Examination of claims
1 a. MPACUK didn't claim hired as columnist. They claimed "JC hosts BNP Candidate blog".
1 b. Muir claimed: "Muslim Public Affairs Committee put out a story claiming that the BNP man had been hired as a columnist".
1 c. MPACUK didn't claim BNP man had been hired as columnist. They claimed JC hosted BNP Candidate blog.
2 a. Muir then goes on to claim "He never was." which is true. But why claim MPACUK made the claim when they didn't, only to add he wasn't?
2 b. It was in fact Richard Silverstein who made the claim that JC had given a "regular column" to a "white supremacist".
3. Muir claims blog "endured until Wednesday 18th April 2012: "when the Muslim Public Affairs Committee put out a story claiming that the BNP man had been hired as a columnist"
MPACUK article is actually dated 9th April 2012.
MPACUK didn’t claim Cortiglia had been hired as columnist.
MPACUK article dates 9th April 2012. Muir claims “endured until Wednesday when MPACUK put out article …”
Only Silverstein claimed that Cortiglia had been hired as columnist.
Silverstein article pub. 17th April 2012 (18th April 2012 UK time). Only Silverstein article matches with Muir’s description. Muir is concealing his use of Silverstein article OR has made genuine mistake and mixed up MPACUK and Silverstein's articles.
Replace MPACUK with Silverstein and Muir’s comments then make sense.
NB. Muir was politely notified he'd published inaccuracies using twitter. He never responded nor did he alter his article.