General Chat
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic David Moulsdale calls Sasha Rodoy
Posted 02 Jun 2017 16:17
I had intended to continue on today from my previous post (Going To Parliament topic), but changed my mind after a VERY unexpected phone call this morning!
So instead of ruining Russell Ambrose's weekend, I’ve ruined David Moulsdale’s
Remember the story of my entertaining meeting with the Three Bears, when David Moulsdale, Steven Schallhorn, and Tweedledum (aka Stephen Hannan), stepped into the tiny elevator at the Royal College of Surgeons (posted 10 March 2015) and came face to face with me?
This story is as good - if not better!
How many times have you said, 'I wish I was a fly on the wall’? Well today I was exactly that, but without wings, just a bizarre result of technological magic!
At 11.42 am my phone rang, and when I saw the caller ID I was as surprised as you probably are now! (Photo taken mid call)
Wondering what reason David Moulsdale could possibly have for calling me, because 1) he’s tried bribes and threats, 2) he knows I’m the Queen of Recording, and - unlike Russell Ambrose - is not so stupid to risk incriminating himself further.
With a smile in my voice I answered the call saying, ‘Hello?'.
No reply, so I repeated, 'Hello… hello... hello…’, but all I could hear were a number of Scottish male voices arguing.
I suddenly realised that - unless he’d decided to back Team Sasha and invite me to a very enlightening Optical Express finance meeting - David had not intended to call me!
I stayed silent...
Finance Director Stewart Mein was present, and I think I heard Tweedles squeak up at one point, though I'll have to listen again to be sure.
After thirteen minutes the line disappointingly went dead, and, while I would of course liked longer, David Moulsdale personally provided me with enough information to interest lawyers and other parties!
I immediately called him back, but after a few rings he sent me to voicemail.
Always a polite guest, I left a message saying how much I’d enjoyed the conversation. (I would not be surprised to hear that his phone is now in pieces!)
No-one can figure out how this happened: one suggestion is that if David shouted my name loudly enough Siri might have taken this as an instruction to call me!
I do intend to post some of the details I now have concerning OE’s (woeful) financial situation, and other info David so generously shared with me - regularly interspersed with the word 'f*cking’ - but not all details because they may be helpful to lawyers and anyone in litigation.
And while David and his playmates are desperately trying to remember what they disclosed during my unique experience as a fly on the wall for thirteen minutes, I’m not going to remind them.
I expect to continue smiling for the rest of the weekend thinking about the absolute chaos David's mistake will have caused this morning - for which he has no-one else to blame but himself!
PS: Some of you may recall the email I sent to Russell Ambrose in 2013, when I wrote, “I am going to f*ck this industry…”. David produced this to support his argument that the RCO should remove me as lay adviser from the RSSWG panel, but he falsely quoted me without the asterisk.
His friend Prof Carrie MacEwen would surely be shocked at David’s language, as the ex RCO president told Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and others that my singular use of the word (with asterisk) was a profanity, and included it in their spurious reason for removing me from the RSSWG.
My job can occasionally be a lot of fun, thanks to the industry’s spectacular own goals!
So instead of ruining Russell Ambrose's weekend, I’ve ruined David Moulsdale’s
Remember the story of my entertaining meeting with the Three Bears, when David Moulsdale, Steven Schallhorn, and Tweedledum (aka Stephen Hannan), stepped into the tiny elevator at the Royal College of Surgeons (posted 10 March 2015) and came face to face with me?
This story is as good - if not better!
How many times have you said, 'I wish I was a fly on the wall’? Well today I was exactly that, but without wings, just a bizarre result of technological magic!
At 11.42 am my phone rang, and when I saw the caller ID I was as surprised as you probably are now! (Photo taken mid call)
Wondering what reason David Moulsdale could possibly have for calling me, because 1) he’s tried bribes and threats, 2) he knows I’m the Queen of Recording, and - unlike Russell Ambrose - is not so stupid to risk incriminating himself further.
With a smile in my voice I answered the call saying, ‘Hello?'.
No reply, so I repeated, 'Hello… hello... hello…’, but all I could hear were a number of Scottish male voices arguing.
I suddenly realised that - unless he’d decided to back Team Sasha and invite me to a very enlightening Optical Express finance meeting - David had not intended to call me!
I stayed silent...
Finance Director Stewart Mein was present, and I think I heard Tweedles squeak up at one point, though I'll have to listen again to be sure.
After thirteen minutes the line disappointingly went dead, and, while I would of course liked longer, David Moulsdale personally provided me with enough information to interest lawyers and other parties!
I immediately called him back, but after a few rings he sent me to voicemail.
Always a polite guest, I left a message saying how much I’d enjoyed the conversation. (I would not be surprised to hear that his phone is now in pieces!)
No-one can figure out how this happened: one suggestion is that if David shouted my name loudly enough Siri might have taken this as an instruction to call me!
I do intend to post some of the details I now have concerning OE’s (woeful) financial situation, and other info David so generously shared with me - regularly interspersed with the word 'f*cking’ - but not all details because they may be helpful to lawyers and anyone in litigation.
And while David and his playmates are desperately trying to remember what they disclosed during my unique experience as a fly on the wall for thirteen minutes, I’m not going to remind them.
I expect to continue smiling for the rest of the weekend thinking about the absolute chaos David's mistake will have caused this morning - for which he has no-one else to blame but himself!
PS: Some of you may recall the email I sent to Russell Ambrose in 2013, when I wrote, “I am going to f*ck this industry…”. David produced this to support his argument that the RCO should remove me as lay adviser from the RSSWG panel, but he falsely quoted me without the asterisk.
His friend Prof Carrie MacEwen would surely be shocked at David’s language, as the ex RCO president told Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and others that my singular use of the word (with asterisk) was a profanity, and included it in their spurious reason for removing me from the RSSWG.
My job can occasionally be a lot of fun, thanks to the industry’s spectacular own goals!
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic Another advertorial!
Posted 03 Apr 2017 16:14
Having taken a quick look at some of his blogs, fluffy haired journalist Stuart Heritage appears to be an affable and inoffensive chap, but he's not too pleased with me after I responded to his online piece in yesterday's Guardian earlier today!
Indeed, he got a bit heated on Facebook...
www.facebook.com/OERML
And accusatory on Twitter
@OERMLuk
Please do go and tell Stuart why we're upset by this, but be warned, the Guardian is removing most anti laser comments leaving a pro laser majority - enough to convince me laser is safe!
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/ap...ing#comment-96021339
Indeed, he got a bit heated on Facebook...
www.facebook.com/OERML
And accusatory on Twitter
@OERMLuk
Please do go and tell Stuart why we're upset by this, but be warned, the Guardian is removing most anti laser comments leaving a pro laser majority - enough to convince me laser is safe!
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/ap...ing#comment-96021339
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic Michael O'Keeffe criticises high street industry
Posted 02 Apr 2017 13:21
I recommend you read this 2009 article
www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15281
When he lied, in response to Professor Michael O'Keeffe's vehement criticisms of commercial eye surgery clinics, Steven Schallhorn - OE's IMAB chair and ex Global MD, now with Carl Zeiss - should have been struck down by lightning!
'We do not perform any procedures that would be inappropriate for the patient. Why would we?'
Mmmm... let me think Stevie, why would you?
And, 'He said contrary to what Mr O'Keeffe had asserted, a rigorous informed consent procedure is adopted and patients are fully informed about any possible adverse outcomes.
Dr Schallhorn said Optical Express clinics are run to the highest possible standards. They have an international medical advisory board [IMAB] of eminent doctors who oversee clinical governance of the clinics, and a rigorous quality improvement system examines outcomes.'
In fact, if there were any justice in our universe, all those complicit in weaving the tissue of lies that result in so many thousands of people left to live out their lives with ruined eyesight, pain, depression etc... would develop inoperable cataracts!
And I would personally be happy to take up laser eye surgery if I could practise on every person responsible for what's happened to my eyes - that includes members of the organisations who purport to protect people like me but unarguably do not!
NB: IMAB is 'international' only because most of its members are domiciled overseas. All members are paid by Optical Express to be on the board.
www.opticalexpressgroup.com/imab
www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15281
When he lied, in response to Professor Michael O'Keeffe's vehement criticisms of commercial eye surgery clinics, Steven Schallhorn - OE's IMAB chair and ex Global MD, now with Carl Zeiss - should have been struck down by lightning!
'We do not perform any procedures that would be inappropriate for the patient. Why would we?'
Mmmm... let me think Stevie, why would you?
And, 'He said contrary to what Mr O'Keeffe had asserted, a rigorous informed consent procedure is adopted and patients are fully informed about any possible adverse outcomes.
Dr Schallhorn said Optical Express clinics are run to the highest possible standards. They have an international medical advisory board [IMAB] of eminent doctors who oversee clinical governance of the clinics, and a rigorous quality improvement system examines outcomes.'
In fact, if there were any justice in our universe, all those complicit in weaving the tissue of lies that result in so many thousands of people left to live out their lives with ruined eyesight, pain, depression etc... would develop inoperable cataracts!
And I would personally be happy to take up laser eye surgery if I could practise on every person responsible for what's happened to my eyes - that includes members of the organisations who purport to protect people like me but unarguably do not!
NB: IMAB is 'international' only because most of its members are domiciled overseas. All members are paid by Optical Express to be on the board.
www.opticalexpressgroup.com/imab
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic SAR to Optical Express
Posted 28 Mar 2017 13:58
Of course I couldn’t leave Optical Express out of the fun when I sent Optimax a Subject Access Request (details on GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL thread), so they got one too, and last Friday I received OE’s disclosures - or as few as they thought they could get away with!
Only approx 500 pages from OE, not nearly as many as Optimax sent, and it has to be said that OE's lawyers fall behind Optimax with their presentation. (Very poor indexing boys, doesn’t help my eyes at all!)
And while I haven’t yet found anything too exciting that I wasn’t expecting, I have noted there are a number of docs that they have failed to disclose! I have pointed this out to OE’s lawyer and look forward to their response.
This (heavily redacted) letter to the GMC is of interest to me however, because the GMC did not disclose it under the SAR I sent to them last year!
I will be asking why not, and what else did the GMC keep from me
I do intend to publish some more of the docs in due course, as you might be interested to see just how closely OE watch my activities - and yours if you post on OERML website forum/Facebook/Twitter, or comment on OE's own pages - and what a problem we are causing them.
I highly recommend that anyone left with problems after surgery (no matter who the provider) invest £10 in a Subject Access Request.
Not only does this at the very least cause them a great deal of inconvenience, but it can also be very helpful if you’re in litigation, because whereas internal emails are not generally part of disclosure in legal cases, they have to be disclosed under your SAR.
And what you might discover has been written about you might possibly be of value to your legal claim.
Meanwhile, although I’m flattered that OE consider my campaign to be ‘well organised’, I wouldn't call it ‘malicious', I much prefer to describe it as ‘informative '!
And they really shouldn’t take it personally, because although OERML inadvertently became the heart of the campaign in 2013, it’s the entire industry I want to see regulated and stopped from irreparably damaging any more people’s eyes!!
OE lawyers sent this (almost an apology) with the SAR documents:
'We further understand that OE only processes your personal data for the reason that you and the organisations with which you are associated, most notably “Optical Express Ruined My Life” and “My Beautiful Eyes”, have engaged in continuous and high profile campaigns and activities against and directed at OE. We have been advised that OE would not have cause to process your personal data if you had not engaged in such campaigns or activities and is only required to do so for the purposes of protecting OE’s legitimate interests (both OE’s commercial interests and the personal interests of both OE’s staff and other parties whom OE has engaged and engages to provide services on OE’s behalf) and for the purposes of protecting OE’s legal rights and commercial reputation vis-à-vis OE’s interactions with you.’
My response - and as I know they’ll read (and screenshot) this I won’t bother sending an email:
‘I would not have cause to engage in a continuous and high profile campaign and activities against and directed at OE et al had they not engaged in such activities that are damaging people’s eyes and ruining their lives. OERML is only required for the purposes of protecting people’s legitimate interests in keeping their healthy eyes by fully informing them of the significantly high risks of this unnecessary surgery, and helping others (where possible) for whom it’s too late!'
Only approx 500 pages from OE, not nearly as many as Optimax sent, and it has to be said that OE's lawyers fall behind Optimax with their presentation. (Very poor indexing boys, doesn’t help my eyes at all!)
And while I haven’t yet found anything too exciting that I wasn’t expecting, I have noted there are a number of docs that they have failed to disclose! I have pointed this out to OE’s lawyer and look forward to their response.
This (heavily redacted) letter to the GMC is of interest to me however, because the GMC did not disclose it under the SAR I sent to them last year!
I will be asking why not, and what else did the GMC keep from me
I do intend to publish some more of the docs in due course, as you might be interested to see just how closely OE watch my activities - and yours if you post on OERML website forum/Facebook/Twitter, or comment on OE's own pages - and what a problem we are causing them.
I highly recommend that anyone left with problems after surgery (no matter who the provider) invest £10 in a Subject Access Request.
Not only does this at the very least cause them a great deal of inconvenience, but it can also be very helpful if you’re in litigation, because whereas internal emails are not generally part of disclosure in legal cases, they have to be disclosed under your SAR.
And what you might discover has been written about you might possibly be of value to your legal claim.
Meanwhile, although I’m flattered that OE consider my campaign to be ‘well organised’, I wouldn't call it ‘malicious', I much prefer to describe it as ‘informative '!
And they really shouldn’t take it personally, because although OERML inadvertently became the heart of the campaign in 2013, it’s the entire industry I want to see regulated and stopped from irreparably damaging any more people’s eyes!!
OE lawyers sent this (almost an apology) with the SAR documents:
'We further understand that OE only processes your personal data for the reason that you and the organisations with which you are associated, most notably “Optical Express Ruined My Life” and “My Beautiful Eyes”, have engaged in continuous and high profile campaigns and activities against and directed at OE. We have been advised that OE would not have cause to process your personal data if you had not engaged in such campaigns or activities and is only required to do so for the purposes of protecting OE’s legitimate interests (both OE’s commercial interests and the personal interests of both OE’s staff and other parties whom OE has engaged and engages to provide services on OE’s behalf) and for the purposes of protecting OE’s legal rights and commercial reputation vis-à-vis OE’s interactions with you.’
My response - and as I know they’ll read (and screenshot) this I won’t bother sending an email:
‘I would not have cause to engage in a continuous and high profile campaign and activities against and directed at OE et al had they not engaged in such activities that are damaging people’s eyes and ruining their lives. OERML is only required for the purposes of protecting people’s legitimate interests in keeping their healthy eyes by fully informing them of the significantly high risks of this unnecessary surgery, and helping others (where possible) for whom it’s too late!'
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic Optical Express poster
Posted 15 Mar 2017 17:38
The damaged lens exchange patient who sent me this photo (@ Optical Express Westfield store in White City) can be forgiven for thinking it was to advise prospective patients what was very likely to happen to them AFTER laser eye surgery!
- Mr Starburst
-
Offline
- Posts: 97
- Thank you received: 12
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic Slightly worried now?
Posted 24 Feb 2017 14:16Louise wrote: After reading this website, the stories, the form posts, I'm slightly worried.
Louise, if you want to hear 'good experiences' go to the Optical Express sites where you will read plenty of these! In fact, you’ll be lucky to find any posts there from damaged patients - especially those in litigation - because OE delete them!
As for Optical Exress reviews on Trustpilot - a mismoner if ever there were one!
I suggest you listen to the YouTube video below your comment, where Stacey tells me there have NEVER been any problems.
Hmmm... strange then that I deal with complaints from damaged patients every single day, with many 100s currently in litigation, and other cases already settled out of court - unlike Stephanie Holloway's highly publicised victory in 2014, when OE shot themselves in the foot by defending her claim in court which cost them dearly!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-...amaged-eyesight.html
And I’m sure I speak for all concerned, no-one posting on OERML wants sympathy, they want to stop people like you suffering similar problems for the rest of your life!
Dry eyes, haloes etc... are bad enough, but certainly not the worst thing you could suffer by any means!
You didn’t name him, but this is an important question to ask your intended surgeon - how many people are currently suing him? If he says none (unless very new to OE) he’s lying! And I advise you record the conversation!
Feel free to tell me his name and I will back up what I say with the numbers I personally know of.
Btw, would you really expect to have a phone consultation with a surgeon before undergoing any other operation, because I certainly wouldn’t!
Whenever I've had an operation I met with the surgeon in person, who explained the procedure to me and detailed all the risks.
I have no doubt that you paid a substantial deposit and this 'consultation' is more than 7 days since doing so. If you now cancel OE will refuse to refund your money by quoting their 7 days cooling off refund policy - they cannot do this if you did not see the surgeon prior to paying your deposit!
If this happens do contact me and I'll be happy to help you
Moderators: admin