Still a Major Fraud???
Whilst I do think they are guilty I don't really think the 'documentary' proved anything. In fact it re-inforced my view that Celador must be loving this and the interest / money it's bringing in. Let's face it anything with Martin Bashir in it is not journalism it's sensationalism. Any balanced programme would have given the Ingrams airtime as well.
Ghengis raises a good point about how we're the first to slag off the media with their ability to pontificate using zero info yet you are hanging him whilst only having seen Celador's side of the deal.
But my big q. is...
Does anyone have any good gossip on what the bloke was like at his job? Seems to me he was the classic sterotypical dim officer whichIi found suprising few and far between in my dealings with the pongos. (Apart from the AAC of course.
And he obviously never served in the Province if he doesn't know the Foyle.
And that's my final diatribe.
Ghengis raises a good point about how we're the first to slag off the media with their ability to pontificate using zero info yet you are hanging him whilst only having seen Celador's side of the deal.
But my big q. is...
Does anyone have any good gossip on what the bloke was like at his job? Seems to me he was the classic sterotypical dim officer whichIi found suprising few and far between in my dealings with the pongos. (Apart from the AAC of course.
And he obviously never served in the Province if he doesn't know the Foyle.And that's my final diatribe.
I'll bet if Major Thickt*at was a Corporal, he would have been banged up for 5 years, instead it looks like the old boys handshake has worked again. One law for the Officers and one for the scumbags. Do the Crime, Pay the Time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Undecided!
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Potato!?
Well what have I started here then...a bit of a to and fro on the moralitys and so on of cheating!
Even the media has been brought to book now! I do however agree that anything with/by martin Bashir is probably over-sensationalised (sp)!!
However the full unedited version of millionaire was shown on itv2 after the docu-drama on itv1. Coughs could clearly be heard during the show, both at the crucial times (as highlighted) and also at other random moments!
However, for this tape recording to be admitted as 'evidence' (loosely) in court, they must have been validated as being that of the wee welshman, the wife, and of course the major! correct?
Obviously the media are going to use these tapes in their view on the whole scenario. If nothing else to try and prove that their actions were justified. And no, I am not a journo and am not trying to justify their actions, however you must agree that you don't get smoke without fire?! TRUE?
Even the media has been brought to book now! I do however agree that anything with/by martin Bashir is probably over-sensationalised (sp)!!
However the full unedited version of millionaire was shown on itv2 after the docu-drama on itv1. Coughs could clearly be heard during the show, both at the crucial times (as highlighted) and also at other random moments!
However, for this tape recording to be admitted as 'evidence' (loosely) in court, they must have been validated as being that of the wee welshman, the wife, and of course the major! correct?
Obviously the media are going to use these tapes in their view on the whole scenario. If nothing else to try and prove that their actions were justified. And no, I am not a journo and am not trying to justify their actions, however you must agree that you don't get smoke without fire?! TRUE?
G Khan
Concur completely with what you're saying (we've all seen cases where the media can edit to suit their own ends), but as sprucemoose already implied, the heavy editting probably wasn't necessary....many of the crew and some fellow contestants had clearly realised something was up....Ingram's pathetic performance in the chair was probably evidence enough on it's own!!
Just a numbered other
I was a little disappointed that the TV company had enhanced all the evidence in the documentary, and haven't seen the full programme yet.
Even without the enhancement, the major made the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
He is obviously of well below average general knowledge, and too daft to even cheat convincingly. His U-turns were breathtaking and damning. His reaction when phoned after the show was not that of an honest contestant.
IMHO he's bang to rights.
ZH875 has a point, too. The judge didn't jail the galloping eejit and wife because he didn't want to deprive their kids of their parents!
Would that argument keep the average burglar out of chokey? No.
Training Risky, I'm astounded by your reaction to this.
The major's commission carries the following words from the Queen:
'We reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and good Conduct, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you you to be an Officer.....'
His actions are hardly in keeping with these expectations, and he must be sacked, if he has not been already.
Even without the enhancement, the major made the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
He is obviously of well below average general knowledge, and too daft to even cheat convincingly. His U-turns were breathtaking and damning. His reaction when phoned after the show was not that of an honest contestant.
IMHO he's bang to rights.
ZH875 has a point, too. The judge didn't jail the galloping eejit and wife because he didn't want to deprive their kids of their parents!
Would that argument keep the average burglar out of chokey? No.
Training Risky, I'm astounded by your reaction to this.
The major's commission carries the following words from the Queen:
'We reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and good Conduct, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you you to be an Officer.....'
His actions are hardly in keeping with these expectations, and he must be sacked, if he has not been already.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SEUK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eh!?
Hang on Arkroyal, did I not state that cheating is especially morally dishonest? As an officer, he has definately conducted himself poorly and should have his commission and his appointment in the RE very closely examined.
My point was that this should never have gone to court. Celador should simply have stopped the cheque, told all three to p*ss off and that could have been the end of it. If the three decided to sue Celador for the million, well that's up to them. But why waste the courts' time with such a relatively trivial matter when the 'real crime' rate in this country is worse than it should be!!!
Sprucemoose and Jackonicko: Words fail me. I suppose you even support the decision to give the 2nd drug-dealing burgler legal aid to sue for injuries sustained while committing said burglary?
Some gypo who breaks into a man's house with the possible intention of theft or assault deserves all they get.
Lee Clegg got his job back eventually, and I hope Tony Martin gets his life back too. The life that was stolen from him by our courts.
But back to the millionaire trial: Guilty or not, this should have been treated as a minor disagreement between contestant and company, NOTHING MORE!
My point was that this should never have gone to court. Celador should simply have stopped the cheque, told all three to p*ss off and that could have been the end of it. If the three decided to sue Celador for the million, well that's up to them. But why waste the courts' time with such a relatively trivial matter when the 'real crime' rate in this country is worse than it should be!!!
Sprucemoose and Jackonicko: Words fail me. I suppose you even support the decision to give the 2nd drug-dealing burgler legal aid to sue for injuries sustained while committing said burglary?
Some gypo who breaks into a man's house with the possible intention of theft or assault deserves all they get.
Lee Clegg got his job back eventually, and I hope Tony Martin gets his life back too. The life that was stolen from him by our courts.
But back to the millionaire trial: Guilty or not, this should have been treated as a minor disagreement between contestant and company, NOTHING MORE!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still a Major Fraud?
Lots of diverse opinion... and very healthy too! However... let's be brutally honest here.... these three n'erdowells were found guilty of attempting to cheat A MILLION POUNDS! This was neither a schoolboy prank nor a victimless crime! Who remembers the half-wit in the very earliest days of the lottery who sellotaped the sections of 3 different lottery tickets together and tried to claim a few grand? HE GOT 9 MONTHS! Clsoing thought: The defendants (still pleading innocence) have declared their inclination to appeal. Mmmmm wonder where the £50,000+ might come from? Unlikely to be taken up on a no-win no-fee basis by any Barrister who saw Monday night's documentary methinks!
You are the weakest link major...goodbye!
You are the weakest link major...goodbye!
Exactly, theft involving money stolen from big companies attract custodial sentences.
While there are a lot of crap drivers out there (for instance) who knock people over, maim and kill them, and receive suspended sentences and fines.
Why? Because to some people, money has a greater value than human life.
While there are a lot of crap drivers out there (for instance) who knock people over, maim and kill them, and receive suspended sentences and fines.
Why? Because to some people, money has a greater value than human life.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G.Khan
I was sceptical about the TV evidence that was provided however it was the answering that, IMHO, gave me the evidence that Major I was not dealing with the questions on his own.
When asked which city Baron Hausmann played a major part in designing, the major was categoric with his answer of Berlin (based on the fact that Hausmann sounded a bit German). He offered no reason as to why he suddenly changed to Paris. Other contestants who have reached the higher amounts have always used rational thoughts to eliminate other answers before deciding on their final answer (or have been sure as soon as the question came up).
Likewise his dealings for the 'Big One'. How many people in their right mind would offer an answer to a 1 million quid question based on the fact they had never heard of the word (a Googel)?
I was sceptical about the TV evidence that was provided however it was the answering that, IMHO, gave me the evidence that Major I was not dealing with the questions on his own.
When asked which city Baron Hausmann played a major part in designing, the major was categoric with his answer of Berlin (based on the fact that Hausmann sounded a bit German). He offered no reason as to why he suddenly changed to Paris. Other contestants who have reached the higher amounts have always used rational thoughts to eliminate other answers before deciding on their final answer (or have been sure as soon as the question came up).
Likewise his dealings for the 'Big One'. How many people in their right mind would offer an answer to a 1 million quid question based on the fact they had never heard of the word (a Googel)?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Risky, I don't think the other burglar should have been able to sue for damages; that's a failing of the legal aid system. Nor, however, do I believe that "some gypo who breaks into a man's house with the possible intention of theft or assault deserves all they get" if that means murdering them.
Perhaps you can argue that the Ingrams should never have ended up in court, possibly Lee Clegg also (he was a soldier, after all), but Tony Martin killed someone with an illegally-acquired and modified firearm, having previously been judged unfit to keep one.
I despise burglars, but I don't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun, fail to report the incident and then get away with it. In that light, Ingram's case bears no comparison.
Perhaps you can argue that the Ingrams should never have ended up in court, possibly Lee Clegg also (he was a soldier, after all), but Tony Martin killed someone with an illegally-acquired and modified firearm, having previously been judged unfit to keep one.
I despise burglars, but I don't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun, fail to report the incident and then get away with it. In that light, Ingram's case bears no comparison.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guilty - but worth neither a court case nor an extra TV programme. Nor 2 extra programmes because I gather that Mrs I has her say soon. Nor 3 extra programmes because I saw the Welshman on Richard & Judy the other day. Nor X extra programmes because this will run and run until no more 'viewers' can be squeezed out of it.
I feel sorry for the Army for unwittingly harbouring such a twonk and thereby getting such crud exposure, although all of the Services have done it at some time or other. I wonder how his previous couple of confidential reports read - any suggestions?
I feel sorry for the Army for unwittingly harbouring such a twonk and thereby getting such crud exposure, although all of the Services have done it at some time or other. I wonder how his previous couple of confidential reports read - any suggestions?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoom,
X has developed a strange mechanism for issuing orders to troops under his command. His 2 i/c barks out a series of orders, apparently at random. The CSM coughs when the correct order is heard. X then repeats this. X is unable to provide any explanation for this.
X has developed a strange mechanism for issuing orders to troops under his command. His 2 i/c barks out a series of orders, apparently at random. The CSM coughs when the correct order is heard. X then repeats this. X is unable to provide any explanation for this.
Training Risky, "people who value money above human life"? Does that include people who think it's right to kill someone because they might have stolen your £40 stereo? Some mistake? After all, the victim certainly won't get his life back. It would be a very wild decision in any court that someone running away from you could have the "possible intention" of assaulting you - Barras was running off the property, empty handed, when he was slotted with several rounds to the back, from an illegal military firearm, FROM COVER! Mr. Martin took the so brave decision, being armed to the teeth, not to confront the burglars or to give them a chance to surrender to Citizen's Arrest or to leave his property, but to conceal himself near the front door so as to ambush them on the way out. That is not defending yourself with the minimum reasonable force. That is taking the offensive with the maximum force available! But they were, after all, only gypos and therefore not proper human beings - so that's all right then! Unfortunately, the Right believe that only their constituency are human beings - if you're a weak, uneducated 16 year old boy with no chance ever, a rail worker killed through your fatcat employer's incompetence, a homeless ex-squaddie - that's your fault, (this is called "freedom" or "personal responsibility" or these days "the social responsibilities we all have to face up to"), because you are an Unperson.
Do yer worst, I'm too angry to care at the moment.
Do yer worst, I'm too angry to care at the moment.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the major, wife and co-defendant are as innocent as they claim, surely there has never been a better case than this for using a polygraph/lie detector machine?
If all 3 of them pass the test and show themselves to be telling the truth, they will win back an awful lot of credibility, and possibly even some money.
Personal opinion suggests that they will not volunteer for the tests though, which would be a shame.
If all 3 of them pass the test and show themselves to be telling the truth, they will win back an awful lot of credibility, and possibly even some money.
Personal opinion suggests that they will not volunteer for the tests though, which would be a shame.
Thanks for your well-balanced contribution Steamchicken, I'm glad you came to the party.
You neglected to mention that said farmer had had his house broken into many times before and (in my opinion) was justified in the using the methods he did, in doing what the Police had failed to do many times before: protect himself. I don't give a toss that he happened to be running away; he might have been going to summon more criminal help, who knows?
I take it you live in the country? Far away from a part-time police station that only operates 9-5?
These gypos might have been armed. The fact that they were not is no defence to them. The householder didn't know they were unarmed, he was in fear of his life. If this had been Texas, he would have had a round bought for him down the pub.
You are right about one thing though. They were gypos. That means as they don't pay tax or contribute to our society in any shape or form, they automatically forfeit any rights they might have by not facing up to their responsibilities as citizens. (I think I'm in the majority here...)
What are you so angry about!
You neglected to mention that said farmer had had his house broken into many times before and (in my opinion) was justified in the using the methods he did, in doing what the Police had failed to do many times before: protect himself. I don't give a toss that he happened to be running away; he might have been going to summon more criminal help, who knows?
I take it you live in the country? Far away from a part-time police station that only operates 9-5?
These gypos might have been armed. The fact that they were not is no defence to them. The householder didn't know they were unarmed, he was in fear of his life. If this had been Texas, he would have had a round bought for him down the pub.
You are right about one thing though. They were gypos. That means as they don't pay tax or contribute to our society in any shape or form, they automatically forfeit any rights they might have by not facing up to their responsibilities as citizens. (I think I'm in the majority here...)
What are you so angry about!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I am just puzzled on several points.
How did the Ingrams arrange for Mr Whittock to be placed as a contestant on the same episode of the show?
How did Ingram arrange to be selected prior to Mr Whittock so that he was still present during his round?
How did they arrange how for Mr Whittock to be seated in a suitable position to be able to be heard?
How believable is it that Mr Whittock knew all the correct answers, something almost mathmatically impossible?
If Mr Whittock is so well read, why did he fail so lamentably during his own round?
How did the Ingrams arrange for Mr Whittock to be placed as a contestant on the same episode of the show?
How did Ingram arrange to be selected prior to Mr Whittock so that he was still present during his round?
How did they arrange how for Mr Whittock to be seated in a suitable position to be able to be heard?
How believable is it that Mr Whittock knew all the correct answers, something almost mathmatically impossible?
If Mr Whittock is so well read, why did he fail so lamentably during his own round?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
Ingram's appearance straddled two shows. In the first, he got up to £4000 (I think) using up all his lifelines and struggling to get that far. They then discovered that Mr Whittock was on the next show, where Ingram would be starting in the seat. Apparently Mrs I already knew Mr Whittock because he was another one obsessive about the show and they had already met previously. (According to the Bashir documentary and, I think, part of the prosecution case, denied by the Ingrams) The allegation from the trial was that the Ingrams contacted Mr Whittock during the period between shows and devised their 'communication' system.
Presumably, positioning would have been the luck of the draw, but I don't know how it's arranged.
Ingram ought to be grateful he wasn't serving earlier last century, when I think someone bringing this sort of disrepute onto his Service would probably have found a pistol waiting for him on his desk!!
Ingram's appearance straddled two shows. In the first, he got up to £4000 (I think) using up all his lifelines and struggling to get that far. They then discovered that Mr Whittock was on the next show, where Ingram would be starting in the seat. Apparently Mrs I already knew Mr Whittock because he was another one obsessive about the show and they had already met previously. (According to the Bashir documentary and, I think, part of the prosecution case, denied by the Ingrams) The allegation from the trial was that the Ingrams contacted Mr Whittock during the period between shows and devised their 'communication' system.
Presumably, positioning would have been the luck of the draw, but I don't know how it's arranged.
Ingram ought to be grateful he wasn't serving earlier last century, when I think someone bringing this sort of disrepute onto his Service would probably have found a pistol waiting for him on his desk!!