Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Quiz - ITV

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Quiz - ITV

Old 16th Apr 2020, 10:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 1
Quiz - ITV

Having watched this excellent three parter, I知 slightly wavering on my opinion that Charles and Diana Ingram were definitely guilty of cheating on Who wants to be a Millionaire. At the time, I was convinced of their guilt and thought justice had been served - now I知 not so sure.

They didn稚 come across as particularly likeable people and he has several subsequent convictions of insurance fraud, but if I was on the jury, I would certainly have had reasonable doubt.

A very well acted and interesting piece of TV drama from ITV.

BehindBlueEyes is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 11:25
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
I think previous convictions was a bit of the straw in the wind. Im still convinced and it was a ham fisted plot. The Craig David question was the clincher for me, " I've never heard of Craig David " said the major -,then chose him!

There was a way that I think would have got them through with : answer correctly to 」500k. Make a big play of the 」1million question and then say. "No Chris, I've pushed my luck far enough. Take the money, final answer." As a juror I would probably gave given them the benefit of the doubt. Michael Sheen though, what an actor - he WAS Tarrant.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 15:03
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 880
I heard Chris Tarrant on the radio the other day. He was closest to the Major and he is 100% convinced he cheated.

Quiz tried to cast doubt on their guilt but Tarrant said if you had heard the prosecution summing up you would have had no doubt at all. It should be noted the tv show only showed the defence summing up not even a tiny piece of the prosecution.

The real villain, it seems, is a bloke called Spooner who appeared briefly in Quiz and reckons he had organised a syndicate that between them had gained around 10% of the entire prize money from the whole run of WWTBAM!
vctenderness is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 18:34
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Well apparently they were convicted by only a majority verdict that took deliberation of three and a half days. Also I understand Tarant was convinced Ingram was innocent when he signed the 」1 million cheque.
Mike6567 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 18:40
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 7,668
Dunno why in the court case they did not ask him 15 randomly generated questions with no life lines and see of he correctly answered at least 10 correctly showing he was generally brainy and should have been awarded the 」1m
Only Ingram, Tarrant and the Judge in the court room
Kiltrash is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 18:58
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 1
The drama portrayed Ingram as a bit of an eccentric character being led by the nose by his wife. He maintained that he deliberately kept changing his mind in the hot seat just to add drama and play along with spirit of the show.

Funnily enough, a year or so after the court case, I happened to be in Waitrose, Salisbury on Christmas Eve. They were both in there buying up everything that was being reduced (nothing particularly wrong with that) and they certainly weren’t in the least bit self conscious of their status. They were both quite “ra ra” loud and seemed to be quite enjoying drawing attention to themselves.
BehindBlueEyes is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 19:51
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 946
The programme was a bit too equivocal in my opinion - I recall the case seeming much more cut-and-dried when it actually happened. Perhaps the Ingram's new lawyers have been breathing down ITV's neck? I see today that they are considering yet another appeal....

Have to say that Celador were lax in the extreme in their fraud prevention and contestant-selection processes. As for those sad b*stards in the Syndicate, was it really so big and clever to cheat the system?
dead_pan is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 21:47
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Nothing wrong with what the syndicate did, it was legal. It is up to companies who set these things up to prevent abuse of their systems. What the drama did suffer from was touched in by an earlier poster. The end was remarkably truncated and we could have been privy to the jury discussions to some extent if it was a majority verdict.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2020, 23:48
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 51
Posts: 864
OK, the big, indeed huge white elephant here is that this assumes that this other fellow (the accomplice, Mr Whittock) amazingly knew all the answers to the questions... AND they had coordinated this on the one in whatever chance the major knew the screening question answer AND managed to buzz the fastest.

It just doesn't hold together... the whole conviction seems to be based on manufactured on demand selective evidence and subjective observations (such as arguing after the show).

If I'd won a Million (unlikely given my intellect, or lack of), Mrs Flash (and Princess Flash) would be back stage pronto arguing where that money was to be spent I assure you.

He might be guilty, but no way beyond reasonable doubt, at least from what was portrayed.
flash8 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 10:07
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 235
I think we needed to see more of the court case to balance the argument. For example there was little coverage of the prosecution case and none of the case against Whittock. What was in it for Whittock? I also heard Chris Tarrant interviewed the other day. He said he missed it at the time because he was so wrapped up in the drama, but having seen the details since, he is totally convinced they were guilty. He also said that the prosecution case was absolutely water-tight and convincing but given little coverage in the TV programme.
WIDN62 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 10:49
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Yes I thought the program skimmed over quite a bit. It was beyond reasonable doubt for the verdict though I thought. I would probably have still thought that had he dodged the final question but the defence would have had some substantial neat to chew on. As it was a majority decision I am convinced that tactic would have swung it for them. Greed eh?
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 12:02
  #12 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 72
Posts: 3,526
I would guess the sentence handed down might (might) be an indication of the Judge's view on the verdict.

He said - if accurate - something like:

"A crime of this nature would normally attract a custodial sentence of several years"...

... and proceeded to give him 18 months suspended for 2 years.

Shame the prog didn't give more of the prosecution case - but hey - it's fiction folks!

Sheen as Tarrant was amazing - when you think he's also done David Frost and Tony Blair.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 12:07
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 60
Posts: 1,197
I think Quiz glossed over the duplicity of ITV in all this.

Why would the ITV executives care whether Ingram cheated or not - it made great tv and the advertising revenue & profit from people calling in would far exceed the prize money. In my view, the answer lies in the documentary ITV made about it, which received record viewers and more advertising 」. It also bought the show free publicity. I suspect ITV knew all this would be the case when they decided to call in the police.

Mariner9 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 12:08
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by teeteringhead View Post
Sheen as Tarrant was amazing - when you think he's also done David Frost and Tony Blair.
And Brian Clough
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 13:31
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 69
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Harley Quinn View Post
And Brian Clough
To be fair he wasn't much like Cloughie, although more than Tim Spall was like Peter Taylor. Bill Nighy with a couple of stone on would have done the job admiralty.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 15:38
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,295
The trial was even more unclear than that - I've just looked it up. One juror was discharged (unknown reason) so the verdict was from 11 jurors. They initially returned a split verdict:

Originally Posted by wiki
The jury initially declared that they found Charles and Whittock guilty but Diana not guilty. The judge said that was not an acceptable verdict as all three were co-defendants and the prosecution's case relied on Diana's actions influencing those of Charles and Whittock. After retiring for a second time, the jury declared all three guilty of the charge.

And of course the recorded evidence (video and audio) should by rights have been declared inadmissible as it was heavily edited by a partisan party in contravention of almost every aspect of Judges Rules of evidence (and had no chain of custody),

PDR1 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2020, 15:41
  #17 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 51
Posts: 864
Sheen as Tarrant was amazing - when you think he's also done David Frost and Tony Blair.
Agreed, the guy had him spot on, heck even the voice sounded 100%, an amazing actor.
flash8 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright ゥ 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.