My study de-cluttering activities are proceeding at the rate of one shelf or so of a bookcase at a time. Yesterday, I discovered some duplicates of books (ones in which I had a paper published) so these duplicates could evidently go, releasing some valuable space. Then I started work on the groups of files stored in the bookcase and the procedure follows this routine. I examine the content of the file quickly to see if the whole can be jettisoned and, if so, the actual file envelope retained but with its labels scratched off. In the course of doing this yesterday, I discovered two files with quite interesting content The first was a claim made against an insurance policy for a holiday flight that had been missed. Meg and I were on the M40 flying to Heathrow where there was an evident traffic jam. With police helicopters circling overhead there had evidently been a major traffic incident the upshot of which was that after a delay of more than two hours, the whole section of motorway was closed and the police and road authorities encouraged us to turn around and escorted us off the motorway in a single file going in the 'wrong' direction. The flight was well and truly missed but the minute we got home, I booked an emergency flight for the following day. But being stuck in the car for hours on end played havoc with Meg's back which was in a fragile condition at the best of times and the following day she was in such pain we were in no condition to travel. I claimed against the insurance policy and my claim was refused. Incensed, I went onto the web and found a practically identical case in which, eventually, the insurance company paid out. Armed with this information, I informed the insurance company I was going to take out a claim against them, probably in the small claims court, and armed with the precedent I had found, I would almost certainly win the case. The insurance company agreed but there was a lot of hassle involved with firstly the claim having to be submitted digitally and then again with the actual originals of the documents. I had totally forgotten about this incident, the likes of which I have never heard of before or since. The second interesting file relates to my PhD in which I was reminded that De Montfort University changed its Higher Degree regulations, allowing a PhD to be written around a series of already published papers. The file revealed the information that I made formal application to the relevant committee with approval letters from Heads of School and the Dean on 16th January, 1995. I wrote the PhD and submitted the completed work in December so I had evidently written the whole thing in 11 months. Then followed a gap of three or months or so until the 'viva voce' examination in which the principal external examiner was one of the most prominent figure sin the field of public administration in the UK. All seemed to be going well until the examiner made the remark 'Mike, I looked in vain in your bibliography for evidence of 4th Generation evaluative methodology'- the other two examiners, my supervisor and I looked at each other and it was evident that absolutely none of us had ever heard of this in our lives at all. So I did a bit more fieldwork, incorporated an extra chapter including the afore mentioned methodology, resubmitted the whole and after another three month gap was awarded the PhD in about May of 1997. I was to learn later from another 'conference buddy' who was also submitting a PhD late in life that this particular external examiner always made his examinees go the extra mile and do more work so what happened to me was not unusual, after all. But I think the quality of a PhD depends upon the reputation of the external examiner for the thesis rather than the university that awards it so eventually I was more than happy with the result.
This afternoon, I received an unexpected visit from a nurse who, I believe, was sent to us after a referral by the care agency. She needed to check on Meg's pressure sores and I also gave her the information received yesterday that I help out with manual handling and social care needs if one care worker was present. This I have formally refused to do and the nurse was going to escalate the request that had been made of me as the care agency was not fulfilling its contracted duties of two carers per visit. I fear that there may be organisational consequences that emerge out all of this but I will do my best to pour oil upon troubled waters because I do not want the care for Meg to deteriorate whilst, theoretically, improving the quality. My son and daughter-in-law called round this afternoon - we spent a lot of time discussing the consequences that might flow from the visit of the three district nurses yesterday and a further one today. I think a long telephone call with the care agency manager may be necessary to ensure that any fences are mended because I desperately want Meg to retain the relationships she has made with the care staff over the last year.
A fair spell of warm weather is forecast for the forthcoming week so I must try and make the best of it, whilst I can. Saturday will see the first venture of Meg out in her new 'super' wheelchair and whilst I am assured this will be very comfortable and safe for Meg, it might be that the heavier weight is more difficult to push up the hill (going down hill, though, ought to be even easier) Saturday morning is the morning scheduled for the Pope's funeral, which other things being equal, I would quite like to watch but on the other hand there is a clash of commitments with our visit to see our friends in the centre of town. I showed my daughter-in-law the way in which our dining room had been restored to its former glory ad also the progress I was making in putting right the study. She herself is due to retire at the end of August so is being pretty ruthless about the things to be thrown away between now and then.
© Mike Hart [2025]