MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Hegab v Spectator article, in which they are obviously on good terms, and Mr Rehman praises the claimant and discusses a contract. Further, there is evidence that the claimant did assist One Ummah with fundraising promotional videos in March – June 2024 and January – June 2025. It was shortly after the disclosure of these videos that it was said that Mr Rehman would no longer give evidence in person. For these reasons, I do not place any weight on his evidence. It is not necessary to address numerous further points raised by the first defendant as to Mr Rehman’s credit as a witness. 65. As to SALAM, no evidence was called from Amir Ahmed (who wrote the email of 24 November 2022), or from “brother Amir and other guys in the shura” (who apparently made the underlying decision). Nor was evidence given by Mr Dawah who was a close associate of the claimant, and who appears to have been involved with SALAM throughout, and who was identified as a witness on quantum/losses in the claimant’s directions questionnaire. Instead, evidence was given by Zeshan Hussain who is SALAM’s operations manager. He started working for SALAM in January 2025. He was not, therefore, in post at the time of the decision to disassociate from the claimant and is not able to give direct evidence about that. Although he purported to give evidence about it, he did not provide any underlying documents to support what he said, and he did not identify the sources of his information. 66. Mr Hussain said that his view of the claimant was damaged “somewhat” as a result of reading the article. I do not accept that evidence. He had known the claimant for a long period of time, and they had studied together. As soon as he started working at SALAM he suggested that the claimant be awarded a contract. He says that this fell through, and SALAM disassociated itself from the claimant, because of concerns about the claimant arising from the article. The claimant has not disclosed the letter disassociating SALAM from the claimant. Moreover, there is no clear reason why this should have arisen more than 2 years after the article was published. There was other reporting about the claimant which is more likely to have been the source of any concern, if, indeed, there was any concern. In any event, this is no part of the claimant’s pleaded case, and his supplementary written closing submissions confirmed that he does not advance a case of serious harm based on a failure to secure a contract in 2025. 67. “Exculpatory” evidence: I recognise that the parts of the videos of the claimant in central London and Golders Green and Leicester that are the focus of this trial are a tiny fraction of the claimant’s overall social media output, and even that, in turn, no doubt fails fully to represent the claimant as a person. I have also taken into account what might be regarded as a form of exculpatory evidence. There are many instances where the claimant refers to his Jewish or Hindu friends. There are instances where he directly advocates against violence or criminality. There are instances where, on one view, he is assisting the police. He advances an argument, from an Islamic perspective, in favour of the possibility of reincarnation. I have taken all of this type of material into account when assessing the claimant’s conduct in London and Leicester. The defendants do not invite conclusions that the claimant is an antisemite or that he is otherwise racist. What matters is his actual conduct in London and Leicester in May 2021 and September 2022. Conclusions about that conduct are inevitable, based primarily on the video evidence, irrespective of the more general exculpatory material.