The Register
Who we are up against
A publicly available register of individuals, organisations, public bodies, and office-holders who have, on at least one documented occasion, failed to demonstrate sufficient commitment to our work.
The register is not exhaustive. It is growing. We update it as resources permit, which is not as frequently as events require.
Each entry is supported by documentation. In most cases, the documentation consists of a public statement, a published report, or a letter to Hate Matters asking us to stop. We note all of these with equal interest. We are moving on from none of them.
We maintain this register because we believe in transparency. We also maintain it because we believe the record will, in due course, be consulted by someone. We are ready for that.
Organisations working in adjacent areas have, in many cases, responded to entries of this kind through the legal system. Hate Matters is aware of this. We have chosen a different approach, which consists of writing letters, noting the responses, and writing again. We wish to be clear that this is a matter of principle. It is also a matter of resources. Both are true and we do not consider them in conflict.
No legal action has been taken against any entry on this register. Each entry notes this explicitly. We note it without embarrassment and with what we describe internally as strategic patience.
Academics and researchers
Professor B. Henley-Crawford, Department of Sociology (institution withheld, though they know who they are) — published a peer-reviewed paper concluding that the evidence base for several Hate Matters positions was, in the paper's phrase, "absent". We have written to the journal. The journal has acknowledged receipt of our letter. The paper remains published. The paper has been cited fourteen times, none of them by us.
No legal action taken. Duncan reviewed the paper and described the situation as "litigable in principle". We have noted this assessment. We have not litigated. We are reviewing our options.
Dr S. Fairweather-Okafor, Faculty of Law (institution withheld) — submitted evidence to a parliamentary committee characterising Hate Matters' legal analysis as "not a legal analysis". We note this entry. We are preparing a response. The response will be comprehensive. It will be ready shortly.
No legal action taken. We are aware that "not a legal analysis" is a serious characterisation. We have written a rebuttal. The rebuttal is, Duncan has confirmed, itself a legal analysis. We have not tested this position in court. We remain open to doing so once circumstances permit.
Seventeen additional academics have signed open letters that do not support our work. The letters have been filed. The signatories have been noted individually in the private version of this register. Several of them have PhDs. We do not consider this relevant.
Public bodies
An equalities advisory body — declined to endorse Hate Matters' interpretation of the relevant legislation. We have noted the entry, written a detailed response, and submitted it to the body. The body has acknowledged receipt. The body has not changed its guidance. The body has been added to the register.
A regional NHS trust — updated its internal guidance in a direction we did not recommend, following consultation with its own clinical staff. We wrote to the trust. The trust thanked us for our correspondence. The guidance was not revised. We have written again and we are awaiting a response we do not expect to receive.
No legal action taken. We note that clinical guidance decisions of this kind have, in other sectors of our work, prompted judicial review proceedings by peer organisations. We have not brought judicial review proceedings. We are aware that judicial review proceedings cost money. We are also aware that we do not have that money. Both facts are noted.
A professional medical body — has declined, on three separate occasions, to revise its clinical guidance on the basis of submissions from Hate Matters. We have submitted again. We note that our submissions are written by people with no clinical qualifications. We have found, historically, that this has not aided the submissions' reception. We are considering this feedback.
Civil service
A Permanent Secretary (name withheld from this version of the register) — replied to a Hate Matters letter with a single sentence acknowledging receipt and noting that the matter had been passed to the relevant policy team. We found the single sentence insufficient. We found the referral to a policy team to be a deferral. We have written to the policy team. The policy team has not replied. The Permanent Secretary remains on the register.
Several members of the civil service have implemented policy guidance that does not reflect Hate Matters' recommendations. Their names appear in the private version of this register, which is available to trustees on request and is not published here for legal reasons we are currently reviewing. We note their entries with careful restraint.
Media and cultural figures
A national broadcaster — declined to commission a documentary developed in partnership with Hate Matters, citing "editorial independence and the need to reflect a range of evidence-based perspectives". We note that they commission other documentaries. We have submitted a formal complaint. The complaint is under consideration. It has been under consideration since August.
No legal action taken. We are aware that editorial decisions of this nature have been challenged through Ofcom, the courts, and other mechanisms by organisations with the resources to do so. We have submitted a complaint to Ofcom. Ofcom has acknowledged receipt. We consider this equivalent.
The author of a novel — wrote a review of a stage production in which he suggested that "ordinary people do not in fact hold these views, and the evidence that they do has been consistently misread". He has been added to the register. He does not know this. We are considering whether to inform him. We have not reached a decision. The entry stands.
No legal action taken. We note that statements of this kind have, in other contexts, prompted defamation proceedings, harassment injunctions, and formal complaints to publishers. We have written a letter. The letter was described by Duncan as "essentially a legal document". It is not a legal document. It is a letter. The author has not responded. The entry stands.
Organisations (general)
Several NGOs have continued to operate in ways inconsistent with our work. Their individual entries are being prepared by the Senior Hate Fellow, who is currently on leave. The entries will be published upon the Fellow's return. We note their absence from this page as temporary and we wish the Fellow a restful leave.
The register is a living document. If you are aware of an individual, body, or organisation that should be included, please use our contact page. We review all nominations. We have added every one we have received. We have received four. Two were submitted by Margaret.