International Women's Day

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...payer-1bn.html

EU equality ruling 'will cost British taxpayer £1bn': Young women drivers and retired men to suffer

European judges are expected to pass an equality ruling tomorrow that could cost British taxpayers almost £1billion. They are poised to make it illegal to assess insurance premiums and pension payouts on the basis of a policyholder’s sex. Research shows this will make car insurance much more costly for young women, and cut retirement annuities for men by up to 8 per cent. The Open Europe think-tank estimates insurance firms will have to raise £936million more capital to cover themselves against the ‘uncertainty’ caused by the ruling. Insurers say these costs will be passed on to customers.

Open Europe estimates that, on average, a 17-year-old woman driver will have to pay £4,300 more in premiums by the age of 26. In a worst-case scenario, the figure could hit £9,300. Stephen Booth of Open Europe said: ‘Giving EU judges free rein to rewrite laws that the UK government has signed up to in good faith can cause hugely damaging and unforeseen consequences. ‘That these judges would magically rule that young women should pay more in the name of equality is simply perverse.

Today is 'International Women's Day', a ludicrous and patronising day of which militant women with a thorn in their side celebrate their crusade against sexism even though sexism is rational (and yes sexism is rational, as the sexes are different whereas the races are not yet thanks to equality laws we are supposed to pretend that the sexes are equal and are both capable of the same things).

The insurance ruling from the EU is expected to hit normal young, working women just as all the other equality rulings do, its such a shame that women everywhere are represented de facto by such zealots who as usual implement ridiculous policies via the EU and central government and ends up as 'the laws of unintended consquences'. Although that said, at least this 'equality' is being applied fairly for once (as in not one-sided against men as it usually is) but as it stands - it is still totally ridiculous.

Godfrey Bloom sticks it to them here in the first minute or so, Happy International Women's Day.



The same nonsense laws from people who have no grasp of the real world, 'hands up if any of you have had a real job'.

Thoughts?

[Conservative,]

What a load of ****. It's COMMON SENSE. Insurance is calculated on RISK. RISK IS CALCULATED THROUGH SEVERAL MEANS INCLUDING GENDER. If they can't calculated the full risk then it will be inaccurate. Ugh this is infuriating.

[Hecktix]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

[Conservative,]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

It's based upon risk though. Acturial work is about calculating risk and statistically men cause MORE accidents than women. If you can't factor that in you can't make fair insurance premiums so may as well just have the same insurance premiums for 18 year olds as 50 year olds, and the same life insurance for a soldier as a secretary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The women's car insurance ruling is the fairest thing political correctness has ever brought to us, girls I know pay half the car insurance I pay and have A) faster and B) newer cars than I could afford to insure. I know six people who have been involved in serious road collisions with new drivers being behind the wheel and at fault, in four out of six of these the new driver was female. Equal insurance is fair, however within this capitalist world we live in the insurance companies are bound to say "ok if it's equal, womens insurance can go up". I don't mind taxpayers money being used to fund moves for equality in any manner.

Young men are more likely to crash hence why the insurance is higher because women are better driver statistically. Insurance as Conservative says is calculated on risk, and it is a fact that young boy racers (whether you and I am or not) are more dangerous on the roads so their insurance is higher. This will only serve to push the prices up for all of us in the medium term thanks to the insane idea that the sexes are equal to one another.

I find it ludicrous that you say sexism is rational because the sexes are different, yes they may be biologically and aesthetically different however that's where it ends, a woman is a human being and is entitled to the same rights, wages and opportunities as a man. If you actually bothered to take a look at why women were seen as below men in the past then you would see it was down to religion which in the most simple, shortened down terms ever - thought women were dirty because they bled once a month and this was considered "unnatural". Many know that this kind of old fashioned, strict, traditional religion is gone and therefore the oldfashioned, strict, traditional values should go away with it.

Women have been emancipated (it occured many decades ago), as for wages it is not the job of the state to tell businesses what to pay people because that is in other words nationalising business and we know that that model fails. We are not equal at all, for example with firefighters now we have quotas to ensure that a certain percentage are firefighters when men make better firefighters as they are stronger than women. It is fair and rational to pick a man over a woman to be a firefighter because a man is better at the job - the same for insurance, women are statistically safer drivers. The same goes for paternity leave, men should not be entitled to it - a man does not give birth as a woman does.

Just because the biological structure is different doesn't mean women should be looked upon as below men, nor should men be looked upon as below women. Equality is the way forward Dan and if you can't see it you are quite clearly blind.

Equality is not the way forward and often has the opposite result of the desired result, as shown with the video example of small businesses now refusing to take on women of child bearing age because they cannot afford it. Thats discrimination, but they haven't a choice as they simply cannot afford the costs. I take it you agree with sex quotas then? which itself is state discrimination, something the Labour Party partakes in itself.

[cocaine]

What a load of ****. It's COMMON SENSE. Insurance is calculated on RISK. RISK IS CALCULATED THROUGH SEVERAL MEANS INCLUDING GENDER. If they can't calculated the full risk then it will be inaccurate. Ugh this is infuriating.

sorry but women call for equality in the workplace, equality in opportunities, equal treatment everywhere, yet when they can save a few quid suddenly its not at all equal? thats just greed. and whats to stop a women driving drunk and hitting another car and/or damaging public assets - just because a woman is a woman doesn't mean that the risk of damaging a car will be reduced?

[FlyingJesus]

I think it's hilarious because it doesn't affect me negatively

[GommeInc]

I think it's hilarious because it doesn't affect me negatively

Damn you being sexless :@

As far as I am aware, women pay less for their insurance because statistically there are fewer accidents including women than there are men, which is fair - why should women have to pay more for man's mistakes? Having everyone pay the same for insurance for the sake of equality is so odd and random :S Whatever happened to being fair on people who are proven to be "better" than a certain group? It sort of reminds me of companies giving jobs to people who are no more qualified than others just to make up a statistic, though that front died down months ago.

It's pointless meddling again. I'm not sure why these countries (UK and any other involved) must be forced to change their laws, despite surviving long enough without the EU. I could probably of mentioned the war in this post somewhere, but couldn't find a suitable place :/

[Hecktix]

Dan you talk absolute crap, the statistical significance of "boy racers" being more likely to crash is miniscule - in terms of car insurance I believe it should be calculated on two things: years as a driver and number of incidents the driver has had. For instance, if a 34 year old male passed their test today they would be offered an insurance premium half the price of a 20 year old who passed his test when he was 17, on the exact same car. This is because the majority of 34 year old men aren't out causing RTCs - why? Because the majority of 34 year old men have been driving for over 10 years yet this isn't taken into account as much as gender or years driving. I'm pretty certain the statistics insurance companies refer to are quite old too actually, i'm fairly certain that nowadays girls and guys are just as likely to have accidents, if we want to get specific you could say chavvy boy (and girl) racers.. yet they wouldn't start adding that onto insurance premiums would they? The statistical signifance is minimal at the end of the day and it's just a scam by insurance companies to get more money. Oh and another thing, of course more young guys have collisions than girls, statistics also show that more young guys drive than girls, yet this is just another statistic ignored by insurance companies.

I believe in equality full stop, you give the example of a man being a better firefighter than a woman - I know several women who are stronger and fitter than any guy I know, jobs such as firefighters should be given on a basis of personal fitness, generally yes women are weaker than men however there are women that are stronger than most men and there's no reason these women shouldn't get jobs as firefighters - it's not based on sex it's based on the individual. Perhaps women are "weaker" than men because the "ideal" woman is slim and petite? Women aren't going to work out to get their strength up if they don't think they'll be attractive to men - that's the ugly truth of how these things work.

You really do have very old fashioned views on women Dan and it's quite disturbing. In terms of paternity leave I believe a father is entitled to paid time off work when they have a baby although this should not be as long as the mother is entitled to, unless the mother chooses to go back to work before her maternity entitlement is up and then the father should be entitled to the rest of the "Maternity" leave to look after the child.

[GommeInc]

Dan you talk absolute crap, the statistical significance of "boy racers" being more likely to crash is miniscule - in terms of car insurance I believe it should be calculated on two things: years as a driver and number of incidents the driver has had. For instance, if a 34 year old male passed their test today they would be offered an insurance premium half the price of a 20 year old who passed his test when he was 17, on the exact same car. This is because the majority of 34 year old men aren't out causing RTCs - why? Because the majority of 34 year old men have been driving for over 10 years yet this isn't taken into account as much as gender or years driving. I'm pretty certain the statistics insurance companies refer to are quite old too actually, i'm fairly certain that nowadays girls and guys are just as likely to have accidents, if we want to get specific you could say chavvy boy (and girl) racers.. yet they wouldn't start adding that onto insurance premiums would they? The statistical signifance is minimal at the end of the day and it's just a scam by insurance companies to get more money. Oh and another thing, of course more young guys have collisions than girls, statistics also show that more young guys drive than girls, yet this is just another statistic ignored by insurance companies.

I believe in equality full stop, you give the example of a man being a better firefighter than a woman - I know several women who are stronger and fitter than any guy I know, jobs such as firefighters should be given on a basis of personal fitness, generally yes women are weaker than men however there are women that are stronger than most men and there's no reason these women shouldn't get jobs as firefighters - it's not based on sex it's based on the individual. Perhaps women are "weaker" than men because the "ideal" woman is slim and petite? Women aren't going to work out to get their strength up if they don't think they'll be attractive to men - that's the ugly truth of how these things work.

You really do have very old fashioned views on women Dan and it's quite disturbing. In terms of paternity leave I believe a father is entitled to paid time off work when they have a baby although this should not be as long as the mother is entitled to, unless the mother chooses to go back to work before her maternity entitlement is up and then the father should be entitled to the rest of the "Maternity" leave to look after the child.

One worrying thing about this change is what happens to the "experience" and "accidents" factors. There appears to be no mention of it. At the moment you do not get much reduced from the cost of your insurance as it is, so would change bring forth reductions? Talking of statistics, it is believed men are more likely to be involved in accidents as there are more men on the road than women at any given time, so it is the fault of no-one, just how they tally up at the end of the day. Going back to the "fair use" argument, should women be given reduced car insurance because statistically there are less women on the road - is it unfair that they are charged the same when they use their cars less? Equality isn't a bad thing, and it isn't a good thing - equality for the sake of it is where it becomes unfair. You could argue that may be insurance should be based on miles done, which I think it is done by some insurance companies who request the details of the trip computer on a car.

There are hundreds of factors that need to be looked at here. At the moment, it just seems like mindless meddling over trivial matters which were considered fair to begin with. The argument to keep the old system at least comes with statistics to back up why it worked, than this proposed idea which just wants to see equality, with no reason as to why.