Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

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:
AngryRedhead · 16/04/2020 09:29

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.

That was the entire point. Episode 2 was supposed to be examining the case for their guilt and episode 3 was examining the case for their innocence. It’s an adaptation of the play where the first half is “guilty” and the second half is “innocent” but it doesn’t really work to do that structure in TV because it comes across as a tonal shift, rather than intentional.

The writer never intended the play to be a docudrama about the Ingrams but rather a piece exploring the concept of objective reality, false memory, and how quickly we are to judge people and make a decision based on few facts.

southeastdweller · 16/04/2020 09:30

I think this should have been a four-parter. Agree there seems to have been bias to the Ingram's. I don't think it should ever have got to trial anyway, seems such a waste of money and time.

OP posts:
AngryRedhead · 16/04/2020 09:30

The pet thing, their dog was kicked and later died of injuries, their cat was shot and survived. The production conflated the two.

WinterIsGone · 16/04/2020 09:30

Totally agree with corabel. It was based on a stage play. Even the detail about the cat vs dog was changed. At the time, the jury were convinced by the strength of the evidence for the prosecution, which we didn't see. There hasn't been an appeal in all that time.

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.
The judge wouldn't give a lighter sentence because he personally thought Ingram was innocent, surely. It's up to the jury to decide whether the person was guilty or not, based on the direction of the judge. Mitigating circumstances may lead to a lighter sentence - and perhaps being a major was one for that judge! Smile

The80sweregreat · 16/04/2020 09:36

The audience do murmur if it's the wrong answer especially as it was a 50/50 one.
Craig David was also a big star in 2000/01 and it was a big selling album. I've seen other contestants change their minds on this show at the last minute.
However, I do think it was bad of the programme to show a one sided summing up at the end , but that may have been done deliberately.
I loved the song and dancing at the end!

It was enjoyable and I'm still not sure myself if there was any cheating. Poor Tecwan : he only won a grand himself!
I wonder how their appeal will go?

chomalungma · 16/04/2020 09:44

Isn't there supposed to be a summing up at the end.

So we hear the Barristers doing a summing up of each of their cases with a devastating speech - but that's just based on watching films?

LIZS · 16/04/2020 10:04

I thought Diana Ingram had cooperated with the writers, in which case a sympathetic tone is unsurprising. I think the vitriol at the time was because the show was so aspirational, people played along at home and became very invested.

AngryRedhead · 16/04/2020 10:09

No, the Ingrams were invited to visit the set (everyone featured in the series was invited) but the writer didn’t work with them to write it.

The writer did work heavily with Paul Smith, so if anything you’d expect it to be biased against them.

Pelleas · 16/04/2020 10:45

I thought it interesting the judge gave lenient sentences

Don't judges have to sentence within certain legal parameters and in line with legal precedent? I would assume the relatively short sentences were usual for a fraud of that nature, and suspended sentences are common where people have no previous convictions and aren't considered a danger to the public. If the judge's sentence had been harsher than the law and precedent could justify, he'd have left it wide open to successful appeal.

twosoups1972 · 16/04/2020 10:48

The defence barrister was just brilliant.

What was all the coughing about in the courtroom?

TheReluctantCountess · 16/04/2020 10:49

It was very sympathetic to the Ingrams, wasn’t it?

Pelleas · 16/04/2020 10:53

I would guess it had to be sympathetic to the Ingrams to be interesting as a drama. The accepted narrative so far has been the court's finding of guilt, so if the drama was made showing them as clearly guilty, arranging the coughing beforehand etc. it would resemble a docudrama rather than a drama.

PuppyMonkey · 16/04/2020 11:51

They’re supposed to be showing the actual episode on TV tonight aren’t they? So I assume it will be the “enhanced coughing” version if the original footage no longer exists?

Pelleas · 16/04/2020 12:03

PuppyMonkey - Do you know when/which channel? I couldn't see it on ITV in the TV guide.

PuppyMonkey · 16/04/2020 12:24

Oh sorry @Pelleas I may have that wrong, I just saw a Tweet from ITV saying watch the drama unfold and then see the real thing on Thursday?! Confused

AdoptedBumpkin · 16/04/2020 12:27

I still believe they are guilty, but I felt a bit more sympathetic to Charles after seeing the show. It does seem like he got caught up in something he didn't really want to be part of, and then got carried away under the bright lights.

chomalungma · 16/04/2020 12:41

I just saw a Tweet from ITV saying watch the drama unfold and then see the real thing on Thursday

But is it the 'real thing' or is it an edited version of the show to sway people?

Just do the right cut here and there, improve the sound on certain tracks, lower the other sound tracks.....

TheReluctantCountess · 16/04/2020 12:47

I can’t see anything on the he tv listings for tonight. I’d love to see it!

SuburbanCrofter · 16/04/2020 12:52

I love Michael Sheen. But there's one thing bothering me about his portrayal - he doesn't pronounce his 't's whereas Chris Tarrant does. Chris Tarrant's speech is so well known from saying the same phrases over and over on the show that I'm surprised they got that wrong.

WinterIsGone · 16/04/2020 13:03

Just do the right cut here and there, improve the sound on certain tracks, lower the other sound tracks
Whatever the soundtrack, it won't be how it would be heard by the contestant. The other contestants would be at the front, and Ingram would have known where the cougher was sitting.

dayswithaY · 16/04/2020 13:22

The whole story is largely guesswork as the Ingrams have always claimed they are innocent and therefore never explained how they got on the show or Tecwen or the coughing and the pagers. So it's all just a case of joining the dots and drawing your own conclusion. I think they cheated but to what extent and who else was involved we will never really know.

I think they've got no chance of an appeal though. Sometimes people just say these things because it looks like the right thing to do. In reality they are better off just enjoying the renewed interest this has brought them. They might get on I'm a Celebrity this year.

Xylophonics · 16/04/2020 13:29

An enjoyable show. But I was wondering where Diana's annoying brother was in the trial?
He was the one who looked guilty skulking around backstage trying to use his mobile phone.

prh47bridge · 16/04/2020 13:38

I still believe they are guilty

I have never believed they are guilty.

There is the unlikeliness of a plot being hatched in a brief telephone call, Ingram trusting that someone he had never met would be able to answer all the questions (indeed, someone whose own performance in various quiz shows was poor, making him a very unlikely candidate to help Ingram cheat) and being able to pick out coughs from this individual. But above all there is the scientific evidence the jury weren't allowed to hear.

Professor Morice was able to show that the 19 "significant" coughs relied on by the prosecution were made by at least two people, not one. Unfortunately for Whittock and the Ingrams, the technique Morice used was new and had not been peer reviewed, so the judge rightly did not allow the jury to hear his evidence. That technique has now been peer reviewed and shown to be valid. If that evidence had been presented to the jury it would have blown the prosecution case out of the water.

There is also the question as to why Celador were allowed to retain the tapes and enhance them for the trial instead of them being seized by the police and examined independently.

The entire case came about because Celador (the makers of Millionaire) thought that Ingram was too stupid to win, ignoring the fact that he has two degrees and is a member of Mensa. On the back of that Ingram has not only not been paid the £1 million I believe he won fairly, he has lost his army career and I understand the Ingrmas have been declared bankrupt four times. I believe Celador ruined an entirely innocent man.

I note that a new appeal is being prepared. I understand scientific and technological advances have been used to re-analyse all 192 coughs on the recording. The lawyers involved also say they have evidence that throws doubt on the integrity of the audio evidence. They claim there are gaps in the chain of custody of the audio evidence - if true, that means the jury should not have been allowed to hear the audio evidence.

prh47bridge · 16/04/2020 13:43

the pagers

For clarity, there do not appear to have been any pagers. Celador searched Ingram after the recording because they thought he might be using hidden pagers to cheat but nothing was found. So this was an entirely unsubstantiated claim by the prosecution.

Pelleas · 16/04/2020 13:45

prh47bridge Interesting take on the events. It wasn't something to which I'd given any thought before this drama.

What is your take on the pager calls - Diana Ingram made multiple calls to her brother's 4 pagers, which was interpreted as testing a method of cheating relying on the pagers being strapped to Charles's body. Diana claimed the pagers were unreliable and she was simply trying to get hold of her brother to tell him Charles was going to be on the show.