extremist Islamist messages would have been quite clear to substantial sections of his audiences on each occasion. 370. I agree with Dr Wilkinson’s view that the cumulative effect of these speeches is consistent with an extremist Salafist Islamist worldview, with positions articulated on the particular issue of jihad that are violently extreme, and these speeches would be regarded by the vast majority of the Muslim community as theologically extreme. In my view, they are redolent of Jihadi Salafism. 371. The Claimant was something of a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character: he presented a (benign) face to the local Lewisham and inter-faith community and another (extremist) face to receptive Muslim audiences on chosen occasions. 372. Even if I had found the BBC’s plea of justification was not fully made out on the evidence (which it has been), I would nevertheless still have found that the Claimant was, at best, reckless and irresponsible in his use of language when speaking to predominantly Muslim audiences about the sensitive subject of jihad and, accordingly, any damages would, in any event, have been nil or nominal (c.f. Pamplin v. Express Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1988] 1 WLR 116). 373. Further, even if I had found the WCO bore the wider meaning contended for by the Claimant, my conclusions would have been the same. 374. It is all too easy for someone in the Claimant’s position of power and influence as an Imam to plant the seed of Islamic extremism in a young mind, which is then liable to be propagated on the Internet. 375. For the reasons given in this Judgment, the Claimant’s claim is dismissed. 85