peace be upon him, was hated. There was a time when our messenger Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was hated. But today these prophets, these great men are loved by billions of people on earth.” “An English writer by the name of George Orwell, he said in a time of universal deceit to speak the truth is a revolutionary act. In a time of universal deceit to speak universal truth is a universal act for the Muslims, to stand up for justice, for the Muslims to stand up for their rights, for the Muslims to be proud is a revolutionary act and is part of steadfastness and that's why the messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said the greatest form of jihad is to speak the truth in front of a tyrant ruler”. 38. The Claimant also pointed to the speech which he gave at the East London Mosque on 22nd August 2013 in which he said “the highest form of jihad was to speak the truth in front of tyrant ruler in the footsteps of Jesus...” (see above). THE LAW Introduction 39. I turn to set out the relevant law in this area. There are two distinct exercises in relation to ‘meaning’ which arise in the present case. First, deciding the meaning to be attributed to the words complained of (“WCO”) in the BBC broadcast of the Sunday Politics show. Second, deciding the meanings to be attributed to the various speeches or utterances given by the Claimant which are relied upon by the BBC to support its defence of justification. Both exercises involve the determining of ‘meaning’. Both exercises involve a careful examination of the words spoken and the context. However, the objectives of the two exercises are different and the applicable legal principles are different. I set them out below (see (1) and (2) below). I also explain the legal test for justification in defamation (see (3) below). (1) General legal principles – meaning of words complained of 40. The general principles applicable to claims for defamation in relation to words complained of spoken on television are well established. I rehearsed them in detail in Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman v. Ary Network Limited [2015] EWHC 2917 (QB) [11]-[29]. For convenience, I set out that summary of the law again below. 41. The natural and ordinary meaning of words for the purposes of a defamation claim is the single meaning that would be conveyed by those words to the ordinary reasonable reader (see Slim v. Telegraph [1968] 2 QB 157 at 171-2). 42. The court’s task in the artifice of arriving at a putative actual single meaning may involve an approximate centre-point in the range of possible meanings, or a dominant meaning for each broadcast (per Longmore LJ in Cruddas v Calvert [2013] EWCA 748 at [32]). 9