If that’s their reasoning, is it a fair point? If you’d just driven into town on your own and seen a bunch of POWs being detained, there’s not much they could do to legitimately stop you filming – after all, Frontline Films isn’t a signatory to the Conventions. Sean Langan filmed a detained Taliban fighter in his film at one point (with the Afghan Police circling ominously) – but I recall that he had ‘disembedded’ from the British in order to cover the fighting in Garmsir.

Given that Afghan POWs held by the Brits themselves are very likely to be treated according to the provisions of the Conventions, perhaps the ban on filming is motivated in part by reciprocity? Once British forces erode the norms, it becomes harder to be censorious about the Taliban doing likewise.

Perhaps I could pick your brain on this when you come back?