More EMA contradictions - do its defenders even read the evidence they link to?

So I showed here in great detail how Shane Chowen, the NUS vice-president, has managed to cite two academic papers that he claims back up his points about EMA when in fact they completely undermine them.

Here we have another example of this. James Mills, founder of the Save EMA campaign, and Ed Miliband's new best mate, starts off in this article by citing the NUS survey that showed 65% of participants couldn't carry on studying without EMA. Then, eager to convince us yet further, he says:

In addition, RCU Market Research Services carried out research on the national scheme and published a report called Evaluation of the EMA National Roll-out 2007, which concluded: "EMA is reducing Neet (those Not in Employment Education or Training) and also motivating learners to work harder." Ipsos Mori published a report in 2008 which reached similar conclusions.

Really? Let's click on the links and see. The RCU paper actually says '6% of respondents said they would not have continued in learning without EMA.' The Ipsos Mori paper actually says '13-17 per cent of respondents would not be in learning without EMA'. That is, between 83% and 94% of EMA spending is wasted - this correlates with all the other evidence we have which I outlined here.

So, papers cited by the head of the Save EMA campaign directly contradict one of his central points. Has he even read them?