jihad… is… one of the greatest acts of obedience and … the best means” etc). There are two problems with this submission. The first is that, as we have seen, the Claimant uses the phrase “speaking the truth to oppressive rulers…”as a metaphor for “fighting” oppressive rulers (see above). Second, when set against the weight of the numerous other extremist speeches and statements, the Claimant’s other benign speeches pale in comparison. 356. There is also a striking contrast between the Claimant’s extremist speeches and his recent repeated disavowal of extreme Islam in his witness statement and in his evidence at trial. I find his recent disavowal unconvincing. Religious extremism is tenacious and I have found no cogent evidence to suggest that the Claimant had undergone a Damascene conversion by the time of the BBC broadcast in November 2013 (or has since). 357. In my view, the Claimant’s ostensible cloak of respectability is likely to have made his (extremist) message in these speeches all the more compelling and seductive to his audiences. For this reason, therefore, his messages would have been all the more effective and dangerous. ERRORS OF FACT 358. I turn to consider the significance of two admitted errors of fact in the WCO, namely, (i) as to location, that the Claimant did not preach Jihad as “the greatest of deeds” at the East London Mosque; and (ii) as to timing, he did not so in 2013 but earlier (see above) (i) Location 359. As to (i), in my judgement, the particular location of where the Claimant was said to have preached his message (i.e. whether at the East London Mosque or at LIC or at a public forum such as outside the US Embassy or Belmarsh Prison) is not particularly germane so long as the substance of the message preached is made out. I agree with Mr Caldecott QC that that precise location of the Claimant’s utterances is a classic example of a non-defamatory circumstance which has little to do with whether the sting is proved. (i) Timing 360. As to (ii), the WCO referred to the Claimant preaching in the year of the broadcast, 2013, whereas the speeches and postings relied upon by the BBC took place between 2006 and 2011. The meaning of the WCO is that (1) the Claimant “is an extremist speaker” (i.e. in the present tense) and (2) the Claimant “had recently” told Muslims that violence would constitute a man’s greatest deeds. 361. As to the first meaning (1), in my view, the cumulative weight and consistent pattern of the Claimant’s previous speeches 2006-2011 makes good the BBC’s first charge. There was been no recent Damascene conversion (see above) 83