57. By letter dated 21 July 2017 Carter-Ruck wrote on behalf of Mr Burgon complaining about the online article but also stating that “it was also published in the hard copy newspaper”. The article was set out together with the sequence of events. Claims for malicious falsehood, defamation and breach of the DPA were outlined. Reference was made to the emails received by Mr Burgon. Issues about the Representation of People Act 1983 and IPSO were raised and it was noted that the article was still being published. A list of requirements was set out including removal of the article from publication and removal of cached versions of the article by contacting google. The letter did ask for publication figures for the article together with similar publications on social media or in the hardcopy Sun newspaper. 58. A response dated 28 July 2017 was sent on “The Sun” headed letter paper by senior editorial legal counsel. It was denied that either the online or print articles were defamatory. As to serious harm it was said “it is inconceivable that these innocuous and light hearted articles could have caused serious harm to your client’s reputation”. It was said that the articles were honest opinion and said that “Mr Newton Dunn did hold, and continues to hold, the opinion that it was unwise of your client to join a band which uses Nazi symbols given he is a prominent member of the Labour party”. Mr Burgon’s claims were rejected and it was said that News Group would not be complying with any of Mr Burgon’s demands. 59. Proceedings were issued on 4 October 2017. It appears that the online article was removed on about 1 November 2017. It appears that there were just under 100 hits on the article from 5 August to 1 November 2017. Legal principles to determine the meaning of the words published in the online article 60. The test to be applied to ascertaining the meaning of the online article was common ground and it is not necessary to repeat in full the relevant legal principles. In summary when deciding the meaning of words, a judge is providing written reasons for his conclusion as to the meaning to be attributed to the words sued upon. A Judge should not fall into the trap of conducting an over-elaborate analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective protagonists. The meaning is to be determined from the viewpoint of the layman, not by the techniques of a lawyer, see Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 and the principles set out at paragraph 14, Waterson v Lloyd [2013] EWCA Civ 136; [2013] EMLR 17 at paragraph 53 and Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB). In libel there will be one single meaning to be determined from a reading of the article. The exercise has been described as one of ascertaining the broad impression made on the hypothetical reader by the words. The natural and ordinary meaning of words includes what the reasonable man will infer from the words. The hypothetical reasonable reader will be taken to have read the whole of the publication which is the article. Bane and antidote must be taken together. It was common ground that the Court is entitled to reach its own conclusions on meaning and is not required to adopt meanings advanced by either party, so long as the Court does not find a meaning more injurious than the claimant’s pleaded meaning. 61. When a meaning is determined, the Court will have to consider whether the meaning is a statement of fact or opinion. Opinion must be recognisable as an opinion, as distinct