By Kieron JH, Founder, The Reasonable Adjustment
Public interest commentary. Not legal advice.
On 15 October 2025 I published an article called “The Law Is Not A Vibe: NPA Misrepresentation Rebuttal” . In it, I set out my concerns about how the National Pharmacy Association (NPA) had responded to legitimate correspondence, including an email that tried to frame my behaviour through the language of “defamation” and “harassment” if I continued to contact them or write about them.
In other words, a classic institutional move: send a strongly worded message, talk about legal concepts, hope the disabled complainant quietly backs off.
Waiting For The Big Guns
After I published that misrepresentation rebuttal, I did something very simple. I left it alone.
No escalation, no barrage of emails, no daily posts. I let the article sit in public view and I waited.
And I will be honest. I waited with a ridiculous amount of excitement.
I checked the post, checked the site, and mentally prepared myself for the moment a thick envelope with “Private and Confidential” printed on the front would land through my letterbox. A pre action letter from a serious law firm. Paragraphs of claims about reputational damage. Demands for immediate removal. The works.
Because if the NPA genuinely believed I had defamed them, that is what you would expect. Prompt, formal, and very real legal action.
What Actually Happened
What happened was very simple.
- The article stayed online.
- The sun continued to rise.
- My analytics quietly logged visitors reading it.
- My letterbox stayed completely silent.
No pre action protocol, no claim form, no solicitor letters. Not even a polite follow up saying “we think you are wrong, here is why”.
For an organisation that was happy to send me a “noreply” email warning me about defamation and harassment if I carried on writing, the silence is very loud.
Empty Threats Versus Evidence
This is the part that matters in the public interest.
When an organisation genuinely believes it has been defamed, it does not sit and watch for a month while a critical article about it remains online, continues to receive visitors, and is clearly not going away. It moves quickly, because delay weakens its position.
When an organisation sends a sharply worded email about “defamation” and “harassment” and then does nothing once you calmly publish your side with receipts, it tells you something else.
The email was not really about law. It was about pressure. It was about discouraging scrutiny. It was about hoping I would feel intimidated enough to disappear.
That tactic only works on people who do not know their rights, or who do not have the energy or platform to push back. I have both.
From Threats To Rights: The Renewed SAR
In parallel with that silence, the NPA also tried to label my previous Subject Access Request as “manifestly unfounded” under UK GDPR. That label is meant for people abusing the system, not for a disabled service user trying to understand how his data is being used in a live dispute.
So, instead of firing emotional emails back, I did something more constructive.
I submitted a renewed Subject Access Request. This time even tighter, clearly scoped, and explicit about why it is neither manifestly unfounded nor manifestly excessive. I asked for:
- Internal and external correspondence where I am identified or discussed.
- Any internal conversations about my website, thereasonableadjustment.co.uk, including references to “reputational risk”, “defamation”, or “harassment”.
- Correspondence between NPA and IPS Pharma where I or my case are mentioned.
- Complaints, risk, safeguarding, legal and governance records about me or my site.
- All internal handling of my previous SAR and the “noreply” warning email.
- The names and roles of the people who drafted and approved that warning email.
- Any deletion or alteration of my data, including audit trails.
In other words, I responded to vague, intimidating language with specific, lawful questions.
Why The Silence Matters
I am not special. I am one person with a website, a criminal conviction, various diagnoses, and a lot of time spent reading guidance documents that most people have no interest in.
What worries me is not that one organisation sent me a bad email. What worries me is the pattern this represents across sectors:
- Disabled or vulnerable people raise concerns.
- Institutions respond with language about “harassment” or “defamation” rather than addressing substance.
- People get scared and back off because they think they have done something wrong.
Meanwhile, when someone calmly calls the bluff and publishes the exchange, the big legal threat often evaporates into a very revealing silence.
Law Is Not A Vibe
The original misrepresentation article made one simple point. Law is not a vibe. You do not get to send someone a strongly worded email and hope the tone does the work that the statute does not support.
If an organisation believes that what I have published is untrue and unlawful, it has clear routes to challenge it. It can:
- Identify specific statements it says are inaccurate.
- Provide evidence showing why it believes they are wrong.
- Request corrections or clarifications.
- Take formal legal action if it truly has a case.
What it cannot do in good faith is throw around words like “defamation” in a scare email, then fall completely silent when its behaviour is documented in public.
What I Want From NPA
I am not interested in theatrical apologies drafted by a press team. I am interested in:
- A lawful and complete response to my renewed Subject Access Request.
- Clear confirmation of how my data has been used, shared, and retained.
- Honest reflection on why a disabled complainant was threatened with defamation language in the first place.
- A commitment that this approach will not be used as a default way to shut down future complainants.
If the NPA has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear from transparency.
For Anyone Else Facing Legal Fluff
If you are reading this because you have received a similar email from a body that is supposed to help or represent you, I will say this.
Take a breath. Read the actual law, not just the legally flavoured words in your inbox. Seek proper advice if you can. Keep your evidence. And remember that sometimes the loudest legal threat is the one that never wants to see the inside of a courtroom.
My letterbox is still quiet. My article is still live. My renewed SAR is in their inbox.
The ball is not just in their court now. The ball is also on record.
Be First to Comment