Quiz ITV 9pm



It makes perfect sense to me mate, an opinion ( which @dangermows has here ) isn’t enough evidence to convict somebody in a court of law.

Correct
If the opinion isn't backed up by the evidence then it's not an opinion, it's a guess.

Ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did it. But its not 100%. I think they did based on what I've seen, but can see why some could see a bit of doubt.

Never heard of Craig David. Cough. I will go with Graig David.

It's Berlin. I'm sure it's Berlin. I don't think it's Paris. Cough. I think it's Paris.

I think it's a Nanotrone. I'm not heard of Googol. Cough. I don't think it's Nanotrone. I've never heard of Googol so it must be that.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy? LOL
The 'theory' that they (not to mention the shadowy 'syndicate') 'conspired' to win money by gaming the system, built on supposition but without proof.
Correct


Ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did it. But its not 100%. I think they did based on what I've seen, but can see why some could see a bit of doubt.
It doesn't need to be 100%. If you think there's "plenty" of evidence then you must convict, but deep down, you don't think he did.
 
Last edited:
The 'theory' that they (not to mention the shadowy 'syndicate') 'conspired' to win money by gaming the system, built on supposition but without proof.

There was enough evidence there to make it very likely, but not sure how they could get 100% proof, hence why I can see why some would say not enough to convict.
The 'theory' that they (not to mention the shadowy 'syndicate') 'conspired' to win money by gaming the system, built on supposition but without proof.
It doesn't need to be 100%. If you think there's "plenty" of evidence then you must convict, but deep down, you don't think he did.

He did it in my opinion. I gave three of the most obvious bits of evidence.
 
If the opinion isn't backed up by the evidence then it's not an opinion, it's a guess.

In my opinion he did it, but there’s not enough evidence to convert my opinion to fact.
Producer had the opinion he created, presenter had the opinion he didn’t.

The only actual evidence they had was the mics picking up the coughing but that’s impossible to prove.
 
There was enough evidence there to make it very likely, but not sure how they could get 100% proof, hence why I can see why some would say not enough to convict.


He did it in my opinion. I gave three of the most obvious bits of evidence.
When I did jury service last year I noticed they didn't use the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" but I think the concept still applies. Why wouldn't you convict if you think there's all this compelling evidence? Answer, because it's not.
 
I remember the Durham / Chester or street question. Granted easy for me living here but I was convinced they made it a bit easier almost as a reward for making it that far.

I knew Googol anarl.

Didn't know the other one though, about one of Henry II wife.

Mind, Id not have got that far on any of them anyway.
 
I knew Googol anarl.

Didn't know the other one though, about one of Henry II wife.

Mind, Id not have got that far on any of them anyway.

Aye, knowing each one is pretty much impossible.
I’m in Paris a fair bit and knew Haussmann but no idea on others, other than Craig David of course !
 
Aye, knowing each one is pretty much impossible.
I’m in Paris a fair bit and knew Haussmann but no idea on others, other than Craig David of course !

The lady who won it was tremendous and obviously well educated but she needed a bit of help. The last three questions just fell right too. She'd been to a place recently which referenced one of the answers that stuck in her head for example.
 
The lady who won it was tremendous and obviously well educated but she needed a bit of help. The last three questions just fell right too. She'd been to a place recently which referenced one of the answers that stuck in her head for example.
Also people were coughing when she said the right answers.
So, as I said, I think they did it from what I've seen, but did they definitely prove 100% they did, no.
And that satisfies the requirement to bring a guilty verdict in court.
 
Last edited:
It's Berlin. I'm sure it's Berlin. If at home I'd be screaming Berlin. Cough. No. I think it's Berlin. It's not Paris. Cough. It might be Paris. I think it's Berlin. I'm sure it's Berlin. But it could be Paris. Cough. I think it's Paris. Cough. Yes, Paris, final answer.

Also people were coughing when she said the right answers.

The same person didn't cough repeatedly, and several times on the same question, when the correct answer was repeated.
 
Last edited:
It's Berlin. I'm sure it's Berlin. If at home I'd be screaming Berlin. Cough. No. I think it's Berlin. It's not Paris. Cough. It might be Paris. I think it's Berlin. I'm sure it's Berlin. But it could be Paris. Cough. I think it's Paris. Cough. Yes, Paris, final answer.



The same person didn't cough repeatedly, and several times on the same question, when the correct answer was repeated.
I don't think they know who was coughing then. They don't film every member of the audience and could only even say Whittock's cough came from a certain mike.

But I'm confused. You seem to think all this proves to you he was cheating, but also that it doesn't prove he was cheating. I think you'd be a bit annoying in a jury room.
 
I think it's Berlin.

*Cough* No!

:lol:

Had to shout no cos the plank wasn't reading through the options and was just repeating that he thought it was Berlin.
 

Back
Top