PDA

View Full Version : Wife insures herself against getting ugly!



Fat Tone
21st May 2003, 02:13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3044667.stm

I think the husband should get the payout! ;)

T.

lecter
21st May 2003, 02:15
She added that she had never thought of herself as being particularly stunning, and was anxious to hold on to what she had.

Oh, and a real beauty she is, too :rolleyes:

Fat Tone
21st May 2003, 02:21
All you need is 9 mates and she gets rich!

GNEP
21st May 2003, 02:52
Read this in the Metro on the way into work this morning - they didn't have a photo though.

And is it really a panel of 10 builders??? Anything with long hair and they will whistle :D So she ain't getting no payout...

Technoid
21st May 2003, 04:19
hehe, i think it's tragic :devious:

GT98
21st May 2003, 05:08
shes nothing special :rolleyes:

The PIT
21st May 2003, 05:16
I'd have refused to insure her. :D :D

lecter
21st May 2003, 05:43
Yeah, I wonder what the insurance agent 'received' for setting up this particular policy :p

KRSESQ
21st May 2003, 06:24
It doesn't name the insurance company, but I know Lloyd's of London will insure ANYTHING for a price!

Kevin

SpiralDragon
21st May 2003, 06:33
what next....... erection loss insurance :D .... how and how would the insurance company validate that :D

Umfriend
21st May 2003, 06:47
Hmmmm, a panel of 10 bikini babes giving it a go?

Umfriend
21st May 2003, 06:50
Seriously, I think this is crap. I feel the motivation is ridicoulous, the insurance company is stupid and the media should stay clear of reporting such no-such news.

Fat Tone
21st May 2003, 06:56
would you like me to delete the thread?

RedRed
21st May 2003, 07:00
Its fairly famously quotes (so it might be an urban legend), but the only thing that loyds of london wont insure is a girls virginity!!!!

Brian Ellis
21st May 2003, 07:03
She should get the compensation as soon as she paid the first premium, as she's fairly ugly to start with, selon moi.

However, I think a large pinch of sodium chloride is required. No insurance co. would risk 100,000 unless there was a goodish chance of getting in 200,000 in premiums, which means the stupid bitch is actuarially forecast to remain beautiful for the next 1,000 years. It just simply doesn't make sense, even if you take out the cynicism behind my conception of insurance companies.

Fat Tone
21st May 2003, 07:09
I would have taken it to be a bit of 'Sun' (tabloid) journalism, but as you can see its on the BBCs web site, and the only time we don't believe the Beeb is when they regurgitate war propaganda ;)

Umfriend
21st May 2003, 07:24
However, I think a large pinch of sodium chloride is required. No insurance co. would risk 100,000 unless there was a goodish chance of getting in 200,000 in premiums, which means the stupid bitch is actuarially forecast to remain beautiful for the next 1,000 years. It just simply doesn't make sense, even if you take out the cynicism behind my conception of insurance companies.I would rather take this with a bit of salt ;)

It could also be a policy with a maturity of 10 years or sumsuch, and no, the odds do not have to be anywhere near 1 to 2. The big issue here is that for 200 per annum, it would be very costly to draft a contract, monitor payments, perform the risk analysis etc. Especially as this is likely not to become a real market.

I do not believe this (or it is far from the actual truth, same difference), and feel this should not be done as such in any case (see earleir post).

Dr Mordrid
21st May 2003, 07:31
Originally posted by GT98
shes nothing special :rolleyes: From the pracitcal standpoint some would say she took the policy out too late :D :D

Dr. Mordrid

LvR
21st May 2003, 07:35
who like 'em on What "em" and "on" what?:p

Dr - noted change in post contents, but the question still stands!

ZokesPro
21st May 2003, 07:36
Your really quick to edit that post Doc!

KvHagedorn
21st May 2003, 08:34
Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
From the pracitcal standpoint some would say she took the policy out too late :D :D

Dr. Mordrid

Nah, I bet she was dorky looking from birth. :p

That's mean though.. she's not that bad. She's not Rebecca Romijn, that's for sure, but she's probably in the top 40% on the attractiveness scale. :D

btw, what did Doc write before he edited it? :confused:

gt40
21st May 2003, 08:40
she could probably collect if she insured herself against being stupid.

The PIT
21st May 2003, 10:45
No doubt one of the reasons why our insurance so high with daft policies like this.

Belwarrior
22nd May 2003, 09:32
Mrs Jones, 26, said: "When I met him I knew he was the sort of person who likes good looking ladies, but I've had a baby now and my figure isn't what it was before.

"He hated it when I was pregnant and my figure was changing and it was out of our control."

I find the above disturbing.. I mean I dont feel the couple are ready for marriage and family life. It looks as if the Hubby has married her for superficial external beauty and i cant say much about the wifey's priorities in life.:(

Umfriend
22nd May 2003, 09:50
Bel, agreed. Also, the husbies attitude is disturbing IMO.

Technoid
22nd May 2003, 09:59
reminds me of that case where the wife sued her husband because he had become fat :)

joonie
22nd May 2003, 11:52
Why would any girl want to marry a guy who doesn't love her but likes her looks and when that "LOOK" fades out he goes away. That's wrong to start with. Then when she gets like forty or something, the guy would definately leave her, right? Then it's not even a marriage. The guy's a real jerk.:mad: