Quiz - ITV

[southeastdweller]

It's a three part drama about the Who Wants to be a Millionaire coughing scandal in 2001.

www.radiotimes.com/news/2020-04-08/quiz-itv-drama-air-date-cast-trailer/

Anyone else planning on watching it?

Martin Sheen???

Two posts back...

When you look at how the defence was presented, it’s hard to see how they were found guilty. It’s not like most crimes, where there is physical evidence. This was based on a man coughing- who had three medical conditions.
I suppose the jury based their decision on reasonable doubt.
Maybe that’s why the judge gave them suspended sentences, he can’t change the jurors decision but wasn’t convinced enough to send them to jail.
I’ve no idea if they were guilty or not.

I thought it was very well done and Helen McRory's performance as the defence barrister has made me question whether they really were guilty after all. She was brilliant.

@Clawdy Oops Michael 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Michael did a car ride interview with Matthew Rhys during which they try to out-Welsh each other but also where Michael says he saw someone putting up Martin Sheen in lights outside one of the first stage plays he was in and he left it thinking the audience might be bigger.

@MrAlyhakinsMassiveYacht That made me laugh!

Just binge watched it all in one night.
Very enjoyable.

And also they don’t mention the fact at all and I think it’s relevant that before Millionaire happened before he won his million pounds and all went upside down, he had already been arrested and charged and eventually found guilty of an insurance scam where he tried to get lots of money illegally and was found guilty from Direct Line.

Wrong. That happened after his conviction for the Millionaire allegation. The "insurance scam" consisted of failing to declare previous claims when he took out a policy with Direct Line. He was given a conditional discharge.

It seemed strange that he kept repeating them slowly, then going back and repeating them again. Waiting for the cough

That's a strategy recommended by some people for dealing with multiple choice questions under pressure. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning so I'm not going to try and explain it.

Do we know if it was unanimous or a majority verdict?

It was a majority verdict.

You may be interested to know that the jury initially found Charles Ingram and Tecwen Whittock guilty but acquitted Diana Ingram. The judge told them this was not an acceptable verdict - either all three were guilty or all three were innocent. The jury retired again and returned 20 minutes later with a guilty verdict for Diana as well.

One question.
I don’t understand prison sentences. What does it mean that they have a suspended sentence?
I understand that they don’t go to prison but what other implications are there? Can you just carry on with your life?

It basically just means that they have suspended you from going to prison, but it’s not a done deal. Meaning that if you put one foot wrong, within your sentence timeframe you’re put straight into prison don’t pass go and all that. If you keep a clean slate during your sentence you’ll be okay.

That wasn't the only evidence though. It's a programme not a documentary.

I wasn't talking about the evidence shown in the programme, WinterIsGone, I was talking about the totality of the evidence so far as it is publicly available, including the specific problems described by prh47.

You may be interested to know that the jury initially found Charles Ingram and Tecwen Whittock guilty but acquitted Diana Ingram.

That's very interesting. The drama presented it as the opposite - that Diana was more obviously complicit than Charles. (I realise the drama is not to be relied upon),

Michael sheen! 😀

I wondered why they used such recognisable actors in the parts. I don't know the actor that played Tecwyn but the others were well known, they could have used anyone.

I don’t understand prison sentences. What does it mean that they have a suspended sentence? I understand that they don’t go to prison but what other implications are there? Can you just carry on with your life?

When imposing a suspended sentence the judge can set up to 12 conditions which you must comply with, such as doing unpaid work, being subject to a curfew or attending a treatment programme for alcohol or drugs. Provided you comply with those conditions and don't re-offend you can live and work normally. However, the suspended sentence counts as a custodial sentence even though you don't go to prison, so it will come up on DBS checks for the rest of your life.

I bet it was a lot of fun to work on.

Regarding these professional quizzers, who has time for that? I mean people who work with families. How do they find the time.
Particularly the part where Paddy Spooner, the guy who had a quiz consortium, would help people answer quiz questions. He used books and had charts on the wall.
Obviously Google would make this redundant now.

Guessing many of the professionals are retired, single, childfree or the type of person who's always talked about here in terms of "My DH spends too much time on his hobby".

I know Jeremy Clarkson has taken over Chris Tarrant , who is ok, not as good as Tarrant though.
CT really made the show I thought as a host, he also has a good radio voice, hence he spent years as a DJ too.
He has a unique voice, what accent is it, generic Home Counties??

Apologies if this has been linked to but Toby Tarrant (Chris' son) impersonated him on his show

www.radiox.co.uk/radio/shows-presenters/chris-moyles/highlights/watch-toby-tarrant-impression-dad-chris-tarrant/

Sorry on Chris Moyles' show

Edwina I would say I only recognise the actor playing Diana from Fleabag. As for why they get well known actors in- same reason they do for any of the big dramas. They attract the audience..

Matthew macfadyen was the dopey brother in law in Succession.
Mark Bonnar was in Guilt, is in Defending the guilty and other things. Helen Mcrory as the defence. Tecwen actor Michael Jibson has been in many series but isn't so noticeable.
If they'd used non recognisable actors i thought it would appear to be more believable.

I watched the final episode this afternoon, thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it definitely swayed towards showing them as not guilty.

But according to a Facebook friend (who is a barrister) the court transcript makes for interesting reading and the prosecution barristers closing speech basically annihilated their defence.