I recently posted a [URL="http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=12919"]thread on the DPNow forum[/URL] that featured a YoutTube video shot by a photographer who was confronted by security personnel at the entrance gate to the Golden Wonder food company, makers of Pot Noodle and potatoe crisps (chips to our America cousins) in Scunthorpe.

The photographer was on the public highway and was challenged by the security staff for taking photographs of the entrance to the factory. As we have become so used to it was a familiar situation. Security: You aren't allowed to take photos, this is private property. Photographer: I am allowed to take any photographs I like because I am standing on public land. Security: It's against the law. Photographer: What law is that? Security: Go away. Photographer: No, why should I?

Ultimately, someone threatens the photographer by saying that the police are on their way. In fact the polic never turned up.

The video had already picked up in excess of 100,000 views on YouTube and according to the photographer someone more senior at Golden Wonder had seen sense and contacted him to apologise for the behaviour of the security staff and even invited him to have a tour of the factory.

It all sounds like it has turned out well. Unfortunately, there is a twist to the tale. YouTube has now removed the video with the simple explanation that it 'violate's YouTube's terms of service'. It would have been much more helpful if YouTube could have expanded on this as I, for one, was at a loss as to why the clip could have contravened any sensible regulation.

But I think I have discovered why the video was pulled. The video was featured on a local BBC news programme. Indeed it was possibly this exposure that caught the attention of sensible people at Golden Wonder. But I understand that the BBC blurred out the faces of the security staff when it was broadcast. Could it be that YouTube decided that if the BBC had blurred out faces than the video had to be taken down?

Faces are now routinely blurred out in all sorts of video coverage on broadcast TV, both in public and private scenes. But why is this necessary? Are we obliged to protect the identity of people who happen to be recorded on video or even in still images? What do these people have to hide? It rather sounds like they have something tangible to hide - should they not have been there for some important reason?

In the case of the security staff, who were ignorant of their rights and the rights of the photographer, and treated him badly enough for Golden Wonder's management to offer him an apology, why is YouTube apparently protecting their identities? Why did the BBC do the same? Is this yet another example of political correctness gone mad?

Will someone enlighten me? I'm surely missing a big point here.