A man who put his life on the line for his country sat down for a drink with someone he believed had done the same. According to Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf, a Royal Marine veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq was led to believe he was speaking to someone who shared his military background. On Yusuf’s account, the veteran spoke about the front line, sharing memories that servicemen and women usually share only with those who have been there. Yusuf alleges that the man was an ITV undercover reporter who falsely claimed military service while secretly recording their conversation. Great British PAC regards conduct of this kind, if established, as stolen valour: a disgraceful exploitation of a veteran’s trust, and a deeply troubling breach of journalistic ethics.
The allegation sits at the centre of a storm surrounding Undercover: A Year in Reform, ITV Exposure’s ninety-minute documentary broadcast on ITV1 and ITVX at 10.20pm on Sunday 18 October, after a week of extracts drip-fed through ITV News bulletins from 14 October. While the documentary examined Reform UK’s candidates and campaign operations, a separate allegation concerning the treatment of a Royal Marine veteran in Portsmouth has raised questions about the methods used to obtain material for the investigation.
Great British PAC’s position
Great British PAC believes that the service and sacrifice of Britain’s Armed Forces must never be exploited as a convenient disguise for political or journalistic advantage. The alleged use of a false military background to win the confidence of a Royal Marine veteran raises serious questions about the ethical limits of undercover reporting. The organisation argues that legitimate investigative journalism must never lose sight of the dignity of the individuals whose trust it seeks to obtain, and that a veteran’s service deserves respect regardless of his politics.
It bears stating plainly what is established and what is alleged. It is established that Zia Yusuf made the allegation publicly and that Reform UK has reported ITV and its journalists to the police. The account of the Marine rests on Yusuf’s statement; the veteran has not been named and has not spoken publicly. ITV has responded to the programme as a whole but has not publicly answered the Marine account specifically. No court or regulator has determined that any misconduct occurred. “Stolen valour” is Great British PAC’s moral characterisation of the alleged conduct, not a legal finding.
The trust of a fellow serviceman
In a video statement posted on X on Wednesday 21 October, Yusuf alleged that ITV’s undercover investigation had caused psychological distress to a Royal Marine veteran who did not appear in the documentary. His account, reported in The Guardian’s live coverage of the row, was specific. The man is a Reform member in Portsmouth. He served as a Royal Marine in Afghanistan and Iraq, with distinction. One of ITV’s undercover reporters told him they shared the same military background. That, said Yusuf, was a lie.
On Yusuf’s account, the Marine, believing he was with a fellow veteran, took him for a drink. They allegedly spent hours talking about their “shared” service, and the veteran reportedly opened up about deeply personal experiences from the front line, thinking he was speaking to someone who understood them. He has since learned, according to Yusuf, that the man across the table was an actor with a hidden camera, sent by a television company to gather material damaging to the party he volunteers for.
“Violated” is the word Yusuf said the veteran used. Speaking to GB News, Yusuf said: “They lied to a veteran about their service and left him violated. This is unprecedented.” The veteran is not the author of this story and should not be treated as a footnote in it. Nothing about his decision to trust a man who claimed to have served is foolish. The bonds between those who have served are built on sacrifice, hardship and experiences that civilians do not share, and exploiting that bond to extract a story is an unacceptable misuse of it. The dishonour in this account belongs entirely to the alleged deceiver, not to the deceived.
When undercover journalism crosses an ethical line
Undercover reporting has a legitimate place in British journalism. Where serious wrongdoing cannot reasonably be exposed by conventional means, covert methods have historically served the public interest, and regulators including Ofcom recognise that concealment can be justified. But justification depends on necessity and proportionality, and the ethical questions here are not all the same question.
Concealing a journalist’s professional identity is one thing. Adopting an undercover identity to gain access to a political party is another. Falsely claiming military service is a further step again, and exploiting the resulting trust to obtain a veteran’s most private memories is a step beyond that. Each involves a different degree of deception and a different kind of harm. A broadcaster may argue the first two were necessary to investigate a party of government-in-waiting. On the account presented by Yusuf, it remains difficult to see why a false claim of military service would have been necessary or proportionate to the investigation’s legitimate public-interest objectives. ITV should explain what specific journalistic purpose, if any, justified such a method. That is why this allegation, if established, would mark a disturbing example of how undercover methods can cross an ethical boundary. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, including its privacy provisions, requires broadcasters to justify unwarranted intrusion by the public interest, and ITV says the programme was produced in compliance with the code. Whether an alleged false claim of military service sits within any defensible reading of that framework is precisely one of the questions the broadcaster must now answer.
What the documentary investigated
None of this negates the material broadcast by ITV, and fair reporting must assess the documentary’s findings separately from the allegations concerning its methods. ITV Exposure’s year-long investigation placed an undercover reporter inside Reform UK’s Westminster headquarters as a paid press officer from January, and others on campaign trails across England and Wales through the local elections and four by-election contests in 2025 and 2026. The film and its pre-broadcast extracts documented elected Reform councillors using racist, violent and sexist language: Solihull’s Alan Feeney describing his area as “infested” with Asian families; Bromley’s Dean Miller calling for the King to be beheaded on the false claim that he is secretly a Muslim; Hounslow’s Adam Parkins speaking of “Sunday morning Rose Garden executions” of grooming gang perpetrators and David Kerr of machine gunning “a few thousand” of them; and activist Jason Powell advocating “concentration camps” for small boat migrants.
Reform’s response to the findings has been visible. Feeney resigned from the party and his council seats and has been suspended from his job as a senior prison officer. Solihull councillor Chris Whelan also resigned from the party, Miller quit to sit as an independent, and Powell was suspended from membership pending investigation, with the party saying “there is no room for racism in Reform UK” while investigations commenced. It concluded that no further action would be taken against the two Hounslow councillors, whose remarks it described as personal opinions in what they believed was a private conversation.
The party’s response to the method has been fiercer still. On 21 October, as reported by The Independent, Reform announced that it had reported multiple ITV journalists and the broadcaster’s board of directors to the police, alleging breaches of fraud and election law, and said it will pursue civil proceedings. Yusuf claimed the reporter employed as a press officer had “doctored” her passport to gain the job, and that two undercover reporters calling themselves Nigel and Ken joined Reform’s Portsmouth campaign while being paid for it, which he said breaches the law against paying people to canvass. These are allegations, untested and unanswered; no police force has been named publicly, and ITV has not responded to them in detail. Yusuf’s summary of the party’s grievance is nonetheless on the record: “Journalists are supposed to report the news. These ones set out to create it.”
The questions ITV must answer
ITV has not publicly addressed the specific allegation concerning the Royal Marine veteran, although the broadcaster has issued a general defence of its undercover investigation. In a statement reported by Press Gazette, a spokesperson said: “ITV stands by its journalism. The programme Undercover: A Year In Reform was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant laws, and its broadcast is in the public interest. All journalists were instructed to operate within this framework and did so under the supervision of the programme’s producers. Should the police get in touch we would fully cooperate.”
That statement addresses the programme. It does not address the veteran. If the account is inaccurate, ITV should say so and correct the record; the allegation has now been repeated to an audience of millions. If it is accurate, the questions write themselves. Did the reporter claim a military background he does not hold? Who approved that line of deception, and at what level of editorial command? Was any assessment made of the harm to the veteran before, during or after the filming? And why was a deception of this intimacy considered necessary and proportionate to a programme about the vetting of a political party? ITV’s statement that its journalists operated under producer supervision makes the question of editorial authorisation all the more important. The broadcaster should explain whether the alleged claim of military service was approved and, if so, by whom.
Great British PAC reaction
Great British PAC’s response rests on five principles, and carries five demands.
Respect for military service. Britain’s veterans deserve dignity and respect regardless of their political views. A man’s service in Afghanistan and Iraq is his own, earned in the service of his country, and it is not raw material for a television programme, whatever party he belongs to.
Abuse of trust. A false claim of shared military experience, if established, represents a particularly troubling way of obtaining someone’s confidence. The bonds between those who have served are not ordinary social bonds, and a broadcaster that trades on one to reach a veteran’s most private memories should expect the gravest scrutiny.
Journalistic accountability. ITV must explain whether the reporter claimed military service, why that method was used and who authorised it. A general statement of compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code does not answer a specific allegation about a specific veteran.
Public-interest justification. The broadcaster should explain why any such deception was necessary and proportionate to the investigation’s legitimate objectives. Scrutiny of a political party is legitimate. It does not follow that every method used in its name is defensible.
Protection of veterans. Journalists and broadcasters should recognise the particular ethical sensitivity of exploiting the shared identity and experiences of military veterans, and adopt clear safeguards so that no serviceman or woman is targeted in this way again.
Richard Thomson, National Director of Great British PAC, said:
“If Zia Yusuf’s account is accurate, ITV’s conduct is utterly disgraceful. As a former Royal Marine who served in Afghanistan, I know that operational experiences – coming under enemy fire, confronting IEDs and losing friends and colleagues – can leave lasting trauma. They are not material to be manipulated for television.
This veteran believed he was confiding in someone who shared and understood that experience. If a reporter falsely claimed a military background to gain his trust and secretly record deeply personal disclosures, that amounts to stolen valour and a shameful exploitation of someone who served this country.
Journalism can and should scrutinise public figures, but basic decency must still apply. Some lines should never be crossed. If this allegation is substantiated, ITV must explain itself, apologise to the veteran and accept responsibility for conduct that was several steps beyond the pale.“
Great British PAC therefore calls on ITV to publish a full account of the editorial authorisation of the undercover operation, to state categorically whether a false claim of military service was used, and to cooperate without reservation with any police inquiry.
A matter of honour and journalistic integrity
Writing in The Spectator, Ameer Kotecha, a former senior British diplomat who now leads the Centre for Government Reform, judged the finished film “a damp squib” and described sting operations on junior officials and rank-and-file members as “a poor form of scrutiny”. His sharpest line was aimed at the broadcaster’s choices rather than its lawfulness: “Scrutiny may be a broadcaster’s duty. But consistency is the test of its credibility.” Credibility is tested nowhere more severely than in the treatment of the people caught in the net. On the account presented by Yusuf, ITV’s net caught one man who had served his country in uniform and trusted the wrong stranger with his war.
It remains to be seen whether police or regulators will investigate the allegations, and whether any breach of law or broadcasting standards will be established. What requires no official finding is the principle at stake. If a journalist falsely claimed the bond of military service to win a Royal Marine veteran’s trust, no appeal to the public interest should exempt that decision from the most serious ethical scrutiny. Britain’s veterans deserve respect, regardless of their political beliefs, and their service must never become a convenient disguise for those seeking a story. They are the men and women who stood on the line for the country’s freedoms, including the freedom of the press that now stands accused of exploiting a veteran’s trust. Their sacrifice deserves better than to become a prop. So does the truth.
