Lumen writes: By the people?

So Glasses Direct managing director James Murray Wells has declared his interest in standing for election to the GOC Council by attending the Open Day on the June 22.

Although, as my colleague Omen so succinctly put it, he ‘clearly had some qualms about being recognised, as he was indeed the only person without a name badge’. He seems, however, less coy about his boast of an alleged support of around 200 ‘opticians’, in his quest to be elected to a ‘seat allocated to members elected by optometrists and dispensing opticians’.

Forgive me, but when I last looked I failed to see his name in the Opticians Register. I am sure readers of the Optician will be amazed to learn that, due to the curious wording of the Opticians Act, there is actually nothing stopping a non-registrant from seeking election to the GOC, provided they are nominated by six members of the relevant profession. Once again forgive me, but aren’t there already too many non-opticians on the Council dictating how we professionals should practise our chosen career. I would ask JMW’s ‘200’ to seriously question their calling to their profession in voting for this ambitious entrepreneur. So much for the GOC’s request that ‘members are required to act…not as representatives of a particular group’.

For the rest of us, let us hope that those who also attended the Open Day on June 22 and others who put their names in the hat by September 20 will have much less of a personal agenda and bring to bear their much more relevant and representative professional experience ‘to act in the public interest’.

While the threat of the likes of JMW may hopefully, indirectly propel our profession to consider alternatives to a business model based on the legacy of an under-funded NHS (and thus ultimately private) fee and to charge appropriately for our professional time (as that is the only way to be able to truly ignore his impact on product margins), I do not need to have his like sitting on my regulatory body as well as the glut of professors, educationalists and Privy Council appointees. No way.

A moment for thought. Most internet models still rely on a high street or retail park presence. Just look at the electrical industry. Those of us who buy cameras or ipods off the internet rarely do so without ‘checking them out’ in a shop first and asking the assistants for advice. We then compare their prices and may buy from the internet, hoping of course that there isn’t a marked-up delivery charge and inconvenient delivery process. The public still like to form relationships when they buy and, I believe, internet purchase will thus be contextual to the product, the size of their letter boxes and the quality of the service on the high street.

JMW needs a high street presence for his punters to try on, seek advice, obtain PDs, compare prices and then adjust the frames purchased. It is not a complete solution. It is highly likely that successful businesses in the future will have to have relationships with both types of model. There is certainly no level playing field anymore.

Finally, what is Ron Hamilton on about (Optician, June 9)? Just because he hadn’t then had a response from the GOC to his letters, doesn’t mean they may condone his business model of substitution as opposed to replication. Equally, it seems he is trying to jump on the ‘independents fight back’ bandwagon, offering a suspect business model as a means of attempting to do so. Then to suggest (Optician, June 30) that Graeme Young’s very informative letter (June 23) should be shown a ‘red card’ is highly dismissive. Perhaps we should have a Poll? Although I suspect we may get three ‘yellow cards’ first!