Yes, quite enjoying it too. It seems that the Major's wife was the manipulative one and he was drawn in to the deceit. That's the impression I got from the second episode last night.
Yes am enjoying it. His strategy was pretty shit saying he'd never heard of something then suddenly changing his answer to that option. Might have got away with it had he been a bit more savvy.
Yes and had he realised this and stopped at £250k he would have got away with it. The question for £1m he started by saying he had never heard of the term Googol then selected it risking losing over £400k.
We sort of knew that but it is a new development to learn of this syndicate. They were depriving honest people of a chance to win through cheating. I think their crime was just as bad, actually probably worse. When Ingram got to the chair, it was the tv company's responsibility as he was trying to cheat them and whether he got away with it or not affected them, but how he got to the chair was a scandal as the syndicate he was part of were cheating members of the public out of a chance to win. And the TV company had culpability in allowing that to happen.
I think syndicate members who won money should be ordered to pay it back. And the TV company should donate it to charity.
Great programme, the guy playing Tarrant is excellent.
Heard Tarrant on the radio yesterday who has seen all three episodes and he said that it’s produced much softer on the major’s side to leave some doubt on whether he was guilty or not. Things like the prosecutions excellent summing up in the trial which make it plain clear they were guilty get omitted, as does the Ingrams having a blazing row in the dressing room immediately after the win.
You can understand why they had a row. He went too far and saying you don't know the answer and then picking it, especially with so much money at stake, demanded an investigation.
Great programme, the guy playing Tarrant is excellent.
Heard Tarrant on the radio yesterday who has seen all three episodes and he said that it’s produced much softer on the major’s side to leave some doubt on whether he was guilty or not. Things like the prosecutions excellent summing up in the trial which make it plain clear they were guilty get omitted, as does the Ingrams having a blazing row in the dressing room immediately after the win.
Strange the row has been left out, presumably it was part of the prosecution case?
Yes am enjoying it. His strategy was pretty shit saying he'd never heard of something then suddenly changing his answer to that option. Might have got away with it had he been a bit more savvy.
Yep, to be honest I suspect there are people out there (given it's a worldwide format) who have cheated and got away with it, but he was too thick to do it well. Don't care.if he's a Mensa member as apparently is, there's different kinds of clever and he had no common sense.
Interestingly, I watched his wife's whole run on YouTube, and as well as being utterly charmless, she was pretty useless for a supposed dedicated quizzer.
Watch this and I bet the majority of us could get to £32k with no lifelines:
I haven't watched Quiz, but the one thing that always stuck out to me was the fact that this wasn't exactly a crack team of geniuses, nor was it a group with external access to the right answers. Whittock liked a quiz but he wasn't particularly great at them and he'd stunk out the place on three other quiz shows. I found it surprising that he'd be able to so confidently cough Ingram to a million quid without hesitation
Great programme, the guy playing Tarrant is excellent.
Heard Tarrant on the radio yesterday who has seen all three episodes and he said that it’s produced much softer on the major’s side to leave some doubt on whether he was guilty or not. Things like the prosecutions excellent summing up in the trial which make it plain clear they were guilty get omitted, as does the Ingrams having a blazing row in the dressing room immediately after the win.
Strange the row has been left out, presumably it was part of the prosecution case?
Chris Tarrant said it happened. Now why on earth would you have a row with your wife after winning £1m? Unless Tarrant and others are lying which is ridiculous, it is pretty clear what happened. Also, how these people got on the show when others were trying hard and spending a fair bit of money at the time as it wasn't free to apply. I even vaguely recall trying myself a few times. They were ripping honest applicants off who they deprived of a place on the show and were as dodgy as they come.
I heard on TV that they are contemplating appealing. If they do, they ought to be banged up if found guilty again, which they surely will be.
I haven't watched Quiz, but the one thing that always stuck out to me was the fact that this wasn't exactly a crack team of geniuses, nor was it a group with external access to the right answers. Whittock liked a quiz but he wasn't particularly great at them and he'd stunk out the place on three other quiz shows. I found it surprising that he'd be able to so confidently cough Ingram to a million quid without hesitation
The article Ronson mentions basically hinges on them being very intelligent people who would have come up with a better scam than the really obvious one.
I'd argue they just weren't very clever people. Though between the 3 of them, the lifelines, and Tecwen Whittock asking the people next to him, they did know the answers to 15 questions.
I haven't watched Quiz, but the one thing that always stuck out to me was the fact that this wasn't exactly a crack team of geniuses, nor was it a group with external access to the right answers. Whittock liked a quiz but he wasn't particularly great at them and he'd stunk out the place on three other quiz shows. I found it surprising that he'd be able to so confidently cough Ingram to a million quid without hesitation
The article Ronson mentions basically hinges on them being very intelligent people who would have come up with a better scam than the really obvious one.
I'd argue they just weren't very clever people. Though between the 3 of them, the lifelines, and Tecwen Whittock asking the people next to him, they did know the answers to 15 questions.
I think there's a lot of assumptions that go into believing that they're innocent, but I found the thing about Judith Keppel's win very interesting:
'Audible (although unamplified) audience coughs just after her
first enunciating the correct answer, but before her definitely
committing by saying "final answer", are clearly discernible at the
£2,000, £4,000, £64,000, £500,000 and £1,000,000 points, and one more is
faintly discernible at the £8,000 point. That is, six of the last 10
questions, just as with Ingram'
I think this same article handwaves away that 'NO!' thing far too easily though, that ones a big deal
I love a good conspiracy theory. It's likely that the Ingrams were not the first crew to 'cheat' the programme and to (in their case nearly) get away with it. ITV possibly had their suspicions and were keen to get some proof of malpractice. Coughs, laughs, hand gestures, dodgy 'phone a friend' calls, all possible ways to get the right answers communicated to the person in the chair. (Am I right in thinking that only recently after Clarkson took over the show, great play of ensuring that invigilators with the 'phone a friends' was implemented ?)
The names of the many 'quizzer conspirators' were surely well known to Celador/ITV investigators and it's not impossible that they used the Ingrams as examples to stop the spread of cheating. Having had the brother and sister (who's questions i m o were easy) who were known as 'quizzer conspirators' on to the show the husband was the perfect patsy to get on and to either construct or prove 'evidence' of cheating. Remember that the behind the scenes incidents with the ITV/Celador officials is a reconstruct and only the officials themselves know what really went on. The Major's ability to get on could have been easily rigged by the programme makers
Other related points. It was well publicised back in the day that a few people had spent THOUSANDS on phone calls to get onto the show. Incidents in 'Quiz' show the brother with a multi page phone bill and his claims of being in debt even after his 32 grand win and the sister/wife insisting that he be given a large chunk of her winnings. Huge phone bills and payments to other 'conspiracy crew/quizzer' members perhaps. First finger first to ensure that the Major got his time in the chair could be easily fixed by studio technicians .. will we ever know the truth ??
I never really followed this story in depth at the time but I found it hard to believe they would be found guilty if the tv programme accurately reflects what happened in court.
The are things, like the pagers, that the series only touched on. The only explanation was the Ingrams looking at how they could cheat. Then there was the dishonesty around how they got on the show which was almost dismissed as fair enough. And as Chris Tarrant has said, why show the defence summary and not the prosecution one? Enjoyed it though.
I thought they should have got some time but in all honesty, the person who shot their dog should have been caught and banged up for longer.
I never really followed this story in depth at the time but I found it hard to believe they would be found guilty if the tv programme accurately reflects what happened in court.
Apparently it was set up and filmed to make it strongly weighted in the defence view.
I can see why people would think they were innocent.
Michael Sheen is a brilliant actor. How many others could successfully portray the likes of Tony Blair, Brian Clough and Chris Tarrant?
Also David Frost .. tricky, because as a tv/film actor he is more like a Mike Yarwood, a brilliant impersonator, and he plays those roles superbly. Be nice to see him not necessarily playing himself, but playing a fictitious person rather than a 'real' one .. I am sure he has played many other roles, but I have not seen one .. I hope to see more of him soon
Comments
We sort of knew that but it is a new development to learn of this syndicate. They were depriving honest people of a chance to win through cheating. I think their crime was just as bad, actually probably worse. When Ingram got to the chair, it was the tv company's responsibility as he was trying to cheat them and whether he got away with it or not affected them, but how he got to the chair was a scandal as the syndicate he was part of were cheating members of the public out of a chance to win. And the TV company had culpability in allowing that to happen.
I think syndicate members who won money should be ordered to pay it back. And the TV company should donate it to charity.
Heard Tarrant on the radio yesterday who has seen all three episodes and he said that it’s produced much softer on the major’s side to leave some doubt on whether he was guilty or not. Things like the prosecutions excellent summing up in the trial which make it plain clear they were guilty get omitted, as does the Ingrams having a blazing row in the dressing room immediately after the win.
Interestingly, I watched his wife's whole run on YouTube, and as well as being utterly charmless, she was pretty useless for a supposed dedicated quizzer.
Watch this and I bet the majority of us could get to £32k with no lifelines:
And then she knows the £32k question is one of two things, and doesn't use her lifeline the one time it'd be useful.
They are in the process of appealing.
I heard on TV that they are contemplating appealing. If they do, they ought to be banged up if found guilty again, which they surely will be.
I'd argue they just weren't very clever people. Though between the 3 of them, the lifelines, and Tecwen Whittock asking the people next to him, they did know the answers to 15 questions.
Several times.
It's likely that the Ingrams were not the first crew to 'cheat' the programme and to (in their case nearly) get away with it. ITV possibly had their suspicions and were keen to get some proof of malpractice. Coughs, laughs, hand gestures, dodgy 'phone a friend' calls, all possible ways to get the right answers communicated to the person in the chair.
(Am I right in thinking that only recently after Clarkson took over the show, great play of ensuring that invigilators with the 'phone a friends' was implemented ?)
The names of the many 'quizzer conspirators' were surely well known to Celador/ITV investigators and it's not impossible that they used the Ingrams as examples to stop the spread of cheating.
Having had the brother and sister (who's questions i m o were easy) who were known as 'quizzer conspirators' on to the show the husband was the perfect patsy to get on and to either construct or prove 'evidence' of cheating. Remember that the behind the scenes incidents with the ITV/Celador officials is a reconstruct and only the officials themselves know what really went on. The Major's ability to get on could have been easily rigged by the programme makers
Other related points. It was well publicised back in the day that a few people had spent THOUSANDS on phone calls to get onto the show. Incidents in 'Quiz' show the brother with a multi page phone bill and his claims of being in debt even after his 32 grand win and the sister/wife insisting that he be given a large chunk of her winnings. Huge phone bills and payments to other 'conspiracy crew/quizzer' members perhaps.
First finger first to ensure that the Major got his time in the chair could be easily fixed by studio technicians .. will we ever know the truth ??
All good clean fun !! ((:>)
Helen McCrory was brilliant though.
I thought they should have got some time but in all honesty, the person who shot their dog should have been caught and banged up for longer.
I can see why people would think they were innocent.