08702202020

Obviously that was biased, team 21 was a competition that gave away free laser eye surgery in the hope of positive commentary

See OE's Facebook for details of the Team 21 (un)lucky winners celebrating pre surgery!

Be interesting to see if any of them suffer post op problems, & should that happen, whether they'll get to blog about it!

After monitoring OE's Facebook for a few weeks I'm unsurprised to see they've deleted a number of negative comments there too!

Can't see 21 faces at the party on the OE FB page!

Wonder if Stuart pulled out following the comments posted below his pre op blog!
http://whatculture.com/technology/team-21-my- ... 2020-vision.php

http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2012/1 ... ion+at+risk.htm

Main reason nations eyes at risk is Optical Express!

If you're an Optical Express soap opera fan like me you'll probably alreday know of David Moulsdale's links to Gordon Brown & other unsavoury characters who all rub shoulders (& other things allegedly) at dinners & parties!

Scroll 2/3rd down page:

http://www.seancopland.com/articles/sex_offen ... ine_search.html

Repeated post/See Page 10:

Optical Express Criminals Calling replies to Optical Express Criminals Calling
19 Jun 2011
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Optician-at-war-with-private.2323596.jp

Optician at war with private eye

David Moulsdale, of the opticians chain Optical Express, claimed a private investigator made defamatory remarks about him.

Published Date: 02 May 2002
By John Robertson and Gethin Chamberlain
ONE of Scotland’s most successful businessmen yesterday failed in an attempt to prevent a private investigator from making allegations about his business dealings and his friendship with a notorious drugs dealer.
David Moulsdale, the founder of the Optical Express chain of opticians, claimed Dr Allan George had made defamatory remarks about him to others working in the opticians trade.

But yesterday, he failed to persuade the Court of Session in Edinburgh to grant him an interim interdict against Dr George.

With a fortune estimated at £100 million, Mr Moulsdale is one of the richest and most powerful businessmen in Scotland. He was the youngest ever winner of the Scottish Business Achievement Award in 1998 and the following year he topped a poll of the country’s most eligible bachelors.

He is also highly regarded in government circles and his entrepreneurial skills have earned the praise of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor.

But yesterday, the court heard how he had been the subject of extensive media reports in recent years which had referred to an alleged friendship with a "notorious drugs baron" and had claimed he was "no stranger to financial bother".

The drugs baron was Tony McGovern, 35, a Glasgow gangster who ran the drugs trade in the Maryhill and Springburn areas of the city. His friendship with Mr Moulsdale, the son of a Leith taxi driver, emerged after McGovern was shot and killed in September 2000.

The "financial bother" mentioned in court referred to his company’s failure to settle some of its debts on time. Mr Moulsdale, who lives in Dullater, near Cumbernauld, had been accused of building up his fortune at the expense of companies which were kept waiting for payment and Optical Express was the subject of a number of adverse court judgments.

Yesterday’s hearing was told that Mr Moulsdale was unhappy when he discovered that Dr George, from London, had been speaking to people about his business and private life and he sought an interim interdict to ban him from repeating the claims.

Michael Upton, counsel for Mr Moulsdale, said his client did not know the investigator, but "out of the blue" Dr George had been contacting people who knew Mr Moulsdale through the ophthalmic trade.

"He purported to want to gather information to decide whether or not to invest in Mr Moulsdale’s business," said Mr Upton. "But he does not restrict himself to questions ... he makes assertions about Mr Moulsdale."

Without specifying the allegations, Mr Upton said they were defamatory and went beyond what had appeared in the media. He added that Mr Moulsdale feared the allegations would be repeated if no court order were granted.

But Richard Keen, QC, for Dr George, said his client had only asked about matters which were already in the public domain.

Dr George was a commercial research consultant, he said, who had been engaged to make inquiries about Mr Moulsdale. He had been asked by Mr Moulsdale to disclose the identity of the client, but had refused.

"He contacted a number of people and asked if they were aware of the media reports, and whether they could make any comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the reports," said Mr Keen. "The matters were already in the public domain. He disputes that other, unrelated, allegations were made by him or canvassed."

Mr Keen added that Dr George had completed his research and submitted a report to his client, and had no intention of "revisiting this matter".

It is the second time in recent years that Dr George has been accused, unsuccessfully, of defamation. In 1995 Frank Machon, a self-confessed spy who became known as Captain Calamity after a series of nautical mishaps, lost a libel action he had launched in response to an unfavourable book review.

In the book Mr Machon claimed that he had spied for Britain in the former Eastern Europe and had to crash through border crossings with a snowplough on the front of his lorry to escape his pursuers. He was later bankrupted for failing to pay the costs of the libel action.

In court yesterday the judge, Lord Eassie, said that he believed there was no proper basis for Mr Moulsdale’s apprehension that the statements would be repeated.

He considered it inappropriate to grant an interim interdict but if evidence emerged to show the situation had changed, Mr Moulsdale could return to court and re-apply for an order.

Source:
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2228363/Ho ... ce-doctors.html

"The treatment will be carried out by experienced surgeons — though not all are NHS consultants.

Bupa says of Optical Express: We can guarantee that all members will be treated by Bupa-recognised consultants."

Does anyone know the criteria for becoming "Bupa-recognised"?  

Similar to being assessed by IMAB perhaps?

When oh when will David Moulsdale ( in my view) stop pretending to be good at his job and stop wishing he is going to become something special   and leave? So he can in my view let someone who has some respect for  customers and employees run Optical Express?

I personally think it a lot better for everyone if Moulsdale steps down and leaves than more people end up having to lose their jobs-

Wikipedia Optical Express:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optical_Express
"Can someone review the history around this gripe site? The use of the url is overt promotion and posted by the owner of the site. I would like to request that the URL is deleted from the post, if not the full post itself (as it is a fairly insignificant event)? Hardlygone (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review the history around this gripe site? The use of the url is overt promotion and posted by the owner of the site. I would like to request that the URL is deleted from the post, if not the full post itself (as it is a fairly insignificant event)?Hardlygone (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The history of this might be beneficial to any editors reviewing this request. It will come as no surprise that the original OERML site contained defamatory and libellous statements mainly from its owner, amongst stories and opinions from individuals. Takedown requests were simultaneously made to 123-reg (hosting) and Nominet (domain) regarding the "abusive" content. 123-reg removed the abusive content and therefore by the time Nominet reviewed and made its decision on the domain, the site was merely a holding page. The site has been reinstated without the libellous material, because even though the Nominet decision upheld the registration, 123-reg had already ruled on the original content being against its terms. OE are satisfied with the outcome as the purpose was to prevent defamation, not to prevent free (lawful) speech. However, this has been manipulated to unfairly represent that OE had complained about the web site in its current form, and GBE still maintains this tact. The site owner and very small band of followers have posted and reposted the URL (which has been deleted a few times by independent WIKI editors - and not OE) and that is why I believe this is overt promotion. I was of the opinion that promotional URLs were not allowed on WIKI and were usually only allowed as reference sites.Hardlygone (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If, as Hardlygone claims, the Nominet DRS ruling re gripe site opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk "is a fairly insignificant event", then why is he so anxious to delete its mention? I was under the impression Sasha Rodoy may have in fact set a precedent with her victory, but perhaps someone with more knowledge in that area can advise? Meanwhile, I have replaced the website URL, and, whilst I am not the owner as Hardlygone claims, what I actually am is unclear why he has taken offense so long after the URL was reinstated by a senior editor. It must also be noted that Hardlygone's version of events, esp "libellous material", does not match the information published in Nominet's DRS decision itself. Would advise Hardlygone refresh his memory by reading the full content of said decision.RingARoses (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardlygone's allegation also begs the question, if content is/was libelous (one 'l'), then why has it remained since August without Optical Express taking legal action against site owner Sasha Rodoy? I would also appreciate an explanation of what he considers to be "libellous material" as 'Danny's story' is posted on numerous forums, including a video on YouTube. RingARoses (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)"

Read Nominet's DRS decision for proof that 'Hardlygone' is lying:
www.secure.nominet.org.uk/drs/search-disputes ... =opticalexpress

Any reference to OERML deleted from article!!  Corruption even at the heart of Wikipedia :(

Hey ho... web designer currently working on brand new OERML site with lots of new info & recordings - including a press statement from Surrey police concerning an alleged "murder suspect" currently working for OE (see Pages 50/51)
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

Corrupt link - try:
https://secure.nominet.org.uk/drs/search-disp ... =opticalexpress

Ive just been reading this talk page of Optical Express on wikipedia

'A concerning development. User Hardlygone has admitted that "the company" meaning Optical Express know my identity. They are mistaken but I am very unhappy with the implication that they are attempting to trace people who post things they disagree with on Wikipedia. I think that this is an attempt at intimidation and it requires urgent senior Wikipedia editor review.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)'

I mean quite frankly at first I was reading it all and felt a little bit annoyed.

I mean its not everyone elses fault that Optical Express had to close stores. I think that is David Moulsdales fault .If Optical Express has only got fifty something stores left, then so be it. Cant go on about how new stores may be  coming one day so Wiki cant be updated with the actual number of stores at this moment in time. I mean come off it Moulsdale, If Wikipedia had everything on it about what OE was gonna do and shoulda done  then i think it wouldnt be particularly factual would it?

Also its not really important whose identity is known or not known, with reference to anything being written online. All companies get feedback and they have to be responsible and act positively.If it is fact that there are 6 dentistry practices open at OE then quite frankly it should be on Wiki. This is ridiculous. I cant imagine any  other company who would actively sit on the internet like this and go on about it and hence draw more and more attention to themselves.

From what it sounds like , who knows I may see the day that someone like Moulsdale may arrange  for somone like me to disappear under mysterious circumstances  for saying this, but the truth is that Optical Express in my view should deal with the facts , deal with the issues and move forward. Its all looking very childish and I personally dont find it all particularly impressive.

A bit quiet here... check out Wikipedia Optical Express Talk page for the fun!!

Look like Moulsdale is sending in heavy guns to stop negative comments being posted on Wiki.  

No worries, true or not, David has his boys in place when needed ;)

Whilst Optical Express invest considerable time & energy trying to silence critics, desperately fighting to keep any mention of opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk off Wikipedia - backfired by attracting more attention - their competitors are working positively to improve services and help patients left with problems.  

OE patients account for approx 95% of those who contact My Beautiful Eyes for help & advise; the remaining 5% from 2 to 3 other clinics.

The CEOs/owners of the latter are generally keen to meet with me and/or my clients in person, to resolve any issues, and fulfil their duty of care to patients.  

When I first dipped my toes into this murky pool last year, even then the majority of people contacting me with problems were OE patients.  I discussed this with Optical Express troubleshooter Patrick James Green, who promised, on behalf of David Moulsdale, if I referred such patients to him, he would make sure they were helped.

For a while this seemed to work, until patients started to report back that they hadn't been helped at all, simply fobbed off with excuses from OE.

Having failed to honour his promise I told Patrick I was losing my "street cred".

His emailed response, "I'm a hard worker not a miracle worker".  To be fair to Patrick, I realise now that his authority is limited.

Our amicable agreement finally fell apart in mid April, when I thought it timely to advise Patrick that I had a recording of our meeting on 2 March.

I had never intended to use that recording for any purpose other than my own protection and record of events.  However, as regular WCM followers are aware, an OE troll provoked me for proof of its existence, which I published on YouTube.  

Then came the OERML domain name fight, which Nominet DRS ruled in my favour.  But still, months later, OE's team continue to lie about why they fought for it:  
"It will come as no surprise that the original OERML site contained defamatory and libellous statements mainly from its owner, amongst stories and opinions from individuals"
(See Wiki Talk page re these claims from OE employee 'Hardlygone')

Not true.  And I have "original OERML site" screenshots to prove it.

OE has attempted to disrupt and discredit me in a number of ways: the most amusing to me, but most damning to them, a 'wanted' poster displayed in some of their staff rooms.  (Copy now in the hands of my lawyer)  

It pictures a b/w photo taken from one of my YouTube videos, declaring me to be a credit card fraudster!  It doesn't include my name, but does ask anyone who sees me not to approach in person but to contact Stephen Hannan immediately!  Defamation of character for starters.  

Thanks for making me laugh guys ;)

NB: Any other OE employees who also saw this poster in their staff room please contact me - confidentiality guaranteed.

Meanwhile,  David Moulsdale is the only CEO in this industry unwilling to work with me to help his patients find a satisfactory resolution to their problems.  Instead, he prefers to fight, forcing steadily increasing numbers into litigation.

There would be no need for the OERML website if he were prepared to work with me, and take care of OE patients in a responsible manner, both before and after surgery.

David, I have posted here for transparency, and I'm prepared to meet with you at any time to discuss further.

Meanwhile, the OERML website is undergoing a massive overhaul and the "small collection of accounts of negative experiences" claimed on Wikpedia will soon be "a large number", and my campaign for government legislation will continue with or without the existence of Optical Express.  

My aim is, and always will be, to help patients damaged by surgery, and to do my utmost to stop it happening to more, at any clinic.

We now have a dedicated facebook page, please join the group and share your Optical Express horror stories etc

www.facebook.com/OpticalExpressRuinedMyLife

I've only added my own story but anyone feel free to add their own stuff.

Lets make this FB page popular and warn people about the dangers of going to such cowboys as Optical Express.

Sasha, if I were you I would not bother wasting my time talking to David Moulsdale.

Is it possible that he is worried that if you meet him you might work out he is not actually that bright? ( and in my view is full of hot air and undelivered promises)  and definately not worth wasting your breath or time on.

What you have to remember is that the difference is that the CEOs of other laser companies you may have spoken to and David Moulsdale is that they are probably not closing stores on the scale that Optical Express has done, and for probably for good reason.

Probably because I think David Moulsdale is in my view is extremely thick and doesnt know how to handle himself, forget his business.

Patrick is out defnitely out email being returned, congrats 1 down 27 to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe his boss is next

ha they even cut his phone off after booting him out!
try 07740064966 !!!

if they care that little for there own, no surprise they don't give a damn about customers once they have their money...

Patrick has definitey left apparently he was not at the surgeon meeting this weekend fwiw

Does anyone know if Patrick's departure is linked to the recording of him offering a bribe?