Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 104 comments are related to the topic:
tonights, QUIZ

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 104
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 11:23
The lead copper has had a few minor roles but played Simon's dad in The Inbetweeners.
By:
1st time poster
When: 15 Apr 20 11:24
reading today the majors solicitor has an appeal coming, where she says itv  faded out doctored other coughing going on at the same time in the court case
By:
1st time poster
When: 15 Apr 20 11:26
they've gone bankrupt 4 times
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 11:30
Running a market stall, eh.
This time next year, they'll all be millionaires Grin
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 20 15:29
Grin@ Ang , its the way forward , A few of us will need to go down the Market Stall route Grin
By:
TheBetterBettor
When: 15 Apr 20 17:55
Charles and di ingram were even in who wants to be a millionare couples...  which wasnt even mentioned in QUIZ.... The whole thing stinks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7SaZVH8ls&t=2m36s
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 21:49
i think guilty, , but beyond reasonable doubt, the verdict should be NOT GUILTY
By:
duffy
When: 15 Apr 20 21:59
Agreed, shouldn't be found not guilty, aside from that though I think how this programme has been done will see the Ingram's viewed in a more favourable light by the public, they are being portrayed very much as victim's IMO.
By:
duffy
When: 15 Apr 20 21:59
shouldn't be found guilty
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:03
SHES A BRILLIANT DEFENCE LAWYER
By:
pumphol.
When: 15 Apr 20 22:04
If this is a true reflection & I was on the jury I could not possibly find them quilty, do I think they did cheat yes but that's totally besides the point.
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:08
thing is a lot of jurys are so thick they dont know what beyond reasonable doubt means
By:
duffy
When: 15 Apr 20 22:10
They'll make a million off the back of this if they've got anything about them.
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:13
must say the main actors were superb
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 22:15
Quite likely a substantially larger amount of evidence was produced at the trial than shown in a television drama.
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 22:16
If this is a true reflection & I was on the jury I could not possibly find them quilty, do I think they did cheat yes but that's totally besides the point.


I agree. Where was the evidence?

Is the Martin Bashir documentary any more informative?
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 22:17
The trial lasted four weeks.
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 22:18
Just seen your post, Angoose.  I've read the wiki page but that's about it.

The programme was great viewing though.
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 22:20
If you were charged with a very serious crime and had a choice between a jury trial or a judge only trial, which would you go for?
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:20
thats the trouble these days it seems you can be convicted without real   evudence, whatever weinstein was, there really wasnt hard evidence to convict him. ( from what i read and heard anyway)
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:21
difficult one that angoose, im not sure
By:
pumphol.
When: 15 Apr 20 22:22
Judge obviously not overly impresssed with the verdict, hence the suspended sentence imo.
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 22:23
Your choice might be different depending on whether or not you actually committed the crime Grin
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:24
exactlyWink
By:
pumphol.
When: 15 Apr 20 22:29
elisjohn 15 Apr 20 21:08 
thing is a lot of jurys are so thick they dont know what beyond reasonable doubt means

Exactly what happened when I did jury sevice, only myself & one other person got the brief about beyond reasonable doubt, crazy thing was the trial went into a third week & One juror left to go on holiday, that left a majority of 9-2 the missing juror had already stated she voted guilty, you can imagine how popular we were in the jury room, the judge would have accepted a 10-2 majority  so a hung jury it was & don't know  if there was ever a retrial.
By:
duffy
When: 15 Apr 20 22:38
pumphol,

You reckon you had it tough, have you watched 12 Angry Men?Grin Great film.
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 22:39
I thought he made a good point about the gasp from the audience when he said 'A1'.  If he thought that was indicative, maybe he would change his mind.

Also, if he thought that the 50-50 was NOT a random removal of two wrong answers, he might have initially said A1 as a tac tic.

If you remember, Chris T only said "no help from the audience" before FFF.
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:44
if i was innocent id hope a good judge would halt proceedings before the jury decided,
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 22:44
I've never done jury service but I have seen "Poetic Justice, Innit?" Happy

I would imagine half the jury just want to go home asap.
By:
elisjohn
When: 15 Apr 20 22:47
trouble is i mentioned most of the jury are thick, but whats worse the cps arent much better , and theyre supposed to be well educated
By:
trew
When: 15 Apr 20 22:51
I would have got the cougher to cough on a wrong answer and still won
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 22:52
They'll make a million off the back of this if they've got anything about them.


I would have thought there'd also now be an appetite for another series of the show itself.
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 15 Apr 20 23:05
LaughLaugh

It really was like "Poetic Justice Innit?"  (That's an episode of Minder, btw)
By:
pumphol.
When: 15 Apr 20 23:06
Basically the majority pressure the minority in the jury room  mainly because they want to get home for their poxy tea.
By:
Angoose
When: 15 Apr 20 23:12
They would love somebody like me then, I’d be the Henry Fonda character in Twelve Angry Men Grin
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 20 23:13
On what was presented there I could not find anyone guilty , As for Techwins NO , the only person that heard it was the Accused

in the whole Studio ?

And they had to highlight or made it louder on the Tape PMSL Laugh Unreal ..

You can edit anything and make someone look like a mass murderer FFS

Why did their Lawyer not say you could have added coughs ??
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 20 23:15
PAY THE MAN !!! FFS Grin
By:
casemoney
When: 15 Apr 20 23:20
If you watch the Docu ,you can come to only one Verdict , but that did not Include the Trial .. I dont think.
By:
i_agree_with_nick
When: 16 Apr 20 08:36
From wiki:

TV appearances

Following his appearance on Millionaire, Ingram has appeared on other various TV shows, including The Games,[27] The Weakest Link, and Wife Swap, featuring alongside his wife in the latter two.[28]


Insurance fraud case

In late 2003, Ingram and his wife were charged with further fraud offences. On 28 October, Ingram was found guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, and of a second charge of deception, having attempted to claim on an insurance policy after an alleged burglary at his home. Ingram had failed to tell Direct Line Insurance about claims he had made in the three years before he took out the policy in July 2001. The court was told that Ingram had been a "habitual claimant" with Norwich Union after suffering "unfortunate" losses of private possessions.[29]

Christopher Parker, prosecuting, said Ingram switched insurers to Zurich Insurance Group in 1997, after Norwich Union reduced a burglary claim from £19,000 to £9,000, and in 2000 switched again to Direct Line. "He has been ineluctably dishonest", Parker said. "He went to Direct Line and didn't make a disclosure about his claims history because he knew he wouldn't have been insured. It might not have started off as the most monstrous piece of villainy but these things tend to snowball and it all came to a sticky end when he claimed for £30,000." Staff at Direct Line were already "suspicious" about Ingram's £30,000 burglary claim but decided to investigate only after reading newspaper coverage about his questionable win on Millionaire.[29]

Ingram was given a conditional discharge on the charge of fraudulently claiming £30,000 on insurance. The judge told Ingram he took into account "the punishment [Ingram had] brought upon [himself] and [his] dire financial state" and rejected an alternative option of community service after Ingram told a probation officer he feared other criminals would bully him.[30]
By:
1st time poster
When: 16 Apr 20 09:59
if they wernt part of spooners team how did 3 family members get on the show,not only did they to beat joe public to get on but 1000,s of spooners mob to get on,if as spooner said they got 400 plus on show,not many left to get man and wife applying separately weeks apart on to show,
even if you forget the rest and just go to final question no one alive could keep a straight face,not get excited, not blurt out they think they no this,all an act ,no ones guessing to lose nearly half a million,so somehow he was 110% certain,inside job for me
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com