Latest news with #PolicyExchange
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Don't believe the myth: Britain's services industry has been hit hard by Brexit
One by one the supposed pillars of the economic argument for Brexit have been knocked away by the realities. Far from being shackled to a corpse, as some Brexiteers described the European Union economy, both the euro zone and the EU have grown faster than the UK since the 2016 referendum. Britain's goods exports have slumped compared with the rest of the G7. 'Look at services,' Brexiteers cry. Their export growth has been exceptional, according to Policy Exchange, the right-of-centre think-tank. The Office for Budget Responsibility also noted a year ago that UK services trade growth had been the strongest in the G7. Should the UK be happy that its trade in services has performed well? Was this the result of Brexit? The short answers are 'no' and 'no'. Instead it should be annoyed that services exports did not grow even more, and blame Brexit for this disappointment, according to new research from the London School of Economics. READ MORE Before explaining the findings, it is important to note that although the UK economy has many weaknesses, services are a strength. While television crews will always want to picture industries such as manufacturing or fishing to visually describe what makes a country wealthy, this is not relevant to 80 per cent of Britain's economic activity. The UK's success lies in its lawyers, information providers, creative types, management consultants and educators. A handful of universities generate more export income than the entire fishing industry, for example. [ Post-Brexit export drive hampered by UK trade finance regulations, ICC warns Opens in new window ] Unusually for any economy, UK services exports exceed those of goods and not by a trivial amount – almost 40 per cent higher in 2024, with the gap widening. The OBR noticed, however, that not all of the UK's services exports appeared equally strong. Business services including management consultancy and research and advertising – where Brexit barriers were small or nonexistent – were growing strongly. Other services did not perform nearly as well, including finance and transport, where the barriers erected by leaving the single market were significant. But the fiscal watchdog left its analysis hanging. The Juggle: the issues facing women with young children when balancing childcare and their careers Listen | 44:30 Picking up the baton has been left to LSE team economists Shania Bhalotia, Swati Dhingra and Danyal Arnold. Using data that allowed comparison of the growth in services trade across different sectors and between a large number of pairs of countries, they examined how strong UK services exports were in each sector compared with all other countries. They also meticulously examined the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement to document which services exports into the EU faced new barriers after the post-Brexit deal came into effect in 2021. The results are stark. The OBR was right to note that UK services exports facing new Brexit barriers appeared to perform worse. UK exports to countries with greater barriers were hit much harder. Where the most extreme barriers were introduced, services exports fell 90 per cent. [ Brexit was 'single stupidest thing a country's ever done' Opens in new window ] On average there was a 16 per cent drop in services exports to the EU in sectors where Brexit imposed new trade frictions compared with bilateral trade between other countries in the same sectors. Did Brexit allow British companies to focus on trade with the US and other countries? Again, the answer was 'no'. Overall, the research found that UK services exports five years after Brexit were 4-5 per cent lower than they would have been without the effect of new trade frictions. In a nation that struggles to accept its relative economic decline since Brexit, the UK has been far too quick to celebrate the better performance of services. Instead of showing that Brexit might have some benefits, it simply shows that the UK had specialised in the right industries at the right time, allowing many world-class companies to sell globally. Rather than generate 'global Britain', leaving the EU has had one simple effect: economic harm. Without Brexit, they would have done even better. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Middle East Eye
4 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
UK government blocked own Islamophobia advisers from consulting Muslim organisations
The British government blocked a working group it set up to advise on a possible definition of Islamophobia from consulting the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), while the group consulted prominent figures and organisations themselves accused of Islamophobia, Middle East Eye can reveal. The working group, which was set up by the government in February, is being overseen by a former public affairs officer for the pro-Israel Board of Deputies of British Jews, who has also worked for an arms industry trade association and gone on trips to Israel with an organisation accused of operating in illegal settlements. Government sources with knowledge of the matter said that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), headed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, told the group it could not consult the MCB because the government has a policy of 'disengagement' with the organisation. The MCB is the largest umbrella group claiming to represent Muslim organisations, with over 500 affiliates, including mosques, schools, local and county councils, professional networks and advocacy groups. However, the working group consulted two prominent figures who have been accused of Islamophobia, Trevor Phillips and John Jenkins, on whether an Islamophobia definition would be helpful. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters MEE understands the government has had a veto over who the working group consults. The group interviewed the Community Security Trust, which monitors antisemitism. It also invited the neoconservative think tank Policy Exchange - which has also faced accusations of promoting Islamophobia - for a consultation, but Policy Exchange declined, sources told MEE. Policy Exchange did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. By contrast, the government told the working group it could not consult the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), a watchdog that focuses on media coverage of Muslims. The CfMM was set up by the MCB but says it has now become an independent entity. How the Muslim Council of Britain was left out in the cold Read More » However, MEE understands that the government said the group could not engage with the CfMM because of its links to the MCB. Successive governments have mostly refused to engage with the MCB since 2009 when the then-Labour government suspended ties after the organisation's deputy secretary general signed a declaration in support of Palestinians' right of resistance following Israel's three-week war in Gaza, known as Operation Cast Lead, between December 2008 and January 2009. Labour restored ties before its defeat in the 2010 general election, and MCB officials held a number of meetings with Liberal Democrat ministers during the Conservative-led coalition government that followed until 2015. But Conservative Party ministers refused to meet MCB officials between 2010 and 2024. Board of Deputies strategist Sources said the working group had consulted groups including the National Secular Society and Humanists UK, which have criticised a previous Islamophobia definition adopted by Labour. An MCB spokesperson told MEE: 'We can confirm that neither the communities ministry nor its appointed working group members proactively reached out to the Muslim Council of Britain to participate in this call for evidence. We are mobilising our grassroots membership to share their views anyway.' They added: 'Britain's diverse faith communities don't need petty cancel culture politics driven by the whims of right-wing think tanks and legacy media outlets - we need a Government brave enough to lead with authenticity and common sense.' The working group, led by Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative MP who was attorney general between 2010 and 2014, is set to hold an event in parliament on Thursday at which MPs and members of the House of Lords are invited to give their thoughts on how Islamophobia should be defined. Joel Salmon, who has been the Anti-Muslim Hatred and Antisemitism Policy team leader in the communities ministry since March, oversees the working group. In 2016, Salmon argued in a column for Jewish News that the Jewish community 'must be able to define for ourselves what antisemitism is'. Between 2016 and 2019, he was a public affairs officer at the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD), a heavily pro-Israel organisation. In that role, he worked in 'political strategy, engaging Ministers & Parliamentarians and influencing legislation', according to his LinkedIn profile. He was also 'responsible for policy development and acted as media spokesperson' for the organisation. Downing Street consults former Boris Johnson advisor who said Islamophobia 'exaggerated' Read More » In 2015, Salmon said he 'went on trips with' Aish HaTorah, an international Jewish Orthodox organisation which was reported in 2008 by The Atlantic to have operatives 'in the radical belt of Jewish settlements just south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank'. Ronn Torossian, a spokesperson for Aish HaTorah in New York, told The Atlantic: 'I think we should kill a hundred Arabs or a thousand Arabs for every one Jew they kill.' Between September 2019 and 2021, Salmon worked as a senior public affairs adviser at ADS, an arms industry trade association which counts major weapons companies among its members, including Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms manufacturer, Boeing, BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), ADS holds an annual dinner to 'bring politicians together with representatives from [the] world's biggest arms companies'. A spokesperson for the communities ministry said: "We will not tolerate Islamophobia of any form and will seek to stamp it out wherever it occurs. "The Working Group's work to develop a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia is aimed at improving understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities – supporting wider and ongoing government-led efforts to tackle religiously motivated hate crime and foster cohesion. As part of this it engages with a wide range of faith communities and organisations." Consulting the accused Earlier this year, the Labour government set up a working group to draw up an official definition for anti-Muslim discrimination. It was given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. This suggested the government was rowing back plans to adopt the definition proposed in 2018 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims. Adopted by Labour in opposition, the definition characterises Islamophobia as 'a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness'. The new working group has reportedly consulted Trevor Phillips, who was suspended from Labour when Jeremy Corbyn was leader in March 2020 following allegations of Islamophobia, which he denied. His suspension was lifted in July 2021 under Keir Starmer's leadership, a move which was criticised by some Muslim Labour MPs and members. MP Zarah Sultana said that 'the party must at the very least require a full retraction and apology. Anything less makes a mockery of the idea that the party takes Islamophobia seriously'. The Labour Muslim Network warned that 'quietly readmitting [Phillips] behind closed doors, without apology or acknowledgement, will only cause further anxiety and hurt among Muslims.' Phillips had previously said that British Muslims are a 'nation within a nation'. He has denied accusations of Islamophobia. The working group also consulted the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia John Jenkins, who was in March last year accused of endorsing social media posts that are 'Islamophobic', 'defend Islamophobia' or that peddle in 'propaganda against Muslims'. MEE contacted Jenkins for comment at the time but did not receive a response. Grieve, the working group's chair, asked Jenkins 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. UK: British ex-diplomat probing Tower Hamlets accused of endorsing Islamophobia Read More » Last month, the Spectator magazine published Jenkins' lengthy response, which included references to 18th-century politics and 'social constructivism', to Grieve's request. In his response, Jenkins strongly criticised the working group for all its five members apart from Grieve being Muslim. 'I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined,' he wrote. Jenkins said regarding the adoption of 'any definition' of Islamophobia: 'I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts.' To drive his argument home, he also argued that the question of Islamophobia requires 'expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'.' Jenkins appeared to imply that none of the working group's members have the multi-disciplinary academic expertise which he believes they need. Working group's members Besides Grieve, there are four members of the working group. One is Akeela Ahmed, the co-chair of the British Muslim Network (BMN), which launched in February and has since kept a low profile. MEE had revealed before its launch that the BMN had lost much of its Muslim support and was being backed by a charity set up by disgraced former archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Also on the working group is Professor Javed Khan, managing director of Equi, an influential new think tank which says it was 'born out of the UK Muslim community'. 'Potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts' - John Jenkins At the parliamentary launch of an Equi report in February, Khan told parliamentarians and civil society figures that the think tank was 'seeing engagement' from the Labour government, including ministers and special advisers. Baroness Shaista Gohir, a crossbench peer and CEO of Muslim Women's Network UK (MWNUK), is another member of the working group. MEE revealed in late February that an MWNUK event in parliament in March celebrating the 'cultural contribution of Muslims in the UK' was supported by TikTok, the social media giant accused of censoring content on human rights abuses faced by Uyghur Muslims in China. Aisha Affi, an independent consultant, is also named as a member of the working group. Criticism of APPG definition Grieve wrote the foreword to the contentious APPG report on Islamophobia in 2018, calling it 'food both for thought and positive action'. UK: Board of Deputies of British Jews suspends vice-chair for Gaza protest letter Read More » But the APPG definition has since been heavily criticised. Lord Wajid Khan, Labour's faith minister, said late last year that 'the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins'. In January 2019, the Jewish Chronicle reported that staff from the Board of Deputies, including Salmon - who is now overseeing the working group on Islamophobia - had attended meetings with members of the APPG on British Muslims, including Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and Labour MP Wes Streeting, who was then a co-chair of the APPG. The BoD reportedly came close to backing the APPG's Islamophobia definition, although it eventually did not do so. The BoD denounced the Jewish Chronicle's report as a 'mixture of innuendos, half-truths, and outright falsehoods', and said it felt 'it wasn't the right time' to endorse any Islamophobia definition.
Middle East Eye
5 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
BBC bias: Attack on watchdog that skewered Gaza coverage is a feeble hit job
Reporters are supposed to hold power to account. To challenge official lies. To stand up for the underdog. Though there have been important exceptions - such as the Financial Times and, in recent months, the Guardian - in general the British media has failed to do its job during Israel's war on Gaza. This lack of scrutiny has made it much easier for prime ministers Rishi Sunak and later Keir Starmer as they have failed to challenge Israeli atrocities. Much of the reporting - especially in right wing papers like the Daily Telegraph, the Times and Daily Mail - has been twisted in favour of Israel. We believe that in due course the British media will be held to account for its role in enabling Israel's slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, seen by many experts as a genocide. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Throughout this period one small organisation has played a vital role in calling journalists to account. This is the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), which was set up by the Muslim Council of Britain but is now independent. It has produced three landmark reports that skewer British reporting on Gaza. The first, published early last year, exposed the general collapse in standards across the written and broadcast press in the early months after 7 October. Last spring a second report showed how media outlets largely confined emotive language to Israeli rather than Palestinian victims. Then two weeks ago a third report shone a merciless spotlight on BBC bias. These reports compelled attention. Surprising figures such as Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell and the acclaimed former Today programme presenter Mishal Husain endorsed the BBC analysis. BBC coverage of Israel's war on Gaza 'systematically biased against Palestinians' Read More » To its considerable credit the BBC dispatched a senior editorial figure, Richard Burgess, to answer questions at the launch. For Israel's cheerleaders in the British media, all this may have been too much to bear. A counter attack on CfMM has been in the offing for months, and yesterday night Policy Exchange struck with an 86-page report. Better known by Fleet Street old-timers as a hatchet job. Policy Exchange calls itself a think tank - but has impeccable media connections on the right of British politics. The founding chairman was Michael Gove, now editor of the pro-Israel Spectator magazine and a former Tory minister. He was succeeded by Charles Moore of the Telegraph, a newspaper whose coverage of Gaza has been skewed. Another former chair was Danny Finkelstein of the Times. David Frum, notorious for coining the phrase 'axis of evil' as George W Bush's speechwriter, is yet another. Andrew Gilligan, a former Telegraph and Sunday Times journalist whose own reporting on British Muslims has been a subject of contention, is a senior fellow, and joint author of this Policy Exchange document. One of us, Peter Oborne, wrote a foreword for the CfMM report on the BBC which Policy Exchange quotes from in its report, as well as speaking at a parliamentary event to mark its launch. We have studied Policy Exchange's report. It is riddled with falsehoods and distortions. Every accusation a confession Andrew Neil, whose journalistic career includes spells as editor at the Sunday Times and as the long-time chairman of The Spectator, claims in the foreword that CfMM is engaged in enforcing a 'tendentious view of Islam and, sometimes, seeking to suppress truthful, factual reporting which happens to contradict that view'. As they say, every accusation is a confession. Neil might as well be describing some of The Spectator's reporting on Muslims during the years he was in charge. The report provides no evidence of CfMM seeking to 'suppress truthful, factual reporting' He asserts that the report proves 'CfMM is part of a wider campaign for legal restrictions on what you can say about Islam, with fundamental implications for free speech". These are sensational claims. They are also absurd. The report provides no evidence of CfMM seeking to 'suppress truthful, factual reporting'. CfMM says it supports the All-Party Parliamentary Group's definition of Islamophobia. The report that accompanied the creation of that definition insisted it was not 'intended to curtail free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion'. Policy Exchange accuses CfMM of saying that 60 percent of news stories about Muslims are Islamophobic. But the organisation has never said that. Policy Exchange further claims that CfMM 'has openly taken the side of intimidating mobs staging banned anti-gay demonstrations outside primary schools'. This is a deeply serious accusation. But there is no record of CfMM endorsing any such demonstrations. Failures of omission More important by far is what Policy Exchange omits. We had expected that the think tank would challenge the central thrust of the CfMM analysis of British media coverage of Gaza. This amounts to a serious body of work exposing one set of reporting rules for Israelis and another for Palestinians. Policy Exchange did not even try. Let's take as an example the recent CfMM finding that the BBC employed the word 'massacre' almost 18 times more often about Israeli than Palestinian victims - and never used the term in headlines about Israeli atrocities. No rebuttal from Policy Exchange. UK's charity regulator urged to investigate Policy Exchange over 'anti-Muslim agenda' Read More » The finding that BBC correspondents or presenters applied the term 'butcher' 220 times for actions against Israelis; just once for actions against Palestinians. No rebuttal. That Israeli deaths were reported in more emotive terms, with victims far more likely to be humanised with details about the names, family backgrounds and jobs. No rebuttal. That just six percent of the deaths of Palestinian journalists had been reported by the BBC. No rebuttal. The failure of the BBC (and wider media) to cover Israel's Hannibal directive, or the Dahiya doctrine, or statements of genocidal intent by Israeli politicians from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down. Again, no rebuttal. Rather than confront these serious allegations made against British media reporting which lie at the heart of the CfMM argument, Policy Exchange has chosen to ignore them. One can only suppose that's because they are accurate. Unable to challenge the substance of CfMM's work, it has tried to discredit it with smears. In footballing terms, Policy Exchange has played the man and not the ball. One last point needs to be made. CfMM's report into British reporting of Gaza have been largely ignored in mainstream press and media. By contrast, the Policy Exchange attack on CfMM has been noisily amplified in the Mail, the Telegraph, The Times and GB News. We rest our case M'lord.
Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Muslim Council ‘acted in bad faith by trying to suppress reporting'
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has acted in 'bad faith' by seeking to suppress accurate reporting about terrorism and risks curtailing press freedom, a report has claimed. It accused the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), set up and run by MCB, of pressurising journalists and programme makers to accept its partisan view of Islam. In the 94-page report, published by the think tank and educational charity Policy Exchange, CfMM was said to have exposed 'a tiny number' of false and harmful stories in its seven-year CfMM is understood to have concerns about the findings of Policy Exchange's report. It said that it 'engages constructively' with media owners and regulators. Andrew Neil, the journalist and Times Radio presenter, backed the report. He said that CfMM was at the heart of claims that the British media habitually misrepresents and slanders Muslims. He said: 'This Policy Exchange report forensically demonstrates that CfMM, its evidence and its conclusions are badly flawed. It shows how CfMM has a purpose far wider than the correction of supposed factual errors.'It seeks to enforce a tendentious view of Islam and sometimes seeking to suppress truthful, factual reporting which happens to contradict that view. The increasing role played by self-appointed, unrepresentative and often rather small activist groups in shaping public debate has been examined too little.'The report highlighted CfMM claims that it has been 'instrumental' in forging the Independent Press Standards Organisation's (Ipso) guidance on the reporting of Muslims, that it has been 'feeding into the BBC's terminology guidebook' on how to report about Islam and teaches 'masterclasses' on reporting at university journalism schools. A CfMM representative said that it had shared its style guide with the BBC for it to consider and had previously joined an Ipso roundtable, where it pushed for the press watchdog's guidelines to the media to be more robust. Andrew Gilligan and Damon Perry, the authors of the report, dismissed CfMM claims that almost 10 per cent of the 55,000 articles that it has monitored misrepresent Muslims and that almost 60 per cent of news stories involving the faith are negative. Gilligan and Perry warned that accurate and factual reporting of Islamist terror attacks was being labelled as Islamophobic, with media outlets attacked for calling Isis's executioner Mohammed Emwazi, dubbed Jihadi John, a terrorist and the Westminster killer, Khalid Masood, an 'Islamic extremist'. They also called into question the pressure it has brought to bear on regulators over dramas that 'insult' Muslim characters who are gay or dislike the hijab. 'This report provides all who need it with the evidence that the Centre for Media Monitoring is a bad-faith actor. It should not be engaged with or taken at face value by journalists, regulators or anyone else,' they said. Labour suspended ties in 2009 with the MCB, which represents more than 500 mosques, schools and charities, after one of its leaders was alleged to have supported violence against Israel — which the group denies. A review of the Prevent counterextremism strategy by Sir William Shawcross in 2023 said that non-engagement remained a policy for ministers because of 'unresolved extremism concerns'. The CfMM has been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Muslim media watchdog ‘wrongly labelled terror attack coverage as Islamophobic'
A Muslim media watchdog wrongly labelled coverage of Islamist terror attacks as ' Islamophobic ', a report has claimed. Policy Exchange, a think tank, said that factual news reports of such incidents had been assessed by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) as examples of 'Islamophobic, negative' journalism. Those criticised by the centre, which was originally a Muslim Council of Britain project but is now an independent entity, include the Associated Press, a leading news agency, after it reported on a terror attack in Manchester on New Year's Eve in December 2018. The CfMM said the coverage was an example of negative reporting about Muslims because it included the phrase 'knife-wielding man yelling Islamic slogans.' However, Policy Exchange said this had been an accurate account of what happened. The watchdog also complained that describing Mohammed Emwazi, the British Islamic State executioner known as 'Jihadi John', as a terrorist was misleading because he had never been convicted. It further said that the decision by BBC News to call Khalid Masood, who killed five people in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament in 2017, an 'Islamic extremist' was 'anti-Muslim language'. It said that 'it can be argued that linking the word 'Islamic' with extremism is an oxymoron as the word 'Islam' comes from the Arabic root word 'Salam', meaning 'peace'.' Policy Exchange claimed the centre's critique was part of a campaign to 'give legal and official force' to the concept of Islamophobia, ahead of moves by the Government to introduce a new legal definition of it. The think tank's report, which is due to be published on Tuesday, said: 'The aim of this campaign, in the words of its own supporters, is to control and prevent conduct 'far beyond' anti-Muslim hatred or discrimination (which all can agree are wrong, but which are already illegal),' said the think tank's report. 'It is to impose 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims, and special protections for Muslims. An official Islamophobia definition would give CfMM and its like a significant new weapon.' According to the report, CfMM said it had monitored at least 55,000 articles about Muslims and complained about those it deemed to be unfair or untrue. It alleged that 'almost one in 10' of the articles it had monitored had either misrepresented Muslims, misused terminology or misinterpreted Islamic beliefs and practices. The CfMM also claimed that almost 60 per cent of news stories about Muslims were negative, saying this proved the media's 'widespread… Islamophobia.' It said Reuters, AP and AFP, the respected international news agencies, were the 'top three offenders'. This included criticism of AFP for using the term 'Ramadan violence' during coverage of three killings during the holy period. By its own account, CfMM said it aimed to 'take control of the narrative,' telling journalists they should never use the terms 'Islamism,' 'Islamic extremism' or 'Muslim extremism.' It has also attacked news outlets for describing terror groups, including Hamas and Islamic State, as Islamist. In a foreword to Policy Exchange's report, journalist Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Sunday Times and BBC broadcaster, said the research showed that the CfMM, as well as its 'evidence' and conclusions, were 'badly flawed.' 'It shows how CfMM is part of a wider campaign for legal restrictions on what you can say about Islam, with fundamental implications for free speech,' he said. A spokesman for the CfMM said the claims by Policy Exchange were 'factually untrue' and fabricated. He said the criticism it made of articles about terrorism-related only to cases where unverified information was used by journalists. The spokesman added: 'This report is nothing but a politically motivated hitjob, riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and smears. It comes from an organisation that has long sought to influence our media into negatively framing British Muslims.'
