08702202020

You Sasha, should be ashamed of damaging peoples legal cases, and then claiming to a be a peoples champion. And your personal attack of David Moulsdale is cheap to say the least.

I'm not sasha .

You must've been bought very cheaply by David moulsdale to cover his [***] . Must be embarrassing .
You must have mental health problems .?  No one who is sane would cover him .

Are you moulsdales only follower ? Shouldn't moulsdales fan club employees be writing here ? How come moulsdale hadn't had any positive comments from ex employees ?

Who Had the ex staff of optical express pages removed from the Internet ?

Why would someone who is doing nothing wrong inspire being dubbed the ' jimmy saville of the eye world ?'

I bet its embarrassing working for optical  express .

Working for David Moulsdale - a guy who allegedly has got problems keeping himself in his trousers so badly that he has to allegedly take advantage of young women who work for him .

A guy who seems to have lost control of his business too .

Must be embarrassing knowing that some customers have allegedly been so unhappy they have tried to get in touch with him . Must be embarrassing working for someone who can't seem to face up to the reality of complaining customers .


Must be embarrassing trying to deal with customers probably  knowing the company probably  doesnt care. Must give you a lot of job satisfaction knowing that  you have contributed to such a great company in the recession . A company that probably over borrowed from a bank that nearly collapsed to find over expansion and probably  line the pockets of one individual only . David Moulsdale .

Why wouldn't he be on here. CEO of a large corporation. Tinpot Hitler of a failing minor UK business based on a load of bull.

"And what has that got to do with u making a lot of very serious allegations about a campaigner ." - so does this mean if he is right and can prove what he says, then you agree that Sasha is corrupt?

I think the only one that is probably corrupt around here is David moulsdale - he's probably paid someone to come here and point the finger at a campaigner - who claims they have some evidence and sound like they are total rubbish !

Some moron called anon who claimed to be a journalist !!! Laughable !!!

The campaign for industry wide legislation of the laser vision correction industry is dead.  The great campaigner herself has been bought off by Optimax and is owned by Ambrose.  Some conditions imposed:-

 To remove the website and not put up another one
 To close down the email associated with the website
 To close the Twitter account
 Not to communicate with any Optimax patient
 A gagging clause

No wonder that the vast majority of cases come from Optical Express if she is not allowed to communicate with Optimax patients!

You will probably have seen videos of Sasha on YouTube or similar, claiming bribery attempts (£10k) from Optical Express and publicly rejecting a £20k offer of settlement from Optimax.  I don’t doubt that the offer from Optical Express was true.  However, the video omitted to say that Sasha was trying to get a paid consultancy with Optical Express.  I don’t know (yet) whether the attempt to threaten Optical Express into giving her a consultancy occurred before the offer or as a result of it.  I do know that she was acquainted with Patrick James Green before the incident.

As to the £20k offer from Optimax (it was actually £20k plus remedial treatment),  Sasha had initially demanded £400k with threats to ruin Optimax business if they didn't settle. The demands reduced to £70k then £50k (all plus legal costs) again accompanied by threats to ruin the business.  Demands were deliberately timed to take advantage of media attention to her campaign and were accompanied by offers to cease the campaign if Optimax ceded to her demands.  Optimax finally settled round about August Bank Holiday when their clinical director was caught being negligent and admitted it.  The settlement was nowhere near the initial £400k, but was more than £70k.

I have yet to find any patients with complications following surgery that Sasha has actually managed to help.  I’m aware of one patient whose chances of compensation were severely damaged when she represented him, thanks to her “legal advice”, and another whose claim from Optimax was deliberately sabotaged.  Of the others, none seem to have done any better than if they had dealt with it directly.  She has alienated parts of the industry that supported the campaign for legislation  and her interference in referral consultations has potentially devalued those consultations.


Most people would find it embarrassing having been bought off by Optimax and working with Ambrose under a gagging order.

Most people would find it embarrassing to threaten to ruin someone’s business if they didn't pay an exorbitant amount against a no-negligence claim.

Most people would find it embarrassing to claim to be the great campaigner who would not sell out for a million pounds, then quietly abandon her campaign, shut down her website and Twitter accounts to work with Ambrose.

Most people would be embarrassed to offer misleading legal advice, represent their claim and thereby ruin some peoples chances of appropriate compensation

Most people would be embarrassed to raise false hopes in people with serious eye problems and then shamelessly use them to bolster their own claim.

Most people would be embarrassed to offer to work for Optical Express as a paid consultant then take the opportunity to get their own back for refusal by working with a major competitor.

Most people would be ashamed of using their influence with Ambrose to reduce the amount of compensation being considered to someone who wanted to act independently of Sasha.

Most people would have the good sense to know that passing on personal data and medical information without that person’s specific consent is not on.  Especially someone offering legal advice.

We hear a lot about half a dozen people with serious problems, but nothing about how the great campaigner has actually helped anyone.  Poking her nose in and upsetting consultants, taking consultant’s time away from the patient who needs it, writing pseudo legal letters that devalue a patient’s claim - yes.  Actually helping - no.  Helping no-one but herself.


But then the great campaigner is not just anyone.  She will shamelessly use people to her own advantage; vindictively act against them if they don't fall into line etc.  I'm reminded of Kissinger’s quote about the USA - she doesn't have principles only interests.  That book is going to be a short one!

I think Moulsdale loves trying to cover up the disgusting and soulless individual he is.

Obviously trying to cover for how much of a disgusting pervert he probably is  by allegedly trying to cover up how many young employed  women he's been trying to jump on at optical express and allegedly trying to get his PA to cover for him .
( according to EX - a comment now deleted )

Then Probably having comments that ex employees make deleted from the Internet .
Trying to cover up his bribing problems like he is allegedly covering up his pervert problems ? Probably ......

Someone commented here calling him the ' jimmy saville of the eye world ' ( Chang )

I think he's a lying little disgusting soulless desperate pervert of a failing businessman - who is probably on drugs .  I think  he's capable of doing anything to cover up all of his bad moves and immoral business practices .
I think he is rotten to the core .

Sure does look like ANON is scrapping the barrel with his revelations.

"Lemme think 'bout this", would OE have done anything differently?  Of course not.

Are OE feeling a bit miffed that "the campaigner" appears to be helping OE casualties (therefore eating into marginal profits) while Optimax appear to be getting off the hook?    

Shouldn't OE be more concerned about the fact they are forever churning out more casualties in the first place?  I'm pretty sure "the campaigner" only manages to sneer a small percentage of victims, while the vast majority are given re-treats and left in limbo.

But this is not really what ANON post above is really about, rather it's a pathetic silly attempt to discredit "the campaigner" and hopefully then discredit the campaign itself.  When in reality, if OE stopped screwing up people's eye sight, with botched surgical procedures, optimists lying through their teeth, unethical sales staff who's prime concern is "putting bums on seats" to meet sales targets and perhaps, maybe made "patient care" as their first priority, then "the campaigner" would have no more casualties to battle for.

Maybe anon has no idea what it feel like to have ones eye-sight screwed and have no one to turn, not sure which way to turn, other than to the culprits who did the damage in the first place.

@Guest Poster
This is not about whether OE would have done anything differently to Optimax and my posts are not in defence of OE or anyone else.  If the posts is still there, you will see that I think that all of the big three laser vision correction firms stink.  The idea that I am defending OE is purely an invention of Wondering and maintained as a fiction because it's easier to attack me for that than try to defend the great campaigner when there is documentary proof of her actions.

No need to discredit the campaigner.  She has done that for herself!

It's not just OE who are guilty of " screwing up people's eye sight, with botched surgical procedures, optimists lying through their teeth, unethical sales staff who's prime concern is "putting bums on seats" to meet sales targets", it's Optimax as well and the campaign has been sold out from under the feet of those who it was supposed to protect.

If some of my other posts still exist, you will also see that I supported the campaign and my concerns are that it has now been discredited by the activities of the campaign leader.  You cannot have a campaign for legislation across the whole industry whilst omitting one major player.  

You complain about unethical sales staff, why do you try and defend a so called campaigner who has manipulated people and used the misery of others for personal gain?  Why do you try and defend her against deliberately vindictive acts which resulted in the halving of a compensation payment from Optimax?

Again read my posts.  My eyesight is better than some, but dry eye is an issue and always will be.

YES the big three laser vision outlets do STINK, OE smells worst than the others.

From what I have read you are not attacking the providers rather seem to be focusing on Sasha, their appears to be a ulterior motive here.

I don't see how she has discredited her-self in the least.  How?  By accepting a settlement from Optimax, wouldn't we all do that, and we are knowledgeable enough to know settlements do come with a gagging order.  How can she mention Optimax when she is not legally allowed to do so.  Is that really discrediting?

The continuance of Sasha campaign, encompasses all providers, even if one in particular isn't mentioned.  Sasha would have discredited herself by accepting a pay-off (actually not a pay-off at all, rather compensation for permanent eye damage), then abandoning the campaign.  She has not done this, it appears "she" got paid, so why does she have to continue?  Maybe it is out of a sense of justice for all.

So what, somebody asked for £400k, what price would you place on your eye-sight, £20k?  It appears from your information Optimax finally settled for a lot more than £20k.  So we should hold this against her?    

Like I said above, it is not just about money, the fact there exists another avenue  when things don't turn out as the patient was expecting, other than the crooks that sold the lie & screwed your eyes in the first place.  A place for support, what questions to ask, where to turn, plus providing a mind blowing eye-opening education regarding the true picture relating to the providers and the rest of them with their noses in the feeding trough, how they operate, how they think the double standards they employ.

I seriously doubt you support the campaign, you seem intent on focusing on Sasha and seem to relish in posting "the campaign is dead".  

"Used the misery of others for personal gain", such utter tosh, if this was the case, Sasha would have done a runner by now waving her cheque in her hand.  Maybe it would be preferable for all those miserable souls to remain lost and at the whim of the providers, undergoing further damaging re-treats, buying into "it takes time", to push them beyond the THREE YEAR LITIGATION window.

As for your claim of Sasha halving somebody's compensation payment, you seem to be forgetting  providers don't really want to pay out any compensation and will do everything & anything to avoid doing so.  Another reason why kudos is due to Sasha, she made them pay up, I'm pretty confident they weren't keen on doing so, certainly not judging by the amount.

However as I'm sure you are aware, Sasha isn't  the only one who have been compensated, far from it, many have accepted their cheques and subsequent gagging orders, Sasha has advised and helped a few of them.  Sasha accepted her cheque and has remained fighting the cause, while abiding by the terms of her agreement, so yes by not abandoning the campaign, she sold out.

If you work with Ambrose at Optimax, you would know already what Sasha was paid for.  I'm sure if you had a quiet word with your colleague, convince him to wavier the non-disclosure, then Sasha could comment.  As it stands she can't, think we appreciate that aspect of it.

By the way, if somebody has already undergone Laser Eye surgery TWICE, without success, now needing three differing prescriptions for every day tasks, do you think for one moment they would be mad keen to rush forward to give them YET another go!!!!

No such thing as a "simple retreat", Eye Laser Surgery is suppose to have a 0.1% or less failure rate, but is far from being classed as SIMPLE, going by the forever swelling number of damaged cases.

I can also confirm Wondering is not Sasha (as I was talking to her on the phone at the same time a post appeared on this web site), yet it is very highly probable "anon the original" is Patrick Green of OE or should that be Patrick James Green he now like to be known for reasons best known to himself and a few others.

Having seen a copy of the PDF which "PG" has utilised on this forum as well as Laser Eyes while scraping the barrel to discredit Sasha and her campaign.  No doubt OE are feeling miffed that their name remains publicised, while Optimax's has been removed due to legal settlement.  

Ethics huh

BUMMER

http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=4141
New store!

Hi Hugh -has the high wycombe Eden center landlord finally had enough of Optical Express ? - so when are you going to shut that one or has it already closed ?

I suppose better to find cheaper rent away from that center - especially after the rumour that the Oxford optical express landlord didn't want optical express on the premises-  would be embarrassing if it happened at high Wycombe too I suppose .

 Especially since you haven't got a store in Oxford anymore either !

High Hugh

is this the address of the 'new' store?

Old Bank House, Suite 6
39a High St, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 2AG

It sounds like an apartment to me -
Are you sure that that photograph in that optometry magazine is indeed the High Wycombe practice? the advert  in the shop window is advertising glasses so it cant be your 'new'  ( or do you want to call it replacement?) consultation and aftercare center at high wycombe, right? Have you stopped doing shiny shop fronts on the high street or something- ?

Bit of a misleading press release isnt it? can you imagine people are going to be looking for your shiny new store and then realise you hired a flat for someone to do consultations and aftercare in it  ?

Looks like they were balancing this story out!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business ... m-loss.19745769

Well spotted Wondering!
http://www.propertydna.com/property/2625

@ lol Your link is dead -?

Patrick will be landing soon to take over from Hugh Kerr !  Will he be "reading with interest", "Anon" or "Santa Claus"  ? !  Or a whole new identity cos we're so easily fooled we won't recognise him in disguise ;)