Talk:Admiral Group

message: :Image:Daimondlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Daimondlogo.png

message: :Image:Admirallogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Admirallogo.png

message: :Image:Belllogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Belllogo.png

message: The article contained the following paragraph:
:"In November 2012, Admiral were criticised by the police for increasing insurance premiums for vehicle drivers who had opted to take an educational course on speed awareness in place of receiving penalty points on their licence. Although the police did not treat these courses as convictions, Admiral Group companies had chosen to take them into consideration as their statistics showed drivers who had attended a speed awareness course were an increased risk."
In my view this information is properly sourced and therefore really should stay. Dormskirk (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight. Its a non-story. People in the UK who get caught speeding generally get a choice of speed awareness or points on the license (depending on circumstances). Either way they are caught speeding and people who break speed limits are an increased risk of having or being involved in an accident - so increased insurance risk for car insurers. Every car insurance company if they know you break speed limits will adjust your premium accordingly, conviction or not. The police dont particularly like it as if someone knows their insurance is going to go up massively might be more inclined to challenge the speeding ticket - more paperwork for the police etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point: what I find interesting about the BBC article is that Cumbria Constabulary and South Yorkshire Police say that the courses do not lead to increased premiums but nevertheless Admiral have been increasing them. It would be good to find some reliable sources confirming that other insurers are also increasing premiums. Dormskirk (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely really, the reasons why insurers raise premiums are deliberately kept opaque - in order to deter people challanging them too much. Its just not interesting news unless there is a specific hook. Its a non-story and only hit the news because people complained specifically about Admiral (one of the largest vehicle insurers in the UK) doing it. Your best bet would be trade industry papers. The BBC article is actually surprisingly non-judgemental. The other take-away is that the Police were caught promising things they had no authority to deliver, no legal authority to enforce, and were entirely misleading. Why private companies increase their premiums is absolutely none of the police's business. Even in a non-fault accident (see here for an explanation), you will find a lot of insurers will increase premiums as people who are in accidents, tend to have more accidents. The 'over compensating' effect - people lose confidence, act more cautiously etc. That gets challenged more often, and an insurer will likely reverse it, but you will get the 'there are a number of factors that lead to increased premiums' speech first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

text: As an aside, the 'undue weight' comment above is because the article really needs expansion. No mention of the awards is received for example the best companies to work for - which it has been in since the beginning I think, see here and here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I have removed the paragraph again given the concerns with undue weight. Lmatt (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed courses 

message: "Engelhardt" is mentioned early on, but WHO IS IT?  Henry Engelhardt is finally mentioned as the leader of a management buyout, then as someone stepping down.  Why not mention the names of the founders in 1991? Then we could see Engelhardt and his buddies. Haryadoon1 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now linked to the article on Henry Engelhardt in the first line of the history section. If you think you can improve the article, with reliable independent sources, then please do so. Dormskirk (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a terrible article