Millionaire Rules

[Birchy]

Did Charles Ingram have to sign something to say that he wouldn't cheat in 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'? I accept that it was jolly naughty, but what was he actually found guilty of? Isn't there a case - in his favour - to suggest that winning the top prize, by any means, is allowed? After all, people who know the answer to any question can't be disallowed on the charge of 'Gaining a Knowledge That Would Normally be Considered Sad'......could they?

[Miss Zippy]

I can understand why you would think he has just been 'naughty' rather than commit the most heinous crime of the century, but, at the end of the day what he did, or was convicted of doing, was commit fraud. He was tried for 'obtaining a pecuniary advtange by deception' (together with other ancillary offences), which is a criminal offence under s.16 of the Theft Act 1968.

[Birchy]

Getting caught for doing it all so badly was his crime. I personally believe that he should have been done......but my question was more to do with how he had transgressed the show's rules. Would he have had to sign something saying that "outside means" must not be employed? I'm not being pedantic, but this was an extraordinary case. Aside from him, I thought his wife was the main culprit. She should have been jailed for looking like that.

[Miss Zippy]

Agree - I'm surprised the fashion police didn't get to them first too. Have a look at the WWTBAM rules and see what they say, though I very much doubt they specify what they consider to be 'fraud' or cheating, you just can't cover all eventualities. Anyway, it's a criminal matter, not a civil one so it's academic what the Rules say about fraud. At the end of the day, it is implied that you will not cheat, whether or not by employing outside means. The Rules state how you can be helped i.e. ask the audience, phone a friend etc, so it is implied that no other help is permitted, which would completely defeat the purpose of the show, if nothing else.

[darth vader]

They are covered by a clause which says "the judges decision is final" - in fact they were planning to use this clause to refuse to pay out whether Mr Ingram won or lost the case, so he was more a fool for fighting a losing battle in court, merely to clear his name, rather than try claiming the 1 mill (though a more cynical person would agree that should he have won the case, he would have sold his story for a million anyway - in fact being TOTALLY cynical i would assume he will do this anyway)

[Birchy]

"the judge's decision is final" is preposterous! So you can deprive a contestant of a legitimate win by invoking this?! It's a bit like the "all other duties within the scope of the post" on a job description, that effectively means your JD has no boundaries whatever. Surely "Millionaire" are above all that! How disreputable......

[Miss Zippy]

As it was a criminal case, I don't think the Ingrams went to court just to 'clear their name' - their liberty was at risk, not to mention a potentially substantial fine if found guilty. As it happens, they got off pretty lightly. As they are now convicted fraudsters, technically, they shouldn't be able to profit from their crime by selling their story etc, but we all know the law can be an a$$.

[cpmcmahon]

I've heard that it's illegal in the UK for criminals to make money by selling their story. But I doubt that would cover appearing on Have I Got News For You or cough mixture adverts. It certainly wouldn't cover selling their story overseas.