08702202020

More than a year ago, having taken a wrong turn into a parallel universe, I discovered that, following government concern about the industry, a Bill for "Regulation of Laser Eye Surgery " was presented to parliament in 2005
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/028/2006028.pdf

For some reason the Bill didn't get a second hearing.  

The billion dollar question (literally) is WHY NOT?

Being so concerned, why did the government simply put the Bill aside to serve only as a guideline?

This question needs to asked, in the press, & to the government - LOUDLY!

A reliable source told me the alleged reason, one that cannot unfortunately be repeated here for legal reasons - so tourists, please don't waste space asking me!

I am under no illusion that my HMGov epetition will change anything on its own, but it does provide a point of reference.

Publicity & people pressure is needed to draw attention to this issue.  

Embarass the government, expose the corruption (alleged), then we'll see action!

A B I L L

To regulate laser eye surgery.

Presented by Frank Cook
supported by
Dr Ian Gibson, Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody,
Dr Richard Taylor, Mr Alan Williams,
Sir George Young, John McDonnell, Roger Berry,
Peter Bottomley, Kelvin Hopkins,
Mr Mike Hancock and Lynne Jones.

Ordered, by The House of Commons,
to be printed, 22nd June 2005.

Example from Bill:
9
Contractual requirements
(1) The registered person in relation to a relevant establishment shall ensure that
no laser eye surgery is provided within the establishment otherwise than
under a contract with a patient or a person authorised to act on the patient’s
behalf that complies with the requirements set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The requirement set out in this subsection is that the contract does not offer the
patient or other person entering into a contract a financial incentive to enter
into the contract at a particular time or within a particular period.
(3) The requirements set out in this subsection are that the contract specifies—
(a) all direct costs expected to be incurred in relation to the laser eye
surgery, and
(b) any other costs expected to be incurred in relation to the provision of
follow-up services by optometrists or medical practitioners.
(4) The registered person in relation to a relevant establishment shall ensure that
no staff of the establishment receive an undue financial incentive to encourage
potential patients or persons authorised to act on behalf of potential patients to
enter into a contract for the provision of laser eye surgery.

Ignored by ALL refractive eye surgery high street providers.

NB: Whilst the 2005 Bill specifies "Laser" eye surgery, it must be made clear for any future government discussion, ICL, RLE,IOL, & any other eye surgery carried out at these establishments needs to be included!

Its like all the stuff on that Wikipedia archive. Not only do Optical Express ignore and do the opposite than the Royal College of Opthalmologists regarding patients having the opportunity to make informed consent and see the treating surgeon prior to the day of surgery, but they compare the RCO to a snobby golf club run by the establishment. How ARROGANT! They even say that their internal body, the IMAB is far superior. It is a pastiche of medical ethics covering for greed.

Homophobic too :(
http://www.scottishmediamonitor.com/features2.cfm?ID=19

Anyone else noticed an entire page of valid comment & discussion has been deleted in the last hour?!

Coincidence that I'd sent link to press & MPs - including Simon Burns & Andrew Lansley!

No worries, I have Screen shots ;)

Will post again later, otherwise email me for copy.

This forum's fun again!

PS: Fat Rat - I'm using my laptop so you're wasting your time ;)

For those who don't understand: almost every time I try to post on this site my main computer is suddenly jammed!  

I've had a rat running around my computer for months - bit surreal to see the cursor suddenly shoot across the monitor, or return to find the HD icon has moved from it's home!

!ATTENTION JULIA!

PLEASE explain WHY you deleted so many comments without good reason?

WHO told you to do it?

We are keeping your ratings up so making you money from happy advertisers, think we desrve to know who is pulling your strings!

id bet davy boy had something to do with deleting the posts, it all goes to show money means everything to some people hey it must or that plonker DM would never have a woman

Why can't I post on here ?? This is my third attempt ?

They don't even write "comment removed" now. Obviously in OEs pocket in some way

If Optical Express had a legal option to take down this site they would have done it. To be honest I see little rhyme or reason with the random posts that have been removed.
As far as I can see a massive amount of discontent with the working practices of this company is starting to be expressed and I can see it growing. Moulsdale must be worried that the bubble is going to burst. I suppose he can always concentrate on his philanthropic endeavours and take solace from the millions of pounds he has donated to various good causes over the years.

anyone in moulsdales position with his money can give money away to charity all tax deductable, at the end of the day he isnt giving much away

http://www.davidmoulsdale.com/

Another one.

Maybe someone should be making positive comments on these sites to see if they get any response.
It would be interesting if you were contacted and questioned,possibly asked if you'd like to have your positive comment used in some public article about Mr.Moulsdale.
Maybe all this conspiracy stuff is affecting my thinking.

http://domainsigma.com/whois/davidmoulsdale.biz

What is all this about ?

Yet another load of rubbish .



It's pretty mortifying isn't it !

Id be horrified if my job involved having to blow my own trumpet all over the Internet .
The embarrassment would probably kill me !!

We removed comments which we felt were off-topic and harassing in nature. In particular, I removed messages that discussed the family of Mr. Moulsdale.

FYI, we do not receive ANY compensation from the businesses for removing comments.

I suppose OE calls fifteen times a day up to 9pm are not harassing though? Seriously. The editing here seems arbitrary and can you confirm it is in response to requests from Optical Express?

come clean reply who are you????? i dont think you have the ba--s to carry all the stuf said in hear back to davy boy and his woman might get a bit upity if you are

Julia, may I suggest that next time you remove a comment you explain the reason.  

An entire page was deleted recently, & I have screen shots to prove they were not all "off topic" nor "harassing in nature".  

My posted comments are based on fact, all of which I can prove - why do you think David Moulsdale has not taken legal action against me?!  

Why do think he hasn't taken legal action to challenge my claim of having a recording of my meeting with Patrick James-Green offering me a bribe on DM's behalf?

Because it's true.

The reason "re David Moulsdale" did not register is because s/he does not want to risk his/her ID being exposed. S/he also wants the comments deleted because some ppl may think it was left by the real David Moulsdale & therefore not respond.

As you've deleted other more important messages, surely that request can be met?

There is something you should be aware of before deleting more posts without reason. I am happy to explain in person if you contact me - there is no facility to contact WCM via this site!