Travel

I was listening to PM on Radio 4 on the way home today, just as I usually do. It was indeed an interesting show - several of the articles covered got my attention, but rather than pick the one about the Home Secreatry visiting a mosque in Central London, I'll cover Terrorism Victims abroad.

The general gist of the argument is that if a terrorist attack happens in the UK, compensation is typically available from the UK government. I'm sure that there are terms and conditions attaching to my generalisation, but in general, this is true.

The complaint that has sparked the debate is that families of UK victims of terrorist activity abroad aren't entitled to compensation from the UK government, and the families and a Member of Parliament have started to lobby the government stating that this is unfair. Let's look into this in a little more depth...

Firstly, let's identify WHY is the UK government compelled to pay compensation to UK victims of terrorism that happens in the UK. The government is there to protect the general public, and therefore, one would assume have a duty of care to the people living in, and visiting the country. Where an indiscriminate terrorist attack happens in the UK, we can say that the government failed to prevent such an attack, and therefore failed in their duty of care, thus giving a good reason to pay compensation to victims and their families.

BUT, what's the situation if you're sunning yourself on a beach in the Costa-del-Sol, or perhaps skiing across Mont Blanc when an attack happens and you get caught up in it? Yes, the government in the UK should afford you all of the assistance possible, but why should it compensate you? It's not responsible for the policing of these places, it doesn't pay the army, nor any security services, so really it doesn't have much, if any input into the way that terrorism is handled in other countries. On 7/7, a number of people were killed or injured on the tubes, and the bus that were targetted by islamic extremists. Whether the people killed or hurt were British, Estonian, or American, they have a right to claim against the British Government.

So where's my point you ask? If you're in another country, and get caught up in a terrorist situation, you should be subjected to the compensation rules of the country in question, as the British Government has no control over other countries. If the government of the country in question doesn't provide compensation or has complicated rules, that should be a part of the risk that you take by travelling to that country.

I know it's going to be an unpopular point of view, but that what I think.

Final negotiations have been completed on the Car Insurance front, resulting in a final premium of £475.00 including Protected No Claims Bonus, Legal Cover and Free Breakdown cover. That's a whopping £121 saving on my original renewal premium. See - it pays to shop around!

In the ten years that I've been driving, I've been through a couple of insurers: Drake, Highway at Lloyd's, Colonnade, Admiral, Elephant, and for the last three years, Co-operative (CIS).

Saturday saw the arrival of my renewal invitation. I knew that the premium would increase a little since my last renewal of c£260 (comprehensive), as I moved from a group 3 rated car to a group 13 car. Naturally, I assumed that the premium would move into low to mid £400 mark... but when I opened the renewal notice...SHOCK!

£596 per year was the figure. I'm forking out a mint as it is on petrol, without the insurance company trying to bankrupt me too.