It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

liverpool riots sky news

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
morning all, ive just been watching sky news and call me a conspiracy theorist but they have just put up pictures of a rogues gallery asking for any information on the people in the pictures, now on a several of these pictures there are few people all very close together but at least one of the individuals in each picture has had his or hers face blocked out.
now if the ptb dont know who these people are and thats why there on the news to try to find out,then why would they be censoring some of the pictures, if its an age thing then surely you cant tell the age from a photo, im starting to think agent provocaters? sorry but dont know how to get pictures off the tv and onto here, maybe someone can.
any thoughts on this




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Hello and welcome


Perhaps the faces are those who are obviously under-age??..
I don't think it's legal to plaster the faces of underage thugs in the media.

Just one thought that popped into my head.. hope you enjoy the forums
see you round

edit on 13/8/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 

surely if they dont know who these people are then surely they wont know there age?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sensairich
 


The person pictured may not have done anything wrong, remember, Innocent until proven guilty


Or that's how it's supposed to be



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Maybe some of the people in the pictures might not have been actively involved in the looting and rioting.. and although being in the vicinity didnt actually do anything that could be considered as a crime?

just saying..



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sensairich
 


Perhaps they make a judgement based on how someone looks? or these are people already in custody? to be honest I am only guessing.. but they do get their nix in a twist about putting obviously under-age thugs faces in the media.

Although I do think it smells odd...
the gov needed to chat about the economy and this appeared a perfect vehicle to allow them to reconvene parliament.. but If they where agent provocatears I am sure they would leave their faces in as the most obvious hiding place is usually out in the open..



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
This is pretty standard procedure.

They will be blurring out the faces of anyone who they haven't got any evidence against. If you've got a group of, say, ten scallies, and you've got strong evidence of criminal behaviour against eight of them, then you're going to blur out the faces of the other two, because it's just going to waste everyone's time attempting to identify two people who have not verifiably committed any criminal act.

As someone earlier mentioned, people may also have their faces blurred out if they are thought to be children. You can't legally identify - by either face or name - a juvenile miscreant or suspect, under normal circumstances.

They also have to be sure that they've got strong evidence against someone before plastering their face all over the media, because that person - if not charged - could take legal action for defamation.


edit on 13-8-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I pretty much agree with Sherlock on this one. Not wanting to go off topic look at the case of the nurse that was tampering with saline bags a few months ago.. they'd not got anything solid to go on and even while they were sifting through her drawers she was plastered all over most of the national papers. They've got to be very careful who's faces are and aren't released. Else they could end up with some pretty big lawsuits.. and it's not like we can afford it at the moment..



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
It is actually ILLEGAL here to take a picture of a minor without parental consent.

That is why the Airports taking pictures of children without their parents approval for security airside was an outrage.

Basically the UK airports where considered pedophiles for doing so under the law.

But as we all know the British government doesn't give a toss about even their own laws they dish out when it comes to applying it to themselves.

Probably a huge portion of the local bobby on the street doesnt even understand half the laws, we can see this when they try to stop photographers filming police.
edit on 13-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
In this scenario I believe those faces which are censored have nothing to do with paedophilia, mainly due to the violence of the riots.
These faces are censored because the youths in question have already been caught and they don't want their face plastered over television. They should not be allowed that right.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LunaStarr
In this scenario I believe those faces which are censored have nothing to do with paedophilia, mainly due to the violence of the riots.
These faces are censored because the youths in question have already been caught and they don't want their face plastered over television. They should not be allowed that right.


The censoring is probably at the descression of the media outlet reporting it, not the police.

Usually the police just stick their faces out there, they did on the BBC too.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join