What the ordinary man would infer from what is said to be the "natural and ordinary meaning" of the words?

In Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 151 at 154 - 155, Reid L.J. stated: What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves as where the plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them and that is also regarded as part of their natural and ordinary meaning. Here there would be nothing libellous in saying that an inquiry into the appellants’ affairs was proceeding: the inquiry might be by a statistician or other expert. The sting is in inferences drawn from the fact that it is the fraud squad which is making the inquiry. What those inferences should be is ultimately a question for the jury but the trial judge has an important duty to perform. ... In this case it is, I think, sufficient to put the test this way. Ordinary men and women have different temperaments and outlooks. Some are unusually suspicious and some are unusually naive. One must try to envisage people between these two extremes and see what is the most damaging meaning that they would put on the words in question ... What the ordinary man not avid for scandal, would read into the words complained of must be a matter of impression.