Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To laugh out loud at 'The Quiz'

174 replies

UnagiSalmonSkinRoll · 14/04/2020 23:02

'Cancel the cheque' GrinGrin

OP posts:
chomalungma · 15/04/2020 22:20

The lawyer's arguments can be used against her.

When you are so focused on something, you can lose sight of what else is happening. People may know the gorilla and the basketball experiment.

If the audience and Chris were focused on the contestant, then they wouldn't be focused on the cough and wouldn't be aware of it.

But Charles would have been listening for a cough.

Disquieted1 · 15/04/2020 22:22

Loved it, and I'm usually a bit stuffy.

Brilliantly acted, hilarious. It's bound to win an award or two.

UnagiSalmonSkinRoll · 15/04/2020 23:11

I'm guessing the people who have voted YABU are Charles, his wife, her brother that other fella and a few from the village Grin lighthearted of course Wink

OP posts:
WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 15/04/2020 23:35

I think the smoking gun, apart from anything else, is the fact that Diana contacted Tecwen - a vague acquaintance of an acquaintance whom even her husband claimed not to know of - FOUR times soon beforehand, and then he happened to be on the same show.

There's also the fact that, of all the potential contestants who might be inclined to plan in-depth to exploit all loopholes in order to gain maximum advantage - and then be tempted to nudge that into cheating and acting illegally - you would probably expect that the one who had co-authored a book on how to win might be a strong contender!

Then again, when the national lottery was relatively new, there were endless articles on how to win it and - most ridiculously of all - deranged idiots researchers advising on the 'hot' and 'cold' numbers that were more or less likely to come up again based on past experience. Either people who didn't understand the concept of a random lottery or tabloid hacks who were hoping that their readers didn't!

That said, I wonder if their rules expressly stated that the contestant wasn't allowed any third-party help outside of lifelines. Obviously, it's against the spirit and morals of the game, but legally, had they actually categorically stated this? I know they had a criminal-history clause and one big winner was later stripped of his prize when it emerged that he had a criminal record; but did they explicitly forbid what he apparently did in their T&Cs?

As Charles claimed, with the Craig David question, he had exploited the audience's gasps when he was apparently going to go for the wrong answer, and nobody on the show had picked up on this. Presumably, if an audience member simply shouted out the answer, they would stop filming, eject that person and then replace it with another question. They didn't raise any objection to the collective gasp of the audience (which could equally have been because he was going for the wrong answer or because he changed his mind so abruptly) - so where would 'ambiguous' coughing come on that scale?

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 15/04/2020 23:43

I'm still sceptical of how Paddy Spooner could interrogate his impressively bizarre manual 'oracle' room and get the answer back to the 'client' within 7 seconds. Even sitting in front of an internet-connected laptop, it can take you longer than that to pinpoint the exact info that you need.

On The Chase, when they have only 2 or 3 seconds left at the end, they're forced to interrupt the question to have any hope of having time to answer. How did they relay the question, get the answer back from Paddy and give their answer in 7 seconds? Even if Paddy had put a tap on their phone all day once they knew a call was coming, it still takes a couple of seconds to connect - even now, nearly 20 years on.

SharonasCorona · 15/04/2020 23:55

I'm on ep 2 and whilst it's bringing back memories and all looks good, it's not really fascinating stuff, is it?

The documentary was better I think. This is lacklustre so far.

OldGranvilleHouse · 16/04/2020 00:18

@chomalungma According to Wikipedia, Eleanor of Aquitaine was one of Judith Keppel’s ancestors

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Keppel

As someone else has said, a sort of Slumdog Millionaire vibe.

I still think she’s pretty good on general knowledge, though, and was a good winner.

BubblesBuddy · 16/04/2020 00:37

And mistress of Edward VII.

It was a great programme. I would have liked a bit of the judge’s summing up and a bit of jury discussion. The losing counsel didn’t have much to say when they lost. Obviously the jury didn’t believe the defence but why? I’m not surprised Chris Tarrant couldn’t hear anything. Concentration on the task in hand would be required and this would block out 192 coughs!

BubblesBuddy · 16/04/2020 00:39

One of Judith Keppel’s relatives that is: re mistress of Edward VII. Not Judith herself.

BrandyandBabycham · 16/04/2020 00:48

It’s laugh aloud, not allowed, but guessing that was good old predictive text.
Really enjoyed the show. Michael Sheen’s portrayal of Chris Tarrant was uncanny

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 16/04/2020 00:54

According to Wikipedia, Eleanor of Aquitaine was one of Judith Keppel’s ancestors

How lucky is that, however good or bad your general knowledge is?!

I find it fascinating to think that the questions are selected at random and, for you as an individual contestant, could arbitrarily be supremely easy or impossibly difficult, depending on your life circumstances, experiences and interests.

Taken to extremes, if they asked you what (picking somebody at random) Brian Blessed's exact postcode or date of birth was, that would be nigh on impossible for almost everybody to know; but if you happened to live next door to him or were married to him, it would be ridiculously easy.

Like most people, I've shouted at the telly at some of the £125k and higher questions that seem so stupidly easy for so much money, because they happen to fall within my own realm of knowledge and interest - and yet there have been plenty of 'easy' questions about soaps or footballers for £1K or £2K that I haven't the faintest clue about.

BubblesBuddy · 16/04/2020 01:07

We didn’t watch it very much but there was an infamous and hilarious one for little money when a contestant was asked for the alternative title for the Archbishop of Canterbury. She was left with two choices: Primate of all England or Marsupial of all England. So she chose.....?

JudyCoolibar · 16/04/2020 01:21

Geoffrey Rivlin, who was the judge in this case, was also Jeremy Bamber's barrister. He must be wondering why he suddenly keeps popping up on TV.

user1473878824 · 16/04/2020 01:44

I only caught up on it today and I LOVE it. The humour in it is so brilliantly written. Before we saw it DP and I did this which is just fab: twitter.com/_superted/status/1250054117432664066?s=12

I won us half a million quid.

He got the first question wrong. “Only because it was blurry, I thought it was clothes peg rather than clothes horse.” IT’S STILL WRONG YOU COST US EVERYTHIIIIIIIIIING

TheCatsBlanket · 16/04/2020 01:56

I wonder if the documentary is still available to watch? I did a brief search on Netflix and came up with nothing

user1473878824 · 16/04/2020 03:39

It’s not on Netflix, it’s on ITV.

notchickenagain · 16/04/2020 05:57

The documentary is on youtube, I watched it last night. Search for Major Fraud. I think the writers of the Quiz have produced a great comedy as long as people aren't fooled into thinking these three were innocent!

Destinysdaughter · 16/04/2020 06:27

Charles Ingram has been tweeting about the show! Grin

To laugh out loud at 'The Quiz'
Destinysdaughter · 16/04/2020 06:32

I can't believe he was on Wifeswap with Jade Goody!

www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/stayingin/tvfilm/charles-ingram-diana-wife-swap-jade-goody-quiz-a4413996.html%3famp

SharonasCorona · 16/04/2020 08:44

Watched ep 3 too. Overall opinion, it doesn’t leave any impression at all, very forgettable and paint by numbers.

Maybe because it’s very neutral and doesn’t portray them as innocent or guilty? It has no teeth.

Although it was funny that they used Jon Snow to show a news clip rather than an ITV news reporter.

Gre8scott · 16/04/2020 09:20

They were all real clips

diddl · 16/04/2020 09:44

Was wanting to watch this, but Michael Sheen just looks like a generic, cheesy quiz show host!

Is he really any good?

Rosehip10 · 16/04/2020 09:49

They were guilty as hell.

Rosehip10 · 16/04/2020 09:49

Why would the wife call the other bloke the night before he was due to be on the show?

BubblesBuddy · 16/04/2020 09:49

He did the Chris Tarrant voice perfectly! This show has attention to detail - apart from the curtains of course. The whole premise is that guilt was proved in court but the Ingram’s QC made a very good job of trying to point out inconsistencies in the case. That’s why it would be good if a bit of jury debate had been added.