A number of people – including the press – have remarked about the strangeness of the “team photo” being banded about by the self styled independents – all affiliated or endorsed by the public-office-holding-folks from WWRA.
Here it is, as publicly available on the WWRA website :
It turns out – according to newly affiliated Jon Davey (he’s the guy on the right) – that he indeed was not present when the photo was taken. He says (in answer to my query) it was a chance meeting with Wisdom
“after the original picture had been taken, that introduced me formally to WWRA.”
So somebody – maybe WWRA will be transparent and honest about this – added Jon Davey (according to his pal Franco de Luca – “not his best side”!) to the photograph, making it appear that he was there, when in fact he wasn’t.
In the interests of transparency, integrity, authenticity and honesty … (Cllr Da Costa says he values such things ) –
maybe we can find out from WWRA
1) Who actually was there?
2) When was it taken?
3) Has anyone else has been “added in”? Or even airbrushed out ?!
Wouldn’t it have been more straightforward to use the original photo?
Stop Press : I see Wisdom has ‘fessed up
Which appears to contradict what Jon Davey has said, because he said he wasn’t actually formally introduced to WWRA until after the photo was taken rather than “not being available”. Is Wisdom telling us everything ?
Wisdom’s excuse is also rather different from Davey’s, who says “Obviously WWRA can’t afford to waste money on professional shoots”
But the bigger question now is can voters believe anything published by WWRA if, as appears to be the case, they are content to be putting out photos which they themselves admit aren’t real original photos.
Catch yourself on, WWRA !
PS Going back in time, photo editing – for political presentational purposes – has a very bad history, and is not something we would choose to do when seeking public office.