• admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic BBC & Government corrupt collusion

Posted 11 Jan 2024 16:25 #1
This is the first of a series of posts about EuroEyes , and owner Jørn Slot Jørgensen 's insidious entry into the UK market.

Like most people, I'm tired of Covid still being used as a universal excuse for a company's shortcomings, but more disgusted by the hashtag#refractivesurgery industry having exploited the pandemic as a marketing tool.

I am even more appalled at BBC News for airing what was a blatant advertisement for EuroEyes in late 2023

And while complaints will be made to the BBC et al, the real shocker here is that the publicity was organised by David Condon , Media Officer at the Cabinet Office - a UK government department ffs!

Readers familiar with my work will be aware of my ongoing struggle to gain press and media attention, as they consistently avoid publicising the scandal of the unregulated refractive surgery industry, and the many thousands of victims left in its wake.

Yet with the blessing of the government, this overseas company managed to obtain publicity from a corporation that appears to have forgotten its mission, as outlined in the Charter:
'The BBC’s mission is set out in the Charter:

To be continued...
10 January 2024
Last Edit:11 Jan 2024 16:28 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic The Guardian | UK government secret files

Posted 27 Dec 2023 03:48 #2
The shocking scale of the UK government's secret files on critics, coupled with my personal account of media manipulation and corruption within the refractive surgery industry, highlights the potential threats to free speech, transparency, and accountability in our country. And as I continue to battle for urgent government attention to this scandal, my story emphasises the desperate need for thorough investigations into these concerning practices. 

My posts only touch the surface, of the corruption, and opposition I’ve faced over >13 years, from the government and other public bodies we are expected to trust to protect us.

Having previously presented my evidence in person at Dr Prashant Jindal's FtP hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on 27 May 2022, the General Medical Council’s justification for now excluding my testimony is a blatant lie, reiterated in emails from various members of their legal team. 

I intend to report my concerns about this, and other issues, to the Professional Standards Authority Healthcare Regulators, who have yet to prove they can be trusted, as even the Care Quality Commission are refusing to take action unless someone else does, while the General Optical Council is waiting for the FtP outcome!

All details regarding my now discarded evidence will be published after the FtP hearing next year, assuming the MPTS ever reschedule it. The delay, now inexplicably almost 4 months overdue, follows the questionable ‘postponement’ of the first relisted hearing last September.*

The postponement, allegedly at Dr. Jindal's request, conveniently occurred after the GMC made an application to exclude me from attending the substantive hearing simply as a member of the public, the preliminary hearing for the application listed 11-13 September.  

But when the MPTS refused to permit me legal representation, by agreeing to the postponement, despite strong opposition from the GMC, they evaded the likelihood of a Judicial Review. (Read 17/19 September posts for details)

However, with the GMC’s emailed response to my lawyer, it appears that we may face another round of legal battles if the MPTS again deny me legal representation, which will in turn again delay the FtP hearing.


The panel’s reasons for recusal at the first hearing in 2022 were beyond ludicrous, and, as lawyers told me, had a jury presented these in a court of law, the judge would have severely reprimanded them - after falling off the bench laughing!

Brief details from Medscape online: 'One incident involved her using expletive laden language in reference to the case in a toilet of the building where the tribunal was taking place. 
In another, there was an encounter between Ms Rodoy and a tribunal member at a Manchester hotel when she was heard to tell a waitress she was "waiting for an important judgment" which would appear in the press. 
Later, Ms Rodoy had stood near the tribunal member [EIGHT METRES AWAY!] as she worked in a downstairs area of the [SPACIOUS] hotel. 
A third incident involved a tribunal member who received a message from LinkedIn that stated he had been mentioned in a post from Sasha Rodoy.’ 
www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/tribunal-...accused-2022a100236c .

Annex B & C fully detail the MPTS panel’s absurd reasons for their recusal, previously posted 22 September 2022: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...13000&start=10#21603

The real reasons are far more sinister (of which the GMC/mpts fully aware!), and have nothing to do with me.  (Google ‘#TwistedFncks’ for clues.)

Meanwhile, can anyone tell me why I scare the GMC so much that they feel compelled to exclude my relevant and factual evidence from Jindal’s FtP hearing?

And what makes them so desperate to want to exclude me from attending the FtP hearing even as a member of the public, when I have done absolutely nothing to warrant this?

* After the recusal in September 2022, dates for the relisted hearing were provided within 2-3 weeks, for September 2023. As we fast approach 2024, the possibility therefore arises that Dr Jindal's FtP hearing might not be relisted until 2025. An inexplicable delay, unless a deliberate strategy to wear down complainant witnesses in the hope that they will grow weary and withdraw.

The absence of transparency in this process is entirely unacceptable.

I invite you to consider this; senior Tory government ministers, and family members, hold major shares in Big Pharma, with the UK government having more control over public bodies like the GMC than they would have you believe. And while  BBC News is advertised as being: ‘a statutory corporation, independent from direct government intervention’, have I mentioned the fairies living at the end of my garden 👀

After digesting this information, is there anyone who would now call me paranoid?
Last Edit:27 Dec 2023 03:50 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic The Guardian|UK government secret files

Posted 25 Dec 2023 07:10 #3
‘Dossiers were compiled by 15 departments after scouring social media activity to vet people invited to speak at official events’

Call me paranoid, but a vocal critic of the UK government for over a decade, I suspect that I may be among those targeted by these secret files 👀

Accusing the government of colluding with Big Pharma, it’s possible that my outspoken views have led to inclusion in these covert dossiers. This raises questions about the government's use of such information and the potential consequences for individuals who express dissenting opinions.

My narrative expands beyond government surveillance, shedding light on the scandalous and unregulated refractive surgery industry, infested with malpractice.

Yet despite persistent efforts to bring attention to the industry's corrupt practices, scheduled interviews with major media outlets over the last ten years have not gone ahead. Including The One Show and This Morning, both dropping me at the last minute, and a pre recorded interview with Rip Off Britain omitted from the broadcast, the producer claiming lack of space! While countless press interviews, including the Sunday Express and Telegraph, never saw the light of day.

Tragically, in June 2020, Paul Dance hanged himself after debilitating lens exchange surgery at #Optegra. Representing his partner, Dee Philips, at the inquest in December 2020 (in the midst of the pandemic) technical issues prevented remote access to the proceedings, so that a number of interested journalists were unable to report on it.  The coroner expressed surprise and claimed it was the first time it had happened! 

I truly believed this scandal would at long last be publicised, because Paul’s suicide was surely HUGE news for the media, with letters to his family detailing the reason for his actions, and Dee fully prepared to engage.

Far from it!  

Immediately after the inquest, scheduled for West Midlands BBC News at 6.30pm, standing next to Dee, but a metre apart due to social distancing, we were both interviewed by BBC reporter Michele Paduano (who squeezed two stories out of Paul's suicide entirely thanks to my help!) 

Both Dee and I said we were calling for the UK government to introduce strict regulations for the refractive eye surgery industry, and to ensure potential patients were fully aware of all risks.  

En route back to my hotel, I received a call from a local MBEF member who’d watched the news, advising me that there was no mention of the lack of regulation in Dee’s heavily edited piece, or her support for MBEFoundation, and not even one sentence from my carefully worded piece.  And - because of our distancing, it was easy to keep me totally out of the frame, so that Sasha Rodoy/MBEFoundation were invisible to the story.

In shock I called Michele, who totally ignored my calls and messages; until much later that evening.  Not even having the guts to speak to me in person he texted his apologies, that he’d ‘f*cked up’, because some of what I'd said was defamatory, and there wasn’t enough left to include in the piece.

Fao Michele Paduano - BULLSH*T!  

I said nothing remotely defamatory, and when I checked my words with two other journalists, they agreed.

The lack of coverage and manipulation by the media raises questions about the transparency and accountability of those responsible for disseminating information to the public. 

To be continued…
Last Edit:27 Dec 2023 03:51 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic 'I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!' Frankie Dettori

Posted 01 Dec 2023 14:23 #4
Please see previous posts about this story here: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...opic&catid=5&id=1509

Another I'm A Celebrity contestant suffering problems after refractive lens exchange surgery!


After reading lots of press interviews online discussing Frankie Dettori’s light sensitivity post surgery, I then looked at a few clips featuring him in the TV jungle, and he’s certainly doing a lot of squinting, shading his 👀 with either a green sunshade or his hat.

With his surgery only a few months ago, struggling with photophobia, it is indisputably VERY irresponsible behaviour to risk further damage by not wearing sunglasses in this situation!

I don’t know where Frankie had RLE surgery, but the operation is the same, and the problems the same - no matter where!

I suppose it’s too much to hope for that he and Fred Sirieix might chat on camera about their problems after lens exchange surgery  
Last Edit:01 Dec 2023 14:37 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Herald Scotland

Posted 30 Sep 2023 16:43 #5
Of course this has nothing to with the ever increasing number of damaged patients, many successfully suing both the company and majority of its surgeons - and following recent information provided by Optical Express insiders, I suspect things are going to get rapidly worse with David Moulsdale at the helm 👀

Scottish eyecare company Optical Express has reported a decline in turnover and profits which it blamed on the result of headwinds from the cost-of-living crisis.

In its latest set of annual accounts filed with Companies House, Optical Express parent company Lorena Investments posted revenues of £146.5 million during the year to December 2022, down from £157.4m previously. Pre-tax profits fell to £39.8m versus £52.1m.

Owned by David Moulsdale, who set up the business in 1991, Glasgow-based Optical Express said its financial performance was hampered by the escalation in operating costs linked to higher electricity, supplier and wage bills. Reduced confidence and disposable income among consumers meant fewer patients proceeded with laser eye surgery, which drove a hefty increase in revenues and profits in the previous year.

Last Edit:30 Sep 2023 16:46 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic 'Con or Cure'

Posted 06 Jun 2023 17:52 #6
Con or cure!

What a perfect platform this would have been for #mbefoundation and my work, to help expose the unregulated #refractivesurgery scandal!

In fact, I was invited to feature in this programme last year :kiss:

On 19 Oct 2022, at 12:20, Laura wrote:

'Hi Sasha,

Great chatting with you yesterday! Spoke with the team this morning and like me, they’re keen to feature the story...

We’re putting together the info for the commissioner and I wanted to confirm if you knew anyone else who would like to join you in speaking out on the topic? If you want to pass my email on to them or if they would like me to reach out to them, I’m more than happy to do so. I looked up Paul Dance- what an awful thing to have happened, I know you worked to support his widow- would she be willing to discuss what happened?

Do let me know your thoughts?

Best wishes,

Series producer Karen Donnelly ( www.thetalentmanager.com/talent/1206 ) called to discuss in more detail, 100% eager to include me and MBEF, adamant that this scandal should be publicised, proposing to film interviews within the next two weeks.

A few days later, another call from Karen, saying that her producer had been warned by someone in the Rip Off Britain team (sharing the same BBC office) that Optical Express were litigious, and they didn’t want to risk it!*

But this was about the entire #refractivesurgery industry, not just OE; the latter impotent bullies who won't risk suing anyone nowadays, because they would lose - you cannot defend the indefensible, especially when its backed up with hard evidence!

Regular readers will remember that they eventually dropped their multimillion claim against Associated Newspapers re Daily Mail article in 2017.
'And unfortunately, since Optical Express issued their (approx) £21.5 million claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) re Daily Mail's cover of Daniel Boffey’s story, every time a journalist has contacted me keen to write a story, they’ve come back to me a few days later with excuses for suddenly losing interest.'

However, Karen assured me that she felt very strongly that this story should be publicised, and she intended to fight for it.

I never heard from her again.

*ROB had contacted me in 2017, similarly expressing their intention to cover this scandal.

I provided them with all the information and case studies they wanted, travelling to BBC Manchester studios in August 2017, when they filmed a lengthy interview with me.

But shortly before broadcast, the programme’s Creative Director, Rob Unsworth, told me there wasn’t enough time to include anything from my interview!

This information from the ROB team to Karen therefore proved what I had known all along, that Rob was lying!

In parts, the ROB piece was more like a promo for the industry, interviews with some of the most devastating case studies not featured: "At very short notice I contacted a number of OE’s damaged patients willing to be interviewed on camera, but they [ROB] pushed me for more ’shocking’ cases, operated on no earlier than 2016, telling me that otherwise the piece would be dropped."

Plenty of time was given to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists representatives in the piece, advertising the joys of unregulated refractive surgery!

And as I said then, it takes 10-15 seconds max for me to say, ‘I am a patient advocate and I represent thousands of patients damaged by the unregulated refractive eye surgery industry, including myself, and I have worked with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell since 2012 campaigning for government regulation!

Full ROB story here: 'URGENT! 16 Aug 2017 15:25'
Last Edit:16 Jun 2023 15:21 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic The Mail | 14 May 2023

Posted 16 May 2023 16:19 #7
LED headlights on many new cars 'specifically designed not to dazzle other road users'! How new?

Last Edit:16 May 2023 16:25 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic The Telegraph | 13 May 2023

Posted 16 May 2023 15:17 #8


'Elderly drivers are being forced off the road due to the increasing use of illegal ultra-powerful headlights that are affecting their ability to drive safely.

The College of Optometrists (CO) has told The Telegraph that its members are seeing an increase in the number of patients that are no longer driving at night due to the dazzle from LED lights.

It said these issues are particularly acute for those older drivers with eye conditions, such as cataracts, due to the impact bright lights have on people with those conditions.

Avoiding driving at night

Analysis from the RAC has found that 16 per cent of motorists avoided driving at night because of the intensity of headlights, with 25 per cent of drivers over 65 opting against night driving.

Rod Dennis, RAC spokesman, said: “Badly angled headlights might be something to do with it, but drivers tell us they also believe it’s the increasing number of cars on the roads fitted with piercingly bright LED headlights that’s to blame.”

LED headlights currently fall into two categories, those that are installed in new cars at the factory, but also LEDs that have been retrofitted to replace original halogen bulbs.

It is currently illegal to retrofit LED lights into a car being used on public roads, and there are no regulations around the intensity of these lights, or how they are installed, increasing the chances of drivers being dazzled.

‘Regulations not up with market’

Retailer Halfords estimates that there could be as many as 860,000 of these “aftersale” lights have been bought in the UK but believes some may have been purchased in the country but are being used overseas.

A Halfords spokesperson said: “The regulations have not caught up with the market, and as things stand these bulbs can only be fitted legally to off-road vehicles.

“We want to see the regulations updated, not just so that people can fit LED bulbs to road vehicles legally, but to make it easier for motorists to distinguish between compliant bulbs that don’t dazzle and bulbs that do not meet standards of quality and safety.”

However, Mr Dennis believes that while aftersale bulbs might be part of the problem, the sheer number of people complaining suggests that it might be all LEDs that are causing problems.

He added: “It’s this that needs testing – sadly at the moment there’s a distinct lack of recent scientific evidence that helps explain the root causes of the problem.”

Minimising glare

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said all headlights must comply with legislation that ensures they produce a pattern of light that minimises glare while maximising the distance drivers can see.

He added: “Headlights, and in particular their aim, are checked during the MOT and so long as an approved bulb is fitted, correct aim will minimise glare, which is ultimately a subjective issue affecting different people to greater or lesser extents.”

The dazzle, or what is clinically known as glare, is caused by the loss of contrast, which happens when light scatters within the eye, and gives drivers the impression a veil has been thrown over their vision.

Denise Voon, clinical adviser at the CO, said that glare for drivers does increase where there are multiple light sources, such as on a busy road, and if you have eye conditions, such as cataracts.

She said: “The majority of people over 60 have some level of cataracts, which results in your intraocular lens, which judges distance, getting more cloudy with age.

“If you make that slightly more foggy, you’ll get increased light scatter and increased glare and it will be just more difficult for drivers to see.”

However, it is not just elderly drivers affected, with a survey by the RAC finding that three in 10 drivers between 17 and 34 believing car lights are too bright.

Collisions from ‘dazzle’

Government collision data between 2012 and 2022, shows that on average 270 collisions each year had “dazzling headlights” given as a contributory factor; 56 casualties across the period were fatal.

Baroness Hayter, who has campaigned on the issue, said: “The CO and the RAC report numerous cases of headlight glare, any many drivers – like myself – are increasingly choosing not to drive at night because of the dazzle from these new, white and bright lights.

“The Government should act now rather than see people driven off the road or accidents happening.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “Safety on our roads is paramount. All headlights must adhere to strict technical standards and there are regulations in place to minimise the impact of LEDs.

“While data doesn’t link new lighting technology with specific road safety issues, our engineers raised these concerns at an international expert group in April, where it was agreed for new standards around headlamp aiming and levelling systems to further reduce glare.”'
Last Edit:16 May 2023 16:27 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Barnet Times

Posted 27 Apr 2023 21:53 #9
Sasha Rodoy v Barnet Council published in Barnet Borough Times newspaper today - front page headlines 👀

Sasha said other people across the country had been affected by LED street lamps. Charity Light Aware has submitted evidence to a House of Lords inquiry citing “significant negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of light-disabled and light-sensitive individuals”.

The charity’s submission adds: “LightAware believe that the introduction of external LED lighting in the UK, particularly LED streetlighting, has been rushed through without an adequate consideration of the long-term effect of the resulting light pollution on people’s health.”’

Mentioned online, but not included in newspaper edition: ‘Other Barnet residents also claim to have been disturbed by the lamps. Ajait Patel, of Firs Avenue, Friern Barnet, said he had to swap bedrooms after the LED lamps were installed because the light shining into the room was so bright – despite having put up blackout blinds and curtains to block it out.’

Last Edit:18 Aug 2023 07:19 by admin
  • admin
  • admin's Avatar Offline Topic Author
  • Posts: 1161
  • Thank you received: 153

Replied by admin on topic Barnet Post

Posted 21 Apr 2023 22:41 #10
Please note that this paragraph is partially incorrect (now amended): ’Sasha is now taking the council to court over the issue but says this could have been avoided if the council had engaged with her when she first contacted the local authority in 2018, before the lights were installed, but her concerns were not taken seriously’.

In fact I knew nothing about the LEDs prior to installation on 21 January 2020, contacting Barnet Council the next day, because at no time did they consult with residents!

No mention of the bird disturbance in this article, tweeting at all hours throughout the night, confused by LED streetlights to believe it’s daylight, but hopefully that will be picked up by the press when we eventually go to trial - expected to be 2024.

Quite aptly, the photo the publication chose to use was taken at a demo outside Optimax Finchley Road premises earlier this year!


Last Edit:18 Aug 2023 07:36 by admin
Moderators: admin

OERML & My Beautiful Eyes Foundation rely on your support to expose the horrors of this unregulated industry.

Your help is very much appreciated!