Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 101. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd The impact of the postings as compared with the impact of the broadcast of the programme was put to Mr Ali in evidence. It is fair to say that his statement is based in language suggesting drafting by a lawyer, rather than by the Claimant himself. He contrasted the 9.65 million viewings of the programme and added: “At the time the Facebook posting was printed out to be included in our disclosure it had been liked by 17 people and shared by 3 people. I think that this showed that the Facebook posting was not in fact looked at by many people. I admit that I was very upset by it but the upset caused to me by the broadcast of the programme was very much worse.” The statement went on to emphasise the volume of viewings of the programme, to make the point that the “Facebook posting was made by someone who clearly disliked us”, that the programme was broadcast after he had requested that it should not be broadcast and that Channel 5 went on broadcasting the programme after the Clainants had complained of the harm to them and the children. Later in the witness statement, the First Claimant emphasised the number of people in “my community” who had seen the programme and the degree of embarrassment and stress it had caused. 102. When Mr Ali was cross-examined about the letter of complaint in relation to the video posting, he sought to qualify the suggestion that the videos had circulated “massively” within his community and explained that the newspaper reference was to a news story in a Pakistani newspaper, based on the Facebook postings and that the newspaper had circulated in London as well as in Pakistan. He explained that the postings were also viewed in Canada and Saudi Arabia, and in the course of one answer Mr Ali said: “Due to this eviction and these videos we did suffer, and this was our feeling, that we had been very much humiliated and we have let – let down. People started not believe me anymore, and that was – that was stressful, and this is what we wanted to elaborate here.” 103. The judge noted that section 12(4)(a)(i) of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the court to have regard to the extent of information already available in public, and in that regard Channel 5 relied on the videos posted by the Ahmeds before the relevant broadcasts. Channel 5 relied upon Mrs Aslam’s description of the effect of those videos in the letter of May 2015. The judge accepted Mr Ali’s response in crossexamination, which was in substance that there was no comparison between the impact of a few hundred people watching postings on social media and 9.65m people watching a television programme: see paragraph 168. The Judge’s Approach 104. The judge reminded himself that the leading authority on the assessment of damages in privacy claims is the decision of Mann J in Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch), upheld by this Court at [2015] EWCA Civ 12391, [2017] QB 149. There was no submission that the Claimants could attribute any particular loss and damage to the breach of privacy claimed, other than distress. The judge rejected the submissions made by the Claimants that there should be aggravated damages. He rejected that argument based on the supposed unfairness and inaccuracy of the programme, since