Talk:Optical Express

January 2014

I would like to suggest an editor to change the areas served, and remove France from the list of Optical Express have pulled out of working in France.

Apologies if this is not the correct place to inform someone of this, it's just because I don't yet have the status to edit this myself. Thank you all. SamDemeda (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent accounts

The recent accounts for DCM (Optical) Holdings ltd give a loss for the company. Surely the facts box should be updated to keep the article up to date?--212.95.228.154 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Update the info box, if you have a reliable reference.Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't as I am not verified. http://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/SC146610-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.228.154 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to be "verified" to edit? Better to register with an account though as your ip address will be visible until you do. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see no account figures at the link you provided either? Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

recent revert of coi edit.

copied from my talk page...

Hi, Just wanted to reach out to you re reverting my edit on the OE page. I made the change as I believe it is more appropriate than the current version. Optical Express is not a retail business but is a leading LES and IOL provider, as detailed in the Competition Commission report. That wording has been written by an independent commission, so I don't believe that it is promotional whatsoever. It was properly referenced and is an accurate statement. I can't see how that hasn't enhanced the accuracy of the article. I would appreciate if you could revert back to my comment or suggest an appopriate edit which reflects the source material. --Hardlygone (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it sounded VERY promotional, this is an encyclopaedia not a marketing tool. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a quote from a competition commission report and is a stated fact from a completely independent and neutral source. The statement "retail optical services brand" is factually incorrect and should be changed to reflect what the brand actually is. That is not marketing - it's a statement of fact! I understand it is not a marketing tool and have not tried to use it as one. If anything, I have argued for a fair and encyclopaedic article with proper context and referenced sources throughout. It's disappointing that you have felt it necessary to make that point despite my consistent attempts over the last 18 months to work with the community to create a balanced article. --Hardlygone (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK had a read of the cc report and have added a bit to the article, I have tried to be neutral see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that is much better. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My initial point, however, with regards to the "retail optical services" still stands. It is primarily a refractive business so that statement remains inaccurate.Hardlygone (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are a paid representative of the company. Your company sells glasses, contact lenses and laser surgery as commodities on the high street. End of discussion.

Nominet DRS00011271 + DRS00013417

Last year Hardlygone fought to delete all references to www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk website and the Nominet DRSD00011271 decision ruled by Keith Gymer in favour of the site's author (My Beautiful Eyes campaigner Sasha Rodoy). Eventually all mention of OERML was gone from the Talk page as well as the Article. I believe Hardlygone argued the site too insignificant to be mentioned at that time. Optical Express saw fit to make a second complaint against OERML in October 2013 which was again rejected by Nominet Ind Expert on 1 January 2014: "This is an attempt at a second bite of the cherry, within a short period after an unsuccessful first attempt," said Nominet panellist Bob Elliott. He added that there were insufficient grounds for a rehearing of the case and rejected Optical Express's complaint." This was published by the The Register yesterday Optical Express have today lodged an appeal against Bob Elliott's decision This cannot support any argument Hardlygone is likely to return that it is too insignificant and I ask for agreement that details should now be included in the OE Article

RingARoses (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is remotely notable enough for inclusion but I see you have added it anyway. I will await others opinions, I'm not going to edit war. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I considered eleven days sufficient time to discuss. As for its inclusion being "notable enough", after two Nominet complaints and an appeal against the second decision, by their own actions I believe Optical Express consider it notable. RingARoses (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong Nor do I see how this is notable enough for inclusion. It's just another example of a user pushing their own POV and editing without any consensus on the article. Hardlygone (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I also find it interesting how the editor can use their own website as a reference for this. Again, there has been literally no coverage of this in any mainstream source. The attempt to include it is purely agenda driven and I genuienly dont believe that it adds any value to the article. Can we get some neutral editors opinions on the inclusion? Hardlygone (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"I also have no particular interest in the company or what they do or don't do. I am concerned with building a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources.Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)"

Google "Optical Express" to see why this is absolutely worthy of inclusion being top news with The Register article positioned in 3rd place below this page and Optical Express themselves.

In the same way that there was so much debate about including the reference to John McDonnell's Bill in November: "It seems reasonable to include the content, though it would be better had there been a reliable secondary source reporting it. Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)"

I suggest The Register is a totally reliable source as is Hansard.

I repeat Julian Assange's words: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." RingARoses (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the new section should be removed from the article. It's giving undue weight to something which is really not that relevant. The fact, as in the first case, that it has not been reported by any mainstream sources (nor any industry sources) and part of the reference is a link to a section of the website written by the author themselves - hardly something that is worthy of inclusion of an encyclopaedic article. We're going around in circles again in terms of something being agreed by the wider community and an individual editor pushing their own POV and adding something to an article to suit an agenda rather than attempting to provide any value whatsoever to this website or sticking to agreements. They are then given the freedom of throwing all sorts of accusations at editors who live and breathe the Wiki community. I would appeal to neutral editors to review this and remove, as per previous agreement. I should also add that I have no current connections to Optical Express, nor have I had for an extended period of time - despite suggestions otherwise. This is my own thoughts and opinions. Hardlygone (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I won't get involved in this, because my involvement here is as an administrator, not as a party to the dispute. I will, though, make two observations: notbaility, by Wikipedia's definition, means extensive coverage in multiple secondary sources (note, for example, the Hansard is not a secondary source; The Register, if reporting facts recorded elsewhere, probably would be). And, if "Optical Express Ruined My Life" is to be mentioned, it should be given due weight—it should not dominate 15% of the article, and it probably should not have its own section (which implies it is worthy of the same weight of the whole of the company's history, which is confined to one section). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I have taken on board your comments and edited accordingly. RingARoses (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

<redacted>

Please assume good faith, the content you added is not entirely supported by the reference you gave and as the admin above stated "notbaility, by Wikipedia's definition, means extensive coverage in multiple secondary sources". It may all be totally true but Wikipedia requires impeccable sourcing for contentious issues and Wikipedia is not the place for promoting "causes" no matter how noble and worthy they may be. Theroadislong (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, my feeling remains that this has no place in the article. I don't wish to repeat myself, however, there is nothing to make this as notable event as some wish it to be. Short of being reported in The Register, there has been nothing in the way of extensive or even multiple articles worth of coverage, either in mainstream media or industry media. If this was such an important event, I would assume that it would have been reported in any one of a number of industry publications. I completely fail to see how this adds any value to the article from an encyclopaedic viewpoint when it isn't even notable enough for the media of the day to pick it up. The only editor who seems to believe this has a place in the article is a POV editor and has displayed all sorts of negative editor behaviour throughout their editing history. Is it worth adding a 'Request for Comment' template User:Theroadislong or User:HJ Mitchell for more neutral editors to engage? Hardlygone (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your comments aboveRingARoses has bullied the content into the article but as he bizarrely considers I am being paid to edit, I will leave it to others to revert or change the content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this previous comment "Is it worth adding a 'Request for Comment' template User:Theroadislong or User:HJ Mitchell for more neutral editors to engage?" User:Theroadislong or User:HJ Mitchell Hardlygone (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You could do that, but I'm not sure it's worth a full-blown RfC; you could just ask at WP:COIN or somewhere for an editor with no previous involvement to make the decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I cant see any notability in this and the paragraph starting "In April 2012 DCM Ltd (Optical Express parent company) complained.." should be removed. I am pretty sure this has been discussed before and it wasnt notable last time either. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed, it was discussed at length before and no consensus to add it was reached, I just don't like to be the one who is always doing the removing though! Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

PS RingARoses who added the material is currently blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a consensus to me, so (acting as an uninvolved admin), I've removed the paragraph in question. And, for the record, RingARoses is blocked for slightly different reasons. They're welcome to advocate for its re-inclusion once they return (though restoring it against consensus would be disruptive editing). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

consensus my fat NewYork ass. You are so up Pat's ass it is a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.197.167 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Next time a negative detail is added to the Optical Express page I expect this BBC Radio 5 broadcast on "5 live Investigates" scheduled for Sunday 16th March at 11.00am is likely to convince editors to think twice before deleting it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tl99q RingARoses (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would any of us listen to a radio programme before deleting anything, each edit is measured on weight and notability when it is suggested or added. Is "heavy handed editors" a personal attack on other editors, it might be worth re-wording that bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have re-worded for your approval MilborneOne. I suggested listening to this programme as some editors don't appear to pay much attention to what's going on outside this disputed page and perhaps it would help broaden their understanding. Can't knock it until you've tried! RingARoses (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, do we know if a transcript will be available or do we have to listen to the broadcast/podcast ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If the BBC podcast is uploaded to YouTube there will be a transcript available - although these are as literal as Chinese DVD translations RingARoses (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

On 23 January 2014 re OERML website and Nominet DRS, Hardlygone said: "I strongly believe that the new section should be removed from the article. It's giving undue weight to something which is really not that relevant. The fact, as in the first case, that it has not been reported by any mainstream sources (nor any industry sources) and part of the reference is a link to a section of the website written by the author themselves - hardly something that is worthy of inclusion of an encyclopaedic article." Since then Optical Express have had their appeal against the second DRS decision dismissed, now reported widely online and in the press. I therefore believe it unarguably appropriate that this information is included in the Article. I look forward to comments before I add details to the Article.RingARoses (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My input is that I think we need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion, regardless of the nobleness of the cause. I am assuming good faith but several editors on all sides of this topic seem to be conflicted by promotion of their own interests. Personally, I don't see how this is anywhere near notable enough for inclusion nor improves it. I have also taken note of previous editor behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbhoy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable enough that DCM Holdings (Optical Express) have made three unsuccessful attempts to remove the OERML site, as mentioned by The Register for the second time yesterday. I wasn’t aware that facts could only be included if they “improved” the article. On that basis this one would be filled with OE self promotion, which if I remember correctly it was until it shrank to a fraction of its size in 2012/13. Indeed, Wikipedia does claim to be an encyclopaedia: "Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands." Having read his history I believe that, as well as being a Celtic supporter, Badbhoy has his own undeclared COI. 20:10, 13 January 2012 (diff | hist) 21:02, 28 March 2014 (diff | hist) RingARoses (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now mentioned in mainstream AND industry media this meets the criteria detailed by Hardlygone on 23 January - who seems to be Nowgone judging by his surprising lack of input! Having allowed reasonable time for further comment I intend to include in the article.RingARoses (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be best if you dont add it yourself, let me have a look at the Guardian stuff and I will come back with a suggestion, although at first pass I was a bit concerned with "Rodoy had previously run a website called Optimax Ruined My Life, until she came to a confidential settlement with the firm." might mean all is not what it seems. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"5/4/2014 What is not mentioned in this article is the fact that Sasha Rodoy’s own eyes and life were ruined by Optimax! In return for her compensation payment she had to sign a gagging order." http://www.optimaxruinedmylife.com/page26.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYwgzaWS9HI RingARoses (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So why go after a rival company when she already has received compensation from Optimax? MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If you do some research you'll find that she's working with MP John McDonnell campaigning for legislation for the entire refractive surgery industry. The campaign is now supported by the President of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Relevant background:"March 2012: When they met, the first question Patrick asked was, how much it would be worth to Sasha to give up her campaign for government legislation, to which she immediately replied, "Not for a million pounds!".http://www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/index.php/patrick-james-green.html I suggest you contact Ms Rodoy herself for more information if interested RingARoses (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Guardian article looks like the sort of reliable, third-party coverage that would merit a mention of this case in the article, provided it is given due weight—that is, the amount of space it takes up in the article is proportionate to the case's significance within the history of Optical Express. There's also some background in that article, so it might be useful as a reference for other things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Had a look at this and have added what I think is a neutral addition taking into account weight per comments, I have also added it to the Optimax article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?! The Observer/Guardian story detailed the appeal against Optical Express' second complaint to Nominet. Where's the mention of that? The line in the Optimax article contradicts previously mentioned criteria of 'due weight'. RingARoses (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose an alternative version, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to list every detail about everything but to provide a summary of the information available on a given topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that, in the belief that Wiki is a democratic platform rather than the oligarchy it could be so easily mistaken for at the moment! RingARoses (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's governed by consensus, which is determined by strength of argument and its content is decided according to the reliable sources. As it is, two editors with no connection to OE or OERML have stated that they believe the current wording is sufficient. If you want to change it, the onus is on you to make an argument that will convince enough people that we reach a consensus. That's how it works on the other 4.5 million articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!” Lol!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

"two editors with no connection to OE or OERML...” And the third?

"That's how it works on the other 4.5 million articles.” As Oscar Wilde said, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!

RingARoses (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the third? Do you see somebody connected with OE or OERML expressing an opinion on MilborneOne's edit? I see me stating that the coverage in the Guardian is significant enough to warrant a mention; I see MilborneOne attempting to write a neutral summary; I see Theroadislong agreeing with MilborneOne's addition; and I see you, who won't rest until the article is little more than an anti-Optical Express propaganda piece, accusing everyone else of bias. The editors here are working to keep the article a neutral summary of what is written about Optical Express in reliable, third-party sources (that is, it neither endorses nor condemns Optical Express). Remember that they are volunteers, doing this in their spare time, and probably have no real interest in Optical Express; you are making the environment very hostile for them, which is likely to have an adverse effect on their willingness to contribute here, which in turn will mean that we return to the old days when the article went back and forth between pro-OE advertising an anti-OE propaganda. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mitch, your naïveté would be refreshing were you not in an exalted position to edit truth as you choose. With respect, I suggest you actually look at the the link you’re trying to keep off OE’s page and ask why at least 4 pages have been deleted from Talk over the past 18 months. When one editor is a paid Optical Express employee forgive me if I’m a tad suspicious about others who are so anxious to keep factual news reports - including The Register - out of the article (see above), especially as you mention "anti-OE" comments as being "propaganda". Perhaps you should spend a little less time in the virtual world to appreciate that corruption is rife in the real one! I would write something I believe more suitable for inclusion in the OE article, but then I’m sure you’d flex your finger muscles and scold me yet again (via a PM), or block me from Wiki for another 2 weeks, or perhaps even ban me for life. As a Wiki administrator that is of course your prerogative and power. Mitch, if they haven’t already, I guarantee Optical Express will be happy to laser your eyes for free in return for services rendered - however unwitting on your part. RingARoses (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Dental gone to Bupa

David Moulsdale has shifted his loss making dental business to Bupa Dental Services Ltd. Surely worth including in the article?217.137.247.25 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added to the article and that also the brands section should be altered.81.133.170.73 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

January 2020

Hi, I would like to propose an edit to the opening paragraph of this page.

Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the <ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'

More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's leading provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports: https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/# https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/#

Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK. The list of these can be found here: https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder

I propose the opening paragraph be amended to the following: Founded in 1991, Optical Express has grown from just one location to almost 130 clinics and has become the UK’s leading provider of laser and Intraocular Lens surgery. As well as providing eye surgery the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses, making Optical Express the UK’s only complete eye care provider.

Trees88 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done entirely inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If the statement was amended to the following, would this be more acceptable as it is purely stating facts?:

Founded in 1991, Optical Express has grown from one location to almost 130 clinics and has become the UK's leading provider of laser and Intraocular Lens surgery. As well as providing eye surgery the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses. Trees88 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

After seeking advice from the Wikipedia Teahouse I have amended my proposed edit which should now have the correct encyclopaedic tone that is necessary for Wikipedia. I would like to propose that the opening paragraph on the Optical Express page is changed to the following: ‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses.’

The independent sources to reference this can be found here:

Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the <ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'

More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports: <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/# https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/# <ref>

Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK. The list of these can be found here: <ref>https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder <ref>

Trees88 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

.

 Not done I'm sorry but that is still not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it sounds like something from your marketing department. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Theroadislong Thank you for your feedback. Can you please suggest alternative wording that would be acceptable for an encyclopaedia article? Trees88 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sought further advice from the Teahouse regarding this edit, and have been give suggestions as to how the statement can be updated to be a more accepting encyclopaedic tone. I now propose the following amended edit to the opening statement of this page:

‘Founded in 1991, Optical Express is said to be the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics. As well as providing eye surgery, the company also supplies eyeglasses and contact lenses.’ Trees88 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done We write articles in a neutral tone see other laser treatment articles Specsavers, Optimax and Ultralase. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

<ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/#<ref> <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/#<ref> <ref>https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder<ref>

Theroadislong Please can you identify what is not neutral about the above statement? The information has been backed up by several independent references? Trees88 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the advice `at The Teahouse, "You are, understandably in view of your COI, finding it impossible to take the neutral stance which is expected of Wikipedia contributors. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong I would like to understand what is not neutral about the edit? If you can please point out specifically what you feel leads you to believe I am not taking a neutral stance, I can then look at re-amending the edit that would be more acceptable of a Wikipedia contributor. A better explanation would be appreciated. Trees88 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"said to be the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics" is not neutral it is marketing puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong Since receiving your feedback I have once again amended the initial statement, avoiding any marketing tone of voice. Can I now propose that the opening sentence of this page is changed from: Optical Express is a retail optical services brand and laser eye surgery specialist in the United Kingdom.[5] The company also provides refractive treatments such as lens surgery and cataract surgery.[6]

To:

Optical Express is a provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery. Founded in 1991, the company now has around 130 clinics, making it the UK’s largest eye surgery provider. Optical Express also supplies eyeglasses and contact lenses.

References which fully back up the statement that Optical Express are the UK's largest eye surgery provider can be found here: <ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.' <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/#<ref> These Mintel reports further back up that Optical Express is the largest eye surgery provider in the UK. <ref>https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/#<ref> <ref>https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder<ref> The number of clinics Optical Express have can also be found here.

Trees88 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)