Ghurka Rifleman PUN VC. Triumph! (Merged)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
My point is that I would be most surprised if Ghurka Pun would be happy to have his plight tacked onto a different political argument. I have seen too many issues hijacked by people with one track minds, including funerals of our young fallen. I am disgusted.
My point is that I would be most surprised if Ghurka Pun would be happy to have his plight tacked onto a different political argument. I have seen too many issues hijacked by people with one track minds, including funerals of our young fallen. I am disgusted.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply from Professor Regan
Prof Regan one of WMUH Executive has promised to investigate. As she is a medic not an admin person there are grounds for hope that she will not be impressed with Mr Finlay-
Thank you. I will investigate
Yours LR
Professor Lesley Regan MD FRCOG
Deputy Head of Division Surgery, Oncology, Reproductive Biology, Anaesthetics (SORA)
Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London
Head of Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Imperial College at St Mary's Hospital Campus
Mint Wing, South Wharf Road
London W2 1 NY
Thank you. I will investigate
Yours LR
Professor Lesley Regan MD FRCOG
Deputy Head of Division Surgery, Oncology, Reproductive Biology, Anaesthetics (SORA)
Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London
Head of Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Imperial College at St Mary's Hospital Campus
Mint Wing, South Wharf Road
London W2 1 NY
Have resent e-mail to Ms Donnelly and also a copy to Prof Regan backing a previous pruners letter.
Lets hope for an answer.
Lets hope for an answer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effortless
It's got nothing to do with tacking on one plight to another political argument.
It has everything to do with the fact that this Government needs to sort out it's priorities. It (the Government) can molly coddle people who are not entitled by law to have anything from us, yet it allows its instruments - in this case an NHS Trust, to deny people, who have done more for this country than most, decent treatment without having to fight all the way for it.
If you cannot see the outrage in the way the Government treats heroes such as Ghurka Rifleman Pun VC compared to people who have done nothing but try to leach off a weak, lily livered ruling Government, then you are very short sighted.
You should be - at the way differing standards are applied to suit the ruling body and not to suit common decent sense.
It's got nothing to do with tacking on one plight to another political argument.
It has everything to do with the fact that this Government needs to sort out it's priorities. It (the Government) can molly coddle people who are not entitled by law to have anything from us, yet it allows its instruments - in this case an NHS Trust, to deny people, who have done more for this country than most, decent treatment without having to fight all the way for it.
If you cannot see the outrage in the way the Government treats heroes such as Ghurka Rifleman Pun VC compared to people who have done nothing but try to leach off a weak, lily livered ruling Government, then you are very short sighted.
I am disgusted
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to be dropping off the scope. Could it be that the hospital authorities have no intention of responding to the complaints received?
Let's face it, whatever they find, they are hardly likely to make the result public.
Let's face it, whatever they find, they are hardly likely to make the result public.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Public Statement
Public Statement - July 2008
I have been greatly concerned by recent press reports about this Trust’s interactions with Mr Pun, and the public reaction to them.
The facts of this case are as follows. Last year we provided emergency cardiac care for this gentleman and a number of messages of thanks have been received by clinical staff for saving his life.
On Tuesday 24thJune Mr Pun visited the hospital to enquire about booking a routine follow up appointment with the cardiologist who had treated him the previous year. As per standard NHS guidelines he was asked the usual questions to establish his eligibility for free NHS care.
This included a review of his passport which notes that he has ‘leave to enter’ the UK, rather than the more typical ‘leave to remain’. As the Department of Health guidance only mentions ‘leave to remain’ it was agreed that his eligibility would be checked with the Department of Health, and if all was fine an appointment would be booked for him. As with all patients, advice was given that payment may be required in the event of non entitlement. The discussion concluded perfectly amicably, with Mr Pun and his two friends who acted as interpreters, shaking the hand of Andy Finlay, our lead in this area. Andy spoke to the Home Office and the Department of Health very promptly and obtained clarity that Mr Pun was eligible for free NHS treatment.
Mr Pun was informed of this the following day, verbally via his solicitor and this was also put in writing. This was prior to any press coverage.
Mr Pun was communicated with at all times with dignity and respect contrary to some of the press coverage. There was no evidence to indicate that Mr Pun had been ‘humiliated’ or ‘distressed’ in any way.
We are quoted in a number of media as saying ‘we made a mistake’. We neither made a mistake nor stated that we had done so. Everything that took place during this interaction was completely appropriate and consistent with best practice.
As a result of this misleading coverage, which we are pursuing with the Press Complaints Commission, I regret that Andy Finlay who is a highly committed member of staff, has been the victim of personal attack in the form of emails and internet message-boards. This level of abuse, victimisation and vitriol is a totally unacceptable way for people to behave, and we have involved the police.
The West Middlesex University Hospital has a long and proud tradition of treating service men and women. We also have a duty of care to ensure that NHS resources are used for those who are eligible to free care. This misleading coverage does not do justice to the good work that we are doing and in particular has led to the maligning of a member of staff who has my full support.
Tara Donnelly
Chief Executive
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today I received the following reply from Tara Donnelly, Chief Executive
West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust in response to an email I sent regarding this matter:-
It would appear once again our wonderfull Press have manipulated the facts to suit their own ends and have caused hurt to both sides. I hope the Press Complaints Commission investigate this case and force the Newspapers concerned to print a full apology.
West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust in response to an email I sent regarding this matter:-
I am writing in response to your email of 27th June 2008. I too have been greatly concerned by recent press reports about this Trust’s interactions with Mr Pun, and the public reaction to them.
The facts of this case are as follows. Last year we provided emergency cardiac care for this gentleman and a number of messages of thanks have been received by clinical staff for saving his life.
On Tuesday 24th June Mr Pun visited the hospital to enquire about booking a routine follow up appointment with the cardiologist who had treated him the previous year. As per standard NHS guidelines he was asked the usual questions to establish his eligibility for free NHS care.
This included a review of his passport which notes that he has ‘leave to enter’ the UK, rather than the more typical ‘leave to remain’. As the Department of Health guidance only mentions ‘leave to remain’ it was agreed that his eligibility would be checked with the Department of Health, and if all was fine an appointment would be booked for him. As with all patients, advice was given that payment may be required in the event of non entitlement. The discussion concluded perfectly amicably, with Mr Pun and his two friends who acted as interpreters, shaking the hand of Andy Finlay, our lead in this area. Andy spoke to the Home Office and the Department of Health very promptly and obtained clarity that Mr Pun was eligible for free NHS treatment.
Mr Pun was informed of this the following day, verbally via his solicitor and this was also put in writing.
Mr Pun was communicated with at all times with dignity and respect contrary to some of the press coverage. There was no evidence to indicate that Mr Pun had been ‘humiliated’ or ‘distressed’ in any way.
We are quoted in a number of media as saying ‘we made a mistake’. We neither made a mistake nor stated at any time that we had done so. Everything that took place during this interaction was completely appropriate and consistent with best practice.
As a result of this misleading coverage, which we are pursuing with the Press Complaints Commission, I regret that Andy Finlay who is a highly committed member of staff, has been the victim of personal attack in the form of emails and internet message-boards. This level of abuse, victimisation and vitriol is a totally unacceptable way for people to behave, and we have involved the police.
The West Middlesex University Hospital has a long and proud tradition of treating service men and women. We also have a duty of care to ensure that NHS resources are used for those who are eligible to free care. This misleading coverage does not do justice to the good work that we are doing and in particular has led to the maligning of a member of staff who has my full support.
The facts of this case are as follows. Last year we provided emergency cardiac care for this gentleman and a number of messages of thanks have been received by clinical staff for saving his life.
On Tuesday 24th June Mr Pun visited the hospital to enquire about booking a routine follow up appointment with the cardiologist who had treated him the previous year. As per standard NHS guidelines he was asked the usual questions to establish his eligibility for free NHS care.
This included a review of his passport which notes that he has ‘leave to enter’ the UK, rather than the more typical ‘leave to remain’. As the Department of Health guidance only mentions ‘leave to remain’ it was agreed that his eligibility would be checked with the Department of Health, and if all was fine an appointment would be booked for him. As with all patients, advice was given that payment may be required in the event of non entitlement. The discussion concluded perfectly amicably, with Mr Pun and his two friends who acted as interpreters, shaking the hand of Andy Finlay, our lead in this area. Andy spoke to the Home Office and the Department of Health very promptly and obtained clarity that Mr Pun was eligible for free NHS treatment.
Mr Pun was informed of this the following day, verbally via his solicitor and this was also put in writing.
Mr Pun was communicated with at all times with dignity and respect contrary to some of the press coverage. There was no evidence to indicate that Mr Pun had been ‘humiliated’ or ‘distressed’ in any way.
We are quoted in a number of media as saying ‘we made a mistake’. We neither made a mistake nor stated at any time that we had done so. Everything that took place during this interaction was completely appropriate and consistent with best practice.
As a result of this misleading coverage, which we are pursuing with the Press Complaints Commission, I regret that Andy Finlay who is a highly committed member of staff, has been the victim of personal attack in the form of emails and internet message-boards. This level of abuse, victimisation and vitriol is a totally unacceptable way for people to behave, and we have involved the police.
The West Middlesex University Hospital has a long and proud tradition of treating service men and women. We also have a duty of care to ensure that NHS resources are used for those who are eligible to free care. This misleading coverage does not do justice to the good work that we are doing and in particular has led to the maligning of a member of staff who has my full support.
Last edited by MReyn24050; 10th Jul 2008 at 18:35. Reason: It would appear that we were not told the full truth.
Having ILE or even ILR in your passport is in certain cases not enough to prove residency in the UK. To be fully entitled to receive free NHS treatment you have to be physically living in the UK, not just have the right to. This means that you have to fulfill the ordinarily resident criteria, i.e. you must be in the UK for any 9 months in 12. The DH lets you have holidays but they are set at 3 months a year. Whether the NHS rules are wrong is debatable, it is something which is out of power to the normal overseas manager in the NHS. The prevailing legislation and guidance on how to interpret that legislation must be followed.
Some persons remain out of the country for longer than the 3 months and in some cases relinquish their automatic right to free treatment (this is statutory), they have to prove again that they are living in the UK as the ordered part of their life. This is the point where they present their passport, it is not demanded in any way shape or form, it is offered as evidence for free treatment. This is normal and standard procedure across the NHS. It is up to the patient to prove they are entitled to receive free treatment, any NHS Trust can and should be carrying out further checks on persons who may or may not be ordinarily resident in the UK.
In order to treat every patient with dignity & respect it is common courtesy to inform persons of what might happen next, if after further checks they come back in the negative or positive this will be communicated to the patient. In fact research suggests that complaints in the NHS arise from persons who receive a lack of information not the other way around. Many persons gain their right to live in the UK but only take up this right when they require the services the UK has to offer. In order to have a statutory right to free NHS treatment then the NHS rules have to be complied with, not just the visa rules. An ILE or even an ILR visa grants a person the right to live in the UK, to enter freely until a specified end date but it does not give a specific right to free NHS treatment. Any person versed in the legal profession should also know this, but it is an inconvenient fact that has been overlooked in many cases.
Many problems in this field in the NHS are exasperated by the use on non-professional interpreters and advocates. Some advocates have an agenda that only becomes apparent after something else happens or a massive amount of publicity is required to publicise something else. Some non-professional interpreters only inform their recipient of what they want them to hear, not was actually said. This is a very very common problem, one that most overseas managers would recognise as a hazard of working in this field. We are trained in decency, respect and we have to treat all persons we meet as equal, not to do so is unthinkable and professional misconduct, as discrimination in any format is not tolerated in this field and should not be either. Overseas Managers are acutely aware of their responsibilities in this field, and as a result are ultra polite and sensitive to the needs of the person they are interviewing. Some persons demand more respect than others, because of who they are or what they have done, unfortunately this is not possible to give, all persons an overseas manager sees are equal.
Your blog in particular whilst eloquent and well written in the main, actually the rest of it is quite a good read has caused great distress to my family. A family who has a long, proud military history. You are welcome to your views but please refrain from using *, t**t etc. Your blog is popular and its influence spreads far and wide, way beyond the borders of the UK. So my arrseholeness (not a word, but if urban dictionary can get away with it then for then for this purpose it will suffice) has risen to heady heights. The DH guidance on ILE & ILR is not specific, we have notified all of our members to the error in the DH guidance, so this scenario may not ever happen again.
Bean counter?, fair enough, everyone's job has its nicknames, not everyone loves their job, not everyone knows what other people do - but at the end of the day its a job and its a job I do for a finite financed resource, funnily enough its a job that is not paid very well at all and you certainly couldn't afford to get rid of me and get a nurse, they would have to take a pay cut. The NHS serves 59 million people, it has its fair share of problems, but its limited resources must and need to be properly protected.
Incidentally, the reference to VC in the mirror article is probably only the virtually truthful account of what I said - I did say is that what VC means? as it was at the front of his name, not at the back or after the family name as is usual when one has letters or a medal recognition, if it had been after his family name I would not have uttered the words, but hey that would have been an inconvenient fact as well. So once again you are entitled to form an opinion based solely on the writings of the Mirror, or the Mail or even the Telegraph, (aside from the fact that the Downing Street visit was already planned and the medals were going to be returned anyway, irrespective of what the Mirror alleges happened the day before.) I hope the Gurkhas attain their right to live in the UK, I think the 1997 deadline is unfair and probably unlawful. That's where the ire and vitriol should be poured not wasted upon me. The visit to the hospital achieved its aim, it gained massive publicity for the Downing Street visit, but to use a military terminology, it is one battle won with only minor collateral damage as they would see it, for me the damage has been massive a bit like a cluster bomb each part is still exploding even two weeks after the event. The war is that of the Gurkhas plight to get the recognition they deserve. The war is that of getting the government to reverse its 1997 ruling by use of a judicial review. Your enemy is the government not some bloke who was only doing his job, who got stunted by a very clever daily newspaper.
I have not had the right of reply but I apologised to Mr Pun if he felt that I had treated him unsatisfactorily, this was done in writing and before the newspaper published its story (this is the apology that dozyBint is now alluding to, I would always apologise if someone thinks I have treated them unfavourably wouldnt you? Its only polite.) another inconvenient fact overlooked by everyone. I have morals, I have honour and I respect heroes, I treat every patient I see with dignity and respect but they are inconvenient facts that do not sell papers.
The fact of the matter is - I have never, nor will I ever deny Mr Pun treatment at this hospital. I made no mistake or disrespected him, I simply had to make further checks, I am guilty of providing too much information in relation to what might happen, not what will happen. Actually, as we all know he speaks no English, so I didnt speak to him at all, I spoke with his advocate. Whatever the motives are of his solicitor and his advisors they are wasting their and your efforts pursuing this. Your efforts should be concentrated on attaining a Judicial Review of the 1997 rule.
Its what I would do if I was advising him on legal issues.
Andy Finlay
Some persons remain out of the country for longer than the 3 months and in some cases relinquish their automatic right to free treatment (this is statutory), they have to prove again that they are living in the UK as the ordered part of their life. This is the point where they present their passport, it is not demanded in any way shape or form, it is offered as evidence for free treatment. This is normal and standard procedure across the NHS. It is up to the patient to prove they are entitled to receive free treatment, any NHS Trust can and should be carrying out further checks on persons who may or may not be ordinarily resident in the UK.
In order to treat every patient with dignity & respect it is common courtesy to inform persons of what might happen next, if after further checks they come back in the negative or positive this will be communicated to the patient. In fact research suggests that complaints in the NHS arise from persons who receive a lack of information not the other way around. Many persons gain their right to live in the UK but only take up this right when they require the services the UK has to offer. In order to have a statutory right to free NHS treatment then the NHS rules have to be complied with, not just the visa rules. An ILE or even an ILR visa grants a person the right to live in the UK, to enter freely until a specified end date but it does not give a specific right to free NHS treatment. Any person versed in the legal profession should also know this, but it is an inconvenient fact that has been overlooked in many cases.
Many problems in this field in the NHS are exasperated by the use on non-professional interpreters and advocates. Some advocates have an agenda that only becomes apparent after something else happens or a massive amount of publicity is required to publicise something else. Some non-professional interpreters only inform their recipient of what they want them to hear, not was actually said. This is a very very common problem, one that most overseas managers would recognise as a hazard of working in this field. We are trained in decency, respect and we have to treat all persons we meet as equal, not to do so is unthinkable and professional misconduct, as discrimination in any format is not tolerated in this field and should not be either. Overseas Managers are acutely aware of their responsibilities in this field, and as a result are ultra polite and sensitive to the needs of the person they are interviewing. Some persons demand more respect than others, because of who they are or what they have done, unfortunately this is not possible to give, all persons an overseas manager sees are equal.
Your blog in particular whilst eloquent and well written in the main, actually the rest of it is quite a good read has caused great distress to my family. A family who has a long, proud military history. You are welcome to your views but please refrain from using *, t**t etc. Your blog is popular and its influence spreads far and wide, way beyond the borders of the UK. So my arrseholeness (not a word, but if urban dictionary can get away with it then for then for this purpose it will suffice) has risen to heady heights. The DH guidance on ILE & ILR is not specific, we have notified all of our members to the error in the DH guidance, so this scenario may not ever happen again.
Bean counter?, fair enough, everyone's job has its nicknames, not everyone loves their job, not everyone knows what other people do - but at the end of the day its a job and its a job I do for a finite financed resource, funnily enough its a job that is not paid very well at all and you certainly couldn't afford to get rid of me and get a nurse, they would have to take a pay cut. The NHS serves 59 million people, it has its fair share of problems, but its limited resources must and need to be properly protected.
Incidentally, the reference to VC in the mirror article is probably only the virtually truthful account of what I said - I did say is that what VC means? as it was at the front of his name, not at the back or after the family name as is usual when one has letters or a medal recognition, if it had been after his family name I would not have uttered the words, but hey that would have been an inconvenient fact as well. So once again you are entitled to form an opinion based solely on the writings of the Mirror, or the Mail or even the Telegraph, (aside from the fact that the Downing Street visit was already planned and the medals were going to be returned anyway, irrespective of what the Mirror alleges happened the day before.) I hope the Gurkhas attain their right to live in the UK, I think the 1997 deadline is unfair and probably unlawful. That's where the ire and vitriol should be poured not wasted upon me. The visit to the hospital achieved its aim, it gained massive publicity for the Downing Street visit, but to use a military terminology, it is one battle won with only minor collateral damage as they would see it, for me the damage has been massive a bit like a cluster bomb each part is still exploding even two weeks after the event. The war is that of the Gurkhas plight to get the recognition they deserve. The war is that of getting the government to reverse its 1997 ruling by use of a judicial review. Your enemy is the government not some bloke who was only doing his job, who got stunted by a very clever daily newspaper.
I have not had the right of reply but I apologised to Mr Pun if he felt that I had treated him unsatisfactorily, this was done in writing and before the newspaper published its story (this is the apology that dozyBint is now alluding to, I would always apologise if someone thinks I have treated them unfavourably wouldnt you? Its only polite.) another inconvenient fact overlooked by everyone. I have morals, I have honour and I respect heroes, I treat every patient I see with dignity and respect but they are inconvenient facts that do not sell papers.
The fact of the matter is - I have never, nor will I ever deny Mr Pun treatment at this hospital. I made no mistake or disrespected him, I simply had to make further checks, I am guilty of providing too much information in relation to what might happen, not what will happen. Actually, as we all know he speaks no English, so I didnt speak to him at all, I spoke with his advocate. Whatever the motives are of his solicitor and his advisors they are wasting their and your efforts pursuing this. Your efforts should be concentrated on attaining a Judicial Review of the 1997 rule.
Its what I would do if I was advising him on legal issues.
Andy Finlay
It would appear once again our wonderfull Press have manipulated the facts to suit their own ends
British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > Mr Pun VC
Full marks to Mr Finlay for responding though. Shows character!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NHS requirements
You have to satisfy NHS requirements each time you come to hospital. Especially if you have been out of the UK for longer than the specified time limit of 3 months. Its not a rule that had been set by any NHS Trust is a statutory requirement to access free treatment. It is called the ordinary residence test, if a person does not meet this requirement then it is up to them to present their visa, to try and prove eligibility for free treatment.
It wasnt an interrorgation in any way shape or form. Mr Pun was sitting down a few feet away whilst I talked with an associate. Then most of what was alleged to have been said was actually in a telephone call with Mr Pun's solicitor, so in actual fact Mr Pun wasnt there. But these are more unfortunate and inconvenient details which have been lost in the process.
It wasnt an interrorgation in any way shape or form. Mr Pun was sitting down a few feet away whilst I talked with an associate. Then most of what was alleged to have been said was actually in a telephone call with Mr Pun's solicitor, so in actual fact Mr Pun wasnt there. But these are more unfortunate and inconvenient details which have been lost in the process.
