Looks like Mr. Plimmer's temper finally got the better of him.
Looks like Mr. Plimmer's temper finally got the better of him.
Maybe Plimmer should buy a great glasses franchise. What a fiasco. (Did you notice the ultra chic glasses worn by the female cop when Plimmer was being led away?)
While Plimmer may be facing criminal charges, I suspect the College may have a strong case for professional misconduct.
Well ain't he just a splendid piece of work. Simply a stellar example of members of our profession. This footage is 'must-see' for all opticianry students: "How NOT to Deal with Anger and Agressive Tendencies"
Why bother ?
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 02-09-2007 at 08:41 AM.
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 02-09-2007 at 09:24 PM.
What do Gr8 Gasses do ?
So is this guy still open for business?
Should we send our licensing fees and Association fees to Silverman ? He seems to be trying to protect the public, perhaps accomplishing more for the profession in a shorter period of time than many courts, judges and others . Hey, he has the tools, and wherewithal to get the job done and appears to not be hampered by jurisdiction . Shouldn't we send flowers , at least ?
Seriously though, I wonder what he could do with simply having taken the less sensational and more usual route of small claims court to seek the restitution he says he wanted for the people who bought there ?
This matter started, so it seemed , with a refund issue . The College is very clear with their position on refunds. It is not a matter that they regulate or control. That seems straight forward and simply stated by the College . The College can't be blamed on a refund issue . So how would this become a misconduct ? Was Silverman out of line ? He visited there how many times ? He knew how his adversary would likely react, after 3 or 4 visits and experiencing the same each time . Knowing this , who provoked who ? It makes great sensational film footage for TV . After a certain point is it reasonable from either party though ? Shouldn't they both have had an order to stay away from each other and found an arbitrator ?
It would have been interesting to have seen footage of a customer actually being sold a fake pair of glasses and listening to the actual sales pitch .
Whose issue is this anyhow ? The selling of fake glasses ...is it really a College issue? Isn't it a issue to be regulated through trademarks and patents and Canada Customs and isn't the regulation and investigation of it more a matter to be dealt with by the manufacturers and distributors of the genuine, real items ? Go into any mall and take a look at the sunglass kiosks ? What will you find ? Look-a- likes ?
Not defending any of the parties involved whatsoever ... but I am putting forth a perspective on some of the issues, in my opinion.
Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 02-09-2007 at 10:26 PM.
Now that's what I call "GOING OPTICAL"
Criminals never set up shop assuming they'll be caught.
Frankly, I'm aghast, but not so surprised. If you let a wound fester enough...and then if you pour salt on it...
- what's the complete history on this guy?
- He's obviously unstable - how long has he been operating this store?
- Have there been other complaints issued to regional boards?
- Why hasn't the eye exam issue come up sooner - were no prescriptions ever released to patients who wanted them filled elsewhere?
- If so, was there no effort on the part of those optical shops to determine the legitimacy of the Srx? Let's talk UPIN's people (is there some reason NOT to require them on an Rx?)
- Did the supposed doctor next door feel no obligation to report him (could there be a case of professional if not criminal negligence)?
- At what point did the issuing board(s) feel a need to investigate him - after the first, second, third or fourth broadcast?
- How did he scoot under the radar of all the area reps - was the business not listed in the phone book?
- Were there genuine products of any brand in the store - who sold them to him? Did they never rub shoulders with other reps?
I think sensational news is ridiculous and intimidating. There was absolutely no need for Silverman's repeated visits unless there is just no faith in the due process obtainable by legitmate peer review and licensing board/governmental investigation.
I may not make any friends by saying this but I suggest Silverman could dig a bit deeper.
To me this instance represents a wake-up call to all who would call themselves health care providers or who do business in related industries. There is a higher standard and it doesn't take much more effort to practice it.
Do you know where your scruples are? :angry:
Last edited by Kyle; 02-10-2007 at 08:23 AM.
The guy is nuts. He obviously needs some help to say the least. The fact that he called Silverman back telling him he loved him only to lure him back tells us he's a complete wacko!!!
I think Plimmer has a chance in pro baseball. Showed of a pretty solid arm slot and solid hip rotation with the snow balls. I think that maybe he should show up down in Florida or Arizona next week and tryout for the Braves or the White Sox.:idea: He definately could pitch for the White Sox this year especially coming out of the bullpen. They suck.
and owns a massage parlour?!? Why is he trying to bend frames?!?
:finger: :hammer: :finger:
Worry is a waste of imagination!
Unbelievable! I hope the guy gets a serious attitude adjustment in the slammer. For his own sake, you can't treat customers the way it appears he has.
Unbelievable ! The College of Opticians of Ontario still has not brought this matter to discipline . Not even a hearing is scheduled so it seems . It is 2011 now and the incidents occurred back in 8 / 23 /2007 according to the College web site . That's 4 years now of sitting .
License is still listed as current and active .
Reminds me of the Great Glasses delays . No license suspension for years. They just let it go on in spite of the judges calling the operation a sham and there being many,many infractions . How long did it take them to schedule hearings in that case ? How many years did it take for them to suspend that license ? How many more years did it take to revoke that license ?
Now it looks like history will repeat itself again .If thats is true we only have another 3 to 4 years to wait .
Is it reasonable to take 4 years and more to deal with this ? How would a Registrar and Council justify & explain this to the membership ?
Last edited by idispense; 07-22-2011 at 08:19 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)