MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Hegab v Spectator emails asking when he had used the word “Hindu” and when he had said that Hindus were weak and pathetic. There was no further response. Organisations disassociate from the claimant 35. The claimant seeks special damages for losses resulting from the decisions of three organisations to disassociate themselves from him because of the article: One Ummah (whose Chief Executive Officer is Riszwan Rehman), Nature’s Blends (whose director is Yusuf Wasway) and SALAM. The claimant said that he lost (1) a deal worth £3,500 per month for him to be a Brand Ambassador for One Ummah, (2) an advertising contract with Nature’s Blends worth £1,500 per month and 25% commission, and (3) an engagement in a Ramadan fundraising campaign with SALAM worth £30,000. He relies on emails from each organisation sent between 17 and 24 November 2022. 36. On 17 November 2022, Mr Rehman emailed the claimant and said that One Ummah had decided to rescind its offer “due to recent UK press coverage of your alleged indiscretions in Leicester and your supposed “antisemitic stances”.” Reference was made to the first defendant. Mr Rehman confirmed that the amount that had been offered was £3,500 per month. 37. On 23 November 2022, Mr Wasway emailed the claimant and said that Nature’s Blends could not renew its contract with the claimant because of current coverage in the press (and reference was made to the first defendant). Mr Wasway confirmed that the renewed contract rates would have been “1,500 pounds per month plus commission of 25 per cent.” 38. On 24 November 2022 at 11.21pm, Amir Ahmed, from SALAM, emailed the claimant and said “I spoke to brother Amir and other guys in the shura, and they said you couldn’t be in the Ramadan fundraising campaign because of the Leicester news coverage, especially the stuff put out by… the racist Murray from The Spectator… I told brother Amir… that you were worth the 30 grand investment… but he said he wouldn’t want to privately finance something that could potentially backfire.” The causes of the street violence 39. There is (irrespective of this litigation) a strongly contested issue as to the causes of the disturbances in Leicester. Everyone agrees that for many years Leicester had large Hindu and Muslim communities who enjoyed harmonious relations. One narrative, adopted by the claimant, is that in more recent years many people who subscribe to the Hindutva ideology have emigrated from India and settled in Leicester, and that they have destroyed those harmonious relationships by engaging in a sustained campaign of anti-Muslim anti-social behaviour, intimidation and violence. The claimant has adduced evidence to support his narrative. Ironically, the claimant’s narrative is arguably consistent with the general theme of the defendants’ article (“if you import the world’s people you import the world’s problems”). A directly opposing narrative is that the problems were caused by the animosity towards Hindus of extreme Islamists. An altogether different explanation is that the problems were largely caused by social media agitators (such as, on one side, CVB and the claimant) who whipped up sectarian animosity. This narrative is explored in two reports: “Hindu-Muslim civil unrest in Leicester, ‘Hindutva’ and the creation of a false