We are disappointed with Mr Gilligan’s piece in The Spectator.
Over three days (from Wednesday 30 September to Friday 2 October) Mr Gilligan sent BMT a series of questions relating to our forthcoming report. We provided detailed responses and repeatedly explained that the report, including the underlying methodology and evidence, would be published within days. We asked him to consider that report before drawing conclusions about the data.
The suggestion that BMT simply refused to provide supporting evidence is misleading.
After a third set of questions in three days – sent at 02:42 on Friday 2 October 2026 - we strongly suggested to Mr Gilligan that he wait to read the report before he published any piece. We reiterated that the report would be published in the coming days. Instead, Mr Gilligan and the Spectator have published a piece based on a forthcoming report they have not read.
The article quotes part of BMT’s response concerning the time available to answer the third set of questions. The full response was as follows:
“Thank you for your third set of questions.
We do not have time to answer these today. Our full report is published in the coming days and the issues you raise are addressed within.
There is no good reason for you to publish ahead of reading that report, and as we have already made clear we reserve the right to take action should you misrepresent our work or our position in relation to the suggestions you have made.”
The report provides important context concerning the scope, definitions and methodology that is absent from the article.
1. A Mosque is attacked in this country on average once every five days. In the last year, attacks on Mosques are at an unprecedented level, which is the basis of our report and our commentary. As explained in the report, our recording includes Mosques, Community Centres and related buildings. We assess the annual figures in line with common practice. Fluctuations within the year do not invalidate the annual trend.
2. The East London Central Synagogue on Nelson Street was attacked whilst in the process of being purchased by a Muslim group. This process was accompanied by significant online hate towards the local Muslim community as the process developed
3. Mass-casualty plots are extremely serious, and we reject any suggestion that they should not be included in this analysis, or that the inclusion of two foiled plots undermines the data on anti-Muslim hatred and hostility targeted at Mosques. Including serious disrupted plots is consistent with established practice in terrorism and community-security reporting.
4. Arson attacks cause harm that endangers life.
5. Data collection on individual incidents and attacks against mosques was conducted by three methods: direct reporting to BMT's confidential helpline, third-party reports, and publicly available information. In-line with common practice, those reports are treated with pure confidentiality to protect victims.
BMT welcomes scrutiny of its work. However, that scrutiny should engage with the report’s actual definitions, methodology and evidence. We invite readers to consider the report in full and have asked The Spectator to correct any significant inaccuracies or misleading impressions in its article.
Mr Gilligan accuses BMT of exaggerating the threat to the Muslim community. Recent polling reveals that more than half of Britain’s Muslims have experienced some form of religious prejudice or hatred within the last 12 months