I have had a second reply with regard to my Freedom of Information request, this time from the office of David Milliband.

You will recall that Gordon Brown did not wish it to become public knowledge the extent of the involvement he has had in matters relating to the McCann case. Indeed choose not answer the question I had asked but instead choose the typical Gordon Brown tactic of answering a different question.

However Mr Milliband takes a different and more honest line:

"Under the FOIA we are obliged to respond to your request promptly, and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving it. However, when a qualified exemption applies to the information and the public interest test is engaged, we are able to extend the time for response by a reasonable period.

The following specific exemption in the FOIA is being considered for your request:

Section 36 �?Information which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

In this case we have not yet completed our assessment of whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. We are now aiming to provide a full response to your FOIA request by 17 January. If we need to extend the deadline further to allow us to complete our assessment we will let you know."

The reply also gave me the name and contact details of the person to whom one should complain if they are not satisfied with the answer. I may use this information to complain about the reply from Gordon Brown's office.

The obvious question is, how precisely does knowing how often, between the named dates (i.e pre arguido and post arguido), the Foreign Secretary communicated with the McCanns, or their representatives, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?

My request did not seek to find out what was said during these discussions. Indeed it could be justifiably argued that such a request would be quite wrong: unless of course those discussions in anyway jeopardised the criminal aspects of the investigation, or that Mr Milliband had sought to pervert the course of justice by infering in the legal system of a sovereign nation by means of diplomatic pressure or threats.

But given that both the McCanns and the government have been happy to use news of these contacts for their narrow political (in the wider sense) purposes, it is only right that the facts of the number of times a senior government minister has been in contact with the McCann's, and their representatives, is established.

Especially as the 'facts' in the this case have so often been changed or been subjected to spin.

peace:)