338. The BBC relied upon an ‘open letter’ published by the LIC on 26 th January 2016 which it submitted was an extreme response to a letter from the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon. Eric Pickles MP, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Tariq Ahmad to many mosques and Mulim leaders following the terrorist atrocities in Paris. The Secretary of State’s letter sought to enlist the help of the Muslim leaders to fight extremism in the following terms: “The hijacking of a great faith to justify such heinous crimes sickens us all. As Muslims around the world have made clear such actions are an affront to Islam. … And yet, amid the carnage, came a sign of hope – over three million people of all backgrounds, marching to defeat the gunmen and to protect our values, free speech, the rule of law and democracy. We are proud of the reaction of British communities to this attack. Muslims from across the country have spoken out to say 'not in our name'. But there is more work to do. We must show our young people who may be targeted that extremists have nothing to offer them…” 339. The LIC’s open letter in response said (i) it was “insulting” to single out Muslims who were already so heavily vilified following the attacks in Paris, (ii) the “demonization” of the Muslim community continued unabated; and (iii) “we refute in the strongest possible terms” this attempt “to lay the blame for extremism and terrorism at our door”. 340. Mr Caldecott QC suggested to the Claimant in cross-examination that this was an extreme overreaction to the Secretary of State’s letter. The Claimant denied that this was the case and asked why only the Muslim community was treated in this way and why similar letters had not been sent out “to the whole white community and churches”. Conclusion 341. In my view, the LIC open letter dated 26 th January 2016, in which the Claimant admitted having a hand, was a manifest overreaction to a perfectly sensible and unobjectionable letter from the Secretary of State. Whilst the letter is not evidence of extremism per se, it nevertheless re-enforces the picture of the Claimant as someone who expresses intemperate views. GENERAL COMMENTS 342. I turn to make several general comments. Claimant’s extremist messages are clear in his speeches 80