Discovery / NatGeo do it all the time.

In BBC docudrama it's even more justified - it would be rather hard to show actual rioters being interviewed on tv ;-)

Actually there have been many interviews with people that were actually involved in the riots. They were proudly boasting about what they had looted, and explaining how they felt it was their right to do so.

There was no problem with this, because we all hated them for it.

BBC is public, that much is true. But they're a hell of a lot more impartial than anything you'll find your side of the pond, or indeed, any other media company you'll find here. But that doesn't stop the government from putting their oar in when they feel they can justify it, like now.

really? i know about animals, which is aright imo. but events including real people real things and presenting them as real while they make stuff up how? then bbc lies. they have an actor read a script. its not true and it presents stuff as true? thats wrong imo.
a documentary should not be biased, especially one sponsored by people

My guess is the Corporation of London is just paranoid that any dissent or protests will hurt the City's image, I'm sure they've rounded up all the protesters on Parliament Square as well, can't have those smelly-lay-abouts polluting the hallowed walkway (say the last bit with a condescending William Hague accent). Then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise, they took similar measures last year during the Royal Wedding, the Met rounded up republican protesters and made sure they didn't cause problems. If the Olympics ever comes back to London, (gods, I hope I'm long dead when it does) they will probably build a fence around Belgravia and just hold it there so as to avoid the complication.

I'm quite pleased to hear that the Border Control has gone on strike, not that I'm happy that people will have a longer wait (longer than whatever eternity they have to wait as it is) but I am glad that some people are using the Olympics to raise awareness

First of all, they always anounce at the beginning of the show, that it is not a real interview, etc. only a reconstruction

Secondly, it's easier to make, because it would be rather difficult to bring all the rioters and the victims and question them. I believe (or hope), they first interviewed the people and then used the interviews in the script without changing anything (slim chances)

Third, on NatGeo there is plenty more things than just animals :P

You don't watch TV, obviously, so you don't know how docudrama usually looks like. :P (real cases, facts, fake people :P) hehe... And they called us racists and hooligans ;-) We didn't need any extraoridinary measures to keep peace and love during Euro2012, we're just nice people ;-)

Keeveek, they're putting ground to air MISSILES on apartment buildings in London that people LIVE in for fucks sake, and a UK court ruled it's 'acceptable' during the Olympics when the people living in the buildings filed a lawsuit!!

No. I don't want to live in a society like that :)

still it sounds made up. someone has to write the script actors say right? and that writer is biased no matte how objective he/she tries to be. that's... not really an excuse is it. because its easier? if its too hard then do not do it at all. half assed things are not good. Well yeah. but i mean if natgeo is presenting documentaries as real but has actors instead of real people... that's not good either. i really don't. i abhor tv. had to watch it for a week when i had no computer. what an ancient piece of technology

anyhow
i am just saying its iffy. i didn't see the documentary so of course i cannot judge how well they did everything, how professional they were.