International Women's Day

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

Sorry but you talk complete nonsense as all of the equality Labour luvvie warriors on here do, young men are more reckless and thus pay more in insurance as insurance is based on risk. What next Oli, that charging more for younger drivers is age discrimination? the facts show that the younger men are the biggest danger on roads just as older men are much safer on the roads - they are the facts and even if they were the total opposite from the truth, it is down to the insurance industry to decide how to charge and what to charge, not a group of unelected politicians sitting in Brussels with no knowledge or experience of the real world.

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.

Of course some women are better than men at firefighting, but on the whole men are better - the idea that we should have quotas (turn down a suitable man for the job for a woman) is ridiculous and is discrimination. I haven't a problem with women becoming firefighters, I wish them all the best - provided they get there on merit and provided others who are better than them are not put at a disadvantage. Women's body structure (bones, muscle etc) is weaker than that of a mans, and a job which involves manual work (such as firefighting, police, builder etc) is more suited to men than most women. That is simply rational common sense.

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.

Nothing old fashioned about me, infact you are the one stuck in the 1970s with this ridiculous equality nonsense thats gone over the top, coupled with your last-century view that everything should be controlled via the state. I will not be called old fashioned just because I believe that people should be hired based on their ability, not their race, sex, sexuality or gender.

And as for maternity leave - interesting isn't it that Labourites are always the ones to bang on about unemployment, yet the laws you advocate only lead to more unemployment especially in poorer areas where the only real work is small business (usually shops).

[Hecktix]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: you really do get boring, in terms of discriminating drivers upon age - I think this is quite true a lot of drivers are discriminated on age, for instance like I said if someone of the age of 34 passed their test today they could get an insurance policy half the price of a 20 year old who has been driving for 3 years and not had one incident based on the flawed statistics. Car insurance is a scam, the fact that some young drivers pay double sometimes triple what their car is worth on insurance, but that's another story nothing to do with equality.

In terms of the EU dictating this to insurance companies - well somebody bloody needs to do it - insurance companies and many other businesses take advantage of customers and there is nothing wrong with the EU trying to stop this. I don't agree with many of things said and done by the EU however trying to improve the welfare and fair treatment of consumers is something I'd be willing to give them all my bloody tax for, as it's these modern day companies that have ruined this country getting greedier and greedier.

I agree with you completely in terms of sex quotas and that people should be hired on ability and sex, age shouldn't be used when deciding upon who is best for a job. Jobs should be given to people based on whether they are the best person or not. Equality is not something that can be forced upon in terms of sex quotas as that's not equality, equality is not giving a man the job over a better qualified woman just becuase she's got a pair of **** and a vagina.

[FlyingJesus]

young men are more reckless

I'm not.
I'm aware that the statistics do go against young male drivers but the premiums added simply for being a certain age and gender far outweigh the risk difference, it's not at all proportionat. I have nothing (other than personal preference because I like not paying much) against the idea that young men are more likely to have a crash therefore pay out more in insurance, but it ought to be done to a far more reasonable scale than the current costs.

Just done a Churchill quote (who I'm with) with the exact same details but one as Tom and one as Tina. The quote for what I'd be paying on my next term of insurance if I was a girl is £540.60, whereas I'll be paying £656.14 - 21% more for being a male, and that's with 3 years under my belt rather than a new driver. I hate to think what a new driver would have to fork out simply for having an extra gearstick

[Niall!]

As a misogynist I'm more than fine with this.

[AgnesIO]

Fantastic. Always have thought what a joke it is that you can have car insurance JUST for women.

Dan you probably don't like this, just because it is the EU.

I do not believe total equality is the way forward, and personally do not want global inequality to be solved.

[Catzsy]

So, Dan you believe that Men are more superior than Woman?

[Conservative,]

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?

Because women workers are as good as men. Women are still humans who deserve equal opportunities. HOWEVER it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven that MEN cause more crashes than women therefore - based on risk (the whole point of insurance) - MEN should pay more. I am annoyed that in years to come I will have to pay more for life insurance when I'm older, however I think it's completely STUPID and RIDICULOUS to say you can't calculate RISK on one of the main factors.

Risk is the chance something will happen in a certain situation. Risk changes between sexes (example - men have younger average age of death therefore they should be allowed higher pension payouts because statistically I'm less likely to live as long as a woman earning the same amount and on the same pension).

It's not about equality in insurance. It's about risk. I'm sorry but the EU shot themselves in the foot.

[Hecktix]

Because women workers are as good as men. Women are still humans who deserve equal opportunities. HOWEVER it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven that MEN cause more crashes than women therefore - based on risk (the whole point of insurance) - MEN should pay more. I am annoyed that in years to come I will have to pay more for life insurance when I'm older, however I think it's completely STUPID and RIDICULOUS to say you can't calculate RISK on one of the main factors.

Risk is the chance something will happen in a certain situation. Risk changes between sexes (example - men have younger average age of death therefore they should be allowed higher pension payouts because statistically I'm less likely to live as long as a woman earning the same amount and on the same pension).

It's not about equality in insurance. It's about risk. I'm sorry but the EU shot themselves in the foot.

You are absolutely disillusioned lol. Insurance companies use a minor statistic which isn't fully correct to charge men an on average nearly 30% more than women. The only way that a man is 30% more likely to have a crash than a woman is that there are more men on the road. If you look at it proportionally, i.e. look at the percentage of young men that causes crashes based on the amount of young men driving and then the percentage of young women that cause crashes based upon the amount of young women driving you find the figures much more equal. You cannot charge a man more because more men drive. The statistics aren't scientific so it's not scientifically proven, when looking at proportional representation men cause slightly more crashes than women, therefore insurance should if anything be slightly more, not as much as it has been. It makes much more sense to charge the same and then penalise people when the crashes actually happen. These companies are a scam and this ruling has made one step further to stop them scamming consumers. Please come back when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

[Conservative,]

You are absolutely disillusioned lol. Insurance companies use a minor statistic which isn't fully correct to charge men an on average nearly 30% more than women. The only way that a man is 30% more likely to have a crash than a woman is that there are more men on the road. If you look at it proportionally, i.e. look at the percentage of young men that causes crashes based on the amount of young men driving and then the percentage of young women that cause crashes based upon the amount of young women driving you find the figures much more equal. You cannot charge a man more because more men drive. The statistics aren't scientific so it's not scientifically proven, when looking at proportional representation men cause slightly more crashes than women, therefore insurance should if anything be slightly more, not as much as it has been. It makes much more sense to charge the same and then penalise people when the crashes actually happen. These companies are a scam and this ruling has made one step further to stop them scamming consumers. Please come back when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Maybe they DO overcharge, I have never said they don't or denied that they do. However you have just admitted what I was telling you. Men cause more accidents, stastically, proportionally, whatever, any way you look it men are the cause of more accidents therefore their premiums should be higher. I have several relatives/friend's parents that are actuaries and my Godfather whom I am in close contact with I emailed about this and he said it's ludicrous because he now has to change everything he does to fit it.

Trouble is. This doesn't just apply to car insurance. It applies to all insurance. So really, it's not about crashes. It's about women & men statistics in general. As I have pointed out - women live, on average, longer than men, so their pensions will be less annually because they need to make it last longer. And life insurance.

Oli, I understand what you're saying but I can't agree because you're wrong. It is completely unfair to do this because risk is risk and you can't alter the statistics to fit your every need.

Lets make it so that disabled people have to have the same premiums as non-disabled people yeah? And houses in Chelsea the same house insurance as ones in rough parts of Manchester, yeah? And 40 year old women the same life insurance as a 90 year old man yeah? No. No. No. No.

Maybe a clamp down on UNFAIR premiums. But absolute equality? Another step towards the doom of a socialist republic and communist EU super-continent. I'm leaving as soon as I can.

[Hecktix]

Maybe they DO overcharge, I have never said they don't or denied that they do. However you have just admitted what I was telling you. Men cause more accidents, stastically, proportionally, whatever, any way you look it men are the cause of more accidents therefore their premiums should be higher. I have several relatives/friend's parents that are actuaries and my Godfather whom I am in close contact with I emailed about this and he said it's ludicrous because he now has to change everything he does to fit it.

Trouble is. This doesn't just apply to car insurance. It applies to all insurance. So really, it's not about crashes. It's about women & men statistics in general. As I have pointed out - women live, on average, longer than men, so their pensions will be less annually because they need to make it last longer. And life insurance.

Oli, I understand what you're saying but I can't agree because you're wrong. It is completely unfair to do this because risk is risk and you can't alter the statistics to fit your every need.

Lets make it so that disabled people have to have the same premiums as non-disabled people yeah? And houses in Chelsea the same house insurance as ones in rough parts of Manchester, yeah? And 40 year old women the same life insurance as a 90 year old man yeah? No. No. No. No.

You are an absolute fool Robbie, the statistics I have seen show nothing near the reason to charge a man anymore. If anything men and women are just as likely to have car accidents, I haven't even gone into the fact that you shouldn't base anything on statistics really, afterall it's all correlation you simply cannot claim causation from a correlation. I'd say there's a positive correlation between HabboxForum and gay boys, would you say that HabboxForum turns boys gay? No, so by saying that there's a positive correlation between men and car accidents is the exact same, there's no evidence that the car happened because the driver was male and there's no way of ever claiming that the accident was caused because of the drivers sex. This is why it is unfair.

There's a clear reason for disabled people having higher premiums, because they are at a disadvantage upon control of the car - there is no proven disadvantage between males & females. Houses are insured based upon how much the house is worth - not who owns them (providing the owner has a good credit rating). I do not mean this in a rude way robbie but you are very young, I fail to believe you have a full grasp upon the knowledge involved in some of this stuff - so give up whilst you can because you are just making yourself look stupid.