MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Hegab v Spectator indeed using the van as a prop to provoke passersby and to elicit a reaction. That is all demonstrated beyond argument from the video evidence. 45. The claimant also said that he was not, at the time, aware of the Holocaust image. Again, that is not credible. He was standing in front of the van for a substantial period of time both at Golders Green and at the BBC, and this was one of a relatively small number of images that were shown in a loop. Although, for most of the time, he was not looking directly at the van, he was clearly aware of it, and he was referring to the imagery that was displayed on it. At one point he is directly looking at the van when the Holocaust image is (albeit momentarily) shown. Given that (contrary to his denial) he was using the van as a prop, it is an irresistible inference that he was aware of the images that were being displayed. 46. A video of a subsequent interview in December 2021 shows that by that point the claimant was certainly aware of the Holocaust image and the fact that it had been displayed on the van at the Golders Green event. The claimant accepts as much. However, in his Reply, served in May 2024, the claimant pleaded: “[t]he Claimant is unaware of whether there was at any time a display of “images of the Holocaust” on the van”. This is untrue. By the time that averment was made in the Reply the claimant was, on any view, aware of the Holocaust image. The claimant strenuously maintained that the Reply was accurate because of (what he said were) the words “at the time”, showing that the averment related to his state of knowledge at the time of the Golders Green event: “You need to be able to distinguish between a hindsight perspective or a retrospective perspective and “at the time””. That is not tenable. The sentence in the Reply is unarguably making an assertion as to the claimant’s state of knowledge at the time of the Reply (not at the time of the Golders Green event). That assertion, on the claimant’s own evidence, is untrue. 47. Moreover, the claimant’s evidence that he attended in good faith to engage in a debate with “Zionists” is not credible. His conduct was grossly offensive and disingenuous. It was designed to cause an adverse reaction and to elicit material for his social media channels. The people who he engaged in conversation appeared (from the clothing they were wearing on what was the Sabbath) to be Jewish, but the claimant was in no position to know their political views or their attitude towards the conduct of Israel’s military activities in Gaza. He sought to portray their disinclination to speak to him discreditably. It was nothing of the sort. It was an entirely understandable reaction from individuals who were going about their daily business (in some cases with their children) and who, contrary to the apparent attitude of the claimant, were under no obligation to engage with him. 48. The rally for Israel: The claimant denied that he was aware of the throwing of eggs and bottles. That denial is not credible. It is plainly visible, and audible, on the video footage, and the claimant was in the immediate vicinity. In his witness statement, the claimant says a protestor brought a dog close to him so that he felt threatened. That is not consistent with what he said to the police officer about “dogs” (plural). The claimant said in his oral evidence that the dog that is shown in the video was jumping on him and that it was going to bite him. That, again, is not credible (making every allowance for the fact that the video does not show everything). The dog in the video is held between the legs of a man who is standing still. The claimant’s oral evidence on this point is inconsistent with both his witness statement and what he said to the police officer. The claimant had no basis for his inflammatory threats to kill dogs, or