Jump to content

Recommended Posts

my car insurance states that the car is not covered for theft if the car's left running when unoccupied...


I wonder why they write it into the policy?????

http://lovelypackage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hint1.jpg

I've seen people do this alot. Its generally parents who are rushing around. so far this week I've seen 2 different parents take their child in and leave the car open then go back to their car to pick up shopping. It may seem silly but that does not mean people deserve it. I certainly cant judge a parent rushing around, trying to multi-task. At the end of the day it would be nice to believe that we could leave something for a few seconds and not have it stolen

It. Just. Wouldn't. Occur.... to leave the car running when I'm not in it.


This isn't crazy stuff is it? Why would a nincompoop do that?


It's just stupid. Really thick school. I appreciate all the well wishers, but it's just really really stupid. "Well officer, my son wanted a level surface for his Scrabble letters and the railway seemed to offer the best solution."


Human frailty sympathy. But really. Really stupid. ;-). Please don't confuse this with a lack of love.

Oh come on Hugenot, you might have a two year-old Prius (Hybrid, naturally) in prime condition and a fluorescent waistcoat with 'best practice only' written on the back but not everyone comes up to the mark.


So: for everybody who's started their car when it's -5 outside and nipped in to get a defrosting implement, been jump-started after having a flat battery and needed to leave a car running, been working on a engine and needed a tool, or had 'one start' left on the battery and had to go inside to get something you'd forgotten..


I wouldn't leave an engine running under the specific circumstances leading to this loss on this thread, but we've done all the rest and they could just as easily have had the same result.

So someone does something that I?m pretty sure they realise wasn?t the smartest move and people use it as an excuse to show their self righteousness. I really don?t understand human nature sometimes.


Kindness is free. Unfortunately so is being judgemental and self righteous it seems.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...