Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Original poster

Quiz - ITV

362 replies

southeastdweller · 13/04/2020 08:38

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?

OP posts:
Quarantino · 15/04/2020 23:12

I make it a rule never to listen to podcasts but I think I'm going to have to go and listen to that one a pp posted!

PorpentinaScamander · 15/04/2020 23:12

@JediJim

So how many people did genuinely win WWTBAM? I remember Judith Kepple winning, was that about 99/2000? Definitely before Ingram gate.

There have been 5 legitimate winners. Ingram would have made it 6. I think he was 3rd or 4th 'winner'

Quarantino · 15/04/2020 23:13

I had to laugh at the coughing out break though of all the trials for it to happen

See, to me it's like yawning - catching! I've been coughing on the sofa at home these last two nights - only when watching this otherwise I might be worried Wink - but it does make you pay attention to any tickles in your throat and I can certainly see how that would've happened in a courtroom focusing on coughing.

chomalungma · 15/04/2020 23:17

One weird thing - you would have to have absolutely certainty in the 'cougher' knowing the right answer on £1 million.

Because what if they were wrong.
And what if you were wrong.

I am looking forward to seeing the actual episode tomorrow night.

SwedishEdith · 15/04/2020 23:42

Also what's annoying me far too much is people focusing on 'he answered Craig David when he'd NEVER EVEN HEARD OF HIM!'

But when they showed him practising before he went on, they specifically showed a Craig David question. Now, they may have put that it for the show but, if true, he's certainly have heard of him.

Quarantino · 15/04/2020 23:59

Yes, I assume that was there to demonstrate pop culture knowledge didn't really stick with him, as he said. Whether he had heard of him or not, picking it as an answer isn't at all odd when it's one of the two possible answers and you don't know which one it is because it's something you know nothing about.

The way he changed it was fishy but not that he chose someone he supposedly hadn't heard of as the artist of an album he'd never heard of.

JediJim · 16/04/2020 00:19

Going back to episode two, the producers and Chris Tarrant thought it was a bit strange that Charles, his wife and brother in law all appeared on the show but that was not against the rules. I didn’t understand why the brother in law was on his mobile phone outside the studio? He was asked to come back inside by the crew member.
No one would know what know what questions would come up so I fail to see why making a phone call would help.
Mobile phones didn’t have the internet in 2001 either.
I was surprised they were convicted and I believe they are appealing their convictions.
However would it go to a re-trial? Who would remember ( witness’s I mean) that much in detail after 19 years?

IDefinitelyHaveFriends · 16/04/2020 01:01

The suggestion of the prosecution was that BIL was going to use his mobile to ring pagers strapped to Ingrams’ arms and legs, but was foiled by the lack of signal in the studio and the actions of the floor manager who spotted him going outside.

eska · 16/04/2020 01:02

They said he changed the Craig David answer as the audience all reacted when he said A1.

Pomegranatemolasses · 16/04/2020 01:04

I felt the program was overly sympathetic to the Ingrams. They clearly were cheats.

fratellia · 16/04/2020 01:21

I also think it was overly sympathetic to the Ingrams. Lots of people on Twitter now declaring they must be innocent and I think this will really sway public opinion. The courtroom scene was convincing but in reality the jury found them all guilty so it obviously wasn’t quite the case.

I also saw on Charles Ingrams Twitter that it was actually their cat who got shot and it survived, why add in a bit about a pet dog being murdered?

eska · 16/04/2020 01:37

@Pomegranatemolasses genuinely don’t get how anyone could think it’s clear at all!

Trapordo · 16/04/2020 06:42

*No-one just no-one would have risked losing all that money on the final question when they didn't absolutely know the answer, unless they were cheating. It's inconceivable

Most likely. But you can't prove that. It's all speculation.

The evidence to find them guilty seems all very shady.

Cruddles · 16/04/2020 06:59

I make it a rule never to listen to podcasts but I think I'm going to have to go and listen to that one a pp posted!

What a strange rule

Janaih · 16/04/2020 08:34

Say if they had a successful appeal, would that mean celador have to pay them the million?

PuppyMonkey · 16/04/2020 08:37

I thought it was a strange about-turn in the last episode. The previous episode seemed to be showing exactly how guilty they were, only for ep 3 to show how they were poor innocents.Confused

CT said they missed out the prosecutor summing up at the end which was the killer point in the whole trial, I think - that was what convinced the jury apparently.

JudyCoolibar · 16/04/2020 08:44

If they appealed, Celador probably wouldn't have to repay them. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is much higher in a civil one, so it would be quite possible for a civil court judge to decide they were guilty on the balance of probabilities even though a jury hadn't been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

Also there'd be an interesting issue around limitation, as normally they would have had to start off their claim within six years of Celador's refusal to pay out.

5foot5 · 16/04/2020 08:45

With the caveat that I'm sure there are loads of aspects of the court case that weren't even touched on in this dramatic retelling - based on what they showed I don't know whether they did it or not but there's surely no way a jury could be beyond reasonable doubt about it?

@Quarantino I agree with this. For me the dodgiest bit of evidence is the tape which was edited by the company and they admitted the coughs were enhanced.

Gut instinct would tell me they were guilty but if I was on the jury I think I would have said not guilty because I really don't think they proved it beyond reasonable doubt. Not from what they showed on the drama anyway.

JudyCoolibar · 16/04/2020 08:47

I do wish they'd make some effort to get legal procedures right. There is no way the Ingrams would have been trawling for a QC on their own, or indeed gone to see her on their own - it would all have been done through their solicitor. Barristers in English courts don't pace up and down the courtroom. And where was Tecwen Whittock's barrister?

PrincessScarlett · 16/04/2020 08:50

IF the court case shown in the TV show was a true representation of the actual court case I fail to see how the jury could have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the Ingrams were guilty. However I don't see what advantage it would be to paint the Ingrams in a sympathetic light other than to fuel the flames for the ingrams' appeal.

Whether guilty or not it was definitely a case of trial by media which could explain the jury's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I thought it interesting the judge gave lenient sentences, after stating in normal circumstances they would receive lengthy prison sentences, as though he didn't entirely agree with jury's decision.

CoolShoeshine · 16/04/2020 09:06

I don’t know why they didn’t show the case for the prosecution. It would have made more sense as to why they were convicted.

chomalungma · 16/04/2020 09:09

I wonder how much time there was between getting to know you are on the show and appearing on the show?

I am also really surprised by the Syndicate.
I guess they communicated using basic forums that existed back then - the simplest way for it to be bypassed would just be to ask some random general knowledge questions without resorting to 'closest to'.

And insisting that the person speak there and then.

chomalungma · 16/04/2020 09:13

I don’t know why they didn’t show the case for the prosecution

Yes - the prosecution lawyer didn't get much 'look in' in last nights one

And in psychology, people tend to remember the last things they heard - rather than the earlier evidence.

corabel · 16/04/2020 09:20

It was a tv drama based on a stage play, not a documentary. The jury would have been presented with the evidence and they were found guilty. I can't believe people are now declaring them innocent based on a tv drama which was designed to entertain, not just inform.

Difficultcustomer · 16/04/2020 09:26

The trial was 4 weeks long so we only got a brief idea, nothing like what the jury heard/saw.