Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
From Wondery, I'm Alice Levine. And I'm Matt Ford. And this is British Scandal. MUSIC
So Matt, the coughing major, you kind of liked him. I did. In the end, yeah, he really grew on me. I kind of felt for him. Okay, so at the end of it all, you're at home, you're lying in bed, you've got your hot water bottle, you've got your constellation light projection, which is how you get to sleep, you've got your white noise machine on. Yeah, Thundercats pyjamas. Precisely. What does your gut tell you? Guilty or innocent? Well, I've been on a journey with this because he's really grown on me. So guilty. Really? Yeah.
I think so. On the balance of things, yes. Even though I like him, I think it's more that I understand why they'd do it and I think they basically thought it was a victimless crime. Arguably it sort of is, but I think, yes, they should never set foot outside of Belmarsh. Oh my goodness.
A classic Matt Ford sentence. Well, I think a lot of people like you have been on a bit of a journey with the story. They came with a really concrete idea of what they thought. And then as we've revealed some of these facts that perhaps weren't in the news, they weren't out there when we first heard this story, they've slightly wavered. And we're going to talk to somebody who's been key in putting forward this
alternative narrative about the Ingrams. He's a brilliant playwright. His name is James Graham. He turned the Ingram story into a hit West End play and a TV show called Quiz that was on ITV last year. That's next. My dad works in B2B marketing. He came by my school for career day and said he was a big ROAS man. Then he told everyone how much he loved calculating his return on ad spend.
My friend's still laughing at me to this day. Not everyone gets B2B, but with LinkedIn, you'll be able to reach people who do. Get $100 credit on your next ad campaign. Go to linkedin.com slash results to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. LinkedIn, the place to be, to be.
As summer winds down, let your imagination soar by listening on Audible. Whether you listen to stories, motivation, expert advice, any genre you love, you can be inspired to imagine new worlds, new possibilities, new ways of thinking. With Audible, there's more to imagine when you listen.
And speaking of listening, you can listen to the best-selling science fiction thriller Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir right now on the Audible app and traverse the galaxy in a desperate last-chance mission along with astronaut Ryland Grace, all from the comfort of your living room.
As an Audible member, you choose one title a month to keep from their entire catalog. New members can try Audible free for 30 days. Visit audible.com slash WonderyPod or text WonderyPod to 500-500. That's audible.com slash WonderyPod or text WonderyPod to 500-500.
So James, first things first, what was it about this story that firstly made you want to turn it into a play and then into a TV show? Well, like a lot of people, I was mildly, hopefully in a healthy way, obsessed about this story ever since it transpired in the early 2000s. I think it was about 18, 19. I loved Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as a game show and then just watched it
gobsmacked at this story unfold of this potential cheating scandal. But essentially, like most people who watched the documentary saw the court case unfold, I thought back then it was pretty cut and dry, black and white, their guilt was so evident and obvious and embarrassing that I put it to bed. And then a book came out called Bad Show by Bob Woffington and James Plaskett. Essentially it starts to question the
the whole premise of their guilt and how we accepted it so easily. And I just also fundamentally think, I find it so exciting to find these strange, idiosyncratic, slightly eccentric pockets of British life and real life stories that can somehow tap into, um,
the anxieties we share today like the anxieties around truth and misinformation and false narratives that we construct so I maybe naively thought that this strange little show about a game show where a major may or may not have coughed his way to a million pounds could illuminate some of that stuff
And did you learn anything new making the play or the TV show about the case? Yeah, loads. And that was what was really exciting. I mean, I don't consider myself remotely an investigative journalist, but the whole production of the play and then the ITV drama quiz was a really... I've never experienced anything like it before. It was the making of the story actually started to change the story. So there was a weird...
The great thing about theatre, obviously, is that it's live. And that means when you put it on in the West End, people who are actually involved in the story can come and see it. So the Ingrams came to see it and we spoke to them afterwards. Paul Smith, the creator of the television show, who wants to be millionaire, came to see it.
as did a guy called Paddy Spooner, who is one of the more intriguing characters, I think, in this story. He ran what we called the syndicate, but that he called the consortium, which was this group of professional who wants to be millionaires, if that is even English, that professionalised the entire society.
idea of going on the show in terms of training, but he came to see the show and suddenly as we were writing the TV version, things just started to tumble. And one of the more unique elements of this was that Paul Smith, who is a character in the drama, he, you know, millionaire was his baby and,
because we were doing this story, he got mildly back into it. He opened up all of his boxes and his files and suddenly he started to fall down a rabbit hole of intrigue about the whole story again. And he decided that he wanted to know more about the syndicate and quite how far they'd penetrated
his game show. So he started going off on his own. Like I didn't even have to ask him. And he was the one who actually organized a kind of reconciliation meeting with his sworn enemy, Paddy Spooner, who had been trying to bring, you know, take money from his game show for a decade and just sort of sat with him and said, look, I'm not going to prosecute. I'm not going to do anything. I just want you to tell me how successfully you,
you took money from my show and quite how you did it. And then all this information started coming out. He was really willing to share. So as I was writing the TV show, I started writing new scenes as information came in. That's amazing. Just thinking about the live show, when you've got individuals involved in the case...
coming to watch it live i mean i presume occasionally you talk to them afterwards do they ever say oh it didn't quite happen like that and and as a result of perhaps those conversations do you ever change anything people actually don't really say that i think most people understand what that we've become so familiar as a tv and theater audience what that process of adaptation is no one thinks it's quite literal and you've had to make choices but they will um they will
often it'll be something that goes, oh, do you know what, that scene where you did that thing there, that reminded me of this moment actually. And then they'll trail off into something that you think, oh yes, that is quite good. But often really it's,
It's just getting a better perspective of what it felt like just to be in that experience. And we did speak to most people before we did the play as well. So thankfully, the Ingrams did come into the rehearsal room and Paul Smith engaged with me and these kinds of people, the lawyers who did the case, all that kind of thing. But yeah, you're right. When people actually sit down and watch it, they start to...
remember things they themselves have forgotten about their own lives. And it's a thrill to build piece by piece a story around these real events. So many people watched the TV show and so many people were talking about it. It was trending on Twitter. It was a huge cultural moment. And because the original story had been this huge moment for people, I think there was this amazing connection. As you've said, you were doing this research, you were digging, you were learning new things yourself. Yeah.
In that case, did you feel a responsibility to come down on one side or did you feel a little bit like in a kind of legal situation you were presenting the facts to the audience and then we all had to kind of sit back and decide what we felt?
Well, I think that was my, in a way, I alleviated myself of that responsibility by doing exactly as you said. I didn't want to answer the question myself. I wouldn't presume to. It's always important to remind everybody that, of course, in a court of law, the Ingrams and Tecumwitig were found guilty, even though they are now appealing. And again, the sequence of that appeal and how that happened
almost organized itself slightly around the air date of our show again is a very strange meta idea of how reality and drama sometimes combine forces but um but yeah i mean it's um it i i think the most exciting thing to activate a story is to not present your own biased version of it and to just tantalize the audience with all the information and see if they can
they can assess it for themselves. And of course, I think, I don't know what it was like for you, Matt and Alice, but I imagine most people
went into the TV drama assuming they knew the story, assuming they thought they were absolutely guilty and what you were going to watch was a replica of the thing that you already knew. So I hope in a way that to challenge that and to disrupt that by presenting all the evidence in the case for the defence, which didn't really get an airing at the time, that sort of reminds you, I suppose, of not like being a citizen or not like being a juror, but it does make you active, I suppose, in that investigation. Absolutely.
Absolutely, yeah. I definitely felt that. Oh, definitely. And what I loved about the TV series as well is not just the new information about the Ingrams and the syndicate or the consortium, but also about how the show was made and that great scene where the guy who's pitching the show makes the noise of the lights going down. You know...
Seeing those moments that just became such big parts of our television furniture, someone actually coming up with the idea of, you know, that noise and that light movement. Are they, is there a bit of artistic license with that or do those moments happen as well? Yeah,
No, they were. I mean, I think I had to invent, I think, how they came up. Because originally it was called Cash Mountain. Yes. I think it was called Cash Mountain for quite a long time, strangely. And then they changed it and I manufactured, based on some truth, how that came about in terms of somebody whistling the song, the famous song from High Society.
But no, most of the rest of it in terms of, I'm glad you find that interesting because you always worry that you're just a bit of a nerd yourself and you get overly obsessed by the detail of stuff. And I confess, I find it really exciting and interesting to put
institutions and systems on stage and screen to sort of understand the mechanics of them and the Swiss watch of them. And Matt, I know you came to see one of my plays, This House, about the parliamentary whips office and how those things literally work. And so I thought, well, I don't know how you make a game show. Maybe an audience doesn't know how you make a game show. I wonder if that's going to be interesting. So how you come up with that format, how you test it, how it's a bit rubbish at first and then you improve it.
And yet you forget, I mean, it's so obviously the game show is so familiar and feels actually quite simple now. But the idea back then that someone could sit in a chair and just answer questions. This was in an age when, you know, it was the game shows were happening like Big Brother or Survivor where you have to get chucked out of a plane onto an island. This was just sitting down and doing a basically a pub quiz and
And how is that ever going to be exciting? But once they found little things like the pulse that emanates through the chair, or once they found out that instead of it being garish and bright and Saturday night, it should be dark and moody and intense. And then the simple fact of the idea that somebody could sit there and in 15 questions time become a millionaire,
was astounding. I sat there as a kid absolutely aghast at the possibility. So I think re-remembering your original excitement about something is always quite fun. I think that last point is so pertinent because it wasn't called win a million pounds. It was who wants to be a millionaire? There was this status change. You were changing as a person. You walked in, you know, a nobody and you walked out a millionaire, which as you say, as
when that show came out, certainly as a kid, you were like, but millionaires, there are what, four of those in the world? Yeah. So yeah, it sort of offered this kind of treasure that was not really available on other shows. And I suppose that's why it had such an impact on all of us. Yeah.
Yeah, without a doubt. And not just a millionaire, of course, but a celebrity because so few of them actually got to that point in the game that you would become a household name if you won that top prize. And as you said, what it created was a level of
cultural obsession, I think, across the nation that we were all sort of aware of. I think I... Oh, God, this sounds like I'm boasting about one of my own lines, but as my character, Paul Smith, says, it combines the two great British loves, drinking and being right. That's what a pub quiz is. And, you know, we all probably get a bit too carried away with the average pub quiz. But what was so, so exciting to uncover, and actually we sort of
gave this more space in the television show because I think television can
can create literal worlds more effectively, sometimes in the way that theatre can do expressionism, abstraction much better. We really enjoyed getting into the very quaint middle-class Wiltshire world of these people who became obsessed by the show, these syndicate people who just adored the show and decided they were going to try and break into it in a kind of heist way, except instead of suction cups or skyscrapers and abseiling down into...
bank vaults they had encyclopedias and reference books and they were just determined determined to crack the format and the formula of this show so
Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.
Want to teach your kids financial literacy, but not sure where to start?
Greenlight can help. With Greenlight, parents can keep an eye on kids' spending and saving, while kids and teens use a card of their own to build money confidence. As a parent, you can send instant money transfers, set up chores, automate allowance, and more. It's a convenient way to run your household, customized to your family's needs, and the easy way to raise financially smart kids. Get started with Greenlight today and get your first month free at greenlight.com slash wondery. ♪
Thinking of the success of the show, how much of that do you think was down to Chris Tarrant as a host? I think that's a really good question. And I think a lot of it. I really do think a lot of it. I had access to some of the footage of them rehearsing, which Paul Smith shared with me. And Chris was integral to that process.
that vibe, I guess, in the modern world of what the tone was going to be. And he so successfully did two contradictory things simultaneously. He was both incredibly warm and your friend, and you got the impression he really wanted you as the contestant to do well. And yet he was also terrifying, and he also upped the tension. And he would sit there for 10 seconds before he told you whether you got the answer right or not. And actually, a lot of those moments
Those phrases which are now so canon in popular culture, like, is that your final answer? And, you know, a lot of that came from him. So he played a huge part, not just in the creation of a tone. He actually was there in building the DNA of the show with the original creators as well.
The other key players, of course, are the Ingrams, who we need to talk about. The press coverage, the public response was so harsh. Was it difficult to portray that on screen when, as we've discussed, you're not just wanting to repeat all the information that we already know about this story? And of course, it was a different world then. It wasn't the social media world we live in now. So was that a challenge?
I think I felt I was very aware, particularly on a personal level with the Ingrams who understandably had a slightly exhausted weariness about bringing this back up again and knowing that they would also be thrust back into the public eye because of the scale of the drama and what the drama was offering in terms of an alternative look at this story.
So, yes, there's an irony that I thought in doing a story about press intrusion, I might actually be creating new press intrusion. But your reference to social media, I think, is really apt because that was in my head the whole time. And even though, as you say, that didn't exist in 2003 when the original court case was happening, I still feel what happened.
the signs were all there for what was going to happen in the future. And I know the late 90s and early noughties were sort of the peak of that tabloid culture around Princess Diana and other people where that level of presentusion felt like it was creating a philosophical crisis about one of the, you know, the fourth estate and its function and responsibilities in our lives. But there's something about
mob mentality and the excitement and the schadenfreude that we get as people when we can see others struggling or we think others are going to get taken down, especially people who we lift up and then immediately bring down. And here's a case of people who thought they won a million pounds and were really clever and then were being told that they were cheats.
And there's something really visceral, I think, arguably uniquely in British culture about the idea of fairness and how angry we're seeing it now in our political life when we think someone hasn't obeyed by the rules. There's something that does to us, and I'm sure other nations and cultures as well, but we're told it's a British thing.
you know, all that it's not cricket idea that really, really, really gets us going. And here were two people who we were told had ruined the game by not playing it fairly. And I think what they did to a lot of us, including I have to admit myself, in some kind of
flaming torch enjoyment of seeing maybe justice be delivered to them, even though I didn't know what was true and what was not true. I think it says something about human nature as well as it does about the press. And yes, as you say, who knows what that would have been like and felt like
had Twitter and Facebook and Instagram existed where instead of just reading about it we could circulate and share theories and feed a machine of outrage towards them it would have been even more frightening. Does it also tell us something about class in Britain? Do you think we'd have been more sympathetic to a couple from a different background perhaps less privileged? Would we have understood more their desire to have a million pounds?
It's 100% about class, absolutely. And who gets to sit in that chair and about the idea of education and knowledge and who has it, who has access to it. I wonder though, I mean, you're right. There's something about, strangely, the Ingrams because they were
a military family, they weren't actually that well off. They exude a kind of Englishness because of their military backgrounds and moving around the country. But they weren't rich. But undeniably, they felt sort of middle class and privileged. And therefore, yes, there's a new quality to the outrage we have for people who feel entitled to something they don't deserve. I wonder, though, I wonder what it would have been like
If it was someone who didn't talk the way they did, who was more working class, who had a regional accent, I don't know whether our outrage would have been more or less because as we know throughout history, sometimes we've been perfectly capable of demonising the less privileged as well as the more privileged. You paint quite a sympathetic picture of them.
Was that a result of meeting them and feeling that that was a side to them that hadn't been seen? Or were you very aware of this idea that you mentioned earlier of creating a balance because we just had this witch hunt? Balance was definitely a factor, but I don't know how else to write except by sort of being empathetic to the people that you're handling. And I've had in front of me some pretty
on the surface, unempathetic characters to dramatize in the past. I've worked with Dominic Cummings on a television drama. I've put Rupert Murdoch on stage. But the only way you can write is to get inside their head and ask what's driving them, what they want, what they're struggling with, what frightens them, what they think they're doing that's right, and the objectives and the battles that they're fighting.
And so, yeah, it was pretty easy actually. I'm going to be honest. These are normal people in an extraordinary circumstance.
You think immediately, well, what would I do if the world's media decided on my God? And what would I do if I was arrested in the middle of the morning for something I didn't think I did? And of course, I don't know. I don't know if they cheated or not. I have my own sort of personal views. And increasingly, like a lot of people, a lot of the original story specifically around the coughing and the coughs has flaws in it.
But I don't know. I don't know the truth. And so you have to almost dispatch that from your head and say, well, that's not really the point. It's what would it feel like to be normal people in this absolutely bizarre circumstance? And I think that's where you find the sympathy and the empathy with people. And what was that meeting like? You know, what were they like when you sat down with them?
We were really lucky because they agreed to come into a rehearsal room, so I was slightly protected by a ring of actors, and actors don't need much prompting to talk and ask questions. But honestly, it was very strange because I spent hours and hours and hours and hours watching these people on clips and YouTube, and then suddenly here they are in your room 15, 20 years later, but sort of looking basically the same and carrying...
traits and familiarities that you've become obsessed with over the years. And also they're very aware of what people want when they first meet. So I remember they sat down in a circle with us as a company of actors and writers and directors. And I think it was Charles who immediately says, just to get it out of the way, I know you were sat there thinking, did they do it? And it just broke the ice really, because of course that's what they face nearly every day of their life, people's curiosity. But I think, I hope, um,
their experience has slightly changed since the broadcast of the television programme. I think the questions, or at least the understanding and the tolerance for what they went through has increased towards them. And I know I'm very aware that even Charles returned to social media more publicly during the broadcast of the television drama to engage with people's questions and to try and put his point of view across. So I think that's a benefit, I think, to it.
putting their story forward rather than tabloid newspapers or a court case. And would they give tips to the actors? Would he say, no, I don't sit like that? Or, you know, when I cough, it's more from the chest rather than from the throat?
I think it's more than tips. They actually gave us costume. No way. Charles brought along his rugby polo shirt that he wore in the chair. I don't think I've ever been starstruck by a polo shirt, but I saw it and I just wanted to touch it. And yeah, so our actor in the play, Gavin Spokes, is a really great actor. He wore that throughout the entire show. And yes, then other things, yeah, small little details, which an actor always really, really loves to embrace.
A real leap of faith for them, you know, having been through the mill. And as you say, when things perhaps die down again, I'm sure there was a constant level of interaction with people publicly. But yeah, kind of a tough one for them to join in with your creative endeavour. Yeah. And you're grateful for them and you feel guilty about having to put them through a trauma again. But they knew...
they knew the spirit of the endeavor was not just to paint them as villains, was to try and understand and actually to give them a defense. I put literally in terms of the stage play and the third episode of the television drama to have their lawyer put forward all of their arguments and to mainstream those in a way that they never really got a chance to. So I think they were grateful for that. Yeah, you worry about them. You worry about everybody that you...
And what do you think drives them now?
I still think it's justice. I mean, they are going to appeal. And that process was happening as we were beginning to make the television drama. So we were aware of it, not in the privileged detail, because that wouldn't be correct. But in a straight, I would never presume that our...
gave them any kind of increased momentum or belief in that. But I think naturally having the world talking about your case again and even beginning to question whether or not they did it or not was fuel for them, I think, and continuing to keep going. On the other side...
who was the creator of the show, he still really believes that they are guilty of something and he feels like justice was done in them being sentenced and he was equally as happy to work with us and help us. He's a really great guy. He's really kind. Anyway, that's what I love about this story is normally in an ITV1 mystery drama, there's normally a body on the floor and there's normally a villain and there's something, maybe this is incredibly naive and wet of me, but there's something I like about this story
crime thriller in that I'm not sure really there are any villains. There are people who really believe in guilt and people who really believe in innocence. And if anyone is the villain, it's probably us, the audience, in a coliseum gladiatorial way for falling too much into the trap of wanting blood. ♪
This season, Instacart has your back-to-school. As in, they've got your back-to-school lunch favorites, like snack packs and fresh fruit. And they've got your back-to-school supplies, like backpacks, binders, and pencils. And they've got your back when your kid casually tells you they have a huge school project due tomorrow.
Let's face it, we were all that kid. So first call your parents to say I'm sorry, and then download the Instacart app to get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes all school year long. Get a $0 delivery fee for your first three orders while supplies last. Minimum $10 per order. Additional terms apply. Obviously the court finds them guilty, but just thinking of the details of that case, there are moments in it that I think we're...
everyone would find quite shocking. The tone of the judge where he's joking around with the catchphrases of the show, that was something I wasn't aware of before. I mean, some of that stuff feels quite inappropriate. I think that's a fair analysis. And again, people in that courtroom were very helpful to us and I'm grateful to them for that. But I don't disagree. I think a...
a culture took hold in that courtroom that I wouldn't say it was a show trial. I think these were jury members who heard the evidence and made the decision that they made, but you can't really escape the media tornado circling around you and the intense interest.
and yes I was surprised to discover especially on the day when Chris Tarrant appeared in the doc quite how mad people went both for his stardom but also for yeah not quite as much care as they may have done and as you say it's absolutely true as we portrayed in the documentary that when Chris was giving evidence the judge asked him if that was his final answer or not and everybody laughed and
And you think, well, I get it. I probably would have laughed. But equally, I'm not sure the people who stood in the dark would have laughed. You say people went mad. In what way? I think just being absolutely swept up in the extraordinary nature and the slight glamour of the trial. This is about a TV show. It's about a game show where there is glitter and money and lights and famous people and makeup. And it's not normally what you would expect, I think, when you turn up to Southern Crown Court.
probably dealing with a parking fine. It's something else. And, you know, Chris Tarrant was so, so famous. And we experienced a bit of that feeling, I imagine, a bit of that madness when Michael Sheen walked on set because this was the first, that was his appearance in the doc.
was actually his first day filming for me and the director, Stephen Frears. And I knew Michael from the past and I was very excited for him to play the part. But there's a part of you that's going, we're just assuming he can do it because he's Michael Sheen. But what if he's terrible? What if he can't do Chris Tarrant? But we assume he can. And then he walks in into the dark and it's the first time I saw him in his wig and his makeup. And you go, oh.
my God, it's Chris Tarrant. And I swooned. And I was like, well, now I know how it happens. I'm the writer and I'm swooning. And yeah, I could totally see how something, a ripple of some, you know, embarrassingly sycophantic celebrity excitement goes through a courtroom. The charisma. He is outstanding. And as you say, completely disappears into that role.
I know you said you didn't want this story to be sort of clouded by personal bias, but if we were to track your journey from watching that as we all did on television all those years ago to where you stand now, how would you describe the journey you've been on with this?
Only as a glorious journey into doubt, which I think is always a really useful and beneficial one. I think we place too much emphasis and power on certainty and binary black and white. It's either this or it's that, which is just not the world. And I revel and enjoy uncertainty and doubt as a playwright. I think that's a really exciting place to be, the grey areas. And when you discover uncertainty,
loads of contradictory weak elements to what felt like such a clear-cut case for example I think it's the 19 significant coughs that happen when the major is answering these questions and these coughs come from somewhere in the audience correlating with when he's listing the right answers therefore indicating that that's the answer he should pick
You think, well, there you go. That's that's it. And when you watch the clips, you go, it's so loud. It's so obvious. I can't believe the audacity and the shame of these people. And then you hear actually that there is no evidence at all to say that those 19 cuffs came from Tecumseh. There's no evidence at all. They're just on the audio tape. They roughly know whereabouts in the studio they came from.
but they don't know it was him. And they don't even know that those 90 coughs came from the same person. These are just noises that happen over the correct answer. You go, huh, okay, well, maybe I...
I put too much emphasis on that. Then when you realise that these people never met, to the best of our knowledge. Tecwin Whittock had a phone call with Diana Ingram the night before the show when she heard he was going to be on it, but they'd never met. Major Ingram didn't know what he looks like, didn't know what he sounded like, didn't know whether he was clever.
and yet was willing to risk a million pounds on this dissociated cough somewhere in the studio. Maybe that's true. Also, when you realise there were 192 coughs across the night coming from all over the place on the right answer and on the wrong answer, and they were disregarded if they didn't happen on the right answer. There's a lot of things that don't necessarily add up in the way that was made so clear in the original trial.
And as a stress, again, who knows? Maybe it's all entirely true. Maybe some of it's true. Maybe none of it's true. Maybe they cheated in a different way. Maybe people from this syndicate were sat in front of him giving him audio clues. Or maybe he just, sorry, visual cues. Or maybe he just knew the right answer and was playing a very good game in innocence and naivety. I don't know. And honestly, I don't really care anymore. I just really enjoy this story and what it says.
about us and about Englishness and about class and about money and about the mob. I think it's a rich and full story. You obviously love the grey areas. There is no greyer area in this case than the role and the existence of the syndicate or the consortium or whatever they're called.
Yeah. Given that, if you're trying to get on a show and win a million quid, it's inherently rational that you would try and club together with other people who are effectively professional quizzers and try and increase your chances. Do you think what they did was wrong? Yeah.
I don't know. I mean, what do you think? I mean, if you talk to Paul Smith, the creator, he's relatively zen about it. Sometimes he's like, well, fair play. We just didn't know. We had no idea that people were going to try something like this. Therefore, they didn't build in the safeguards. Like if it was a bank, right?
You would have guards and you would have lasers and you'd have passcodes. You've watched too much Entrapment, James. I have. It's very exciting. But you'd have all that stuff, all that paraphernalia. This was a game show on a soundstage in Elstree. They didn't contemplate theft.
or imagine how it could possibly happen. Either you know the answer or you don't. Surely, surely it's completely impenetrable. So they would admit there was a level of naivety about the safeguards they put around it. Do I think what the syndicate did was wrong? I don't know. They would argue there were flaws in the system and we increased our chances. Is setting up a secret room in a location safe
in London full of 10 of the world's best quizzes and you divert a significant amount of phone of friends to this room for a portion of the prize money, is that enhancing your chance of winning any greater than going to university or reading a reference book? Or I don't know, it's a grey area. And I don't know even what the law would say, but I can't imagine there's a law that stops you from improving your chances on a game show.
We must get the legislation changed. If we do one thing. Justice. That's what we want. James, it's completely fascinating. I can see why you've been obsessed with it for so long. Thank you so much for giving us a bit of the behind behind the scenes. It's been brilliant. Thank you. It's been fun to relive it. Thanks very much.
That was the incredibly talented James Graham there, and you can find his show Quiz online now. Right, next week, we have a brand new story, and it is your turn, Matt. We are taking on Maxwell. Oh, brace yourself. This is the fourth episode in our series, The Coughing Major. If you like our show, please give us a five-star rating and a review, and be sure to tell your friends. You can listen to new episodes one week early and ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus in the Wondery app.
Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, the Wondery app or wherever you're listening right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app to listen for free. In the episode notes, you'll find some links and offers from our sponsors. Please support them. By supporting them, you help us offer you this show for free. Another way to support us is to answer a short survey at wondery.com slash survey. If you'd like to know more about this story, you can read the book Bad Show by Bob Woffenden and James Plaskett.
John Ronson's long read in The Guardian are The Millionaire 3 Innocent. And you can watch ITV's Tonight with Trevor MacDonald 2003 episode, Major Fraud. I'm Alice Levine. And I'm Matt Ford. This episode was produced by Dee King. Our senior producer is Joe Sykes. Our executive producers are Jenny Beckman, Stephanie Jens and Marshall Louis for Wondery.
Welcome to the Offensive Line. You guys, on this podcast, we're going to make some picks, talk some s**t, and hopefully make you some money in the process. I'm your host, Annie Agar.
So here's how this show's going to work, okay? We're going to run through the weekly slate of NFL and college football matchups, breaking them down into very serious categories like No offense. No offense, Travis Kelsey, but you've got to step up your game if Pat Mahomes is saying the Chiefs need to have more fun this year. We're also handing out a series of awards and making picks for the top storylines surrounding the world of football. Awards like the He May Have a Point Award for the wide receiver that's most justifiably bitter.
Is it Brandon Ayuk, Tee Higgins, or Devontae Adams? Plus, on Thursdays, we're doing an exclusive bonus episode on Wondery Plus, where I share my fantasy football picks ahead of Thursday night football and the weekend's matchups. Your fantasy league is as good as locked in. Follow the offensive line on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can access bonus episodes and listen ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus.