A suffers a disproportionate amount of claims in a particular area on home insurance due to theft.

It was a roving gang that has since moved on but of course, the companies cannot know this.

The information goes out into the public domain and two things will happen.

Firstly other insurers won't want the business because its not a black spot leaving people uninsured.

Secondly it will become a target for criminal gangs due to the fact its been documented that there were a number of successful break ins in the area.

The same could be said for motor insurance.

One insurer may suffer disproportionate losses based on a particular vehicle make, that doesn't necessarily mean the particular vehicle make is more likely to crash, they may just have been unlucky but if its in the public domain then other companies won't want the business and the customers lose again.

If they all operated from the exact same criteria then a cartel would develop.

It will also mean an increase of fraud as people will try to lie / bend the truth to suit the acceptance criteria.

We are going through the insurance cycle, see diagram below. We are currently in the hard market but as things improve then it will change.

I do see what you mean - the situation you describe sounds very like a group of insurers refusing to insure cars older than 15 years.

I guess the industry in the UK must be rotten as fvck so if they can list not only the top ten loaded cars but actually assign a rating to each and every sub model. Madness isn't it?

robarmstrong

Chiorino wrote: »

It is regulated, heavily some would say, by the Central Bank. More companies = greater competition and lower end prices for the consumer. Why would you want to reduce this?

Companies may use different underwriting criteria because of the type of market/customer they target. Are you saying all insurers should quote the same prices?

Sorry I was unintentionally vague.

Regulated as in the Insurance Ombudsman should be more heavily involved in some of the more ridiculous quotes circulating lately on online quote forms, the whole hesitancy to insure cars older than 12-15 years old leaving a considerable gap between that and classical insurance? It does seem to show that they have a bias towards newer cars probably without realizing that Joe Average will believe that he's been screwed over because he has to buy a new car that he cannot afford and whatnot.

The amount of excessive payouts needs to be clamped down, I was told that my company paid out €20000+ for the claim against me which was completely fraudulent and wasn't worthy of a claim whatsoever.

I love the older sporty looking Corolla's(97-99). I would like to own one and if I had one it would be maintained perfectly and would be validly NCT'ed (NCT is a farce anyways, your car can have NCT but it won't get insured because of "age", brilliant!) serviced as regularly as possible. Why should it cost astronomical amounts to insure that car when I can buy one for around 800-1000 (with NCT) and look after it myself to ensure it's in the best condition possible?

Special Circumstances

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

I applaud anyone willing to stand up and make a decent peaceful protest in this country.

The "I'm alright Jacks" and the "Wouldn't want to be making a Fuss nows" are significant part of why this country is the way it is.

Give it yer best shot anyway.

Chiorino

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry I was unintentionally vague.

Regulated as in the Insurance Ombudsman should be more heavily involved in some of the more ridiculous quotes circulating lately on online quote forms, the whole hesitancy to insure cars older than 12-15 years old leaving a considerable gap between that and classical insurance? It does seem to show that they have a bias towards newer cars probably without realizing that Joe Average will believe that he's been screwed over because he has to buy a new car that he cannot afford and whatnot.

The amount of excessive payouts needs to be clamped down, I was told that my company paid out €20000+ for the claim against me which was completely fraudulent and wasn't worthy of a claim whatsoever.

I love the older sporty looking Corolla's(97-99). I would like to own one and if I had one it would be maintained perfectly and would be validly NCT'ed (NCT is a farce anyways, your car can have NCT but it won't get insured because of "age", brilliant!) serviced as regularly as possible. Why should it cost astronomical amounts to insure that car when I can buy one for around 800-1000 (with NCT) and look after it myself to ensure it's in the best condition possible?

Agreed, the sums being paid out are ridiculous. One of the real missed opportunities of the troika calling the shots a few years back was that the legal system was not tackled. Another option would be to have the book of quantum placed on some sort of statutory footing which judges would be obliged to follow.

I don't agree with the current trend re older cars, I drive one myself, always have, always will. If it has a valid NCT/DOE then it should be possible to insure at comparatively reasonable rates.

Aongus Von Heisenberg

Kiangriffin wrote: »

The primary issue we have is with the excessive and fraudulent claims. It's currently cheaper for insurance companies to simply pay out claims they know to be false. that's where change has to begin, in the justice system. Insurance fraud has to be properly tackled and the massive payouts have to be reigned in.
I don't blame the insurance companies for increasing charges to keep up profitability, thats the whole point of business. The aim here is to start a real discussion at government level about what can be done in legislature to ease the costs on those same insurance companies. I would, of course, expect the companies to pass those savings onto us, should anything come of this.

Fair play and best of luck. The extent to which this issue has been avoided up to now is shameful and it's good to see someone highlighting it. There are plenty of very workable solutions to spiraling claims that have been proven to work in other, similar jurisdictions with minimal injustice to genuinely injured claimants. The only thing barring such solutions here is lobbying from the legal profession.

ironclaw

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Actually the alternative is to educate people. 'The banks' or 'The bankers' or 'greedy executives' apparently are all out to screw us. Maybe if we showed the hard facts of what these companies are actually up against in this claim culture we are developing? I'm no fan of insurance companies but the reality is there need to make a profit and cover their liabilities to be able to pay out to people who actually need it.

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

Kiangriffin

ironclaw wrote: »

Actually the alternative is to educate people. 'The banks' or 'The bankers' or 'greedy executives' apparently are all out to screw us. Maybe if we showed the hard facts of what these companies are actually up against in this claim culture we are developing? I'm no fan of insurance companies but the reality is there need to make a profit and cover their liabilities to be able to pay out to people who actually need it.

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

Completely agree, I've raised those exact issues with TD's over the past few months but I've grown frustrated with the lack of progress, hence the demonstration.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

€14k for whiplash is a joke. That's before costs on either side, so call it a round €30k, or another way, 30 drivers premiums. Have we completely lost the run of ourselves? Life changing and serious injury, I have no objection. But for everything else, it should at least be vouched or bench-marked. Two crashes a year equates to a graduates salary, that sure is attractive for a certain element of society and you'd be a right fool if you thought people weren't in on this game.

I don't think costs are awarded at the PIAB. It's your own choice to engage legal representation.

How much does somebody's insurance increase now even if the claim was not their fault. How long must you declare that for? Insurance companies are ratcheting their own costs in many ways but because their product is a legal obligation they just keep pushing all these things back on Joe Public rather than dealing with things intelligently.

Random UK information - "As if someone crashing into the back of your car isn't annoying enough, finding that you are being charged almost a third more for car insurance as result is likely to provoke road rage in even the calmest of motorists."

There is a LOT more to how you lose out when you are the innocent victim of an idiot's driving. Not saying 15k is the right figure, but I think insurers count on a lot of people thinking "oh a couple of nurofen = 15k FREE money", so that they can influence a "ban" on soft tissue injuries.
Akin to a "ban" on physics and biology in my book but heh, let's not drag science and common sense into these things :pac:

Del2005

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I don't think costs are awarded at the PIAB. It's your own choice to engage legal representation.

People go to the PIAB, reject the award and go to court where costs are covered. You'd want to be an idiot to accept the PIAB offer when the courts award huge sums.

hi5

The best of luck to you OP, remember you don't need to know all the facts and figures, you just need to know that you are paying an unaffordable amount and that you and many others are sick and tired of it.
You will always get those vested interests coming out of the woodworm with all sorts of pseudo intellectual crap to try and put you back in your box before you even get started.
So get lots of people on your side and keep repeating that your paying too much and you want change over and over and that's really all you need to do.
It's like pester power, you become a thorn in the side of those who can make changes, you just keep repeating the mantra and something will be done.
Look at the water protesters!

Btw, have a look at Adrian S Flux he tried to get insurance on his kit car, nobody would insure him so he set up his own brokers, 600 people working for him now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Flux_Insurance_Services

Brian Scan

Kiangriffin wrote: »

What's the alternative? Lie down and take it?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I applaud anyone willing to stand up and make a decent peaceful protest in this country.

The "I'm alright Jacks" and the "Wouldn't want to be making a Fuss nows" are significant part of why this country is the way it is.

Give it yer best shot anyway.