[AOB]

The irony.

To capture the exact essence of what the photographer wanted, he or she probably asked those models to put themselves in the frame of mind of a person who has spent a lifetime reading the Daily Mail.

[Big Arnold]

For those who score zero on "Spot the difference" competitions.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -318449847,

[Andy McDandy]

Sorry for being obtuse, but what am I missing here?

[Cyclist]

The Daily Fail helpfully highlighting the subtle differences between the two pictures of the same van, I assume.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Meh.

[Big Arnold]

Sorry for being obtuse, but what am I missing here?

For those who score zero on "Spot the difference" competitions

[Andy McDandy]

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. It's 2 photos of the same van. What are we supposed to be mocking the Mail for in this case? Why is it included in this thread?

[Big Arnold]

Because the Mail thought it necessary to add two red rings so that its readers could tell the difference.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

What difference?

[lord_kobel]

One has a big "V" of shiny things on it?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I'm assuming they are either an artefact or else a cack-handed attempt to add 'lights'. In which case they are massively unconvincing. But it isn't them that is circled, it's the VW sign. Which is the same in both photographs.

[lord_kobel]

it's the VW sign

...as well as five of the shiny things.

[lord_kobel]

or else a cack-handed attempt to add 'lights'. In which case they are massively unconvincing.

Could be, given that the url for the story ends "Driver-caught-speeding-tried-evade-justice-sending-hoax-images-vehicle.html"

[Malcolm Armsteen]

So I still don't get it. What was the point of the post?

[lord_kobel]

Presumably that the mail had to use a red ring to point out the difference between the two photos, when the difference was apparently very obvious.