Complaint about a programme in which company that provides service in obtaining visas 
on behalf of clients was exposed, according to the Broadcaster, as a business that made inaccurate representations to the public as to the likelihood of obtaining visas and employment in other countries and to shift the risk of failure to obtain such onto the clients. The Complainant averred that the exposé was partially presented and factually incorrect, that the programme amounted to a misrepresentation, breached the privacy and impaired the dignity of the director/owner. The Tribunal found that the comment by the Broadcaster was an honest expression of opinion made on facts truly stated or fairly indicated and referred to, that Complainant had himself to blame for not presenting his side of the case. The Tribunal found there was balance in the presentation and that the Complainant’s rights to privacy and dignity were overridden by a legitimate public interest.
