179. Third, it is striking that Sheikh Chowdhury’s speech provoked such an extreme and intemperate reaction by the Claimant - the language used by the Claimant is full of hyperbole and is suggestive of violent objection (“brazenly posted…”, “deplorable…”, “deeply shocked and appalled…”, “ridiculously outrageous…”). 180. Fourth, it is striking that the Claimant launched a personal diatribe against Sheikh Chowdhury and accused him of allowing himself to be used as a willing tool by the West against Islam (“to declare himself an ally of the West against Islam…”, “to lure the anti-terrorism officers into using him and other religious leaders against the Muslim community…”, “signing a deal with the devil…”, “any sort of alliance…”). 181. Fifth, it is striking that the Claimant characterised the counter-terrorist forces as the epitome of evil (“the devil…”, “the brutal, cunning and oppressive anti-terrorism workforce….”, “the enemies of Islam the Muslims…”). As Mr Caldecott QC succinctly put it, the practical dangers of an exhortation to treat the counter-terrorism authorities as “the devil” is disturbingly obvious: the Claimant’s comments would act as a strong discouragement to anyone thinking of collaborating or co-operating with the British security services. 182. Sixth, it is striking that the Claimant accuses Sheikh Chowdhury of one of the most serious of religious crimes, namely betraying his covenant with Allah and falling into disrepute and warns other scholars, preachers and Imams that silence is consent (“I urge Tawfique Chowdhury to publicly and unequivocally retract his irresponsible and reckless speech, in order to save himself…”, “Tawfique Chowdhury is not the first to fall into disrepute and controversy…and betray their covenant with Allah…”). 183. Seventh, the Claimant’s “Advice” is antithetical to the prevention of the use of violence purportedly perpetrated in the name of Islam in British society. The Claimant’s response is all the more surprising and troubling, coming as it does shortly after the Mumbai incident in November 2008, and whilst the memories of the London “7/7” bombings in July 2005 still remained raw and very much in the public consciousness. 184. Eighth, the Claimant was driven in cross-examination by Mr Caldecott QC to say that he accepted most of Sheikh Chowdhury’s message. Claimant’s answers 185. The Claimant points to two sentences in the middle of his “Advice” to counter the BBC’s suggestion that the thrust of the piece is extreme (“This is not to say that we should not work to prevent unlawful violence. In fact, many have been at the forefront of this work.”). In my view, however, this does little to balance the extreme tone that he adopts in the rest of this posting. 186. The Claimant sought to explain his “Advice” on the basis that that he was “angry” with Sheikh Chowdhury’s support for the counter-terrorism policies adopted by the UK police force, in particular the UK Government’s PREVENT strategy, and that he sometimes expressed himself “too passionately”. The UK Government’s PREVENT strategy requires schools, universities and other organisations to keep an eye out for signs of radical behaviour and to report them. The policy was given statutory effect in 41