http://www.aletheiaphotos.com/a-blog/2011/10/20/voices-from-london.html

1) The Daily Mail claimed they had obtained ‘footage from a thermal imaging camera shot by a police helicopter’ that revealed the camp is ‘almost completely empty’ during the night, calling the protest a ‘big charade’ as a result. The Sun also claimed to have received ‘images collected by a police helicopter’s thermal imaging camera’ which led them to conclude the protest was a ‘phantom occupation.’ However, since then the police have categorically denied that ‘neither details of the thermal imaging cameras nor the occupancy estimates had come from them.’ A police spokesperson told The Guardian: “We’ve no idea where this has come from but the point is it hasn’t come from us. We haven’t commented on this.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/25/occupy-london-tents-night

2) The Telegraph also cite a police helicopter as the source of the images (link one from the Telegraph), but also claim to have ‘shot its own video of the St Paul’s camp using thermal imaging equipment which appears to confirm these claims’ (link two from the Telegraph). However, close inspection of the Telegraph’s own footage reveals that it cannot infact see if a person is inside a tent or not. In the following screenshot from the Telegraph’s video you can see a protestor’s leg evaporating from sight behind a tent: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/thermalhogwash.png/

The above has been confirmed by another video shot at St Paul’s which uses *exactly* the same thermal imagine camera which demonstrates that one cannot tell from this camera whether or not someone is inside a tent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBYAUl4O5v4&feature=player_embedded

This is also supported by a scientist specialising in camouflage who has said that such thermal imaging cameras would not be able to see inside camping tents:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/26/occupy-london-tents-rubbish-science

This a blatant and deliberate distortion of information. It is blatant because all of the sources these newspapers claim to support their accusations are clearly inaccurate and/or fabricated. It is deliberate because this is clearly part of a concerted attempt by the media to slander the protests and turn public opinion against them by concealing their own views and agendas as objective truth. This is clearly in direct violation of the Editor’s Code.

EDITOR’S CODE
1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Of course, I’d leave out the unneccersary fireworks and plough the cash into public housing, but the intentions are fine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hl74cAQbS4