ex offenders often get ripped off by mainstream insurers

raskazz

Even assuming it isn't stinking SPAM, the first post is ridiculous.

Firstly it assumes that all of those 7 million have convictions which are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Secondly it assumes that they all have insurance. Thirdly it assumes that they have all not disclosed the conviction to their insurer.

The article in the Liverpool Echo is almost as bad. Quite apart from the numerous typo it is very poorly researched and written. For example, it's not "antiquated lore's" (whatever they are - I assume that the writer means "laws") that make the risk unacceptable, it is the insurer's underwriting criteria that make it unacceptable. The article also makes no mention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which is ridiculous when the topic is insurance and convictions.

dacouch

Rakazz have a look at this google return of Neil's tele number, see if you notice a theme and whether you think he is a spammer.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=02088509697&meta=&aq=&oq=02088509697&fp=698b2be80cf6bcd7

Have a read of the MSE summary of the Unfair Business Practices

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2009/12/firms-banned-for-posing-as-happy-customers-on-internet-forums

Perhaps it will shortly be 7000001

Here is a pciture of Neil Cook if anyone wants to see him

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/852/neilcook.jpg

Look like the FSA would be interested in Neil's spamming to http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/About/What/International/ucp/index.shtml

Misleading practices, like false or deceptive messages,
or leaving out important information. (This is from) http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft979.pdf