Interesting Links for 2-3-2011

[andrewducker]

• How the UK's Protection of Freedoms Bill will work
  (tags: freedom dna rights uk)
• Banks actually not that good for the economy, apparently
  (tags: banks banking uk finance)
• Google loses email/contacts of tens of thousands of users, slowly restoring them...
  (tags: gmail google email oops)
• Barclays paid a billion quid in tax – just not mostly in the UK
  (tags: money tax uk barclays)
• European Court rules that you can't charge differently for car or life insurance by gender.
  (tags: gender insurance car discrimination europe)

Comments

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Fascinating article abotu the banks not being that good for the economy.

More fascinating that his speech was completely under-reported. Pretty obvious who controls the media.

And that european court ruling about gender discrimination appalls me. There's no way a 17 year old girl driving a car is the same liability as a 17 year old boy. I had no problem with people in higher risk groups having to pay more for insurance. It just reflects the statistical probabilities.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I had no problem with people in higher risk groups having to pay more for insurance. It just reflects the statistical probabilities.

I'm inclined to agree, although I understand that it can be problematic. I think you do need to draw a line with what you do and don't 'count' when it comes to insurance and there's a question as to where. For example, until 2005 insurance companies could get away with stacking the life insurance premiums of gay men because they were seen as being statistically more prone to certain diseases due to their 'lifestyles'. Since that's seen as discriminatory but also, y'know, not actually true any more, that was outlawed. But lesbians are at a provably statistically lower risk for certain life-threatening diseases due to their 'lifestyles'. By plain old logic I reckon we ought to get our premiums cut.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Seems fair to me, people who are statistically greater risks, should pay more, people who are statistically less risk, pay less.

Kinda sucks for people in high-risk groups. But, I kinda conclude... that's just the world, it's a bit sucky and unfair sometimes.

They do need to constantly revise it though. The 20 year old guy who has never had an accident, should see his premiums reduce faster, because he's presumably one of the careful ones.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, the same paragraph of the EU charter on which this decision was based specifically prohibits discrimination on grounds of age. It may only be a matter of time until the court rules this to be illegal when assessing insurance risk as well.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

God, that's going to put the cat amongst the pigeons. So everybodies insurance premiums are going to skyrocket to offset the teenaged boys?

Crikey.

I suspect the answer migh tbe that insurance companies will withdraw coverage from teenaged boys, and just not insure them at all, so that they don't have to raise the premium for everybody else.

They'll still be within their rights to not offer insurance to certain customers if they so wish?

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

Absolutely not - if you can't legally load premiums on grounds of age then you certainly can't decline coverage altogether. After all, that's what a 20,000 quote for a 17 year old means: "Not interested in insuring you".

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

So in essence there will now be one flat-rate for all drivers? Averaged across everybody?

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

I suspect you offer discounts for number of years of driving 'experience'. Hire car companies won't hire unless you've held a license for 1 year even if you've never driven since passing your test (as my now ex-girlfriend demonstrated).

[errolwi.livejournal.com]

Understandable. As much as they would like to make decisions based on more relevant factors, they need to use things that are easily measured and verifiable at point of hire.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

No, because discrimination on grounds of age isn't illegal (yet), only gender, and because rates also vary by postcode, car type, driving convictions, claims, marital status, job, and (as per other comments) length of time you've held your licence.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

This is the problem, I'm sure even for car insurance you could work out relative liabilities based on things like race, sexuality, age or gender. The moral question is which of these do you allow to be used when calculating an individual's insurance risk.