I completely agree @mjrobbins. I've explained why this is wrong to you @amcunningham. Your continued attempts to defend it are questionable.
@markhawker @amcunningham
1. Consent breached
2. Public loss at the expense of insurance company profit
Explained, but not reflected.
-
-
@C7RKY@amcunningham What does that have to do with story of postcodes and date of births shared? Need for facts before interpretation. -
@markhawker@amcunningham No, we don't. This is a rip-off either way. Whether as a group, or identified individuals. Public lose both ways. -
@C7RKY@amcunningham Right, so you'd advocate hysterics before establishing the facts? That seems odd to me. -
.
@markhawker@amcunningham Oh, go away you antagonistic man! You've clearly a v limited grasp of the issue. Learn & come back when you have. -
.
@C7RKY Are you done with the condescension now? (@amcunningham) -
@markhawker@amcunningham *bored* You'll see... -
.
@C7RKY Love how you’re bored after being put in your place. Typical troll. Keep working on speculation in lieu of facts. (@amcunningham) -
.
@markhawker@amcunningham You'll find plenty of facts on my timeline. I just don't waste my time with people who have vested interests. - 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@C7RKY@amcunningham Do you have evidence that the insurance company profited or are you just assuming they did? -
@markhawker@amcunningham I know how they work. It's what I used to do. That 274 page report is evidence enough of what they shouldn't have. -
@C7RKY Now, back to@amcunningham. What are you actually suggesting she is guilty of here? What's her "hidden agenda" in all this?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.