John - you say: "Part of the problem with MW is the way that their own releases make exaggerated use of the reports they produce."
I challenged IH over its reporting of MW specifically drawing attention to the figures for Somali immigrants. You have defended it by saying that MW themselves drew attention to this in their press release.
The MW press release actually says:
"The study also found that non EU migrants were more likely to live in social housing that the UK born. For some nationalities the difference was striking:- Nigeria (29%), Iran (33%), Jamaica (35%), Ghana (39%), Portugal (40%), Bangladesh (41%), Turkey (49%), Somalia (80%) compared to UK born for whom the proportion was 17%."
This does not specifically draw attention to the Somali migrants, nor does it actually draw the stark comparison that was claimed in the other IH article. The full MW report covers everything equally, from reporting migrants who have a lower occupancy rate in social housing (Polish) to those who have a higher occupancy rate, and everywhere in between.
It is only the reporting of figures like those for Somalis that are seized upon by people who want to take a swipe at Migration Watch, yourself included - that is selective and unbalanced.
To use your own terminology that you used to criticise MW, it makes "exaggerated use of the reports they produce".
Hung by your own petard, I think.