On March 11th, I received a letter from some lawyers in Yorkshire. Who they are doesn't really matter, they're just one of many provincial firms of solicitors in the UK. They were engaged by Principle Healthcare, a firm selling vitamin pills, motto: "Our reputation is your insurance."

Unfortunately for Principle Healthcare's reputation, another blogger and regular guest writer on The Lay Scientist, James Cole, spotted some claims on their website one day that seemed to be a bit dodgy. He decided to do some investigating, and he reported his findings to the MHRA, and to Trading Standards.

They weren't very pleased with Principle Healthcare. The MHRA said:

"We do regard these to be inappropriate medicinal claims."

While Trading Standards said:

"In respect to the apple cider vinegar product, I have and advised (sic) the company to remove these claims."

Three months later, some of the claims were still there, and a gentleman from Trading Standards e-mailed James again to explain:

"I have once again contacted the company with regard to this matter and await the amendment of the website."

James also wrote about his findings, and his communications with the MHRA and Trading Standards, on both his own blog, and layscience.net.

This all happened a few months ago, and such is the transient nature of the blogosphere that as of last week the story was long-forgotten to all but the officials still pestering Principle Healthcare to remove the claims in question.

And then, as I mentioned, I received a letter.

It read as follows (I've edited it only very slightly, to remove some personal details):

Dear Sirs,

Our Client: Principle Healthcare Limited

We act for the above named Company, a Company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No. 4283476. The Company is involved in the sale of vitamins, minerals and other supplements.

It has come to our Client's knowledge that James Cole is posting defamatory statements against our Client on the website layscience.net. The defamatory statements are included in the following blogs:-

(1) Alternative Medicine and a Failure of Regulation.

(2) Unprincipled Healthcare: Part Two.

The defamatory statements that James Cole is making include calling our Client's professionalism into question; posting negative comments about its products; and making false accusations about its business practices and ethos.

Our Client's reputation is of the utmost importance to it. Therefore we require the disabling of the relevant blogs. We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days with your confirmation that you have carried this out.

If you fail to take the required action within 7 days, we will have no option but to instruct a U.S. attorney to take appropriate action against you.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

[A law firm in Yorkshire]

Now, I do take claims seriously. I have to accept the possibility that in writing about somebody like Principle Healthcare, I might occasionally be wrong, or unfair, and so if people featured here write to set the facts straight, I'm more than willing to give them a fair hearing.

But there was so much wrong with the letter I received.

For a start, as my tame lawyer helpfully pointed out to me, the letter doesn't actually follow proper pre-claim protocol. If you're going to send a letter like this ahead of a possible libel claim, you need to set out certain things, not least the words actually complained of.

Nowhere in the letter do they state what it was that they considered libelous, and I think it's a bit unfair to ask people to remove whole posts on the basis of what may only be a few words.

Especially when one of the posts isn't even on my website.

And what on Earth do U.S. attorneys have to do with a dispute between a company based in Yorkshire and a website based in Berkshire? I have no idea. A quick glance at my profile, or the site records, would have put them straight.

Some of the claims seem, in my inexpert opinion, rather tenuous. For example, if offending a company by "posting negative comments about its products" is actionable, then users of Amazon had better beware.

The letter arrived on Thursday the 11th. My lawyer promptly contacted them, asking them to restate their complaint, following proper protocol, and detailing the words that they actually have a problem with.

That was on the Friday, the 12th. Since we sent our response and request for clarification, we have heard nothing back from them, and so the posts remain online. The 7 day 'deadline' has, of course, passed.

As I said before, I take complaints seriously. But I cannot deal with them if the people making them aren't prepared to explain to me what they're complaining about, or engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue.

If Principle Healthcare feel that I have treated them unfairly, they should contact me, so that we can discuss the issue in a constructive way. There are of course alternatives, but these may not be the most helpful for their reputation.

But the letter I received, and the silence since we gave our response, does not give the impression of constructive dialogue, or a genuine attempt at resolution. It seems more like bullying, and I won't be bullied.

I'm not arrogant enough to claim that my story is the reason why libel reform in Britain is so desperately needed, but what matters about my experience is that it could happen to anyone - all it takes is a disgruntled person with the ability to ask a solicitor to write a letter. In modern Britain, you can be shut down with just a few carefully-chosen words, and if I hadn't had legal advice, I might well have folded.

All of us who blog, all of us who write, all of us who publish, big or little; we are all Simon Singh.

Campaign for Libel Reform: http://www.libelreform.org/
Follow me on Twitter: @mjrobbins