For the whole 15 years or so that my building company had been in operation, we’d had our compensation insurance for workers, (which, of course, was compulsory,) with the AMP Society.
There were, of course, two types of this insurance – insurance for workers on payrolls and insurance for subcontractors, with the premiums for workers being many times those for subcontractors, for this reason.
For subcontractors to claim compensation, they had to prove that whoever they’d been working for had been negligent, whereas workers on payrolls didn’t have to do this – their injuries may, in fact, have been their fault, but they could still claim compensation.
Over the years there had always been scales of premiums for different types of workers, which were a percentage of their wages/salaries, so working out the amount of the premiums was straight forward and easy. But working out the premiums for subcontractors wasn’t straight forward and easy – the AMP’s agent always used to say that this was a “grey area” but if we gave them so much they’d be happy.
But, in about 1982, within 6 weeks, 2 subcontractors went to court and their claims for compensation, even though we hadn’t been negligent in any way, were successful – it was a complete change in the law!!! (Which, incidentally, has lead to a complete change in the system.)
This lead to the AMP claiming that we had been underpaying them during the whole 15 years, which, of course, was nonsense, because if we’d been paying the rates for workers on payrolls on the money we’d been paying to subcontractors, we wouldn’t have ever made made a profit, ever. But this didn’t stop the greedy bastards at the AMP from claiming that we owed the millions dollars – in other words, something I hadn’t realised so clearly at time, they reserved the right to increase the amount they accepted in past years as the correct, when the circumstance had changed. Perhaps if I’d realised this, at the time, something could have been done about it. But, as I say, it lead to me losing everything.
IN the face of these circumstances, someone once advised me that you should always change you’re insurance companies every 2 or 3 years, because, at least, if you do this, you are only arguing about premiums for 2 or 3 years, not for 15 years as happened in my case.
I has recently occurred to me that this is a suggestion I should pass on to you guys.
Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on 125043

Email to Commissioner Sue Dawson and Premier Berejiklian


I was referred to Dr Andrew J Brooks, for help with the frequency problem I was experiencing – I was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate.
Dr Brooks’ diagnosis was that it was because my bladder had become small, (with a capacity of only 200 mls) and muscular over the years, on the basis of which he recommended certain treatment – treatment for which incidentally he charged $$3,200 for less than an hours work!
I had his treatment, which ended up costing me more than $6,000, for his fee and hospital expenses, and wasn’t helped at all – I still had the frequency problem exactly the same. AND I was damaged for life in a highly personal way – it can’t be reversed.
Dr Brooks had reported to my GP, “I have explained the risks and complications,” which, of course, was another of his many lies – he hadn’t at all.
As I’ve learnt since, it was much more likely that, far from being small and muscular, my bladder was relatively normal in size and weak – in which case, nothing could be done. Made more likely by the fact that Brooks has failed to provide the results of any tests which might confirm his diagnosis; despite the fact that I’ve made many requests to get a copy of these tests, despite the fact that I am entitled to them by law, and despite the fact that I even sought help from the NSW Privacy Commissioner to get them and even she gave up in the end.
It had obviously been all about Brooks getting his hands on $3,200 for less than an hours work.
That Brooks should believe he’d get away with this tells you all you’d ever want to know about how it is in New South Wales, and in particular, the effectiveness or otherwise of our Health Care Complaints Commission, and the effectiveness or otherwise of our politicians, in particular, Premier Berejiklian.
That, from past experience with the Health Care Complaints Commission and Premier Berejiklian, Brooks probably WILL get away with this, that he will almost certainly have the last laugh, tells you even more.
If you, Health Care Complaints Commissioner, ever gave the slightest indication that you cared about any of this, it could make SUCH a difference!
I realise I’m probably risking my life in kicking up such a fuss about this – Brooks has to be regarded as a highly dangerous person if he’s prepared to damage patients for life, it doesn’t just happen, it always happens, with the treatments he recommends and carries out, just to get his hands on another $3,200 for less than an hours work.
David Beck
Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Email to Commissioner Sue Dawson and Premier Berejiklian

Email to Dr Narinda Singh

Dr Narinder Singh

Dear Sir

Although I’m aged 85 and am otherwise remarkably fit and well, I’ve got these four problems.

(1) When I wake up, even after being asleep for only half an hour, my mouth is so dry it almost hurts – I have to rinse it out with water straight away to get relief. One of my concerns is that this may be what’s causing me to wake up at night every 60 to 90 minutes – although admittedly, once I’ve rinsed my mouth out I usually go straight back to sleep.

(2) I have difficulty in swallowing anything of any size at all, things often get stuck on my throat – my throat seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

(3) Although I don’t have any problems with phlegm during the day, as soon as I lie down there’s usually so much phlegm in my throat that I often have to try to clear it  up to 10 to 15 times before I can get to sleep.

(4) There seems to be an area in my throat which gets irritated, particularly by some foods, causing me to cough and cough and cough.

Is helping people with one or more of these problems within you areas of expertise?

I would be most grateful to hear from you.

Kind regards
David Beck


Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Email to Dr Narinda Singh

A complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about Dr Andrew J Brooks, Urologist

I wish to make a complaint about Dr Andrew J Brooks, Urologist, to whom I was referred for help with the “frequency problem,” (I was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate,) on two grounds. Firstly, that as the result of the treatment he recommended and carried out on me, a TURP operation, I was damaged FOR LIFE in a highly personal way, it can’t be reversed. And secondly, his treatment didn’t work, didn’t help in any way.

The first, in more detail.

As a result of his treatment the semen I produced during sex was no longer ejected through my penis as used to happen, with all the pleasure that gave, (as any adult male would understand,) it just went up into my bladder. And it was FOR LIFE, it can’t be reversed.

It happened to me, but I’ve been told that it’s general knowledge that it’s ALWAYS a consequence of TURP operations, ALWAYS. (If it’s not accepted by the Commission and/or Dr Brooks, that this is general knowledge, please let me know – I’m sure I could easily get other Urologists to confirm this.)

AND, although I’m sure Dr Brooks will claim otherwise, he did not warn me of this in any way before he operated on me.

I would assume that I signed a consent to the operation, but that it wouldn’t have been on what basis – if it’s claimed otherwise, could I please have a copy. And Dr Brooks wouldn’t have anything else in writing to confirm that he had warned me of this.

The ONLY thing he could claim was that a conversation something like this took place.

Dr Brooks: “Now, you fully understand don’t you, that you will be subject to an operation under a full anaesthetic that always has it’s risks, that you will spend 48 uncomfortable hours in the hospital, that you will be out-of-pocket for more than $6,000, for my fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work and the hospital’s charges, even after Medicare rebates, and that one of the consequences of this operation will be that your semen will no longer be ejaculated through your penis, it will just go up into your bladder, it doesn’t just happen sometimes, it always happens, and it can’t be reversed, it will be for the rest of your life. And there’s a 20% chance that my treatment won’t work to help with your “frequency problem” at all.” (About which more later.)

Me: “Oh yes, Doctor. Anything so I don’t have to get up 2 or 3 times a night to go to the toilet.”

The second, in more detail.

The treatment I got for my “frequency problem” didn’t work!!! Dr Brooks has conceded this himself in writing.

On 9 September, 2014, nearly a month after my operation, he wrote to my GP, “He still has significant frequency and urgency.” And on 18 November, 2014, more than 3 months after the operation, “Unfortunately the frequency and urgency is not resolved.”

Incidentally, I never had an “urgency” problem – this was a figment of Dr Brooks’ imagination, an example of how careless and lax he was, of which there were many.

He had an explanation as to why it didn’t work. In his 9 September letter he explained, “In the face of outflow obstruction there are changes of the bladder wall which significantly reduce the compliance and explain the low functional capacity, the frequency and the urgency. In 80% of cases these revolve after successful removal of the outflow obstruction, but it can take six months to resolve. The majority of the resolution occurs within the first three months.” But it doesn’t change in any way that it hadn’t worked.

And this is the first time he’d mentioned that it didn’t work 20% or the time, always – nearly a month after his operation, he’d never mentioned it before.

But who’s to say that it ever worked? I would have thought the onus on him to establish that it ever worked.

So it’s up to the Commission to decide whether it’s acceptable for a doctor to put patients through what Dr Brooks put me through, an operation under a full anaesthetic that always has it’s risks, 48 uncomfortable hours in hospital, and expenditure of more than $6,000 for his fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work and the hospital’s charges, even after Medicare rebates, to help with a relatively minor problem, the “frequency problem,” when, in addition to the fact that it damages them for life in a highly personal way, it can’t be reversed, and when he knows, and admits himself, that it doesn’t work in 1 case in 5, with no evidence that it ever works, of which he doesn’t warn the patients in any way.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on A complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about Dr Andrew J Brooks, Urologist

A letter to A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks dated 26 Jan. 2021

26 January, 2021
A/Prof. Andrew Brooks
Dear Sir
You will recall that, back in 2014, as a male in my 70s, I was referred to you by your mate, Dr Christopher Grant, GP, for help with what is commonly called “the frequency problem” – I was having to get up two or three times a night to urinate, which made it difficult to get a good night’s sleep.
Your diagnosis was that, from years of having to force urine past a partially blocked urinary tract, my bladder had become more muscular, and therefore smaller, and so was filling up more quickly.
The solution you advocated was that you carry out on operation on me, called a TURP, in which any partial blockages in my urinary tract would be removed, and if these were removed, my bladder would soon revert to a more normal size, largely within 3 months.
Following an initial consultation with you, which I had on 5 August, 2014, you wrote to Dr Grant, claiming, amongst other things, that “he has had no response to oral agents over several years,” which, of course was a lie, a figment of your imagination – seeing Chris Grant and you was the first and only thing I’d done about my frequency problem.
Going ahead with this operation involved paying you a fee of $3,200 for, as I’ve been told, less than an hours work, and 48 hours in a hospital at a cost of $4,800, but I trusted you, and had your operation on 13 August, 2014.
As I subsequently found out, an alternative diagnosis, a much more likely diagnosis, would have been that my bladder was still relatively normal in size, but that, in fact, it had grown weaker, weaker to the point that quite a lot of urine was left in it after I urinated, and that was the reason it was being full again sooner, and nothing could be done about weak bladders – no $3,200 fees for anyone.
Obviously, the size of my bladder at the time was crucial in deciding which diagnosis was the right one. To support your diagnosis, you had your nurse carry out the tests to determine it’s size. I’ve since learnt that it would have been more normal to have a proper Urologist carry out these tests – who would, in fact, have charged less than was charged for your nurse to carry them out.
AND, despite all my efforts in the years since, I’ve never been able to get a copy of what your nurse reported.
On 15 September 2015, I sent you a fax saying, “Could you please send me, as a matter of urgency, copies of the health information you hold on me, in particular the “urodynamic study” you relied on when you advised me that a transurethral resection of my prostate would help with my frequency problems” – a fax which you ignored, of course.

When I subsequently sought the assistance of the NSW Privacy Commissioner to get a copy, advising her that, amongst other things, you had ignored 3 emails I’d sent you requesting copies of things to which I was legally entitled, you will recall that your response to her was that you hadn’t received my emails because your email address was set up in such a way that it weeded out emails from patients so that you didn’t receive them – this, despite the fact that I’m advised by technology people that setting up and mail address in this way isn’t possible, and that when I’d sent you one email, an email enquiring about how best to pay your $3,200 fee, it was acknowledged and responded to extremely promptly.

Eventually, with the help of the Privacy Commissioner, I did get a copy of 2 or 3 documents – but never a copy of your nurses report. Even the Privacy Commissioner gave up on this. The obvious suspicion is that it didn’t support your diagnosis at all.

So, as I say, I had the TURP. AND, you yourself admitted in writing that it hadn’t helped in any way.

On 9 September, 2014, you wrote to my referring GP, claiming, “He has had a significant improvement in flow rate since undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate. He still has significant frequency and urgency,” and mentioning for the first time, you hadn’t mentioned it before, that what you had put me through only worked in 4 cases out of 5, it didn’t work at all in 1 case our of 5, obviously suggesting that I was one of those i cases out of 5. 
Three things are to be said about this.
Firstly, how would you have known that there had been a significant improvement in flow rate? You would think that a physical examination would be required to determine whether this was the case or not – and there had been no physical examination. It would seem that you were claiming this just because it sounded good.
Secondly, you mentioned for the first time an “urgency” problem – what urgency problem? To me this was another figment of your imagination. I’d never had an urgency problem.
Thirdly, who was to say that it ever worked? You were admitting that it hadn’t worked in my case, but who was to say that it had worked in other cases. What evidence was there for this.
On 18 November, after another consultation, when you again wrote to my referring GP, you more or less repeated what you’d said in your letter of the 9 September, 2014, but added an explanation as to why what you’d put me through hadn’t worked in my case – “this is due to the altered bladder wall compliance and loss of functional volume that occurs and occasionally does not remit following relief of the out flow obstruction,” whatever that means.
And also adding, “I have prescribed Oxytrol patches,” which you seemed to think would help with my alleged “urgency” problem. Trusting you again, I paid for some Oxytrol patches and started applying them. But then I Googled “Oxytrol patches” and the results indicated that they were for the treatment of problems that I just didn’t have, and so I trashed them.
And something you didn’t mention in any of your correspondence – your TURP had damaged my sex life for the rest of my life, it can’t be reversed, in that the semen I produced during an orgasm was no longer ejected through my penis giving me all the pleasure this involves, as any adult male would understand, it’s just pumped up into my bladder. And this doesn’t happen sometimes with TURP operations, it ALWAYS happens. Despite your claim in your first letter to my referring GP, that you “had explained the risks and complications” of the TURP operation. you had never mentioned this. One can imagine that if a thug bashed someone causing this damage to his sex life for the rest of his life, that this thug would end up being sent to gaol, perhaps for a very long time. But in my case it was caused by a doctor who was supposed to be helping me.
Four or five days ago, for the fifth time, someone rang me claiming to be speaking on your behalf and requesting that I take down the material I have put up on the internet about my experiences with you. My response has always been the same – that I would be happy to add your side of the story, but that I’ve sent you at least 30 letters, by email, fax and snail mail, giving you the opportunity to tell your side of the story, and I’ve never heard from you. Again, may I say, I would be happy to publish your side of the story.
Yours faithfully
Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on A letter to A/Prof. Andrew J Brooks dated 26 Jan. 2021















































Astron Electronics WS: www.astronelectronics.com.au OEA: service@astronelectronics.com.au 2/62 Macquarie Street, Liverpool PH: 9821 2190.

Budget Television WS: www.budgettelevision.com.au Email form: www.budgettelevision.com.au/contact-us 15 The Crescent, Fairfield. PH: 9755 9030.

Inhouse Digital TV WS: www.inhousedigitaltv.com.au OEA: davis@inhousedigitaltv.com 15 Harrison St, Northmead, PH: 9636 1820, 0415 968 903.

Napf Electronics WS: www.napf.com.au OEA: info@napf.com.au Cnr Parramatta Road & Dover Street, Summer Hill. PH: 9799 9555.

Semtron Electronic Repairs WS: www.semtronelectronic.com.au OEA: service@semtronelectronic.com.au 2 Bridge St., Rydalmere PH: 9638 1733.

Specialised Electronics WS: http://specialisedelectronics.com.au/ OEA: service@specialisedelectronics.com.au 69 Weir Crescent, Lurnea PH: 0402 396 492. “Bauhn.”

Westview Electronics WS: westviewelectronics.com.au OEA: info@westviewelectronics.com.au xx Unit 1/ 7 Packard Ave., Castle Hill PH: 9659 0077


Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on …………………………………………………………………………………

Brydens Lawyers – dealing with.

Use this link to go to one of our reader’s experiences in using Bryden’s Chat Facility.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Brydens Lawyers – dealing with.

ThinkConveyancing – dealing with 1

ThinkConveyancing’s website – thinkconveyancing.com.au.

If you go to their website and click on the “Contact” on it, you are taken to an email form, which has been used to send them this.

In using email forms, the date and time that the form has been submitted is always entered just below the enquiry, something that is done automatically with ordinary email addresses, as has been done in this case.

Having submitted this form, we got this immediate automated response.

More than 3 hours later nothing further had been received.

We had/have no interest in phone conversations – we need something in writing which might indicate that they might be worth dealing with.

We strongly recommend to our viewers that they do this sort of thing themselves with any people or organisations they may be thinking of dealing with – when we or one of our readers has done it, we put the details up on our blogs, to possible save other readers time and trouble.in doing what has been done already. Such posts can be located almost immediately by using the search facilities on this blog.

We’ll let you know if we hear anything further.

A comment or a question? Email us on info@questionsmisc.info.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on ThinkConveyancing – dealing with 1

Aged care and retirement home organisations – dealing with

When it comes to selecting the best retirement home for ourselves or ours, the internet provides almost infinite scope for research, but we strongly believe that our first priority should be to locate the ones who are the most helpful when we have enquiries or concerns, and that when we’ve found the best one or two or three of these, we can then carry out such further research on them as we feel might be useful.

The ones who might be the most helpful.

(1) Have ordinary email addresses.

Ordinary email addresses are, of course, easily the best for us; email forms MAY  be acceptable, although we’ve found, from more than ten years of experience, that those who only have email forms, are usually not very helpful; and that those who only have phone numbers and/or fax numbers, are not worth bothering with.

(2) Have people in their employ whose job it is to respond to our enquiries or concerns. Even those who have ordinary email addresses may or may not have these.  Of course, having these are an expense, and we find that lots of people and organisations hope that they can manage without being up for this expense – and that we, the people, often allow them to do this.

We’ve started carrying out research to find the ones that are the most helpful, to save our readers and ourselves time and trouble, and the results as at 3 Jul. 2019 are shown below.

Bupa Aged Care‘s website – www.bupaagedcare.com.au. For our experience with Bupa, use this link. Our rating as at 27 Jun. 2019: 10 out of 10.

Catholic Healthcare‘s website – www.catholichealthcare.com.au. For our experience with Catholic Healthcare, use this link. Our rating as at 2 Jul. 2019: 10 out of 10.

Japara Quality Aged Care Homes & Retirement Living‘s website – japara.com.au. For our experience with Japara, use this link. Our rating as at 2 Jul. 2019: 10 out of 10.

Ramsay Healthcare‘s website – www.ramsayhealth.com.au. For our experience with Ramsay, use this link. Our rating as at 1 Jul. 2019: 0 out of 10.

A comment or question? Email us at info@questionmisc.info.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Aged care and retirement home organisations – dealing with

Chatswood Podiatry – dealing with

For a post on this practice, use this link.

By the way readers, if it’s your first time in visiting this practice, take special note of it’s address – 72A/47 Neridah Street, Chatswood – and allow plenty of time to find it, and we mean, plenty of time – it’s in a quite incredible maze of 70 or more small practices.

A comment or a question? Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

Posted in Uncategorised | Comments Off on Chatswood Podiatry – dealing with