This is the second letter that we are releasing for public viewing on the back of the attacks by Byline Times and its associates such as Nafeez Ahmed. We have raised question marks around his actions in a previous article with evidence of comments that he made to us when approaching us for a comment and which Byline Times have now withdrawn and rowed back on. The comments made by Nafeez Ahmed demonstrated an over-reach and wide sweeping assumptions which were fundamentally wrong. What does this say about his style of working and the crude and deeply troubling allegations he made without any tangible evidence of any ‘criminality’.
For example, we point to the following paragraph in the Mishcon de Reya letter:
We note that you (Byline Times) appear to have rowed back from the very serious allegation made by Mr Ahmed in his enquiries to our client dated 19 June 2024, in which he claimed that directors of our client “have provided false information deliberately to Companies House“, a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. We note that you have sensibly confirmed that you “have no intention of publishing anything to the effect that the directors of Faith Matters or any persons connected with Faith Matters have committed any criminal offence“. That you accept that this allegation is unsupportable is indicative of your Mr Ahmed’s journalism and irresponsible approach to the preparation of your threatened story. Rather than objectively and forensically assessing evidence and drawing the appropriate conclusion based on that assessment and supporting evidence, you reframe and selectively apply the facts and cherry-pick evidence to suit your conspiratorial narrative”.
Baroness Shaista Gohir
This letter also highlights how a politician, using Parliamentary privilege, has made astonishing and conspiratorial remarks about the work of Tell MAMA. Within the letter, the Baroness in question (Baroness Gohir), is quoted as saying in the House of Lords that Tell MAMA has been “funded to tackle Muslim extremism which is hidden under the guise of monitoring”. Not only this statement libellous if she chose to make it in the public domain, she needs to back this statement up with proof or apologise to us as publicly as she made this statement. This statement is outrageous.
It is also an affront that a person in public office makes a statement that puts the safety of members of the Tell MAMA team and its Director, Iman Atta OBE, at personal and professional risk and when we know that there are many people in communities who are angry and who may take physical action against individuals and agencies who are deemed to be ‘monitoring’ or ‘snooping’ on them. For an official in public office to make such a statement and tar us with this brush, therefore puts the whole Tell MAMA team and the project’s reputation at serious risk. It is as simple as that. It is unacceptable and backed up with no evidence – that we are funded to ‘monitor Muslim extremism’ as thought we are a malign organisation. Such comments are nothing short of abhorrent.
We want to be clear; if Baroness Gohir is sufficiently confident in this statement she made – that we are “funded to tackle Muslim extremism which is being hidden under the guise of monitoring“, we would invite her to make this in public and not hide under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. We also note how Byline Times have mysteriously ended up with the text of letters from Baroness Gohir, which the Baroness has never sent to us, nor credited us with seeing. So much for transparency.
Other Assertions
Other assertions made by Byline Times, that Tell MAMA somehow does not provide a ‘robust and effective’ monitoring system on anti-Muslim hate leads us to question how Byline has failed to read the multiplicity of reports on our website and the fact that we have assisted over 28,000 Muslims in the U.K to date. Given the data on our web-site demonstrating the scale, range and numbers of people we assist who have been targeted by anti-Muslim hate, it is breath-taking that Byline Times has made such assertions.
For example in the Mishcon de Reya letter which is attached, figures for reporting anti-Muslim hate have increased from 1,223 in 2016 to 2,301 in 2021. The annual figure for 2022 was 2,656 and the figure for 2023, which is much higher, is still to be published. We challenge Byline Times and anyone associated with it to point to any organisation in the U.K that measures such high volume numbers of cases of anti-Muslim hate or Islamophobia in the U.K, and which supports, collects evidence and achieves tangible outcomes for victims of anti-Muslim hate? Much of this is listed in the report, ‘A Decade of Anti-Muslim Hate’ which is on our website and which can be read HERE. In fact, we know that Baroness Gohir liked a tweet from July 2023 which highlighted the very report we have mentioned – ‘A Decade of Anti-Muslim Hate’. This makes the allegations and assertions put to us by Byline Times, even more bizarre in their direction of travel.
READ: The Truth, Nafeez Ahmed and Byline Times – ‘Indefensible Reporting’
Report and Data
It is interesting to note that Ahmed, suggested to a third party that Baroness Gohir, (in her letters to DLUHC), said that Tell MAMA’s ‘Decade of Anti-Muslim Hate‘ report does not disaggregate data across age, location, gender and ethnicity. This he claims on behalf of Baroness Gohir, suggests that the data makes it less useful in looking at trends.
This from a journalist. Let us explain. The Decade of Anti-Muslim Hate is a summary of a decade of work from 2012-2022 which Tell MAMA has undertaken. There are numerous other reports on a year by year basis that are listed on the Tell MAMA site which provide all of the year on year details that Baroness Gohir and Ahmed request, and which they did not bother to read. You can find just a few of the links HERE, HERE and HERE. So again, we ask the question – what is the real motive behind these claims?
Also, we are truly baffled as to how a journalist who writes to a third party asking why Tell MAMA’s data does not dis-aggregate, fails to research the most basic of items. For example, just a cursory look at the ‘Decade of Anti-Muslim Hate’ report shows that gender is dis-aggregated in data and visuals on page 19, 31, 59, 78. Location is dis-aggregated from pages 72-77, 82,83,97,99 and page 103. Definitions of types of cases and dis-aggregations around classifications of data are listed on page 50 – just one of the pages when the data is clearly broken down. Ethnicity breakdowns are on pages 78 and 79 – just to provide two examples. Trends, well how could a Baroness and a journalist miss ‘Trends’, which have a whole section from pages 86-115 and 133. We could also add that if you have a desire to promote a narrative, you pick and choose what fits and overlook what does not.
Furthermore, Ahmed suggests that another of Baroness Gohir’s concerns is that the Government relies just on Tell MAMA’s data and that it is a ‘disservice’ to Muslim communities. Apart from this being the opinion of one or two people, both the Crown Prosecution Service (see comments below) and various police forces have commended the work of Tell MAMA and the way that victims of anti-Muslim hate are treated, and the data collected. The comments show a serious deficit in understanding how hate crime monitoring and support services work. Tell MAMA is a national and significant conduit through which Government receives data on the numbers, cases, types, locations etc., of anti-Muslim hate cases. Yet the Government does not rely on just one source. All of Tell MAMA’s data goes to local forces so that victims can be supported and any smaller NGO’s collecting hate crimes also feed into police services. Government therefore collects data from multiple sources, with Tell MAMA coming in second volume wise to the police data on the numbers of national cases of anti-Muslim hate. This alone shows that the complainants have not got a clue how the hate crime reporting systems work.
Additionally, in Ahmed’s correspondence to a third party, it is clear that he thinks that Tell MAMA is just a ‘monitoring’ service. It is not. Tell MAMA supports victims of anti-Muslim hate through data collection for evidential purposes, advocacy support, support at courts, access to legal advice and information, emotional support through counselling, direct advocacy with local forces and in providing a ‘listening ear’. There are a range of services provided and each case usually accesses multiple services within Tell MAMA.
Now, before Baroness Gohir or Ahmed say – well if the police collect data, why is Tell MAMA needed, the answer is because on a service evaluation check that was conducted in 2021/2022, 96 out of 100 individuals asked, said they approached Tell MAMA first and did not consider taking their experiences to the police.
Motive
Once again, we are having to question the motives of Byline Times at a time when a new government is in place and which is increasingly seeming and smelling like a smear campaign against the work and the staff of Tell MAMA. It is also interesting to note that these attacks align with the timing of a new incoming government administration who may not be fully aware of our work in Tell MAMA.
We have always been open and responsive to constructive criticism as we have repeatedly made clear. However, the shabby and ramshackle attempts by Byline Times to fixate and run what are now clearly, a series of ‘hit job’ articles on Tell MAMA are deeply troubling. We also question the selectivity of what they are choosing to report on and then overlook other elements which do not seem to fit a series of their narratives.
With this in mind, we have decided to publish all correspondence so that members of the public can see that Tell MAMA has nothing to hide and we will not accept statements and claims thrown at us which are untrue, libellous and downright perverse in their conspiratorial and damaging nature. This also goes for anyone in Parliament who makes worryingly conspiratorial statements without evidence and which puts the staff in this project at physical and emotional risk.
Finally, a search on Google on Byline Times brings up this statement in a link about the ethos of the publication:
“Accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and, although everyone is welcome to their own opinions, facts cannot be debated.”
We would agree, however, given our experiences with Byline Times and in particular, Nafeez Ahmed, we can point to his opinions, rather than facts in his engagement with us. This is not withstanding his previous attempt to garner a donation from us for a writing project he had developed in 2018.
Addendum – Crown Prosecution, the Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crime & Police Statements About Tell MAMA
“Since its establishment in 2012, Tell MAMA has been a strong ally of the CPS. We are delighted to call Tell MAMA a partner in our collective efforts to challenge hate crime. Whether as a provider of key services, a partner at our CPS External Consultative Group or as a supporter of newly-established hate crime services, Tell MAMA’s support and assistance has been invaluable.”
Statement from DCC Mark Hamilton, the National Policing Lead for Hate Crime:
“I would like to congratulate Tell MAMA on this milestone of reaching 10 years of monitoring anti-Muslim Hatred.
When we started to gather national data on hate crime in 2009 our biggest challenge was the unknown figure of under-reported crimes. We made steps to encourage reporting and improved data systems but we will always know that many victims do not want to report direct to the police for numerous reasons. This is why we were so keen to partner with Tell MAMA from its inception – to provide a platform for victims to seek support.
During that time Tell MAMA has been a vital partner and critical friend. Our data sharing arrangements, built on anonymous data exchanges are vital to help us see the full picture of anti-Muslim hatred and take steps to support communities, by preventing crime and responding to critical incidents. I have been particularly impressed that, whilst it obviously concentrates on Muslim victims, Tell MAMA shares our ideals of universal protections and have worked to support other communities who come under attack. “
Statement from the Chair of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) on hate crime:
“The National Independent Advisory Group (IAG) on Hate Crime for Policing and Criminal Justice is made up of key organisations, academics and individuals (including Dr Neville Lawrence OBE) advising the NPCC and the APCC on policies and strategies to reduce Hate Crimes and Incidents.
TellMAMA is a key member of the group. They are the only Hate Crime advocacy group we would work with given their commitment to opposing all forms of Hate Crime. Specifically, unlike other groups, they seek to reduce sectarian tensions and attacks with the Muslim community.
Since October 7 TellMAMA have been tireless in their work on the NPCC Gold Group. Specifically they ensured that police forces dealt equitably with Muslim communities and their concerns. Despite, at times, political pressures to further isolate the community. They identified quickly that Muslim community confidence in policing was damaged post October 7and they helped the NPCC develop strategies to move beyond this.
The pressures on the organisation and specifically on their CEO has been intense. Their ability to rise above this, continue working and maintain good relations with all key partners has been impactful and inspiring. I doubt the IAG’s ability to continue working without their presence.”