The Telegraph says the report:
argued that the determination of ministers to tackle Islamic extremism in the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, had led to a preoccupation with Muslim communities at the expense of Christian groups.
But is that all that surprising? There would no doubt be plenty of criticism of the Government if it hadn't focused on Muslim communities after those attacks. The Telegraph continues:
Subsequently, the report said, churches are facing a challenge to maintain their presence in poor parts of the country.
But is that not also a fault of the Christian church for failing to attract followers? It goes on to quote the report directly:
"There is a perception, perhaps justified, that it has been easier for Islamic groups to receive financial support than other faith groups."
A 'perception, perhaps justified'? That does not sound that convincing. Sadly, the actual report has been elusive to my searching so it's hard to judge exactly what the report has said and in what context.
However, what is noticeable is the way the Daily Star has twisted the story to its own agenda. The story becomes 'Hate groups grab cash' and claims 'radicals are pocketing thousands of pounds of Government cash thanks to political correctness'.
The Star's next paragraph is:
A report shows hundreds of church parishes are being starved of state funds as millions of pounds go to minority faiths.
So 'thousands' has turned to 'millions' in the space of a sentence, which really fills you with confidence for the accuracy of the story. But what is really appalling is that, by the Star's reckoning, all Muslims are 'hate groups' and 'radicals'.