After reading the shocking content of my SAR data received from Luther Pendragon on 3 May (the reason for my potential legal claim against Optical Express for defamation/malicious falsehood) I lost no time in issuing SARs to a number of other organisations I realised were involved in some way!
I received my data from Optimax on 6 June, Optical Express on 9 June, and others have filtered through in accordance with the 40 days time limit set by the ICO.
Albeit a few days late - because at 5pm on Friday afternoon Kathy Evans (RCOpth Chief Exec) alleged problems with the photocopier - the postman delivered the College's disclosure yesterday.
Although I haven’t yet had time to read thoroughly, I did note that the College didn't edit the emails as they wrongly did in response to my SAR in 2015, and they have also resent docs from my previous SAR unredacted.
This includes correspondence David Moulsdale sent to Bruce Allan and others, and shows email addresses previously hidden from me. So perhaps the College has had enough of being linked to Optical Express, and appearing to collude with them.
Bit late for that methinks, especially having invited OE’s Medical Director David Teenan as a core member of the RSSWG and kicking me off to keep David Moulsdale happy!
That really worked out well for them, with OE refusing to accept the RCOphth standards
Meanwhile, the SAR responses from FODO, CT Pillai, and Dan Reinstein, are another matter.
*
They have all blatantly withheld data!
FODO’s response arrived last week, and is beyond ludicrous: just one page showing only six items from/to me!
And I understand that when he received my SAR, CT ran to FODO and asked what he should do before replying. Fifteen days later he asked me for a £10 fee, as he was entitled to, but should have done immediately on receipt of my SAR. He was warned that the 40 days time limit still applied as the DPA rules don't accept stalling tactics.
Then, after I challenged CT Pillai's disclosure last week, he ridiculously claimed that he regularly deletes mail, even though he'd disclosed emails pre-dating the ones that he claims he hasn’t got, and wrote, '
you have provided no further details about which emails you are referring to and so we cannot comment further.'
I replied, '
You obviously don't delete your emails as regularly as you imply, given that the date on some of those you have disclosed is July 2017.
I suggest that you search through your claimed deleted emails as a matter of urgency, and if necessary employ an IT expert to do it for you.
And nor will I provide you with details of emails I know that you have not disclosed, because I don't intend to miss out on the fun of seeing how far you will go before I expose you as a bare faced liar!
For your information, I lodged a complaint with the ICO last week and will be forwarding your recent email to them.
An old adage that you and your cohorts should keep in mind: lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas!'
As for Dan Reinstein - after claiming on 6 June that he had no info other than our email exchanges, to which I replied ’Not true Dan!’ -he asked for a 9 days extension due to, '
switching IT companies’.
Good excuse to dispose of data!
Either I’m exceptionally clever - as I’m told I was so flatteringly described by a main player in OE’s latest farce - or they’re all exceptionally stupid, because the reason I sent out a total of twelve SARs was for exactly this purpose, to cross reference what came back and see who lied by omission.
And so far (RCOphth excepted for now) every one of them has done so!
It seems the only person who understood my intention was David Moulsdale, hence the heavily inked sheets of paper, most not showing even as much as a date!
The ICO are now investigating nine complaints I’ve made concerning the content of the SARs I’ve received so far, mostly relating to withheld data.
I can't give you any more detail until the barrister gives his opinion on my claim, but I promise all will eventually be revealed!
*CT Pillai @Advanced Vision Care @London Vision Clinic, and Dr Blindstein @London Vision Clinic, both members of the 'expert panel' who wrote FODO's refractive surgery standards, funded by Optical Express in opposition to the RCOphth standards.
CT invited by Russell Ambrose(!!), and Dan Reinstein perhaps because he likes to get his name on any publication he can, whether he wrote it or not - or so I'm told!