Not sure, but I think the newspaper pic in the "after" shot is also manipulated; the tag seems to be the reversed image of the one on the wall... So perhaps in the Limp Dum parallel universe the guy really DID clean the graffito
June 29, 2006 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why is Ben wearing goggles and gardening gloves to spray graffiti?
And is he going to be arrested?
June 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
my friend (who did actually work at that orphanage) tells me he didn't help out at all. just visited his girlfriend there for a few hours!
June 29, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous
said...
its so photoshopped
June 29, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
How do we now in which order those pictures have been taken? There is time and date only in one of them.
June 29, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous at 4.51pm - unless Bob Niel has a tardis it would be a bit of a challange for him to take a picture of someone brandishing a leaflet showing the LiarDem cleaning the wall before the photo on the leaflet was taken.
Spinning Here!
June 29, 2006 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
does of reality... thats the beauty of photoshop!
June 29, 2006 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
It would not be the first time a tag reappeared after being removed.
June 29, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
I'll bet he personally didn't clean it off but, in fairness, the second version has clearly been resprayed over the original - there are previously untouched bits of brick now with white on.
June 29, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
No - that's not a respray of the same tag, look at them - the thickness and angle of every line is identical. There is no way that is the same tag re-sprayed. The only apparant differences is that there seems to be more fuzzy overlap at the bottom of the tag in the second photo - potentially the artiste could have returned to patch up the bottom corner that our intrepid candidate had removed, or perhaps it is just showing up in a brighter flash, or because whatever solvent was being sprayed on it has dried off.
The hand and the leaflet could have been photoshopped onto the photo of course, but it would be something of a co-incidence if someone just happened to have had a photo of exactly the same piece of graffitti that the Lib Dem candidate was going to "clean off" lying around the house, waiting to be photoshopped.
Nope - that's got him bang to rights. (Oh, and the other one does have a date on it on the Lib Dem website - the 12th June)
June 29, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
What a sad Tory fuck you are. Get a life saddo.
June 29, 2006 at 5:24 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymous plus one, up there - of course the tags look the same: that's the whole point of them.
There's extra paint in lots of places on the second photo. See here.
June 29, 2006 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Maybe "Jaj" sprayed his graffiti right back to the wall before taking the second picture...
I predict great things for this chap,dogsled anybody?
June 29, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
What is the point of cleaning up a graffito if the little scut who did it is going to come back and repaint it a few days later? Catch the toerag and then smack his head against the wall until he realises it is in his own interest do desist.
June 29, 2006 at 11:59 PM
Anonymous
said...
Nuke Labour: The point is that the extra paint show that one can't reliably say whether Abbots did or didn't clean it all off. He may have done (and it was repainted), or he may not (and it was merely touched up).
Personally I doubt he did any cleaning himself. He should have got a lacky to scrub it for him; that's what students are for, surely.
I can assure you that I didn't photoshop the photos... (yes the other date is on his website)...oh and I didn't do the graffiti either :)
June 30, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Anonymous
said...
Yo, is it really SO VERY FAR to go for any of you to check it out? I live in Vancouver, and so cannot be expected to confirm or deny this graffitti, but surely someone there can run by and see if the tag is still there or not.
Duh.
July 1, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Anonymous
said...
I checked the graffiti this morning and it was still there! I also took the "After" photograph and can assure you that Photoshop ( nor any other photo manipulation software for the pedants among you ) was not used. If you check JAJ's blog you will see that a local councillor has offered to ensure that the graffiti is properly removed!
We will keep checking and get back to you if and when anything happens!
July 3, 2006 at 6:49 AM
Anonymous
said...
The graffiti tags are not the same. The original text is much smaller than the other. Compare the size of the text against the hands. It’s obvious. How can you not see it?
1 Photos are at different angles 2 He is wearing rubber gloves 3 His hands are closer to the wall 4 I am a very small person 5 Count the bricks!!!
or maybe you think I built a scale model fake wall?
July 4, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Anonymous
said...
Its patently obvious that the latter picture has emphatically not been manipulated. Jaj has exposed this PR exercise for the pathetic stunt that it is. I wouldn't trust a Lib Dem as far as I could thrown them, including the very small one with the odd shaped head.
36 comments:
The link to 'outraged constituent, Jaj' doesn't work.
Oh well. At least he didn’t lie on his nomination papers and that’s all that really matters.
Link fixed.
Thx
Oh dear.
Shame it happened now though eh...
could have done with that a week earlier maybe?
could have done with that a week earlier maybe
Who could?
the handwriting (and height) is sarah teather's.
Lib Dems will do anything to create a photo.
Wonder if the ink is Mark Oaten's
Not sure, but I think the newspaper pic in the "after" shot is also manipulated; the tag seems to be the reversed image of the one on the wall... So perhaps in the Limp Dum parallel universe the guy really DID clean the graffito
Why is Ben wearing goggles and gardening gloves to spray graffiti?
And is he going to be arrested?
my friend (who did actually work at that orphanage) tells me he didn't help out at all. just visited his girlfriend there for a few hours!
its so photoshopped
How do we now in which order those pictures have been taken? There is time and date only in one of them.
Anonymous at 4.51pm - unless Bob Niel has a tardis it would be a bit of a challange for him to take a picture of someone brandishing a leaflet showing the LiarDem cleaning the wall before the photo on the leaflet was taken.
Spinning Here!
does of reality... thats the beauty of photoshop!
It would not be the first time a tag reappeared after being removed.
I'll bet he personally didn't clean it off but, in fairness, the second version has clearly been resprayed over the original - there are previously untouched bits of brick now with white on.
No - that's not a respray of the same tag, look at them - the thickness and angle of every line is identical. There is no way that is the same tag re-sprayed. The only apparant differences is that there seems to be more fuzzy overlap at the bottom of the tag in the second photo - potentially the artiste could have returned to patch up the bottom corner that our intrepid candidate had removed, or perhaps it is just showing up in a brighter flash, or because whatever solvent was being sprayed on it has dried off.
The hand and the leaflet could have been photoshopped onto the photo of course, but it would be something of a co-incidence if someone just happened to have had a photo of exactly the same piece of graffitti that the Lib Dem candidate was going to "clean off" lying around the house, waiting to be photoshopped.
Nope - that's got him bang to rights. (Oh, and the other one does have a date on it on the Lib Dem website - the 12th June)
What a sad Tory fuck you are. Get a life saddo.
Anonymous plus one, up there - of course the tags look the same: that's the whole point of them.
There's extra paint in lots of places on the second photo. See here.
Maybe "Jaj" sprayed his graffiti right back to the wall before taking the second picture...
It is not photoshopped, the hand with the leaflet is brighter because it is nearer the flash.
Be logical - who would know to take a photo of the wall before it was to be featured in LibDem propaganda?
guido - look at the 'shadow' behind the leaflet..
its not a booklet, its only one page.. why would it make a shadow like that?
You sound surprised Guido. It's time to restore pride - my arse it is. The LibDumbs couldn't care less, so long as they get your taxes.
Because the flash has cast a shadow of the leaflet on the wall. It was the shadow that proved to me it was NOT photoshopped!
To be fair Abbots has managed to smudge the graffiti a little.
what a total fucking cock,
ideal politician.
I predict great things for this chap,dogsled anybody?
What is the point of cleaning up a graffito if the little scut who did it is going to come back and repaint it a few days later?
Catch the toerag and then smack his head against the wall until he realises it is in his own interest do desist.
Nuke Labour: The point is that the extra paint show that one can't reliably say whether Abbots did or didn't clean it all off. He may have done (and it was repainted), or he may not (and it was merely touched up).
Personally I doubt he did any cleaning himself. He should have got a lacky to scrub it for him; that's what students are for, surely.
I can assure you that I didn't photoshop the photos... (yes the other date is on his website)...oh and I didn't do the graffiti either :)
Yo, is it really SO VERY FAR to go for any of you to check it out? I live in Vancouver, and so cannot be expected to confirm or deny this graffitti, but surely someone there can run by and see if the tag is still there or not.
Duh.
I checked the graffiti this morning and it was still there! I also took the "After" photograph and can assure you that Photoshop ( nor any other photo manipulation software for the pedants among you ) was not used. If you check JAJ's blog you will see that a local councillor has offered to ensure that the graffiti is properly removed!
Teejay,
Can you get a photo?
We will keep checking and get back to you if and when anything happens!
The graffiti tags are not the same. The original text is much smaller than the other. Compare the size of the text against the hands. It’s obvious. How can you not see it?
Surely you can do better than that?
Nice try anonymous.
But:
1 Photos are at different angles
2 He is wearing rubber gloves
3 His hands are closer to the wall
4 I am a very small person
5 Count the bricks!!!
or maybe you think I built a scale model fake wall?
Its patently obvious that the latter picture has emphatically not been manipulated. Jaj has exposed this PR exercise for the pathetic stunt that it is. I wouldn't trust a Lib Dem as far as I could thrown them, including the very small one with the odd shaped head.