Shujaul Azam Blog: Editor - Ealing Gazette

March 20, 2007

Mr. Azam
I am shocked at the misrepraestation of what you have written. As you know I contacted your office and you personally by telephone and by e-mail and requested 10 minutes of your time. I informed you that we had something to hand over to you. You agreed to see us on 14th March although it was a busy day for you.
A group of us were met by one of your colleagues who said that you could not see us. I informed him that you has agreed to see us and that it will only take a few minutes…. When you emerged, we presented you with the petition and told you what the petition was about. You were taken by surprise. You insisted that you had no knowledge of DAAP or the fact that there had been a previous compliant to you about the bias of your paper. I informed you that we did get coverage for Linford Christie opening our new premises ONLY after we had complained to you.
There was no furore or ambush as you suggest. On the contrary you threatened the photographer for trespassing on your premises and asked him not to take photographs of you. This we complied with. Please see only our photographs on our website www.daap.org.uk
ONLY two of us spoke to you and again as you misrepresent there were NO ‘shouts of institutionalised discriminations etc’ or ‘vehement demands for an answer to their grievances’. We merely asked you to respond to the petition and that at the very least you should give a right to reply to DAAP so that we can inform Ealing residents including women about the issues that concern them and which your paper has systematically chosen to ignore.
These weren’t as you suggest ‘shock tactics’ but merely us exercising our democratic right to raise issues. We had raised this issue with you previously and formally complained but had no response from you.
It is important for people in your position to appreciate the views of your actual and potential readers and to be informed when there is an issue of exclusion.
We came to deliver the petition which we did, complied with your request not to take photographs of you and left after 10 minutes which was the scheduled time with you.
I think 350 women expressing their views cannot be dismissed as ‘unfortunately did not do them any favours’
We look forward to your response so that we can inform all the women who have expressed to you that we think your paper is operating out of bias.
Perminder Dhillon
CEO, Drug and Alcohol Action Programme

How is your weight loss going? Has anyone stolen one of your treats yet?

Mr Azam

I am one of the representatives who was present at the Petition and I strongly agree with Ms Perminder Dhillon's comments.

I have had first hand experience with your paper. I have sent Press Releases and request for coverage of our event more than once only to be informed by the Gazette newsdesk "sorry but nothing can be done as your request was not received well before publication deadline". This statement is untrue as I know myself that our Charity ensured this time that you received our request well in advance and even then I was told it was too late.

It is about time your paper gave us some platform - how else can our community have fair representation if your paper chooses to ignore to publicise events such as ours

Dear Azam,
I am particularly astounded by your use of words Furor; Uproar, disturbance
Ambushed; trap
Vehement; violent, heated, intense
Surely if happened we would be front head line news in your paper.
I feel very disappointed that you as the editor can get the facts wrong.
Ambushed by 12/13 strong delegation of women; please, we had an appointment to meet you for 10 minutes (please check with you secretary)
There was no shouting or no shock tactics used. Two women spoke calmly, while the rest stood quietly. The time given to us was 10 minutes. We handed you the petition and left. Please get your facts straight. How can we trust our local reporters, reporting truthfully, if the editor himself can not report with integrity?