Jump to content

BazzaS

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    7,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

BazzaS last won the day on July 3

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Reputation

3,494 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The different timing / different destination helps support that this was a one-off, increasing the likelihood they’ll offer an administrative (“out of court”) settlement
  2. if you were stopped at the start of the journey, did they ask you where you were travelling to? if at your destination: they’ll know where you travelled to and from. Is that journey a usual one for the legitimate owner of the card, where it might look like you’ve made that same trip before, or will your journey look “out of pattern” (supporting your statement to TfL that it was a one-off, if they check the card’s usage)
  3. It depends on what happens when they review the usage on the card. They can also review the footage from any body-worn camera from the revenue staff : would your breathing difficulties have been apparent (though I suspect they would have called an ambulance if they were that obvious….) How many times might you have used it while suffering from allergy? Were there others beyond the time you got caught? How many similar journeys were made by the legitimate owner of the card?
  4. I don't disagree, but the "fight for her mother' is going to have to be realistic within the resources available. A "best interests meeting" isn't about the best interests of a patient regardless of resources / realism. It is about the best interests of a patient within what is realistically achievable. You can push for an increased package of care, even beyond 'average' (you make the point that for every average there are higher levels and lower levels, to cause the 'average' to exist). Yet, they don't have to resource EVERY possible option, for every patient, only those reasonable. Since I'm: a) repeating myself, (so perhaps not making the point adequately), and b) have already been seen to be 'derailing the thread' (never my intent: the point is about not trying for something unobtainable because it is "in best interests" but unrealistic. So, I'm out, .......... with one parting observation. I'm not suggesting Maddy has to "solve the NHS's resourcing problem", but instead needs to make any suggestion she puts forward reasonable and realistic .... or it'll get rejected.
  5. True, but the final outcome on what will be provided does depend on resources. Otherwise EVERYONE would be getting personalised nursing care in their own home with their home being adapted to their needs. That just doesn't happen: in the 'real world' it is "best interests' then those interests being seen through a filter of "what is realistically achievable / available"
  6. I don't want to derail Maddy's thread, but it IS relevant to this thread. What if the hospital raise it as "better for others that the acute bed is available for acute patients, and better for Maddy's Mum that she is not in an acute bed at higher risk of acquiring a healthcare associated infection" - in fact I think you've already said that this has been raised : " hospital was "the worst place for her because of infection risk" " So, I'd suggest that instead of trying to get them to keep her in hospital, that you aim for them to asses a package of care that enables her to go back home, that (with adequate support) being in her best interests. Start off with what support you, family and friends acn provide, and then what would be needed on top provided by care at home (rather than a care home).
  7. yet, pt’s in beds who don’t need to be in an acute hospital bed but aren’t safe to go home : equates to no beds on wards to get pt’s into from ED, so people on trolleys in ED / in corridors. That too means ambulances stacked up outside ED’s, waiting to unload their patients. That too means delays in getting an ambulance when you dial 999 / 112. So, (and let’s move this particular discussion away from being about your Mum), So, in general, what should a hospital do for a patient who is well enough to be discharged from an acute medical bed, but isn’t well enough to go back home? What should they do for that same patient, if that patient lacks capacity to decline going to a care home?
  8. Again! who benefits if you mum’s house gets sold? (please answer : I’ve explained above why it is relevant, and so can’t fully advise if you are bringing it up but not explaining!) why do you think that doctor is acting in bad faith?. That is quite a serious accusation (one that a doctor could be struck off for if they a) were not acting in a patient’s best interest, and b) for their gain, or gain of another that they had a relationship with…..
  9. I’d asked above : who are you saying benefits / “gets my Mum’s money” This is relevant if (as it seems you might be suggesting) they aren’t acting in your Mum’s best interests. Equally, you don’t want the scenario where they (even wrongly) consider that you aren’t acting in your Mum’s best interests, and are looking to keep the status quo so you can keep living in her house …… You can also go down the route of seeing if it is likely her lack of capacity is temporary, (which it might be if due to an inter-current medical problem), or even depression! You could ask if she has been assessed by an expert in psychiatry (/ old age psychiatry……)
  10. Who are you saying benefits / "gets my Mum's money" ? I suspect you don't have a "health and wellbeing" power of attorney?.
  11. Looks like there were a pair of arrows on the road, and the right one isn't obscured in that photo. Are you claiming: a) both road arrows, and b) the no right turn on the signpost, were all obscured?
  12. There is a “turn left ahead” marking on the road visible in the photo. There is a “no right turn” sign visible in the photo on the lamppost to the right. I’m not sure what (realistic) help you want. Are you claiming both markings showing that you had to turn left were obscured from you? You could also check that the traffic order putting the no right turn into effect was correctly enacted, but I suspect that you’ll be paying the PCN …..
  13. 3 potential issues: 1) He might have a civil claim against you, but this shouldn't lead to your account being frozen, 2) He might have accused you of fraud / asked for the money transferred to be returned on the basis of your actions being fraudulent, 3) The transfers (and / or any complaint) may have triggered a bank investigation into money laundering, in which case they won't be able to discuss it with you, and you'll just have to allow the process to play out. With the "wait 7 days" this is the most likely explanation.
  14. So, red herring about the £1000 from pension, and looks like a shill promoting crypto (& especially crypto for pensions) Remains: reader beware. Cryptocurrency scam: Man swindled out of pension and life savings https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-61789747
  15. No argument, just pointing out where your posts don’t seem to fit with reality: that you haven’t answered. So, have you already withdrawn £1000 from your pension with Standard Life, asking about it on Sunday, with the transfer happening by Tuesday evening?, or did you start the process previously? Also, what has it to do with your “crypto dealer” : if you need cash (rather than some “crypto investment”). So, it still looks like it doesn’t add up, and nothing you have said dispels that impression yet.
×
×
  • Create New...