Here's what he wrote:
"I wish my critics could actually bother to read what I say. I didn't mention Bartosch's work. I said not a word about it. I'm not interested in it. I'm just curious about why anyone should believe Spiked-Online."
But Philip, we did read what you said. And it made no sense. Amanda Craig tweeted Jo Bartosch's article; she didn't say "Read Spiked". If you say that no one should believe anything in Spiked, you are, very obviously, saying you shouldn't believe Jo Bartosch. Why pretend that the meaning is anything other than that?
That's quite aside from the fact that Jo's piece is an opinion piece, not a news report, so it's not a question of "believing" it, it's a question of understanding the arguments.
Of course he is free not to like Spiked. But he seems not to understand (or pretends not to understand) that freelancers can and do write for many publications they are not particularly in sympathy with.
He seems to want to have his cake and eat it: to attack Jo because she writes for Spiked, while pretending that he has absolutely no opinion about Jo one way or the other. Why bother, frankly?