Bear
Striker
He was thick as pig shit manMeanwhile in the documentary you can hear coughing during loads of different parts. Also, the Major done well to be the only one to hear the cougher say "No!" during a cough.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was thick as pig shit manMeanwhile in the documentary you can hear coughing during loads of different parts. Also, the Major done well to be the only one to hear the cougher say "No!" during a cough.
He was thick as pig shit man
He's got an engineering degree, achieved officer rank and passed Mensa's entry requirements. Whatever's on show, he's not as stupid as he looks.He had a nightmare on his first night on the show yet on his return became brain of Britain
The gasps when he said he was going to play A1.
Seriously, I wouldn't base it on that dramatisation. They were guilty, no doubt.Just watched the third episode because I had something on last couple of nights.
Whether they did it or not I can’t see how you could find them guilty beyond Reasonable Doubt on the basis of the evidence presented. The defence barrister was brilliant.
Spot on mateIt's apparent that some people would believe the word of a dramatisation over the evidence that was actually presented and heard by a jury in a court of law. I bet they think The Damned United was a true depiction too.
Everyone with one should go on game shows then easy money *cough*He's got an engineering degree, achieved officer rank and passed Mensa's entry requirements. Whatever's on show, he's not as stupid as he looks.
The gasps when he said he was going to play A1.
Clearly knew who Craig David was ... or was that his wifeWell how do you explain Tecwyn Witton also being thick as shit but helping him win the f***ing jackpot?
Exactly my thoughts. I thought the law was if you were found guilty they have to be 100% certain. Which isn't the case hereI've watched that documentary again with fresh eyes and its shambolic. There is so much guess work and supposition in the commentary from Bashir and tittle tattle from the production team. Bashir was saying that Ingram was following the coughs despite Ingram being in the middle of talking (the cricket question in particular). They made a big thing of the Ingrams being on there several times and being obsessed with the show but then made statements like 'she didnt know her every move was being filmed in the studio'. Holes all over the place in it.
If there was a system, it was inconsistent, chaotic and would be nigh on impossible to successfully follow through to a million quid. Tarrant himself said it was 'like a madhouse in the studio' with people screaming and gasping. How could Ingram, sitting yards away with Tarrant in his face, reading out potential answers, specifically isolate Whittock's cough out? That would take immense talent and is an insanely risky strategy. How could they rely on Whittock being right?
Even if that was the strategy they employed, and Im doubtful now, there is surely no way the jury could say that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
^this^ You don't gamble dropping by £468,000 on an answer you hadn't even heard of it.
Aye, 6 days later it was all over and our armed forces would have been able to relax.
Things the documentary glossed over:
How did Tecwyn cough his way to the £1m prize money then during his own game only win £1k?
Never heard of Craig David ... A1..A1...A1...A1 *Cough* Craig David
Daft argument. You either know the answers or you don't.
He also didn't know all the answers anyway, some times the wife knew, others he was asking others trying to get in the chair.
Aye that's true like. The wife was the Craig David one. Still think there is plenty reasonable doubt.
This actually makes no sense. If you think they're definitely guilty that's enough in a court.In my mind thry were definitely guilty, but in a court of law I'm not so sure.
This actually makes no sense. If you think they're definitely guilty that's enough in a court.
So you're saying that you've made up your mind they're guilty despite there not being any real evidence. This isn't a case where there might be something they haven't discovered yet. It's all there on film. You either believe the wildly fantastical conspiracy theory or not.It's not. My opinion is aye, but based on evidence presented you can't be 100% (a full jury). See OJ case. We all know he did it really. But the prosecution fucked up the case.
Interesting he actually perfectly describes the hat in question in one of the answers. Tbf the million pound question was surely a mistake as I would say that would be a £4000-£8000 question max its a things a reasonable amount of the general public would knowSo you're saying that you've made up your mind they're guilty despite there not being any real evidence. This isn't a case where there might be something they haven't discovered yet. It's all there on film. You either believe the wildly fantastical conspiracy theory or not.
Particularly an engineering graduate. But then there was another million pound question about which county team plays in Chester-le-Street and the bloke passed, so there's no knowing the limits of people's knowledge.Interesting he actually perfectly describes the hat in question in one of the answers. Tbf the million pound question was surely a mistake as I would say that would be a £4000-£8000 question max its a things a reasonable amount of the general public would know
This actually makes no sense. If you think they're definitely guilty that's enough in a court.
I honestly think there's a fairly sizeable proportion of society who believe the whole thing happened as was presented.It's apparent that some people would believe the word of a dramatisation over the evidence that was actually presented and heard by a jury in a court of law. I bet they think The Damned United was a true depiction too.