Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ismaik v Fadaat Media 9. I have further directed myself to Koutsogiannis at paragraphs 16 and 17 for guidance on considering whether the words complained of contain allegations of fact or opinion. On this, again, the question is how the words would strike the ordinary, reasonable reader. Subject matter and context can be especially important here. “Opinion is something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc.” but sometimes care is needed: there is a difference between comment which is pure opinion and comment which is an imputation of underlying fact. 10. I am reminded by the authorities that the test for the difference between fact and opinion is an objective one. That comes back to how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader. I have to look at the substance, not the intention of the writer or any label the writer may have attached. 11. The test at common law for whether a (natural and ordinary) meaning is defamatory is well-established: whether it substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a claimant, or has a tendency to do so. Some recent authorities put it in terms of identifying that a claimant has breached the common, shared values of our society. This is not about actual impact at this stage, it is about the meaning of the words themselves and their inherent tendency to damage someone’s reputation. ‘Substantially’ imports a threshold of gravity or seriousness. 12. Factual allegations of wrongdoing can be broadly categorised at three different levels of gravity: (1) someone is guilty of something, (2) there are reasonable grounds to suspect they are guilty, (3) there are grounds to investigate whether they are guilty (Chase v News Group Newspapers [2003] EMLR 11 [45]). This may be a guide to assessing the gravity of allegations. But again, it is just that – a guide, not a rigid and exclusive categorisation into which allegations must be forced. 13. While there are three preliminary issues I am required to determine, the authorities also counsel against the dangers of trying to solve them in too linear or compartmentalised a fashion (Triplark v Northwood Hall [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB) at [16]-[17]). I have to bear in mind whether this is a case in which the questions of ‘meaning’ and ‘fact/opinion’ might throw light on each other, such that it would be wrong to tackle them in an order which proves to be a trap of false logic. I note the risk and seek to avoid it. The parties’ pleaded meanings 14. Mr Ismaik takes four meanings, or imputations, from the article, which he says are defamatory of him, namely that he: a) has betrayed his country and his heritage in return for money (despite already possessing a fortune) by willingly acting as a crude mouthpiece for the right-wing, extremist Zionists who pay and control him, thereby allowing himself to be falsely presented by them as a representative of the views of Jordanians of Palestinian descent, when he knows he is promoting the agenda of such Zionists, for money, at the expense of Jordanian and Palestinian interests; b) is a convicted criminal, having been convicted in respect of petty sums in Jordan;