When Water Burns: The Fight for Georgia, BBC Two and BBC iPlayer, 1 December 2025

Complaint

Solicitors representing Georgian Dream, the governing party of Georgia complained that this documentary was inaccurate, unfair and lacked due impartiality.  The complaint challenged the BBC’s reporting that evidence suggested chemicals, possibly including the World War One-era agent camite, had been added to water cannons and used against protesters in Tbilisi.  It also raised concerns about the sources relied on by the BBC, references to Russian influence in Georgia, the portrayal of the protests and police response, statements concerning the party’s honorary chairman Bidzina Ivanishvili, and whether those criticised had been given an adequate chance to respond.  The ECU considered whether the output met the editorial standards for accuracy, impartiality and fairness set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines.


Outcome

The ECU found the programme did not state as fact that camite had been used but presented it as a theory supported by evidence gathered by the BBC and assessed by relevant experts.  In doing so, the BBC took reasonable steps to corroborate information from witnesses, documentary evidence and expert sources.  In the ECU’s view the reporting of petitions, expert opinion and official statements was also adequately supported.

The BBC was entitled to rely on evidence from witnesses and experts when examining the possible identity of chemicals used during the protests.  Viewers were given sufficient information about the basis for the BBC’s reporting and the limitations of the available evidence.  The content appropriately reflected what was known at the time of broadcast.

The ECU considered the BBC offered an appropriate right of reply and the programme fairly reflected responses from Georgian Dream and its honorary chairman.  References to Russian influence, the conduct of protesters and police during the demonstrations, and allegations concerning Mr Ivanishvili were also presented with sufficient context, and the programme included and fairly reflected the positions of those criticised.

Not upheld.