Riots and damage compensation

[denso13]

As PUWER doesn't cover the flammability of bedding.

No, but Kingandy is arguing it doesn't exclude it either.

 

[denso13]

please read back as I have posted them previously

No, your example wasn't correct previously.

 

[kingandy2nd]

Of course it does. Your understanding is just wrong, with respect.

I’m afraid you’re still not getting why I have been highlighting those two items.

Here’s the quotes again:

Agreed.


But if the disturbances are re-categorised as political disturbances or civil commotion, there is (possibly) no insurance cover, nor compensation scheme.

The 2016 Act clearly states that claims for political disturbance or civil commotion are not covered.

A riot is a riot.

Civil commotion and or political disturbances would also be defined as a riot if the criteria of a riot were met as per the legislation (I.e 12+ people, violence, etc).

There is no exclusion to cover under RCA if a political disturbance becomes a riot (as per the definition). There is no way the authorities can reclassify a riot as one of the other things to avoid paying compentsation.

And there is certainly no explicit exclusion which is what Mrs Doubtfyre claims.

 

[Notch7]

I heard a political journalist mention that the govt avoid calling it a riot or designating it a riot so they dont have to pay out

no idea if its true or not, dont shoot the messenger

 

[kingandy2nd]

No, your example wasn't correct previously.

My example was from the legislation:

Prisons, YOI, secure trading centres are all excluded from claiming under the act.

Go on, tell me I’m wrong again

 

[kingandy2nd]

I heard a political journalist mention that the govt avoid calling it a riot or designating it a riot so they dont have to pay out

no idea if its true or not, dont shoot the messenger

Same thing was highlighted in 2011 as well.

 

[denso13]

A riot is a riot.

Yes.

Civil commotion and or political disturbances would also be defined as a riot if the criteria of a riot were met as per the legislation (I.e 12+ people, violence, etc).

Yes.

There is no exclusion to cover under RCA if a political disturbance becomes a riot (as per the definition)

No, because it is a riot.

There is no way the authorities can reclassify a riot as one of the other things to avoid paying compentsation.

They could classify it as "not a riot" and avoid paying compensation.

And there is certainly no explicit exclusion which is what Mrs Doubtfyre claims.

I think there is, by specifying only a riot counts therefore everything else doesn't count. That is clear and unambiguous.

Prisons, YOI, secure trading centres are all excluded from claiming under the act.

That is places where riots are not included, not exclusions like civil commotion and or political disturbances being exempted as payable under the scheme.

You used a different example before which was wrong

 

[Mottie]

Give up. You couldn’t convince Doubtfyre that he had a hole in his arse even if you gave him a torch and a mirror on a stick if he believed he didn’t have one.

 

[Charlie George]

Give up. You couldn’t convince Doubtfyre that he had a hole in his arse even if you gave him a torch and a mirror on a stick if he believed he didn’t have one.

Probably hasn't one, he/she/it uses their mouth instead

 

[Mottie]

He certainly talks out of it wherever it is.

 

[Brigadier]

No, but Kingandy is arguing it doesn't exclude it either.

Get rid of the double negative, and be clear what you're saying

 

[denso13]

I know what I mean....I think....

 

[Brigadier]

Of course it does. Your understanding is just wrong, with respect.

Provided it meets the definition of "riot" as per the act, it' does not exclude civil commotion, political disturbance, or children's party.

Which is what King Andy has already said.

 

[denso13]

Provided it meets the definition of "riot" as per the act,

Agreed

it' does not exclude civil commotion, political disturbance, or children's party

I don't agree with that completely. I think...

 

[Brigadier]

Agreed

I don't agree with that completely. I think...

Think Venn diagram.

Within the definition :

Riots could include civil commotions.

Civil commotions could include riots.

"Could".
Which is neither "cannot", nor "definitely".