Omen

Although I have, from time to time, been critical of the General Optical Council and its workings, those criticisms have largely been about the current fashion for political correctness.
I have never doubted its resolve to be seen to protect the public and indeed we have been told that the recent Section 60 order would strengthen the Council's ability to do this. It, therefore, seems to me incredulous that a case of misleading advertising against Optical Express should be dropped because the disciplinary committee has 'no jurisdiction' to hear the proposed charge.
There may well be a whole list of tortuous legal reasons why this is so, but that begs the question as to why a case brought under the old rules should apparently now be thrown out because the rules have now changed.
The Rules on Publicity were reviewed a few years ago and it was proposed to soften them in some respects until the Office of Fair Trading stepped in and opposed any Rules. Given that, as far as I can recall, it was decided to rely on guidance and serious professional misconduct replaced a breach of the Publicity Rules, it is difficult to see what has changed.
The fundamental difference between the old Rules and the proposed new ones was that while comparative price advertising of product would have been permitted, provided it was accurate and met with the standards imposed by the various advertising standards bodies, comparative advertising of professional services and the making of claims, particularly those relating to clinical matters, not capable of justification were still matters for the Council's disciplinary process.
Indeed one could also argue that flouting advertising standards in any serious way with the intention of gaining a professional advantage is a disciplinary matter.
As far as I am aware the Council still has powers to deal with these matters under what we know as serious professional misconduct, which covers a multitude of sins. Are we now being told that contravention of guidelines relating to misleading advertising can no longer be described as serious professional misconduct under any circumstances or has the GOC framed the charge wrongly and Optical Express have used their financial muscle to hire a lawyer to run rings around the GOC's disciplinary process?
Whatever the reason, both the profession and the public have a right to know exactly what is going on.

Missed opportunity