DO fined £500 after flouting publicity rules

Russell Evan-Jones fell foul of the rules due to the text of an advert he placed in the Carmarthen Journal (July 10, 2002).
The item described the services offered by his Optic Shop practice, and stated: 'The role of the optician isn't just to carry out eye tests, it is a complete health check, from people's eyes we can check for glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems and kidney diseases that might otherwise go undiagnosed'.
Although the practitioner insisted there was nothing wrong with the item, the disciplinary panel disagreed and ruled that the phrase 'complete health check' referred to a 'comprehensive check' in this circumstance, and meant his claim was not capable of substantiation.
Despite last week's hearing being the plaintiff's third appearance before the committee for breaching publicity rules, in the wake of the ruling, he said: 'I feel victimised. The big companies get away with murder.'
He referred to the results of two previous hearings, in March 1995 and June 1998, in which he was found to have broken the publicity rules.
Evan-Jones told the committee the text of the advertisement was referring to a complete health check for the eyes rather than the body, and that he had been trying to raise awareness among the public that an eye examination was not just something carried out for the purpose of prescribing spectacles.
'There's nothing which is illegal, indecent or dishonest,' he said. 'There's nothing there which is untruthful. I cannot understand why this has happened. As far as checking that advertisement, I could not have done any more.'
He said he had shown the advertisement to colleagues, as well as solicitors and barristers, before and after its appearance in the Carmarthen Journal. Without exception everyone said it was all right, so it came as a shock when he received a letter from the GOC. 'After this meeting I won't be advertising because it's too dangerous,' he said.
Christopher Alder, for the GOC, said the advertisement contained a claim which could not be substantiated.
Committee chairman Heather Wilcox said: 'We have carefully considered the evidence presented to us and have concluded that the natural meaning of the words in the context suggests a comprehensive check.'A dispensing optician who broke publicity rules for a third time Ð by making unsubstantiated claims in a newspaper advertisement Ð has been fined £500 by a GOC disciplinary committee.
Russell Evan-Jones fell foul of the rules due to the text of an advert he placed in the Carmarthen Journal (July 10, 2002).
The item described the services offered by his Optic Shop practice, and stated: 'The role of the optician isn't just to carry out eye tests, it is a complete health check, from people's eyes we can check for glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems and kidney diseases that might otherwise go undiagnosed'.
Although the practitioner insisted there was nothing wrong with the item, the disciplinary panel disagreed and ruled that the phrase 'complete health check' referred to a 'comprehensive check' in this circumstance, and meant his claim was not capable of substantiation.
Despite last week's hearing being the plaintiff's third appearance before the committee for breaching publicity rules, in the wake of the ruling, he said: 'I feel victimised. The big companies get away with murder.'
He referred to the results of two previous hearings, in March 1995 and June 1998, in which he was found to have broken the publicity rules.
Evan-Jones told the committee the text of the advertisement was referring to a complete health check for the eyes rather than the body, and that he had been trying to raise awareness among the public that an eye examination was not just something carried out for the purpose of prescribing spectacles.
'There's nothing which is illegal, indecent or dishonest,' he said. 'There's nothing there which is untruthful. I cannot understand why this has happened. As far as checking that advertisement, I could not have done any more.'
He said he had shown the advertisement to colleagues, as well as solicitors and barristers, before and after its appearance in the Carmarthen Journal. Without exception everyone said it was all right, so it came as a shock when he received a letter from the GOC. 'After this meeting I won't be advertising because it's too dangerous,' he said.
Christopher Alder, for the GOC, said the advertisement contained a claim which could not be substantiated.
Committee chairman Heather Wilcox said: 'We have carefully considered the evidence presented to us and have concluded that the natural meaning of the words in the context suggests a comprehensive check.'A dispensing optician who broke publicity rules for a third time Ð by making unsubstantiated claims in a newspaper advertisement Ð has been fined £500 by a GOC disciplinary committee.
Russell Evan-Jones fell foul of the rules due to the text of an advert he placed in the Carmarthen Journal (July 10, 2002).
The item described the services offered by his Optic Shop practice, and stated: 'The role of the optician isn't just to carry out eye tests, it is a complete health check, from people's eyes we can check for glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems and kidney diseases that might otherwise go undiagnosed'.
Although the practitioner insisted there was nothing wrong with the item, the disciplinary panel disagreed and ruled that the phrase 'complete health check' referred to a 'comprehensive check' in this circumstance, and meant his claim was not capable of substantiation.
Despite last week's hearing being the plaintiff's third appearance before the committee for breaching publicity rules, in the wake of the ruling, he said: 'I feel victimised. The big companies get away with murder.'
He referred to the results of two previous hearings, in March 1995 and June 1998, in which he was found to have broken the publicity rules.
Evan-Jones told the committee the text of the advertisement was referring to a complete health check for the eyes rather than the body, and that he had been trying to raise awareness among the public that an eye examination was not just something carried out for the purpose of prescribing spectacles.
'There's nothing which is illegal, indecent or dishonest,' he said. 'There's nothing there which is untruthful. I cannot understand why this has happened. As far as checking that advertisement, I could not have done any more.'
He said he had shown the advertisement to colleagues, as well as solicitors and barristers, before and after its appearance in the Carmarthen Journal. Without exception everyone said it was all right, so it came as a shock when he received a letter from the GOC. 'After this meeting I won't be advertising because it's too dangerous,' he said.
Christopher Alder, for the GOC, said the advertisement contained a claim which could not be substantiated.
Committee chairman Heather Wilcox said: 'We have carefully considered the evidence presented to us and have concluded that the natural meaning of the words in the context suggests a comprehensive check.'