TWO weeks ago, your faithful Skipper was venting about a perceived lack of transparency at Cornwall Council regarding a Freedom of Information request for the release of emails relating to the referendum on a mayor for Cornwall.

The column in question was then picked up by another news site that went to Cornwall Council and ask for their thoughts on being described as ‘Trumpian.’ And do you know what they said, dear reader?

No? Oh, well. Their response in full was: “The article this opinion column is based upon fails to state that 562 pages of potentially relevant information were further refined to produce a final 45 pages of information that fell within the scope of the request.

“Only those 45 pages were assessed in accordance with the legal tests.

“It is therefore entirely wrong to suggest that the Council withheld 97% of information given that only 45 pages were within the scope of the request, of which 25 were withheld for the reasons outlined.”

Now, what the ‘reasons outlined’ fail to outline is; if 562 pages of information were identified as ‘potentially relevant’ before being whittled down, what was the deal with those remaining 517 pages?

I recognise the council thinks non-disclosure was preferred to not “prejudice the free and frank exchange of advice and views for the purpose of deliberation," but can they not see how that might look from the outside? Just how free and frank were they in those emails?

We’ll probably never know, but to be factually correct, Cornwall Council withheld 92 per cent of the ‘potentially relevant’ material they had.. not 97 per cent. Feel better about it now, do we?