Complaint
This edition of Panorama investigated claims that British special forces had been involved in the deliberate shooting of captured civilians during raids in Afghanistan. 聽A viewer complained the programme failed to display due respect to the armed forces, arguing that the accusations were unjustified and the programme fabricated, misconstruing interviews and film footage to suit a biased narrative. 聽The ECU assessed the programme against the standards for accuracy and impartiality set out in the 大象传媒 Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The complainant did not point to any particular part of the programme which was inaccurate, or offer any evidence to call into question any of the claims within it. 聽In the ECU鈥檚 view the programme as a whole made clear that Afghanistan had been very hazardous for British soldiers with 455 losing their lives, many killed by roadside bombs. 聽And it included an interview with a former Commander of the Marines in Helmand, who explained that the accusations in the programme did not reflect on the British forces as a whole.
It was against this background, and following an explanation of the work of the SAS in targeting people identified as responsible for roadside bombs, that evidence suggesting the deliberate shooting of captured civilians was explored. Viewers would therefore have understood such actions did not reflect on the armed forces more generally and that the aim of the special forces had been to stop those bombs. 聽The ECU took the view the programme was entitled to explore complaints about the actions of one special forces unit over a specific period of time without this being seen as disrespectful to the armed forces as a whole, or those who served in Afghanistan.
The programme set out the evidence the journalists had gathered on suspicious killings, including the official account and what they had been told by eyewitnesses, some of whom were 鈥渕ilitary insiders鈥. 聽One interviewee, for example, had been in the room when questionable decisions were made regarding military intelligence on targets. 聽Another was a senior officer in Special Forces HQ, who expressed concern on the number of prisoners killed during night raids. 聽The complainant provided no evidence to show this material was fabricated and misconstrued, and such sources appeared very well-placed to give an account of what they had seen and heard. 聽Viewers were given sufficient information (for instance on the repeated reporting of detained prisoners being killed while reaching for a weapon, and the reasons behind the raids) to reach a view for themselves on the conflicting accounts.
Not Upheld