47 The Castle of the Sheriff of Nottingham: 11 October 2024

In the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Robin Hood attacks the Castle of the Sheriff of Nottingham to prevent his true love Maid Marian from being forced to marry the evil Sheriff of Nottingham.  Wilki describes this part of the movie in these words.

 

On the day of the wedding, Robin and his men infiltrate Nottingham Castle and save the outlaws from being hanged. With the help of Azeem's explosive powder, they free the prisoners, and Azeem inspires the peasants to revolt, forcing the Sheriff to retreat with Marian into his keep. The Bishop hastily performs the marriage, but before the Sheriff can consummate it, Robin bursts in. Friar Tuck finds the Bishop fleeing with gold, burdens him with additional treasure, and defenestrates him. In a fierce duel, Robin kills the Sheriff, and Azeem kills Mortianna in defense of Robin, thus fulfilling his life-debt.

 

****

Today I visited Nottingham Castle.  For a building which was destroyed by a very angry mob in 1831 and engulfed in flames, the Castle is a very impressive building indeed.  The current official name of the Castle is Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery.  Wiki gives this rather turgid description of the Castle.

 

Nottingham Castle is a Stuart Restoration-era ducal mansion in Nottingham, England, built on the site of a Norman castle built starting in 1068, and added to extensively through the medieval period, when it was an important royal fortress and occasional royal residence. In decline by the 16th century, the original castle, except for its walls and gates, was demolished after the English Civil War in 1651. The site occupies a commanding position on a natural promontory known as "Castle Rock" which dominates the city skyline, with cliffs 130 feet (40 m) high to the south and west. William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle, started to build the mansion in the 1670s; it was completed by his son, the 2nd Duke of Newcastle. This ducal palace was burnt by rioters in 1831, then left as a ruin until renovated in the 1870s to house an art gallery and museum, which remain in use. Little of the original castle survives other than the gatehouse and parts of the ramparts, but sufficient portions remain to give an impression of the layout of the site. The castle is owned by Nottingham City Council. After a £30 million restoration from 2018, running of the site was undertaken by independent charitable Nottingham Castle Trust with reopening on 21 June 2022. The castle closed again on 21 November 2022 when the trust went into liquidation owing the council £2.68 million, with all employees made redundant by the joint-administrators. The castle and grounds reopened to visitors on 26 June 2023.

 

 

This is the view you get of the Castle as you walk towards it.

These two fearsome characters guard the approaches to the Castle.  They are perhaps not quite as repulsive as the Sheriff of Nottingham character as portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but they are almost as scary as the Alan Rickman character.

 

****

The work inside the Castle is stunning in its quality and in the way it is presented by Castle staff. 

 

The section of the Castle in the photo above contains surviving examples of Christian art works which survived the Reformation of religion forcibly enacted by Henry VIII.  The room is actually much more impressive that it appears in the photo.

 

The artwork shown above is located in Castle gallery shown in the photo just before this one.

Out of all the works in the Castle, the one shown in this photo comes close to being one of my favourites.  The plaque beside the statue says this.

 

Fundelia Ruffa by an unknown artist Meet Fundelia Rufa.  Some suggest she was a priestess, partly because of her distinctive hairstyle and the fact she was found in the Temple of Diana at Nemi. Italy.

 

I doubt that I would find Fundelia physically attractive if I ever met her in real life because she looks so stern.  She exudes authority and the demand to be shown respect.  Some of the nuns who taught me in primary school had a similar air because they were such cruel brutes.  I wonder what Fundelia was like in real life.

This painting is titled In Love.  It is an oil on canvas painting by Marcus Stone, who painted it in 1888.  If you blow the photo up, you will see immediately that Marcus Stone has definitely captured the visible signs of the affection between the two lovers.

 

I also really liked this painting titled Elsie on Hassan by Dame Laura Knight.  Elsie is so skilled and completely at ease on Hassan the horse.

 

This ceramic pumpkin is astonishingly lifelike.  I have cut up and cooked pumpkins that have looked just like this one – although they were never quite as big as this one.

 

****

Update on The Health Insurance Funds

Despite me sending the link to my blogs to the HCF Chairman Mark Johnson and HCF CEO Sheena Jack, and also to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Iain Anderson, as at the date of completing this blog, neither HCF nor the Ombudsman have yet got in touch with me to apologise for their appalling behaviour when Margaret was dying.  Perhaps they hope if they just stay quiet, I will go away.  My track record with those organisations should tell them I definitely will NOT go away.

 46 The Ombudsman and the Battle to Make the Health Insurers Obey the Law – Part 7: 10 October 2024

Although written communications from the Ombudsman had been sparse in December 2021, they ceased completely in January 2022.  My complaints to the Ombudsman were treated in the same way as any call made to a call centre – “Your complaint is very important to us and if we can ever be bothered, we might get back to you sometime next year or perhaps the year after”.  This Table summarises my attempts to get someone - anyone - at the Ombudsman to do something - anything - about enforcement of the law relating to the health insurers.  The Ombudsman was not remotely interested.

 

Details	Length of Communication	How Made	Date of Response	Length of Response	What Did Response Say?
(1) Letter dated 12 January 2022 addressed to Sarah de Sade, Complaints Officer	(1) 6 pages, plus claims for payment for Lift services provided on 17 and 23 December 2021, plus copies of correspondence from HCF	Email to Ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au  sent at 11:53 am on 12 January 2022	Ignored – no reply	Ignored – no reply	Nothing – no reply
(2) Email dated 18 January 2022 addressed to Sarah de Sade, Complaints Officer	(2) 5 lines, plus copy of my letter to HCF dated 18 January 2022 (3 pages)	Email to Ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au at 12:01 pm on 18 January 2022	Ignored – no reply	Ignored – no reply	Nothing – no reply
(3) Letter dated 25 January 2022 addressed to Sarah de Sade, Complaints Officer	(2) 3 pages, plus copy of my letter to HCF dated 24 January 2022 (5 pages), plus copy of “Sir Humphrey Appleby “Yes Minister” Foundation” certificate awarded to Junita Lindsay	Email to Ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au sent at 9:44 am on 25 January 2022	Phone call from Sarah De Sade on Friday 28 January 2022.  No written reply - ever	No written reply	No written reply ever Phone call said HCF would make an “offer” to me and that Director of Dispute Resolutions would write to Lift
Phone call from Sarah De Sade received at 9:13 am on Friday 28 January 20223	21 minutes 31 seconds	Phone call from Private Number	I answered the call	21 minutes 31 seconds	Matter was being considered by the Ombudsman

* Email addresses at the Ombudsman always conclude ombudsman.gov.au

****

My letter to the Ombudsman dated 12 January 2022 summarised the responses that I had received from HCF up to that date.  On page 5 of this letter, I said this.

Because Margaret still suffers from what is likely to be terminal cancer, she continues to attend Lift to receive medical treatment as recommended by her treating medical practitioners.  Margaret received treatment on 17 December 2021 and we paid Lift directly for the services -$235.00.  I submitted a claim to HCF on 27 December 2021 seeking reimbursement under our policy of health insurance.  I attach for your information, copies of the documents submitted with that claim.  The kindest conclusion I am able to reach is that the relevant HCF staff who “assessed” this paperwork are unable to read.  Lift Cancer Care Services is a registered private hospital and on 17 December 2021 – the date that Margaret received the services which are the subject of the claim – she was admitted as a patient into the hospital.

 

On the final page of the 12 January 2022 letter, I said this.

 

I appreciate that the Office of the Ombudsman prefers where this is possible, to see complaints resolved through a process of direct negotiation between the health insurer and the holder of the health insurance policy, but it is clear to me that in this case, HCF has no intention of resolving the complaints and that it has no intention of actually saying that it has no intention of resolving the complaints.  In the circumstances, it seems to me that HCF is using the normal policy of the Ombudsman as a shield to try and prevent it from acknowledging that it is grossly in the wrong.  I believe that the policy of HCF is to delay resolution until “nature takes its course” and the patient (in this case my wife Margaret) dies.  Once the patient has died, the holder of the health insurance (if it is not the dead patient) will have little energy left to continue pursuing the matter. As I pointed out in my original letter dated 3 December 2021, this is a systemic issue involving multiple cancer patients across multiple States and Territories.  This is very clearly a matter where it is thoroughly appropriate that the Ombudsman take action on behalf of the multitude of other cancer patients who, like Margaret, face the prospect of dying before HCF relents or who perhaps have already died.  HCF is displaying callousness on a level which would bring smiles of satisfaction to health funds such as those which provide “managed care” in the United States. Please take action quickly. My wife Margaret and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

****

When I wrote my original letter to the Ombudsman on 3 December 2021, I had been confident that in a matter such as this, the Ombudsman would take speedy and effective action.  By 12 January 2022, I was extremely disappointed but I had not the given up hope that the Ombudsman might eventually do the job Parliament had entrusted to it.

In my email to the Ombudsman dated 18 January 2022, I enclosed a copy of my letter to HCF dated 18 January 2022.

Tit became clear by the end of January 2022 that the Ombudsman had zero interest in doing its job.

****

Sarah De Sade finally phoned me at 9:13 am on Friday 28 January 2022.  The call lasted 21 minutes and 31 seconds.  During this call, Sarah De Sade told me she had been on holidays since late December 2021 and she had not asked anyone to look after her work while she was on leave.  She said that senior officers of the Health Department and the Ombudsman had been aware of the “dispute” between Lift and the health insurers for about two years and that a decision on what to do with the Lift complaints would be made at a senior level in the Ombudsman at an unspecified future date.  When Sarah stressed to me that the Ombudsman was a different government agency from the Health Department, I told her that I was already aware that the Ombudsman was a different agency from the Health Department and that I expected the Ombudsman to carry out its statutory duties regardless of any attitude that the Health Department might have about the conduct of the health insurers.

This phone call reinforced my serious doubts about the manner in which the Ombudsman was treating my complaints.

I formed the provisional belief that the Ombudsman and the Australian Health Department were probably corrupt.

My belief that the Ombudsman and the Australian Health Department were corrupt, was reinforced by later events.

I have sent the Ombudsman the link to these blogs.  You never know, a miracle might yet occur and the Ombudsman might yet apologise for its appalling conduct.

 45 The Battle to Make the Health Insurers Obey the Law – Part 6: 10 October 2024

It should have been no surprise to HCF that I outright rejected the completely offensive “resolution” it offered in its 21 January 2022 email.  The email had one definite effect on me – it significantly increased my annoyance with HCF. 

My response to the HCF proposal was a five page letter which I sent by email on Monday 24 January.  On page four of my 24 January 2022 letter, I left no room for doubt about what I thought of HCF.

HCF has acted unlawfully towards my wife and towards all other cancer patients who have received treatment from Lift.  HCF proposes to continue to act unlawfully towards my wife and towards all other cancer patients who have received cancer treatment from Lift in the past and who may receive cancer treatment in the future.  HCF has not proposed any “resolution” at all.  It has proposed throwing a few dollars in my direction so it can continue to act unlawfully into the indefinite future. If HCF wishes to resolve my complaints, it must deal with the fundamental issue.  The fundamental issue is that medical treatments are proposed for patients by medical practitioners and not by health insurers – and hospitals are “accredited” by appropriate government agencies and not by health insurers.  Any approach by HCF which ignores the need for HCF to comply with the law is unacceptable.

Although I did not yet have evidence of what HCF was doing, my statement that “hospitals are “accredited” by appropriate government agencies and not by health insurers” went to the very centre of what was going on in relation to the Lift Cancer Care insurance claims.

HCF was indeed ignoring the hospital accreditation process implemented by the government to protect the health of Australians.  HCF had implemented its own hospital process which ignored the health of Australians and focused solely on how much money it could make and on the control it could exert over the health services provided to Australians.

****

My attitude was very clear and easy to understand.

If the law did NOT require HCF to pay for the claims, I wanted to know the precise legal reasons why the claims were not payable.  If HCF had been able to identify a legal basis for its conduct, that would have been the end of the matter.  I said this on page four of the 24 January letter.

I recommend that HCF immediately stop acting unlawfully and immorally.  Action which is lawful and moral will bring an immediate end to my complaints and to the other complaints that are likely to be lodged in the near future. My sincere hope is that HCF will stop acting like an American “managed care” insurance company and start acting like an Australian health insurance company that obeys the law and which displays a genuine conscience.

 

****

 I was so annoyed by Junita Lindsay’s proposal that I sent her a “Gold Medal Certificate” awarded by the fictional “Sir Humphrey Appleby “Yes Minister” Foundation”.

Sir Humphrey Appleby was a central character in the British comedy series Yes Minister.  For those who are too young to remember Yes Minister, this is what wiki says about it.

Yes Minister is a British political satire sitcom written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. Comprising three seven-episode series, it was first transmitted on BBC2 from 1980 to 1984. A sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, ran for 16 episodes from 1986 to 1988. All but one of the episodes lasted half an hour, and almost all ended with a variation of the title of the series spoken as the answer to a question posed by Minister (later, Prime Minister) Jim Hacker. Several episodes were adapted for BBC Radio; the series also spawned a 2010 stage play that led to a new television series on Gold in 2013. Set principally in the private office of a British cabinet minister in the fictional Department of Administrative Affairs in Whitehall, Yes Minister follows the ministerial career of Jim Hacker, played by Paul Eddington. His various struggles to formulate and enact policy or effect departmental changes are opposed by the British Civil Service, in particular his Permanent Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, played by Nigel Hawthorne. His Principal Private Secretary Bernard Woolley, played by Derek Fowlds, is usually caught between the two. The sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, continued with the same cast and followed Hacker after his unexpected elevation to prime ministerial office.

 In one episode, Minister Jim Hacker asks Sir Humphrey what he should do.  Sir Humphrey’s response is “I recommend masterly inactivity Minister”.  The “resolution” proposed by Junita Lindsay would have indeed been applauded by Sir Humphrey as “masterly inactivity”.

Wiki says this about Sir Humphrey.

 

Sir Humphrey is a master of obfuscation and manipulation, baffling his opponents with long-winded technical jargon and circumlocutions, strategically appointing allies to supposedly impartial boards, and setting up interdepartmental committees to smother his minister's proposals in red tape.

 

In case anyone thinks otherwise, when I awarded the “Gold Medal” to Junita Lindsay, I was being sarcastic.

****

This is a copy of Junita’s “Gold Medal Certificate”.  I remain rather proud that despite the circumstances, I produced this “Gold Medal Certificate” for Junita   Naturally, I am disappointed that she never thanked me for her Award.

 

 

SIR HUMPHREY APPLEBY “YES MINISTER” FOUNDATION*

 

By this Document and Certificate

 

 

Be it Known to All and Everyone Without the Need for Any Further Proof that the following Award has been Presented on the Dates set out Herein to the Below Named Person

 

GOLD MEDAL

 

WINNER OF AWARD:  Junita Lindsay

 

Dates of Award:

 

18 January 2022

- AND –

21 JANUARY 2022

 

REASONS FOR AWARD: OUTSTANDING USAGE OF MEANINGLESS WORDS

* Consumer Advisory Notice: The Sir Humphrey Appleby “Yes Minister” Foundation does not really exist.

 

I have sent HCF the link to these blogs.  You never know, a miracle might yet occur and HCF might yet apologise for its appalling conduct.

Footnote 

Junita Lindsay no longer works for HCF.  Her linkedin Profile says she has been an Associate Mediation Officer at New South Wales Government agency called the Small Business Commissioner since January 2024.  This means the email address she had at HCF no longer works.

It seems her involvement in the refusal of HCF to obey the law has not impeded her ability to continue to work.  The linkedin Profile confirms that this Junita is the same Junita who did her best to completely bury the refusal of her employer to obey the health insurance legislation.