Optical Express Complaint to NOMINET DRS

www.libelreform.org/
"Libel laws are not just a Fleet Street issue. We have heard from scientists, campaigners, writers, academics and patients that their discussions and publications are being shut down by the threat of libel action. Critical and open debates are vital in medicine and the public are badly missing out without them."

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld2013...1.htm#13111956000130
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
Defamation Act 2013 aims to improve libel laws
Justice minister Shailesh Vara said: "As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.

The Libel Reform Campaign spokesman said: "We hope the judiciary will take note, and that in the future open debate on matters in the public interest will not be chilled by litigious oligarchs or corporations... The Defamation Act is good news for free speech.".

The government said the changes on the 1 January 2014 would reverse the "chilling effect" current libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate.

With Nominet's DRS decision due by 8 January the timing is perfect!

So perhaps the press will be braver this time around without libel threats from the industry, responsible for preventing publication of a number of damaged patients' true stories - including my own with the Sunday Express last year!

NB: If the Nominet Expert decides against OERML then an appeal will cost £3,000. The Appeal process takes at least 60 days during which time the site would remain online, but hopefully truth will prevail and it won't come to that.

Over the last year this forum has been attacked with as many as 200 spam posts per day.

Open registration for new users was closed months ago as it became unmanageable with more than 2,000 spambots registering every day!

Deleting them was like watching a horror movie as 'users' multiplied in their place, making it an impossible task.

I guessed that OE had paid the overseas companies responsible to do this (China & Eastern Europe), but of course I couldn't prove it.

Until now

This is an explanation of Nominet's DRS procedure: www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/when-use-drs...cedure/drs-procedure

All documents submitted are available to be viewed by both parties and the independent Expert, with the exception of 13b which is an added statement from the Respondent (me) in response to the Complainant's (OE) response to the Respondents' response... complicated but stick with it!

Unless the Expert requests to read the Full Statement only the first paragraph of 13b is visible to the Complainant.

Therefore, as spammers continued their relentless attack on OERML, OE were unaware of the content of my Full Statement, submitted on the 4 December.

On the morning of the 19 December the Expert asked to read my 13b Full Statement, which Nominet then made visible to OE.

In their response to my response OE had written: "As regards the links made into the site from elsewhere, it is notable the respondent does not deny the making of these links to raise the profile of the site in Google's rankings, contrary to their policies (as highlighted in the complaint). Indeed the respondent has created significant additional links since the date of the complaint, again contrary to Google's policies. A current list of such links is attached hereto, being the document entitled 'Links.csv'."

NB: A similar list of 'links' was submitted in OE's original Complaint which refer to the most random of sites, including pornography and other unsavoury subjects, many written in foreign languages.

My 13b statement replied: "Unable to open this document, however, Nominet advised me that it (Links.csv) lists 9,139 links to random sites. (If only I had that much time to spare). I don't need to see the list in order to categorically guarantee that I have never posted on these sites. I am however in no doubt that the authors of these sites are responsible for the unremitting spam attack on OERML. Curious btw, how did OE find these sites?"

I also wrote: "I am prepared to allow the Expert full access to OERML Forum so he can view IP addresses should he consider it worthwhile."

Since the 19th December there have been NO SPAM POSTS - not even one :ohmy:

Coincidence perhaps, or did OE call a ceasefire realising that the IP addresses on the spam posts would match the 9,139 sites they claim I linked to?!

I predict: should this website remain in the public domain, the spam attacks will resume with a vengeance on the day such a decision is published!

Without this website, I do not know if I would have found the strength to carry on. I fear that I might have given up trying to survive the emotional and physical trauma that laser eye surgery left me with. This site really helps people who thought that their terrible experiences were something they faced alone and no-one else could understand. Thanks to Sasha Rodoy we can at least support one another. This site is a godsend.

Hi..,
My story isn't online, that said - it is the same as many of those here, the deception, lies, reassurances that all would be ok etc..

18 months on from surgery and things are no better, the only good that has come from all of it is that I discovered this site - it saved my mental health.

Before I came across OERML I genuinely felt that I was the only one who suffered at the hands of OE, that I was, as OE told me, just unlucky.

My message to those at Nominet is simple, this site serves a vital purpose, not only in the UK but here in Ireland too - there are people at their wits end whose lives have been helped by the fact that there is a forum which allows those who suffer to ask for help, and to realise that they are not alone.

Feel free to contact me to verify anything in relation to my case.

Agreed, despite me having pretty damn big pupils and my research prior to my surgery all pointed to large pupils as a major factor in problems related to night time vision, glare, double vision, starbursts etc, OE's optom at Milton Keynes (Dasi Raju) lied through her teeth when I specifically asked her if I had large pupils. She just smiled and said I don't have large pupils and there won't be a problem. Well, of course she would say that, I sign up for treatment and she gets paid, simple really and its only my vision that's at risk after all. It makes me sick to think someone can just sit there and knowingly lie about something so serious just to make a few quid. I would never hit a women but if I ever met her again I'd come pretty damn close.

Shell84 wrote: It's rich of Optical Express to call us all liars when we all know who the true liars are. From the very moment the sales person started her pitch on me I've been lied to: 'I've had it done myself, same prescription as you, it's given me a zest for life'.
Honestly I doubt she's had it done. OE sales people are just as guilty of ruining people's eyes as the surgeons themselves!

Well said, I could not agree more, every staff member is culpable.

It's rich of Optical Express to call us all liars when we all know who the true liars are. From the very moment the sales person started her pitch on me I've been lied to: 'I've had it done myself, same prescription as you, it's given me a zest for life'.
Honestly I doubt she's had it done. OE sales people are just as guilty of ruining people's eyes as the surgeons themselves!

My story has been on this website for some time. Nominet are most welcome to contact me directly by email or telephone to verify that my details are factual and correct. I would be delighted to share my experience with them but most importantly to emphasise the life saving reassurance and comfort this site brings to many of us who have been abandoned by the Company that we entrusted the safety of our eyesight to. It would be tragic and scandalous if this site was forced to close due to further bully boy tactics by OE .

Extract from Independent Expert Keith Gymer's decision last year.

Page 8, Paragraph 2: "The Policy requires the Expert to determine whether registration or use of a Domain Name “took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights.” A defamatory statement in a domain name would arguably be “unfairly detrimental”, but defamation is a complex tort, typically requiring detailed evidence and examination to establish questions of truth or falsehood, motivation and damage. A determination of whether or not statements are legally defamatory would be beyond the scope of the DRS and properly a matter for the Court. The Expert, therefore, confines his assessment in this case to consideration of the issues of unfair advantage and unfair detriment."

In their second complaint, DRS13417, DCM Optical Holdings (OE) have claimed that content on this site is "untrue or inaccurate, offensive, unrelated to the site’s purpose, defamatory or otherwise objectionable, placed upon the site with the sole intention of unfairly disrupting the business of the complainant "

As explained by Keith Gymer and repeatedly asked by me, both publicly and privately - and in my rebuttal to this complaint - why do OE not sue me if they believe the content of this site is "untrue or inaccurate" and "defamatory"?

And you'd have to be blind to believe content is: "unrelated to the site’s purpose"

Similarly, with OE's recent complaint relying heavily on their assertion that OERML's registration and development was paid for by their main competitor Russell Ambrose (Optimax owner), with the intention of "unfairly" diverting customers to Optimax, then why do they not report him to the Office of Fair Trading?

Methinks perhaps OE's legal team should have googled "Optimax" before employing that argument, because I have no doubt that Russell Ambrose is as unhappy as David Moulsdale with the results of online searches for his company name.

More on that when I'm able to publish full details of the Nominet complaint and my rebuttal, but until then, read the 2012 Nominet DRS decision here:
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ominet-decision.html

Optical Express made this statement about me:
"The respondent included information relating to a Myra Pridham, stating she was “left blind for a year”. This is not factually correct."

The statement made that I wasn't blind is untrue. I was blind in both eyes for a year, and if not being able to see your hand in front of your own eyes 3" from your face is not blind then I'd like to know what is. The devastation to my life was so complete that I lost my business, my 15 year long relationship and my mind. This happened 7 years ago but I'm still unable to talk about it, I am left with Severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

My IOL surgery was performed by Professor Jan Venter when he worked at Optimax. I sued both and won my case.
www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Hospital-...39-detail/story.html