A father’s search for justice

Monday 17/03/08

 

Story:            A father’s search for justice

 

Tony Philipson’s son, James, was killed in Afghanistan at the age of 29 and as the coroner put it he was “defeated not by terrorism but by a lack of basic equipment” with those words he was saying that the MOD was responsible for James Philipson’s death. Something like a pair of night vision goggles could have prevented his death. Also during the last week a coroner in Oxford ruled that an SAS officer was killed during a training parachute jump because he had not been supplied with a £50 radio with which to communicate with his trainers on the ground. As a result when his main shoot failed to open he was something like a few seconds late in releasing the reserve shoot and so died. Britain spends about £97,000 per soldier, which is one of the lowest amounts and well below that spent by other nations involved in conflicts on this scale.

 

Our interest in this is that Japan is continually debating possible changes and amendments to its constitution regarding the use of its ‘self defence forces’. My reporter wanted to tie in these issues with the fact that we in the UK are already asking our armed forces to fight for us in this supposed ‘war on terror’ putting their lives at risk but often without proper basic equipment or acceptable care for those maimed/injured doing what they have been asked to do.

 

Discussing and filming this piece with my reporter reminded me that Japanese news goes for the visual and the emotional elements in a situation and especially the emotionally visual as opposed to the usually more informative logical approach we see daily on our screens.

 

We asked Mr Philipson to show us a DVD he has, which features footage taken by and of his son, James, in Afghanistan. In the footage James can even be heard saying that the Americans there are so much better equipped than the Brits. Whilst I shot the scene of Mr Philipson putting on and watching the footage of his son my reporter gently but persistently asked questions about James, which obviously caused a reaction from the father, it was clear from his face as he watched the footage of his son that he was proud with happy memories but also angry and sad. It was and is this kind of visual physical reaction that is sort after. It seems as if we are attempting to ‘catch’ the audience with the emotions and then inform them.

 

If this wasn’t enough after filming him upstairs in his study preparing for tomorrow’s meeting with the MOD we went with him to his son’s grave. Again for emotional visual impact. We got it, the wind at the graveside caught Mr Philipson’s sadness by blowing away a few tears. At the time I was thinking that it was a good shot and would definitely be used as his comment at the time was poignant too, it was only, as often happens, back in the edit room when reviewing the footage that I felt the connection to what we had chosen to film. I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Should I feel more of it at the time of filming, and if I did would that enhance the capture of it hinder it?

 

After he left my reporter and I paid our respects at James’s resting place and we all returned to London.