The reason they stated was that they have taken 12 months' premium from the reimbursement, regardless of how it had been previously agreed to be paid. I could not claim for the diagnostic tests as my dog had not undergone surgery, she was a medical admission.
They went on to say that I cannot make further claims for 12 months. If I want to cancel the policy, even if my dog dies, I cannot do so for 12 months, and then it has to be in writing and I will incur a processing cost.
I advocate pet insurance but, please, read the small print before agreeing to terms. As the article said, "it is important not to underestimate how much treatments can cost".
R THOMPSON
Wanganui East
Misdirection
GR Scown was apparently attempting to speak in favour of abortion, by the use of misdirection, obfuscation, and false argument.
GR Scown appeared to say that the death of a child in a miscarriage is a terrible thing and God is to blame for it, yet the deliberate killing of a child in an abortion is a good thing because the parent(s) chose to do so.
I doubt that any court dealing with a murder trial would accept the argument that a killer was not guilty because "they chose to do it".
The rolling-out of the old excuse that abortion was legalised to stop the "enormous" damage being done to women in "backstreet clinics" is the high point of the letter and highlights the nonsense of the narrative G R Scown attempts to support.
The argument is quite simply that, in order to stop the damage done to a few hundred women and the killing of a few hundred children each year in "backstreet clinics", we will damage many thousands of women and kill many thousands of children each year in government-supported clinics. In other words, it makes no sense.
If our society actually cared about those women and children and the damage being done to them, we would be finding ways to help them and to stop the damage.
K A BENFELL
Gonville
The rule of war
Jay Kuten (Chronicle, July 12) propounds that our SAS are guilty of killing civilians in a war zone. He is applying civil laws used in a civilian situation, but this is a different zone, a war zone; different rules apply, as you can't tie up progress.
In Iraq the doves insisted on civilian rules, so the people caught with gunpowder on their hands were released because it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were the ones that did the deed.
They were released because they were supposedly civilians, only to be caught again after killing more of our troops. So the soldiers, knowing they would be released to kill more of their mates, resorted to summary executions. They did not feel good about it, but their hands had been forced by the doves insisting on civil law in a war zone.
So, Jay and the rest of you headline-grabbers who are retrospectively pursuing our SAS with civilian law in a war zone, look in the mirror. In a war you do what needs to be done to protect your fellow soldiers, as vile as you think it may be. In war, imprisonment without trial has to happen till the war is over -- not catch, trial and release.
There is a fair bit of ivory tower in these people.
G R SCOWN
Whanganui
Diverse group
As a recent observer of the NZ First Party at public meetings, I have been surprised and delighted by how culturally diverse its supporters seem to be.
In one meeting, I counted at least seven different cultures present. I say "surprised" because up until now I had been led to believe via various media reports that NZ First didn't like immigrant cultures, and I say "delighted" because the very people other political parties say that NZ First is advocating against seem to be the very same people supporting the NZ First Party in the flesh.
Given this, it now seems reasonable to consider the possibility that NZ First may be a broader church than perhaps the media have led us, the voting public, to believe.
Just a thought.
DYLAN TIPENE
Ranui, Auckland
