Last updated on September 20, 2025
Date:
Read, Noted, Ignored: What Our Logs Show
Short version: they read the emails, clicked the links, and still chose silence. The deadline has passed. The evidence roll out starts now.
What the logs show
Plausible Analytics recorded visits on 19 September to an older article of mine, NPA Insurance Website Monitoring from 29 August. Two sessions. Both on Microsoft Edge. Cities reported were Luton and Brighton. The source recorded by Plausible was chatgpt.com.
That source matters. I drafted several emails in ChatGPT, copied them into my mail client, and sent them to the NPA distribution I have been using. Those emails contained links to that exact article. We are not guessing. Someone followed links from those emails, landed on the site, and read the material. No spam filters. No lost messages. No “we never got it.” They read it. Then they went quiet.
You do not get to claim confusion when your browser history says otherwise.
The timeline that now matters
I set two clear checkpoints so nobody could claim I was rushing them.
- 17 September, 12:00 UK time. Acknowledge receipt, name the senior owner for this matter, and confirm the IPS Pharma controller and DPO, with the date my Subject Access Request was logged.
- 19 September, 17:00 UK time. Either particularise the allegation in full or withdraw it in writing with an apology. Provide the SAR disclosure plan or a valid extension notice with reasons. Confirm my reasonable adjustments in writing.
Both are now missed. Even a short acknowledgement that my concerns were being handled at the appropriate level would have met the first test. Instead there has been mass silence. That is on them.
The allegation they refused to own
A solicitor at the NPA, Ms Alicia Grace Day (SRA 644026), described my lawful Subject Access Request as a “backdoor discovery exercise.” That is a serious claim. I asked her to particularise it. I asked more than once. She did not. There was no clarification, no withdrawal, and no apology.
I am transparent about my role. I am a lived experience advocate, not a solicitor, and I publish an agreement that says so in plain English. I do not hold myself out as legally qualified or as anyone’s representative. Any suggestion that I misrepresented myself is wrong. Separately, a SAR is a right under UK GDPR Articles 12 and 15. Controllers must facilitate access or issue a lawful extension within the first month with reasons. None of that happened. The “backdoor discovery” line is a label designed to discredit a lawful request and the person making it.
If you call someone’s SAR an abuse of process, you either prove it or you retract it. You do not ghost the challenge and hope it blows over.
Why the silence is not neutral
People like to pretend silence is classy. In regulated work it is not. Silence is a choice that creates risk.
- It undermines SRA Code of Conduct 1.2 and 1.4. Integrity and public trust require action when you are called on an error.
- It elevates ICO risk if the SAR is delayed without a lawfully notified extension.
- It confirms knowledge. The analytics prove they opened links from my emails. That is passive acknowledgement. You cannot claim ignorance with click trails like that.
Silence is not wisdom here. It is evidence.
What happens next
I said what would happen and I am doing it.
- Publication of correspondence. I will begin releasing the relevant email chain in order. Dates, subjects, recipients, and content. Private phone numbers and personal addresses will be redacted. Role emails stay.
- SRA complaint. The bundle will include the allegation, the invitations to particularise, the missed deadlines, and the proof of knowledge through link clicks. The ask is simple. Review against Principles and Code paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4, and any guidance on unfounded allegations.
- ICO concern. The IPS Pharma SAR timeline, logging date, and lack of lawfully notified extension will be raised with supporting material.
- Ongoing timeline on site. Each action and response, or lack of one, will be logged for readers with timestamps.
None of this is retaliatory. It is accountability. When organisations refuse to engage on the record, the record becomes the engagement.
Final note for Ms Alicia Grace Day
Under Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct, solicitors must act with integrity and uphold public trust. You now have three choices.
- Particularise the allegation in full with evidence.
- Withdraw it in writing and apologise.
- Remain silent and accept that this will be recorded in the public timeline and placed before the SRA.
I prefer option 1 or 2. If you choose option 3, we proceed.
For clarity. You said you were prepared to put evidence before a court. I formally invite you to do exactly that. If you have evidence, file it. I will meet it with facts that any reasonable person would find impossible to dispute.
A word on tone and motive
I am autistic. I ask for clear written communication, extra processing time, and a trauma informed approach. These are reasonable adjustments. They cost nothing. What I received was a serious allegation with no particulars and then two weeks of silence. I am not angry. I am persistent. The difference matters. Anger burns out. Persistence wins.
It is hard to understand how the National Pharmacy Association has been rattled to this degree, but the result is obvious. This has become a live portfolio of accountability work. The readership is growing, the evidence is plain, and the timeline will record every step until this is resolved.
Right to reply
If anyone at the NPA wishes to correct a fact, send a short, precise note to [email protected]. Say whether you speak personally or for the organisation. If you withdraw the allegation and apologise, say so clearly and it will be published in the same places the allegation was reported.
Background reading
The evidence is ready. The audience is patient. The record is permanent.
Be First to Comment