To laugh out loud at 'The Quiz'

[UnagiSalmonSkinRoll]

'Cancel the cheque'

I came on here last night looking for the 'cancel the cheque thread, and was disappointed, assumed I was the only one laughing away to myself.

I'm really enjoying it, I think it's very well done.

Really well done all round here I think .I remember it at the time .Seemed to me incredulous that an Army Major would risk his livelihood for a scam like this .We play in a pub quiz (not ATM obv!) and the Landlord calls people out for checking their phones!

I think.he's being played quite sympathetically. He seemed like more of a t it in real life. Can't believe it was 20 years ago though!

He was an appalling actor, though (Charles Ingram, not Michael Sheen). I know he was very nervous (as of course you would be, even if you were playing it honestly), but if he'd played it cooler and burbled less, they quite likely would have got away with it.

I don't think they identified the coughing pattern until their suspicions were roused by his ridiculous "I think it's B. Yes, I'm pretty confident that it's B. I've never even heard of D. Actually, I'm going to go for D."

If he'd just said "Hmm, now I'm going to think about this logically, take my time and slowly consider all of the options" and then non-committally read out the four answers, waited for the cough and THEN, after a few seconds, started to discount the others, his rumbleability factor would have been massively reduced.

They also should have kept quiet about her brother having already gone on and taken away that extra angle of potential suspicion. I don't know if they would ever have flagged this up with the different surname. If they had later noticed and commented, he could always have lied and said "It's a sore point, he was lording it over us, then Diana only managed to equal him and I wanted to thrash him first before rubbing his nose in it, but didn't want to tempt fate" or something like that.

It happened in the same week as 9/11.

I guess that people weren't interested in what happened after the 1st episode was aired but the 2nd one wasn't.

I think it,s good, not laugh allowed funny though. Didn,t realise it was the same time as twin towers.

In the real life clips, he just seemed a bit bumbling and not obviously scheming, but those bits with the camera on her coughing and looking angry at him, wow!

He was an appalling actor, though (Charles Ingram, not Michael Sheen). I know he was very nervous (as of course you would be, even if you were playing it honestly), but if he'd played it cooler and burbled less, they quite likely would have got away with it.

Having watched the programme, I think there was a good chance he would have got away with it, despite the poor acting, if he had simply stopped at the 250 thousand. People would have had their suspicions, but don't think there would have been enought to take it any further.

A small part of me wonders if he was doing it very reluctantly and actually wanted to be found out, because his relationship with his BIL wasn't great to start with.

Maybe he thought that BIL would try to lay claim to 'desperately needing' the vast majority of it anyway, so there wasn't much in it for them as a couple - and he thought that being found out would have meant just having to give the money back and make BIL look foolish for concocting it all rather than criminal proceedings and worldwide exposure.

I’m enjoying this too. Not sure if I’m supposed to but I feel a bit sorry for the Ingrams. I mean the producers aren’t really coming out of this well, in my opinion. They made a ton of money by getting regular people to call in and it seems if you were lucky enough to get through you were then given an almost impossible question to answer.

I think Celador were fleecing the public and the Ingrams weren’t any worse!

At the time I don't remember the brother's role at all nor this syndicate business. Agree with celandine, they apparently had an argument afterwards and their body language was off practically straightaway. Not mentioned in this version but there was a member of either FFF or the audience who cottoned on to the coughing and started listening out for it. He went straight to production afterwards from what I remember from an interview he gave. There was a documentary about it all then the actual episode was aired afterwards. It was fascinating.

To the poster mentioning the unknown word 'googol' - this was in my Child's Q&A encyclopaedia from the 60s. Never forgot it so shouted out the answer straightaway!

I think Celador were fleecing the public and the Ingrams weren’t any worse

But they did get people on the show though.

I do wonder which bits are 'real' and which bits are artistic licence.

I think there was a good chance he would have got away with it, despite the poor acting, if he had simply stopped at the 250 thousand.

I think you might well be right there. Under the rules back then, I think the jump from 16K to 32K was considered the big initial ife-changer. Yes, players knew that there was the potential drop back to 1K, but they were often willing to take the gamble for a guaranteed 32K and then a risk-free go at 64K. 16K is new car money; 64K is substantial deposit on a house territory.

Once they'd got to 64K, they would often rationalise that they could almost double it, but only lose half if they failed, and 32K was still a huge sum. If that succeeded, one more foolhardy leap, especially if you still have any lifelines left, to take you to a quarter of a million - and worst case scenario, 32K is still loads.

Once you're there - where you psychologically have a big slice of a million rather than just a lot of thousands, almost everybody would step back and think "I have won a quarter of a million pounds!" and, even when they happen to be 99% certain of an answer after that, they're still hesitant to go for it, just in case. Nobody in their right mind (except an already extremely rich person) would take a punt to risk losing a quarter of a million (well 218K) on a bit of a guess.

Loss aversion

It is fascinating psychologically to watch this.

I was just reading about Judith Keppel & her questions seemed relatively easy I thought.

Well, all questions are easy if you know the answer, but some of hers I think that you could also have a go at by elimination.

Was surprised that she phoned a friend for "exit pursued by a..?"

I thought that it was a well known phrase even if you hadn't done any Shakespeare!

I'm was surprised when Judith appeared on Eggheads, she's streets behind the rest of the panel. I think she was lucky with her questions. The final question was easy for us Plantagenet buffs. Although she appeared not to, she must have known it as soon as it came up because who'd risk it on a guess?

Do people know the loss averse tests?

I toss a coin. I win - you give me £10. I lose - you get £20.

It's surprising how many people won't take that up - despite the odds being 'in your favour' of being up.

People just don't want to lose money, even if they stand to gain much more.

He did lose a lot though.

Chris Tarrant said that's what they heard them arguing about after the show - he was always meant to bail out early but instead he pushed on and winning the million aroused suspicions.

I don't think it helped day one he was lawful then suddenly day two ban bam bam.

They didn’t have to get the difficult question right to get on to the show though, just be one of the closest answers. So everyone could have been wrong, just by sheer luck some would have been less wrong than others. If it weren’t for the organised quizzes, the average Joe who’s ok at general knowledge would have stood roughly the same chance as anyone to get on.

At the time I don't remember the brother's role at all nor this syndicate business.
Don't forget this is just a made up drama loosely based on real events.
There was a two hour Martin Bashir documentary years ago that explained the story and evidence in depth.

I am loving this program. Brilliant.

Wow, that was gripping!

The Ingram's lawyer was amazing. I'm genuinely not convinced one way or the other now as to their guilt. Of course, we don't know how much of it actually happened and how much was added/amended for drama.

*Ingrams'- wrongly-place apostrophe!