BBC 'evasive and disingenuous' about failure to follow their own Editorial Standards in Inside Out L

The BBC's sensationalist "investigation" into game farming to be aired tonight (31st October) by Inside Out London has raised significant questions about editorial standards, and again caused concern about the BBC's approach to rural issues.

Having been asked at a very late stage to contribute to the programme, and as part of our commitment to hold the BBC to account for the quality of its rural programming, the Countryside Alliance pressed for information about the programme's content, about the involvement of animal rights groups in making the programme and about how the programme's content was obtained.

Despite face to face meetings with the programme's producers and lengthy correspondence with the BBC's editorial team, the BBC's responses were repeatedly evasive and eventually disingenuous. While the editorial team claim the investigation contains no secret filming or trespass, clips released to promote the documentary show the presenter running away from a tractor to avoid detection and on the day the programme was due to air an article appeared in the Evening Standard reporting that the programme was an "undercover investigation" and that "secret filming" had taken place in direct contradiction of what the BBC had told us: Exposed: The appalling conditions in factory farms breeding game birds for the table

When first asked to appear on the programme the Countryside Alliance was repeatedly told it was not an anti-shooting piece, but was then asked to comment on allegations based on undercover filming, without being allowed to see the footage. The decision was taken at the time to give a comment to ensure that someone appeared on the programme supporting the benefits shooting brings to the countryside, but we subsequently registered our concerns with the programme's producers.

At a follow-up meeting with the producers Countryside Alliance staff were shown some footage which failed to substantiate allegations of bad practice. They were also assured that the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) had not been involved in the filming, and were once again told that the programme was not anti-shooting but aimed at balance.

We were not surprised, however, when the programme was advertised as "exposing cruel breeding practices" and LACS began to make claims about its involvement. Even the name of the programme, 'the Killing Fields', is offensive and unjustified in any way with any of the evidence the Alliance has been shown. We sent a letter to the Series Producer, not only highlighting our concerns about honesty and editorial standards, but also asking whether BBC guidelines relating to undercover filming had been followed. We also asked what precautions had been taken to ensure that undercover filming had not endangered the birds by causing stress and risking biosecurity.

The BBC failed to address these points, although it claimed to have consulted an ornithologist, and crucially stated that no undercover filming had taken place. A number of follow-up letters from the Countryside Alliance have questioned this incredible claim, asking whether the game farmers had given their permission for filming to occur. The BBC has still not answered these questions, despite the existence of clear guidelines as to when the BBC is allowed to undertake secret filming and the clear evidence that BBC reporters were trespassing when they filmed at game farms.

On the day the programme was due to air an article appeared in the Evening Standard reporting that the programme was an "undercover investigation" and that "secret filming" had taken place in direct contradiction of what the BBC had told us. It also confirmed that the programme included video supplied by LACS again in direct contradiction to what we had been told by the BBC.

This is all the more relevant because if the video evidence shown to the Alliance and the still photographs published in the Evening Standard are the highest point of evidence to support the claims made in the Standard article, and those claims are being made in the programme, then they are spurious, unjustified and frankly ignorant.

The BBC has repeated suggestion that the only course of action open to us is to complain after the programme has been shown. That is simply not good enough, but if it does make the sort of damaging allegations contained in the Standard article on the basis of claims that could not be substantiated by BBC, or LACS secret filming we will indeed lodge a complaint. During that process we believe it will be important to be able to show the BBC had been warned repeatedly about the information it relied on, the 'expert' it had consulted, the organisations it worked with or 'sourced information from', and the wholly unjustified conclusions that it reached.