Your casual familiarity is hugely unwarranted and, no, your email explanation did not cover the issues raised in my letter. I asked if I was denied access to this press conference solely on the authority of Ms Langley and, if not, at precisely what level was that decision authorised? I await a response.

I asked what the Department of Health hoped to gain by excluding me from this press briefing. Are you seriously asking me to accept that following orders and obeying rules – those that distinguish between "bona fide journalists" and others – is a complete and satisfactory explanation for what happened? Are these rules so important that the Department of Health makes no provision for common courtesy and common sense?

Your letter explained whom you do not invite, but that did not address the question of my exclusion after I had taken steps to secure agreement to my attendance from Mr Ryan. Nor have you explained whether or not my exclusion is felt to be consistent with the Department’s commitment to take ‘very seriously’ the recent concerns expressed by patient groups and in the media, in relation to the safety of SSRIs?

I invite you to try again, if only to underline that you do not regard the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as a complete farce.

You should perhaps know that, immediately after the press briefing, I was approached on the forecourt of Richmond House by a senior member of the MHRA, who felt the need to apologise on your behalf. That seemed to me significant, if not touching, as she was the person who had undersigned my exclusion from the Intensive Review on the grounds I was not a scientist.

Finally, please supply full details of the rules, requirements and processes involved to secure accreditation as a "bone fide journalist".