OK, there's no footy so I thought any reference in the press to the Demons might be worth posting. Nothing to see here really:

A photo of an alleged bikie member with MFC players might be evidence presented to suggest he is a bikie in an insurance case. Or rather the caption of the photo might be evidence.

Brothels insurance claim rejected over bikie links

OK, there's no footy so I thought any reference in the press to the Demons might be worth posting. Nothing to see here really:

A photo of an alleged bikie member with MFC players might be evidence presented to suggest he is a bikie in an insurance case. Or rather the caption of the photo might be evidence.

Brothels insurance claim rejected over bikie links

Well, if the bloke's a Demon fan then he should win. It's outrageous that an insurance policy should be void simply because an owner's a bikie.

Next thing you know, they'll be refusing cover for toothless Collingwood fans

How long until the footy starts again???

Hmm, it's hardly worth it lighting fires these days.

BTW, only one of the MFC players the gangsta drank with is still at the club and the one left is hardly a regular: Dee-light for gangster

4 more weeks guys.

Two of those blokes photographed with Fidel Tukel were Col and Beamer, two blokes who were more likely to be the captain of the drinking team than captain of the MFC. While Neeld was the AFL's equivalent of Yosemite Sam, he may have been onto something with Beamer. Last weekend, while looking at a car, I spoke to a bloke who was a bar manager at a certain inner city venue. The words he used regarding Beamer's post curricular 'activities' were not pleasing to say the least (Jack Watts was also mentioned as well).

Two of those three photographed have been moved on. While I was disappointed with some of the personnel losses under the Neeld era (Riv immediately comes to mind), Beamer walking may have been a positive in the end. We REALLY needed a big bodied midfielder last year and Neeld should have tried to use the carrot as well as the stick in reinforcing WHY going out every weekend was not a good idea. However, Beamer may have been too forgone for anything to have been done.

While I think most of us agreed that Neeld had to go and that he had lost a lot of the list, Beamer's complete lack of dignity upon hearing the news showed why he shouldn't have been a guiding light at the club. With Col also moving on, as much as it has hurt the on-field side of things and no doubt it has, we have a genuine chance to purge the partyboy culture of the club.

The group struck up a friendship at the Hard Rock Hotel's famous pool-side party Rehab last month, as the AFL investigated serious allegations that their club deliberately ''tanked'' games in 2009 to secure favourable draft picks.

Some of the fine reporting at the time. Working the tanking investigation in to a story that's a nothing story in the first place. And newspaper wonder why no one reads them anymore.

So they're refering to this old photo and article:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/deelight-for-gangster-20121117-29j4r.html

Nothing for us to worry about, 2 of these players are now at other clubs, and the actual photos are not incriminating in any way shape or form (except for Beamers inability to count).

This could be Don's revenge after being told "no thanks" to his offer of photographing the players day to day.... Hmmmm...

This could be Don's revenge after being told "no thanks" to his offer of photographing the players day to day.... Hmmmm...

Unnecessary Stuie leave it please

Unnecessary Stuie leave it please

Maybe you need your buddy BBO to point out to when something is intended as humour.

Maybe you need your buddy BBO to point out to when something is intended as humour.

but humour is supposed to be funny stuie

Well, if the bloke's a Demon fan then he should win. It's outrageous that an insurance policy should be void simply because an owner's a bikie.

Next thing you know, they'll be refusing cover for toothless Collingwood fans

Not really Jack, if the insurer's were aware that the owner was a bike I doubt they'd have written the risk and the fact that it was arson would be vindication for declining the claim.

From an independent view, if I was assessing the claim I'd be looking very hard at it and I'd be vey reluctant to pay it. Remember with non disclosure any material fact, that would influence the acceptance of the cover must be disclosed and any claim would be discounted by the relevance and severity of the non disclosure.

Well, if the bloke's a Demon fan then he should win. It's outrageous that an insurance policy should be void simply because an owner's a bikie.

Next thing you know, they'll be refusing cover for toothless Collingwood fans

Can Collingwood fans afford insurance?

Can Collingwood fans afford insurance?

They seem to be able to afford memberships.

Not really Jack, if the insurer's were aware that the owner was a bike I doubt they'd have written the risk and the fact that it was arson would be vindication for declining the claim.

From an independent view, if I was assessing the claim I'd be looking very hard at it and I'd be vey reluctant to pay it. Remember with non disclosure any material fact, that would influence the acceptance of the cover must be disclosed and any claim would be discounted by the relevance and severity of the non disclosure.

If insurance companies are so concerned with the profile of bikies then they should ask the question on the application and accompany it with a statement of policy that they will not accept any claims from people who belong to that class. In that event, Mr. Tukel could then have gone to a different insurance company and entered into a contract which would have seen that he was properly covered. Our society is governed by laws and a contract should be a contract. To preclude someone because he or she comes from a particular group is wrong, especially when that fact isn't disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement.

If insurance companies are so concerned with the profile of bikies then they should ask the question on the application and accompany it with a statement of policy that they will not accept any claims from people who belong to that class. In that event, Mr. Tukel could then have gone to a different insurance company and entered into a contract which would have seen that he was properly covered. Our society is governed by laws and a contract should be a contract. To preclude someone because he or she comes from a particular group is wrong, especially when that fact isn't disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement.

He's insured a brothel with a company that has specific business. It's hard to feel sorry for either side. The real winners are the lawyers.

If insurance companies are so concerned with the profile of bikies then they should ask the question on the application and accompany it with a statement of policy that they will not accept any claims from people who belong to that class. In that event, Mr. Tukel could then have gone to a different insurance company and entered into a contract which would have seen that he was properly covered. Our society is governed by laws and a contract should be a contract. To preclude someone because he or she comes from a particular group is wrong, especially when that fact isn't disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement.

I agree with those sentiments. However it seems from the article that the insurers did ask a number of questions which the 'bikies' refused to answer. It is implied that that was before they issued the insurance. If it was a concern to the insurance company that the customer were possibly bikies surely they should have refused the policy and the payment for it (and they may have had sufficient justification for doing so from the refusal to answer questions). Taking the money and then refusing to pay out sounds more than a bit naughty to me.

If insurance companies are so concerned with the profile of bikies then they should ask the question on the application and accompany it with a statement of policy that they will not accept any claims from people who belong to that class. In that event, Mr. Tukel could then have gone to a different insurance company and entered into a contract which would have seen that he was properly covered. Our society is governed by laws and a contract should be a contract. To preclude someone because he or she comes from a particular group is wrong, especially when that fact isn't disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement.

The normal disclosure notice asks the question, is there anything that you have to disclose that will affect the acceptance or otherwise of the the insurance, or words to that effect.

They cannot have a clause of everything, so it is up to the client to disclose if they, for instance, had ever had a policy cancelled due to their being convicted of Arson or Insurance Fraud, or if they have been in the slammer, it's all about trying to find out the character of the insured. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Insurance Companies, but as I work in the industry I'd like to know if any of my clients were bikes and if I found out they were, I'd walk away from them immediately.

On rereading the Age article it looks like maybe the insurance company didn't ask about bikie connections until after the claim was made, so my last comments may have been off the mark.

But in response to RobbieF, it seems a bit rich to expect customers to know what in their past might affect their 'right' to insurance. Obviously a previous conviction or insurance fraud would strike one's mind when applying, but there must be lots of grey areas.I'd have thought the company should at least have a list on the form and then throw in cover-all.

I have no sympathy for bikies, but I'm not sure why a bikie should be expected to think they are an extra fire risk just from being a bikie?

Should a refugee of 'middle -eastern appearance' have to declare that they are one just because they are more likely to be fire-bombed by some idiot inspired by a shock-jock? I enjoy a long bow.

Nazi Germany says hi.

He's insured a brothel with a company that has specific business. It's hard to feel sorry for either side. The real winners are the lawyers.

Would it be any different if he insured a legal practice?

They seem to be able to afford memberships.

Exactly they can not afford to paid for both membership and insurance.

How do bikies insure their motorbikes then? Or their houses?

How do bikies insure their motorbikes then? Or their houses?

They pride themselves as being 1%er's and living outside the law. I am not talking about the "all the gear, no idea" types who like making a lot of noise cruising the beaches on weekends. Real biker( read hardened vicious criminal)+ legitimate business + insurance + suspicious fire usually = fraud. I don't blame the insurance company for fobbing them off.

Further, an ex girlfriend of mine got involved with them. First drugs, then stripping and prostitution and now a missing person presumed dead for 17 years. Last seen riding off into the sunset with a notorious biker. Those scum deserve all the heat they get