What happens if you pester MPs when they don’t reply to your letters and emails? – see previous blog. Well, sometimes they reply. And Alan Johnson has done so, with an admirable mea culpa included: “I apologise for not replying to your earlier emails. I can assure you this was an oversight on my part and not done purposely”; “Again, many apologies for not replying to your earlier emails …”

But to the business. You will remember that I had asked him, first, to protest against the arrest of Baraa Shiban at Gatwick airport because of his opposition to US drone attacks in Yemen. He has now replied.

Has he protested? Er – no. What he says is:

“I am not in a position to comment on American defence policies and specifically their use of drones in Yemen.”

Unfortunately he hasn’t addressed the real issue, which is: Why was Mr Shiban arrested at Gatwick Airport? Presumably the Americans are “not in a position” to order arrests on UK territory. So the UK government must have done it. So surely Alan Johnson is “in a position” to comment on that aspect not of “American defence policies” but of UK policy.

He next defends drones, making clear that the UK “only” uses them in Afghanistan: “considerable benefits”; “more cost effective, adaptable and agile than manned operations”; “capable of gathering vital surveillance and intelligence data” (does this mean they are multitasking – killing while also spying?); “minimise the risk to UK personnel”; “allow for the use of targeted strikes to reduce civilian casualties and collateral damage” (ignoring the fact that they notoriously do cause “civilian casualties and collateral damage”, a major reason for opposing their use and certainly one in Mr Shiban’s mind as he protests against the well-targeted, agile attacks on his country.

There’s more in this vein: it’s all legal, there are “rules of engagement”, although “there should also be a much more open, accountable and transparent approach” to their use (no MP’s reply to almost anything would be complete without those three words).

So that’s him replying to my first email. It’s a fairly detailed statement of current cross-party agreement on drones. It smacks of a pre-prepared answer to a FAQ – which it almost certainly is. But Johnson doesn’t explain why Baraa Shiban was arrested in the first place, and he had no intention of doing so.

What about my second email? This was asking him to support a ban on EDL marches in Hull, after a recent march there when a physical attack by the EDL on a lone protester put the protester in hospital. Johnson now writes: “I share your concerns on this matter.” I believe this is true. He made it plain a while ago that he would not share a Question Time panel with Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP: “I have never shared a platform with a fascist, and at 61 I’m not going to start now.” Anyway, he continues his reply to me:

“In August of this year I wrote to the Chief Constable of Hull to raise concerns I had about the demonstrations taking place in Hull. If there are future demonstrations in Hull, I will continue to press this issue with the relevant authorities.”

I’m not sure what “press this issue” means. It isn’t clear to me that he supports a ban. It was clear to me that the couple of hundred EDL supporters (most from out of town), many wielding lager cans, shouting what sounded like “Muslims out!” should not be marching. After the Holocaust we know that fascists should not march.

So I’d better “press this issue” with Alan Johnson. Especially since he wrote: “If there is anything further I can do please do contact me.” And on the question of drones, he wrote: “If you have concerns in relation to this that you would like me to raise with the Home Secretary I would be happy to do so.”

I will, Alan, I will.