Jump to content

Sara

Members
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Sara

  1. Quillan previously wrote:

    "I forgot to mention that I also would take anything that Gary Null says with a pinch of salt. One of his best claims way that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. Rather than add more I would suggest you simply Google his name. You will find that he has his own, rather strange, agenda on medicine."

    "Gary Null is a very strange person who in the past has been sacked for making outrageous comments and who has his own agenda and interests that conflicts with mainstream medical practices from which he makes his living. In the old days people would have called him a 'quack'."

    I meant to respond in defence of Gary Null yesterday but overlooked doing so. In a belated response I set out below some interesting quotes from a prominent figure within the medical research community:


    “There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all signs of AIDS. We are seeing people HIV-infected for 9, 10, 12 years or more, and they are still in good shape, their immune system is still good. It is unlikely that these people will come down with AIDS later.”

    “HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”

    VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990

    “AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected.... I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV.”

    “Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.”

    “We did not purify [isolate] ... We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses ... They were very different ... What we did not have, as I have always recognized it, is that it was truly the cause of AIDS.”

    Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997

    — Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, co-discoverer of HIV, Pasteur Institute, Paris - Winner of the Noble Prize in Physiology or Medecine 2008 for the co-discovery of human immunodeficiency virus.

     

     

  2. [quote user="Quillan"]

    I have only listened to about 90 minutes of the program and consider that up to that time it to be just as biased but to the opposite degree as the others that you claim have found Wakefield 'guilty'.

    Since 2004 scientists and doctors in the UK and America from both camps (i.e. guilty and innocent if you like) have tried to duplicate his findings but have as yet been able to do so. That to me says that his claim that the MMR vaccine can cause autism and bowel disease is not founded. Further WHO have reported an increase in measles and deaths from measles particularly in the UK to be on the rise. In nearly all cases they say the child did not receive it's MMR vaccination. One conclusion you could come to is that his report frightened parents in to stopping their children being vaccinated and in doing so have left their children unprotected resulting in them catching the measles and dying. I wonder how many of those parents now wish their children had their MMR vaccination.

    [/quote]

    Dr Wakefield did not claim his research had proven a link between the vaccine, autism and bowel disorders. The conclusion drawn from his research was that "further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine.” Wakefield also recommended that until further research was done, it might be a good idea to separate the three viral components in the MMR shot into 3 single vaccines.

    A list of replication studies supporting his research, including a recent U.S. study, may be accessed via the following link: http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/replication%20and%20support%20doc.pdf

    Returning to the question of the GMC inquiry. The evidence that this represented a miscarriage of justice is quite convincing in my opinion. Also specific evidence implicating Brian Deer in withholding information vital to the inquiry is also becomming clearer.

    I wonder how many parents of autistic children now wish they had been more cautious & obtained an alternative means of vaccination to the MMR jab?    

     

  3. It is precisely the point Quillan. There is in my judgement, & many, many others, irrefutable evidence to support the contention that Wakefield is completely innocent of his charges and furthermore that the Lancet study was wholly valid.

    Rather rash surely for someone in your position, I would politely suggest, to jump to such a self-convinced & unwavering verdict on the matter without even bothering to listen to the evidence. Surely? Or have the laws of logic & rationality been inverted since I last checked?

    I agree with your thinking re. the U.K. and U.S. media. The manipulation of the truth leading up to the Iraq war was indeed an utter disgrace. I also agree with your sentiments re. Murdoch and the glorious rise of the Sunday Sun. However, knowing how warped & skewed the media is very much explains why such controversial stories as MMR, Wakefield and the astonishing antics of the establishment's popular complainant Brian Deer have to go underground. As it were.

    Apologies to NormanH for hurtling off topic with this!

     

  4. [quote user="Quillan"]I forgot to mention that I also would take anything that Gary Null says with a pinch of salt. One of his best claims way that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. Rather than add more I would suggest you simply Google his name. You will find that he has his own, rather strange, agenda on medicine.[/quote]

    Why not listen to the evidence before passing judgement Quillan? Or is that too much to ask for?

    The BMJ also, arguably, has a rather strange agenda when it comes to medicine and medical issues.

    Personally I tend to rely upon evidence rather than google results, wikipedia or U.K. tabloid headlines. It pays one to keep an open mind in life I feel.

  5. [quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Sara"]

    Quillan, there is an excellent U.S. radio piece on Dr David Wakefield & the MMR controversy by investigative journalist Gary Null. It is over 4 hours long. It includes interviews with Dr Wakefield himself and the notorious Brian Deer. As well as other prominent figures within the medical, legal and vaccine research fields. It also includes evidence from mothers of the Lancet children who were at the centre of the controversy.    

    It is the most incisive and impartial piece I have come accross on this highly controversial story. Preferential certainly to the politicised commentaries posted in the U.K. media on this matter I would suggest. A good starting point for those interested in the subject.

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/progressive-commentary-hour/

    You can download the 3 individual parts under the heading "Progressive Commentary Hour  - 01/23/12..A special three part Progressive Commentary Hour on the vaccine controversy"

    Having listened to this in detail & examined other evidence out there, in my personal opinion, things do seem to point in one direction. It is quite damning I feel on the part of the BMJ and Brian Deer. There is other evidence out there but this one does encapsulate the facts quite well re. the GMC inquiry. 

    [/quote]

    Strange how these people could interview the 'mothers' of the 'Lancet Children' because firstly it assumes that only mothers were involved which is wrong and secondly the names of the parents involved have never been released. In the article which you are intitially talked about which is entitled "Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed" mothers and fathers who were interviewed were given numbers. So how anyone can claim they got the names from that article is beyond belief. You may want to read the report yourself so you can see I am right and they are wrong, a link is given below.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

    [/quote]

    Quote from my earlier message: "It also includes evidence from mothers of the Lancet children who were at the centre of the controversy" 

    This does not state or suggest they were interviewed on air. I am therefore somewhat at a loss on the point you are making here in relation to my earlier message. Although what you say concerning anonymity of study participants is accurate and indeed common knowledge to anyone who has looked into this matter. I am rather lost by your comment "..it assumes that only mothers were involved.." I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

    More accurately I perhaps could have commented that statements from mothers of the Lancet children were read out in full on air. They were interviewed privately I believe. I would imagine the mothers themselves came forward on a discrete basis to facilitate this. A mother of another autistic child treated at the Royal Free, who was separate from the Lancet study, was interviewed live on air. Are you aware that Brian Deer himself is alleged to have published the names of the children on his website? Before, allegedly he took them down. I am aware of the BMJ report. But thanks. This is not a matter of right or wrong on this particular point but a suggestion on my part to examine some rather more impartial evidence than one might obtain from reading anything emanating from Fiona Godlee and the BMJ. Or for that matter from the British media.   

     

     

     

  6. Quillan, there is an excellent U.S. radio piece on Dr David Wakefield & the MMR controversy by investigative journalist Gary Null. It is over 4 hours long. It includes interviews with Dr Wakefield himself and the notorious Brian Deer. As well as other prominent figures within the medical, legal and vaccine research fields. It also includes evidence from mothers of the Lancet children who were at the centre of the controversy.    

    It is the most incisive and impartial piece I have come accross on this highly controversial story. Preferential certainly to the politicised commentaries posted in the U.K. media on this matter I would suggest. A good starting point for those interested in the subject.

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/progressive-commentary-hour/

    You can download the 3 individual parts under the heading "Progressive Commentary Hour  - 01/23/12..A special three part Progressive Commentary Hour on the vaccine controversy"

    Having listened to this in detail & examined other evidence out there, in my personal opinion, things do seem to point in one direction. It is quite damning I feel on the part of the BMJ and Brian Deer. There is other evidence out there but this one does encapsulate the facts quite well re. the GMC inquiry. 

  7. [quote user="Quillan"]

    The problem with these newspapers is they keep telling different stories. The DM at the beginning of last week was talking about unemployment particularly amongst older people being very high. Towards the end of the week it said in another article that 9 out of 10 older women have to work. With the sale of newspapers generally down because people use the Internet more they are struggling. I think that is leading to more sensational, outrageous and at times generally irresponsible articles being printed. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they are all lying but I often find it's best to use the article as a starting place to start a search to find out what is really going on. In fairness whilst the DM is probably the worst of the lot they are not alone, even papers like The Guardian have been caught doing the same thing.

    The problem with social payments of any kind is that people do abuse them. I can't speak about people with disabilities first hand but I certainly have known a few people who have continued to claim unemployment benefits and also worked (taking a couple of hours off every so often to 'sign on'). One hears from time to time of 'disabled people' who are claiming benefits fraudulently yet they are caught doing things like people with bad backs caught playing tennis or golf for example. Unfortunately these people are a small group and we sometimes tend to think there are a lot more like them which of course there may be. How do you find these people? The obvious way is to means test. Not a nice thing but the truth is that they need to do this because because of this small group of cheats.

    I saw something on TV the other day about insurance companies and people who are terminally ill. The 'piece' was about a woman who was dying and had such an illness and the reluctance of the insurance company, to whom she had paid quite a bit of money to over the years, refusing to pay out.

    [/quote]

     

    Quillan, the problem with U.K. newspapers is that they are not telling this story at all. Period. This is why it was somewhat surprising, to say the very least, to see such honest & intelligent reporting under the banner of the Daily Mail. A paper not exactly renowned for its balanced, honest & intelligent reporting. But it did only appear online. And that is the point isn't it? Frankly I think people might have died of shock if such an article had appeared in the paper version. But of course it never would. It would never have been allowed into print.

    The truth is that in the U.K. we are saddled with an obedient and establishment supporting media when it comes to stories of this nature. The Murdoch empire has a lot to answer for in this but they are not the only ones. Even the BBC now toes the line since its emasculation following the Andrew Gilligan affair. Proper investigative journalism is quite a rare thing now in the U.K. With a few noteworthy exceptions. Frankly the disconcerting aspect in this is that people tend to believe the propaganda they are drip-fed these days. Opinions are easily formed and nurtured it would seem.

    A case in point, a controversial one perhaps, was MMR and Wakefield. None of the true facts were reported in the press and a universal villification of Wakefield took place courtesy of Brian Deer and the BMJ. Health Editors of papers were more than willing to play ball with the misinformation fed into the public domain. No questions asked. Well some were but a polite invite to Downing Street and a word in the ear sorted these out quite effectively. In reality the BMJ and Brian Deer were guilty of fraud and not Andrew Wakefield. The truth will come out at some point in time I would imagine but a case in point in terms of an unwelcome truth buffering up against the establishment & an establishment friendly media. Again the worrying aspect of this being that many people unquestionningly believe the content they read in U.K. newspapers.  

    Means testing of disability benefit does seem a reasonable suggestion to me. If honourably applied. The overwhelming problem with the DWP / Atos assessments of the chronically ill and disabled is that they are being carried out deliberaterly fraudulently by Atos with seemingly the full blessing of the DWP and its kindly overseer Iain Duncan Smith. They have got away with this because people reading their daily newspapers and listening to their tv's in the U.K. are simply none the wiser. My worry is that if they were would they care? 

    One of the recurring themes in modern life that never ceases to amaze me is healthy people thinking they have got it tough. Having to work & pay their taxes. In reality most people have no inkling of how lucky they are. My husband worked for 25 years whilst struggling with a progressive and degenerative neurological illness. He worked hard enough to be able to retire very early on his own funds. He has never drawn a social benefit in his entire life. However, he is more than willing for his taxes to support those less fortunate than himself. One memory he holds of work is that of perfectly healthy people moaning about having colds & how hard they were having to work. Such people did seem sadly out of touch with reality in his opinion.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  8. [quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="Sara"]

    [quote user="Pommier"]The problem with rants such as this one in the Daily Mail is that genuinely incapacitated people read such rubbish and believe that they'll be forced out to work.[/quote]

    Rant or not, a matter of personal subjective opinion, this article and the author spoke the truth. Time to wake up & smell the coffee I would suggest.

    [/quote]

     I think you are the one who should wake up and smell the coffee - as the Labour ex minister said on his way out of his office - there is no money. All benefits are being reviewed and revised.

    [/quote]

    Yes, but reviewed and revised fairly? Frankly New Labour are as complicit in this sordid drama as the jolly old conservatives. I say again what about illegal tax avoidance? Or evasion if you prefer. The bigger crime and the infinitely larger financial benefit to be recouped.  

    Looking after the chronically ill & disabled in a fair, open & humanitarian manner is a basic prerequisite for any society wishing to call itself civilised. It really is as simple as that. Austerity measures or not. The line has now been crossed. Both in terms of the behaviour of the government and the attitudes and prejudice of the healthy majority. Echoes of the third Reich indeed.

    Frankly those who are fortunate enough to be healthy (& employed) don't really have anything difficult to contend with in their lives. Not by comparison. Apart from getting off their behinds, attending their place of work & paying their rightful & due amount of taxes. All rather straightforward if one is healthy & employed I would venture to suggest. After all it wasn't the disabled who screwed up the economy was it?   

  9. [quote user="Pommier"]The problem with rants such as this one in the Daily Mail is that genuinely incapacitated people read such rubbish and believe that they'll be forced out to work.[/quote]

    Rant or not, a matter of personal subjective opinion, this article and the author spoke the truth. Time to wake up & smell the coffee I would suggest.

  10. [quote user="suein56"][quote user="Sara"] Yes, I believe there is a very small proportion of fraud amongst disablity claimants.  [/quote]
    It is difficult to quantify as I tend to think in terms of the people who I have known who receive disablement benefit.
    Of the three I knew who were claimants in the road of the village where I lived in the UK one person's claim was a complete fabrication, including forged documents and forged Doctor's letters. Another's claim was based on an old injury, from which he had recovered long ago, but, again, this person was a brilliant lier and manipulater, who had no desire to return to work. The third did have genuine, current problems but, again, embellished them to suit her situation.

    So, in my limited view, based on people I knew and lived alongside, the fraudulent claim rate appears to be around 75% or 80%

    Sue
    [/quote]

    I think 75% to 80% is cloud cucko land to be honest. So too now does Atos. They were hitting a 75% rate for passing disability claimants fit for work. By ignoring existing & extensive medical evidence & by blatantly misrepresenting the assessment interviews they conducted (certain claimants had the presence of mind to covertly audio tape their interviews thus incriminating the assessor and his/her version of events) and by falsely writing up the assessments. On appeal over 3/4 qtrs of disallowed claims have been reinstated.

    This I would suggest speaks for itself.

     

  11. [quote user="powerdesal"]''Of course the far more logical target for substantive cost savings would be the huge amount of unpaid tax, through fraud & tax avoidance, by both corporations and the U.K. rich. I understand the estimated figure for U.K. tax avoidance amounts to something in the region of £ 25 billion per annum. It could easily constitute an even higher figure I suspect. However, this doesn't seem to fit with the conditioned mentally of the populus in this brave new age of austerity. Sadly.'' Tax avoidance is a perfectly legal activity and shouldn't be labelled with fraud. Tax evasion is the non-legal fraudulent avoidance of taxes.[/quote]

    How about illegal tax avoidance?

  12. [quote user="Russethouse"]

    This idea that the government should either target the disabled or  target the 'huge amount of unpaid tax, through fraud & tax avoidance,' is simplistic to say the least - do we just turn a blind eye to those  fiddling the system because its a disability benefit they are claiming or is it that you perceive some sort of 'hands off policy' because targetting disability benefit should be sacrosanct?

    To my knowledge no individual on this board or elsewhere for that matter, whom I have observed, has ever put forward such an either or argument in this context. Of course both avenues of investigation, that of disability benefit fraud & tax avoidance, should be properly examined. I think that goes without saying. The reality is clear however in that Atos and their paymasters the DWP are not investigating the issue of disability benefit fairly, intelligently or honestly. . The headline figures that the government itself estimate disability benefit fraud to represent less than 0.5% of all claims yet thir stated intent to cut 20% from the disability welfare bill rather speaks for itself I would suggest?  

    Or do you  just not believe it happens, or care ?

    Yes, I believe there is a very small proportion of fraud amongst disablity claimants. As does the government. Yes I do care that some fraudulent claims are being made. The sums involved, if properly assessed however, pale into insignificance compared to the widespread crime of tax avoidance. The either or approach seems to be symptomatic of David Cameron & the conservative party, together with their coalition partners, as opposed to being representative of any viewpoints expressed by disability camapaigners or those sympathetic to their cause. 

    Actually the Daily Mail article was little more than a rant. (Which I would suggest the author got off her sick bed to write more because she has a strong work ethic and she is probably freelance, than out of any genuine outrage) 

    Whether considered to be a rant or not the author and her article spoke the truth.

    However  it would be interesting to read your ideas of some positive ways  of  either cutting the benefit fraud bill or closing the tax loopholes.

    In essence, with regard to Atos and disability assessment I would make the following suggestions:

    i) Atos are sacked from their contract with the DWP with immediate effect.

    ii) Iain Duncan Smith is removed from his post as secretary of state for Work & Pensons with immediate effect. An official apology is issued by the government for its mishandling of issues relating to disability reform.

    iii) Disability assessments no longer to be performed by an organisation whose private assessors are rewarded on a direct commission basis proportionate to the number of disability claimants they pass fit to work. The same goes for the basis of remuneration for the appointed organisation concerned, if it has to be a private one.

    iv) Disability assessments to take into proper account the past medical history, medical evidence and the expert medical opinion of consultants and medical experts who have properly examined & investigated the individual claimants concerned. Such expert level of medical opinion & evidence was conspicuously very often ignored by Atos assessors.

    v) Individuals who are deemed to suffer from long term & incurable conditions to not face regular & unecessary reassessment of their case everything six months or so with the attendant threat of their benefits being removed.

    I feel that there are many other sensible measures that might be taken to make medical assessments & disability benefits fair for those who seek and/or receive them. The above I think would at least get things rolling in a sane & honourable direction.   

    As regards investigating corporate & private tax avoidance anything tangible and meaningful from this either or government would be most welcomed by all I think. This is the area of widespread crime and deception and of meaningful & worthwhile potential financial benefit. An essential & necessary ingredient to David Cameron's concept of big society, whatever that is, I would dare to suggest.       

     

     

    [/quote]

     

     

  13. No smoke without fire..

     

    "Work and pensions ministers have been told that their rhetoric on disability benefits is fuelling an atmosphere of hatred and hostility towards disabled people.

    On the same day that six national disability charities warned that the government’s focus on “fakers and scroungers” was causing disability hate crime, a coalition minister was told his colleagues’ approach risked creating an atmosphere similar to 1930s N_a_z_i Germany."


    http://www.candocango.com/ministers-warned-over-adding-fuel-to-disablist-fire/#ixzz1mpa6lruB

     

     

     

     

  14.  

    I have to say well done to the Daily Mail journalist concerned for being brave and honest enough to write this article. No surprise it didn't make it to the paper version itself however. It is spot on in my opinion.

    Over a dozen and counting disabled and chronically ill people have committed suicide over the government’s reforms. ATOS should, in a fair & honest world, be prosecuted­ for their fraudulent activities and misconduct in performing these assessments. I will certainly not forget the recent response of Iain Duncan Smith to a question in which he stated that the disabled were not suffering as a result of these reforms. Evil or just appallingl­y ignorant? 

    Interesting paper from Inclusion London re. politicization of the U.K. press and the rise of propaganda against the disabled. No surprise really but a good commentary on emerging Orwellian principles and disinformation in the U.K. media.

    http://www.inclusionlondon.co.uk/domains/inclusionlondon.co.uk/local/media/downloads/bad_news_for_disabled_people_pdf.pdf

    Of course the far more logical target for substantive cost savings would be the huge amount of unpaid tax, through fraud & tax avoidance, by both corporations and the U.K. rich.   I understand the estimated figure for U.K. tax avoidance amounts to something in the region of £ 25 billion per annum. It could easily constitute an even higher figure I suspect. However, this doesn't seem to fit with the conditioned mentally of the populus in this brave new age of austerity. Sadly.

    Some previous online articles by the Daily Mail (same author) also make interesting reading:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084706/David-Camerons-Welfare-Reform-Bill-Hiding-truth-way-achieve-it.html?forumid=331851#ixzz1j5Y3y9Bm

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2085672/Welfare-reforms-Cameron-defeated-Lords--What-surprise.html?forumid=331851

     

  15. It would seem that even the Daily Mail, albeit the online version, has picked up on the plight of the U.K.'s disabled and chronically ill citizens. I think if one understands & has proper knowledge of what disabled people are being put through back in the U.K., rather than a media formed viewpoint of the situation, one cannot help but feel deep concern for their plight.  

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2102484/This-wartime-Nazi-Germany-Camerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html?forumid=331851#ixzz1mewyMCux

    It is interesting to note that according to the government the Incapacity Benefit 'Fraud and Error' figure is 2.4%. Of this 2.4%, only 0.3% is estimated to be down to fraud. This amounts to a loss of £20m. The rest is down to customer error (0.9% or £50m) and official error (1.2% or £70m). It would appear that not that many people are faking a sore back or depression after all. Not much publicised in the tabloid press but these figures come from the government itself. I have to say that I think David Cameron & Iain Duncan Smith have got this very badly wrong. Time to go after the richer pickings of corporate tax avoidance in my humble but firm opinion.  

  16. Thank you for your further responses everyone.

    I am going to take this matter up with my U.K. insurers & seek further clarification from them on all aspects raised.

    sara

  17. Interestingly on our recent claim where my car was written off by an "A" plate driver I spoke & corresponded directly with the head office of one of the biggest French loss adjusters based in Paris. As the French "A" plate driver & his insurer fully accepted liability for the accident the loss adjuster concerned, acting on behalf of the other party's insurers, made direct contact with the insurers in London to formalise the claim on this basis. The loss adjuster was made aware of my address in France & that I was resident at this address rather than my address in the U.K.

    The loss adjuster voiced no objection or surprise over my insurance arrangements taking into account my particular residency arrangements. All the loss adjuster required was a full copy of the insurance policy, showing my French address, & the original & valid MOT certificate. The car was inspected by the expert at a local garage & was found to be perfectly roadworthy. The loss adjuster subsequently sold our U.K. registered car for salvage to a local breakers in France and proceeded to finalise the claim.

    So all I can say is that nothing was hidden or misrepresented to the other party's insurer or the French loss adjuster who settled the claim.

    I hear what people are saying re. the obligation to register a vehicle in the E.U. state of one's residency. However does this represent an absolute legal requirement?

    Also I would restate the contention that E.U. law supercedes local French law. In specific areas as stipulated & set down in E.U. law. That is how I understand the system works with members states of the E.U.

    So I think what we are talking about here is probably a grey area under E.U. law which remains open to interpretation. Quoting from French government sites and/or E.U. websites might not be presenting the full story one might suggest.

    I fully accept that there has been no test case, to my knowledge at least, on this issue and that this type of thing may be open to interpretation by lawyers. The interpretation I suppose could go either way. However, I can only reiterate that as I understand the situation the Lloyd's underwriters involved have taken legal advice on the matter.

    My own take on this is that in the event of this becomming a problem it would be the U.K. insurers who would have to justify their position. Also I would imagine that the insurance product itself would have already shown problems over the period (10 years I think) that it has been in operation. To my knowledge there have not been any problems reported & it continues to be available.

    I suppose, given all the circumstances, this one boils down to a personal perspective & a personal choice.

    I am going to try to find out a bit more about this issue & will report back if I do glean anything more definitive.

    sara
  18. People seem to be forgetting that France itself is also governed by E.U. Law.

    Or has France left the E.U. since the last time I checked?

    Anyway, on the bachhus / copeland issue of U.K. motor policies applying to U.K. registered vehicles in France the explanation I have reproduced here is the explanation provided to me by Copeland's themselves.

    As the interested party who provides these specialised insurance products to U.K. citizens living in France surely they are the people you should be addressing your questions & enquiries to..

    These people are professional Lloyd's underwriters and I can only imagine have fully investigated all legal implications of the insurance product they underwrite & offer on the commercial market.

    Or perhaps people here claim to know better than them?

    sara
  19. Another,- I suggest you reread my post- I do not have bald tyres. My hubbie checks them often- as I would n't know of they were border line or not.

    I would refer you to Bacchus Insurance...based in Loire...

  20. No that is not the case. That is a widely held misconception. Under E.U. law it is perfectly legal for a vehicle registered in a particular E.U. state to be used in a different E.U. state on a regular & continuous basis provided it meets all necessary legal requirements under E.U. law. Such legal requirements include an appropriate & valid M.O.T. certificate in the case of a U.K. registered vehicle, or equivalent certificate of roadworthiness from a different member state where the vehicle is registered. In addition the vehicle must be the subject of a valid & appropriate insurance policy whose insurers must be in full knowledge of the day to day circumstances of the vehicle & the insured.

    In the case of a U.K. registered vehicle being used by a U.K. citizen whislt resident in France it is perfectly legal for a U.K. based insurance policy to cover this risk. In the case of the Copeland U.K. motor policy insured via the Bacchus agent in France it is actually insured 100% with Lloyd's underwriters. Furthermore it is a written condition of the policy that the assured(s) can only drive the vehicle for up to a 3 month period on U.K. roads, without returning to France, otherwise the policy is then restricted after three months to third party cover only on U.K. roads. Under the arrangements of the policy underwriters issue a 12 month green card to the assured to cover the U.K. registered whilst in France. From what I understand Copeland Insurance have taken expert legal advice on this issue & the policy is deemed to be in full compliance with E.U. law. In this regard E.U. law I believe reflects the cross border ideology & concept that is at the heart of E.E.C.  

    What I believe you are quoting are the conditions stipulated by the French authorities that used to apply before such conditions were deemed to have been overriden by E.U. law.    

    sara

     

     

     

     

     

     

            

  21. So if you see english cars on english number plates maybe they are legal. Like me they have chosen to go through a an french agent in the Loire (Backus) but with an english insurance underwriter?......
  22. Mac, I don't know whether you read my thread but we are 100% legal , or were you talking about my friend ?. (incidentally he is not a friend, just an acquaintance. My son plays with their son.....
  23.  Cooperlola, yes the Insurance Underwriter that we use is with the highly reputable Insurance Underwriters Loyds of London - Copeland.

     

  24. Wow, Cooperlola they sound really fair. Who are your Insurers? We used AGP in Calais, I must admit we used them as they speak fluent English, our french is quite good but sometimes it is easier and quicker to use english speaking agents. We were told, not sure if it is true, that if we were not in a filter lane it would have been 50/50 (?) that is the way it is over here, doesn't sound fair.

    Cooperlola, just read your Edit- totally agree and understand. It makes me wild if people do not have valid insurance/ MOT docs. I know someone (English) NO insurance NO MOT, Fake driving licence!!! ( I have told him,if he is stopped he will be deported or put in prison) If he kills someone they will throw away the key....

×
×
  • Create New...