I’m pleased to see that the amount of criticism that the Tell Mama group are getting is growing. According to feedback I’m receiving, a large number of people have written to their Members of Parliament asking questions about why this group of notorious dissemblers are still being funded by the Department of Communities and Local Government. Writers both in the UK and across the world are wading in with criticisms of this bunch of mendacious grievance mongering taqiyya artists. The DCLG minister has I believe been informed by a number of people who have concerns about this dangerous and dishonest group. There are other, of course peaceful and legal actions, in the pipeline that I hope will tackle not only the waste of public funds spent on this group, but also help to remove them from their baleful influence over Britain’s police forces and prosecution services. I hope and pray that someday soon this dangerous and provably dishonest group will no longer be a drain on the public purse and neither will it be the disfiguring boil on the face of the British political scene that it currently represents.
Daily I hear stories communicated to me about how Tell Mama’s large coterie of internet trolls and police informers are now being exposed and publicly shamed. This means that decent patriots can avoid and evade these censorious trolls and grasses. However, today I would like to bring you an article from the New English Review which digs down deeply into Tell Mama’s extremely questionable ‘hate crime figures’. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank one of the Fahrenheit211 commentators, ‘linzieclaire’ for bringing this article to my attention.
The New English Review article has highlighted the highly vague way that Tell Mama describe incidents and also the article also alleges that Tell Mama may be double counting supposed incidents in order to bump up the figures. Here’s a section of the New English Review article by Paul Austin Murphy which concentrates on Tell Mama’s flexible and ‘vague’ interpretations of events. Firstly he goes into the laughable and palpably dishonest ‘map of attacks on mosques’ that was put up by Tell Mama and then he moves on to picking apart a whole lot more of Tell Mama’s questionable ‘data’.
The New English Review said:
Let’s just take one example from the map.
In the North East of England area, there’s a red circle (symbolising “vandalism”) half-covering a dark blue circle (symbolising “criminal damage”). Now is this the same attack counted twice? After all, vandalism simply is criminal damage! (This double-counting possibility is further covered under individual headings below.)
In addition, the categorisations of most of the attacks are perverse. So let’s go through them one at a time.
1) “Anti-Muslim literature”
Is Tell Mama confusing anti-Islamic literature with “anti-Muslim literature”? This is the case because anti-Muslim literature is often – or always! – portrayed as racist. Yet it’s harder to do that with anti-Islamic literature. (Then again, there are plenty of Muslims and progressives who classify anti-Islamic literature as racist too!) Let’s give Fiyaz Mughal the benefit of the doubt here and say that at least some of this literature was indeed “anti-Muslim.” But even here we’d need to ask what, exactly, that means. It could mean anything!
2) “Arson/arson threat”
Note firstly the fact that arson and the threat of arson are cleverly fused together here. Arson, to state the obvious, is massively different from the threat of arson. Indeed, for all we know, the proportion of threats of arson to actual arson could be something like 1000 to 1. That is, 1000 threats to every actual act of arson. The truth is that actual acts of arson (in the UK) have been extremely rare; compared to, say, the burning down of churches or Hindu temples in Pakistan. (Mughal is of Pakistani heritage.)
3) “Assault”
Here again Tell Mama trades on ambiguity. After all, there’s such a thing as verbal assault and acts of physical assault are classified as “physical assault.” This leads me to conclude that perhaps all these “assaults” were verbal in nature. It doesn’t stop there. What form did these verbal assaults take? It could be something like this: “Muhammed was a beheader of hundreds of Jews and other kuffar.” (A true historical claim.) Or: “Why do ‘moderate Muslims’ very rarely deal with their own extremists?”
4) “Criminal damage”
Is arson “criminal damage”? If it is, then it could quite easily be the case that Tell Mama is counting the very same attack twice (i.e., under two headings). Once as “arson” and again as “criminal damage.”
5) Hate mail
As with 4) above, can’t hate mail also be classed as “anti-Muslim literature”? Here again, perhaps the same incident is being counted twice. Once as “anti-Muslim literature” and again as “hate mail.” Not only that:
If hate mail is anti-Muslim literature, and anti-Muslim literature is anti-Islamic literature, then anti-Islamic literature is also hate mail.
6) “Attacks involving pork products”
This doesn’t even deserve a response. (Is this something from Monty Python?)
7) “Incident at a far-right protest”
This is even more vague – and intentionally vague! (It also sounds like a BBC play.) The Tell Mama’s image/visual is meant to be about attacks on mosques. How does an incident at a far-right protest connect with “attacks on mosque”? I suppose an attack on a mosque could have happened during a protest. But then Tell Mama would have given that a separate category. In addition, what is meant by the word “incident”? Did someone fart outside a mosque or something?
8) “Threat”
Vagueness again. Anything can be classed as a “threat.” It doesn’t even need to be a threat of violence because, again, if it had been, Tell Mama would have classified it under a different heading. As it is, someone can threaten to burn the Koran. Sure, someone can also threatened to kill a Muslim. But, like the “Arson/arson threat” earlier, threats to kill occur all the time on Facebook (often from Muslims) and even on the street. And, again like arson, threats to kill will outnumber actual killings by thousands to one… or more!
This is only a part of this excellent and forensic examination of the torrent of dishonesty and dubious statistics that pours from the keyboards and mouths of Tell Mama and its staff. I would most strongly recommend that people read the entire article by Paul Austin Murphy as it shows us all most clearly just how vague Tell Mama’s ‘hate crime’ figures are and how Tell Mama use this vagueness as the basis for highly dishonest stories about anti-Islam incidents in the United Kingdom. You can access the complete New English Review article via the link below.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Paul_Austin_Murphy/Tell_Mama_Lies:_How_to_Lie_About_Islamophobia/
Go and read it, and then ask some polite questions of Tell Mama about the provenances and honesty of their data and the statements that they make based on this data. Better still, as Tell Mama are unlikely to listen to any criticisms from the taxpayers who fund them and may even, as they have done with me, threaten you with arrest for doing so, why not join the growing number of British citizens who are contacting their MP and the DCLG Minister Sajid Javid with those criticisms of this dangerous and dishonest organisation.
Other links
The waste of public funds that is Tell Mama
Fiyaz Mughal’s Muslim money making machine
A form letter that you can use or adapt to use to write to your MP or to the Minister Sajid Javid to complain about the Tell Mama organisation
The Tell Mama website
Thanks for the thanks! It was a good examination of the true facts.
No problem for the thanks. I always try to credit sources where possible. It is an excellent examination of these dangerous charlatans.