Tell Me :
Talk
There were various rebates available for special expences, such as Merck Cocaine.
As you say, this is a battle amongnst millionaires and their lawyers, on both sides. One side, by definition, are bad guys, ins. companies whom nobody likes. The other side is the Stones, who everybody likes because they make good music and just make people happy.
If being on the Stones'side means hoping that the contracts support their position, then we all agree. (Nobody here knows what the contracts say or what they mean. $800 an hour lawyers are fighting that out.) If being on the Stones side means thinking that they should win because they are the Stones and we all know insurance companies are bad, then please grow up.
Settled before all the details got splattered all over the media, it says.
I'm glad it's settled. But I wish ... ahhh I wish a lot of things.
The world should treat its treasures better.
All kinds of blessing on the Rolling Stones, and the people close to them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 23:54 by with sssoul.
I'm glad too.
Maybe as a consolation, those personal details contain nothing us hard core fans
wouldn't have guessed, in my view. Casual fans are another matter.
~"Love is Strong"~
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: November 11, 2014 21:31
Quote
Naturalust
Just thinking....what are the chances an insurance co. would pay out if something happened to Ronnie or Keith? God forbid but these two have arguably been trying to kill themselves for years. Quite a bit clearer case than poor L'Wren....
peace
There were various rebates available for special expences, such as Merck Cocaine.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
thecitadel
()
Date: November 11, 2014 21:37
It doesn't mention coconuts at all - no surprise there. Typical Daily Mail inaccuracies.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:03
Quote
with sssoulQuote
Rokyfan
Apparently the issue concerns the specific language of the policy (policies?), concerning preexisting medical conditions, policies that nobody here has read. I'm no fan of insurance companies, but for some people, is it really enough just to know that its MJ on one side and an ins co on the other to know who is right? I think so.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course we're on the Stones' side without reading the policy,
because Mick's had a hard enough year already without an insurance company prying into his dead lover's state
in an attempt to find an excuse not to honour a policy that the Stones duly paid for.
I like to think the Stones have enough lawyers to ensure that the wording of the policy was sound.
As someone up there said I reckon they'll reach a settlement, but it's just sorry-making when things work this way.
Besides, plenty of us have have been let down badly by insurance companies,
whose whole business is after all based on letting more people down than not,
while the Stones give everybody courage for years and years and years. Whose side should we be on?!
As you say, this is a battle amongnst millionaires and their lawyers, on both sides. One side, by definition, are bad guys, ins. companies whom nobody likes. The other side is the Stones, who everybody likes because they make good music and just make people happy.
If being on the Stones'side means hoping that the contracts support their position, then we all agree. (Nobody here knows what the contracts say or what they mean. $800 an hour lawyers are fighting that out.) If being on the Stones side means thinking that they should win because they are the Stones and we all know insurance companies are bad, then please grow up.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:26
please grow up.
never.
peace
never.
peaceRe: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:31
That's not "growing up", Rokyfan dear, that's giving up.
Of course the glorious raunch is supposed to prevail - that's what it's for!
Of course the glorious raunch is supposed to prevail - that's what it's for!
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
crawdaddy
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:31
It's a shame that it looks like The Stones personal medical details and other personal things that are in the insurance papers are getting out to the media.
That sort of stuff is personal, no matter who you are.
Just seen Sky News and seemed to be a page of the policy details being shown on screen.
That is just not right.
That sort of stuff is personal, no matter who you are.
Just seen Sky News and seemed to be a page of the policy details being shown on screen.
That is just not right.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:43
"Ms. Scott intended to, and did, commit suicide and her death was therefore not 'sudden and unforeseen'."
There are so many logical holes in this I don't know where to begin.
There are so many logical holes in this I don't know where to begin.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
desertblues68
()
Date: November 11, 2014 22:47
Yeah a terrible thing as there are details about their personal lives and their health which should be kept confidential. Preparing to be asked stupid questions at work as the office Rolling Freak
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Nikkei
()
Date: November 12, 2014 03:27
[www.spiegel.de] don't know who's familiar with german magazine Der Spiegel, but according to them the whole Oz Tour has now been cancelled for a second time. by the sounds of it all you can expect from Jagger are cancellations nowadays. probably just bad reporting, on the other hand they have a track record in trying to put the Stones down. in the 90s, they made a serious case of accusing the Stones to use playback technology in their show, even having a sound engineer compare Charlie's breaks and shuffles from different concerts to find suspicious similarities. it ended with an apology to the band, however =)
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Grison
()
Date: November 12, 2014 08:55
Despite the fact that Spiegel would liket to be a sort of Germany reply to the Time Magazine their investigations and reports on musical or cultural issues are lacking the reality and facts most of the time. Sometimes their comments or report tend to be worth than Sun or Daily Mirror which is hard to superseed. :-)Quote
Nikkei
[www.spiegel.de] don't know who's familiar with german magazine Der Spiegel, but according to them the whole Oz Tour has now been cancelled for a second time. by the sounds of it all you can expect from Jagger are cancellations nowadays. probably just bad reporting, on the other hand they have a track record in trying to put the Stones down. in the 90s, they made a serious case of accusing the Stones to use playback technology in their show, even having a sound engineer compare Charlie's breaks and shuffles from different concerts to find suspicious similarities. it ended with an apology to the band, however =)
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: November 14, 2014 22:26
Apparently the suit has been settled:
[www.theguardian.com]
I know that bv doesn't like it when we copy the entire text from an article but I will say I find it in bad taste that this article has the headline:
"Rolling Stones 'deeply upset' after personal health details leaked to public"
Yet in the body of the article, it goes on to rearticulate most of the details that the headline says they are upset about the release of. Apparently the writer/publisher doesn't give a crap. ><
Peace,
Mr DJA
[www.theguardian.com]
I know that bv doesn't like it when we copy the entire text from an article but I will say I find it in bad taste that this article has the headline:
"Rolling Stones 'deeply upset' after personal health details leaked to public"
Yet in the body of the article, it goes on to rearticulate most of the details that the headline says they are upset about the release of.
Apparently the writer/publisher doesn't give a crap. ><Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 14, 2014 23:12
Quote
mr_dja
Apparently the suit has been settled
Settled before all the details got splattered all over the media, it says.
I'm glad it's settled. But I wish ... ahhh I wish a lot of things.
The world should treat its treasures better.
All kinds of blessing on the Rolling Stones, and the people close to them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-14 23:54 by with sssoul.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
angee
()
Date: November 15, 2014 19:30
Quote
with sssoulQuote
mr_dja
Apparently the suit has been settled
Settled before all the details got splattered all over the media, it says.
I'm glad it's settled. But I wish ... ahhh I wish a lot of things.
The world should treat its treasures better.
All kinds of blessing on the Rolling Stones, and the people close to them.
I'm glad too.
Maybe as a consolation, those personal details contain nothing us hard core fans
wouldn't have guessed, in my view. Casual fans are another matter.
~"Love is Strong"~
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1307
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10