grayzer75 wrote: » He was a volunteer on active service in the UK so was hardly duped into anything. Nobody was forced to take part in operations as part of active service units so there's no point in trying to spin it any other way.
padd b1975 wrote: » Nobody was forced apart from the poor unfortunates who had their families held at gunpoint by a bunch of cowards while they were sent to plant a bomb.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You lied about what was said CF1. He said NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH about 'not renewing' This is exactly what he said: 'Do not just accept your renewal quote' with the emphasis on 'just accept'. Which means to anyone with a basic ability to interpret - 'question the quote'.
CrazyFather1 wrote: » "Do not just accept your renewal quote because the insurance industries are trying to fleece you" That is exactly what he says. Now this is what I postedThen from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around. Yet you accuse me of lying? what part of that statement is incorrect? If you can post when in the video he give advice to people about ringing around etc I will say I was wrong. But nothing in that video gives anyone the advice to ring around.
he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance
Do not just accept your renewal quote
blanch152 wrote: » As well as those that were forced, there were those who were duped by the propaganda.
grayzer75 wrote: » You're talking about a different circumstance to somebody who volunteered.
Fionn1952 wrote: » I'd imagine you'd have a tough time finding someone to defend the tiger kidnappings among even the most hardened of Provo supporters. A truly horrible tactic.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you see that bolded bit...he doesn't say that. It's a lie to suggest he does and to double down on it, is wasting everyone's time. AGAIN he says:
smurgen wrote: » "will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price" Where in the legislation does it say prices by insurance companies can not be reduced?
Triangle wrote: » I work in insurance and I know the big guys will just use a different method to get the same premium income. This bill will stop something I hate in insurance - I wish it was extended to all service providers as the electricity suppliers do my head in with their 31% increases if you forget to move in time. But the only thing that's going to reduce insurance premiums is the claims. Doherty knows this, he's a smart guy. A lot of providers of insurance for town halls/civic centers, playgrounds, one of festivals have pulled out of Ireland and its not due to dual pricing. But it's easy to make a headline out of private car insurance as it affects everyone. I'm more pissed this discussion has taken over from the judges disagreeing with the judicial committees recommendation to reduce claims costs.Doherty's Bill won't fix anything in relation to costs, but it's morally a good Bill to stop one underhanded practice, in one industry.
blanch152 wrote: » It is not designed to fix anything in relation to costs, in fact it isn't even designed to achieve any real change, it is a headline-grabbing populist play to make it look like Sinn Fein are doing something. Real change to lower insurance costs requires hard work and hard graft along the lines of the judicial committee recommendations, but that doesn't have the populist voter appeal that Sinn Fein are looking for.
but it's morally a good Bill to stop one underhanded practice, in one industry.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So just ignore the other half of the sentence from somebody actually in the industry. Brilliant.
Fann Linn wrote: » You guys in FFG have been promising real graft and change in relation to the insurance industry for decades. To date, to paraphrase a fellow boardsie we've got Zero, Zilch, Nada. I welcome Doherty shaking the tree or being populist merely for the reason that this is a story which isn't going to go away. And speaking of Storey, just heard now report due out this evening. Should keep a load of you lads up tonight!!
blanch152 wrote: » Francie, it is a sharp practice, but it is not a big deal as such. Shop around, go back to your first company and you will get a good deal. Really, the fuss being made by SF and its supporters over a relatively minor thing that will change nothing for even a half-savvy customer is just more populist hyperbole. The work being done by the government is far more important.
FrancieBrady wrote: » According to Tommy Gorman, it is expected to say 'SF did not exert undue influence on Roselawn Cemetery'
Triangle wrote: » Fainn, in the last government Shane Ross tried to bring in this change. One man fillibustered it until the government was reelected. Malcolm mcdowell. He appended on several hundred amendments in the seanad that made a mockery of our system. Doherty knows this, which is why he went for a small win over the 'insurance bad guys' (don't get me wrong, I believe the big ones are immoral on some levels) But this was won't be easily fixed by any political party. Even SF. And my only issue with Doherty's bill is its being discussed so much and hiding what the judiciary are doing in the back ground.
Fann Linn wrote: » Lol. If that's the outcome I'd say there'll be some unhappy campers round this place.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Let’s not jump the gun, there are other issues to deal with. There’s the Peter Coll report and the Mark Webster report. I doubt if the other families using Roselawn at the time would agree. Of course they wouldn’t know the full background.
CrazyFather1 wrote: » Once again you choose to pick parts of a statement and not the full post. As I said he suggested, I did not say he told everyone not to renew As usual you don't discuss the topic of the video only jump and shout about something in a post. I guess by that you think it is a pile off crap from Pearse as usual? If he had any interest in fixing the insurance problem why not provide some information on how people can renew cheaper?
Pearse Doherty wrote: Do not just accept your renewal quote
CrazyFather1 wrote: » Then from the video he seems to be suggesting to people not to renew their insurance because the companies are fleecing everyone. Which is not true. The problem with dual pricing is people not ringing around, so for me personally my insurance won't decrease because I have the cop on to ring around.
blanch152 wrote: » That would be even worse. Corruption is endemic when public servants do what they are expected to do by politicians without any influence or pressure needed. A culture of conformity with Sinn Fein expectations is dangerously corrupt.
