New inquiry: Call TV quiz shows

Just received via email:





CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE

HOUSE OF COMMONS - SESSION 2005-06



No. 45
24 October 2006

New inquiry: Call TV quiz shows

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is announcing today a new inquiry
into Call TV quiz shows. It is particularly interested in receiving evidence
on the following issues:

· The procedures for handling calls from viewers;

· Information provided to viewers on the costs of calls and their
chances of participating and winning;

· The role of Call TV quiz shows in raising income for broadcasters;

· The impact, financial or otherwise, of participation on viewers;
and

· Whether further regulation of Call TV quiz shows is required.

Written submissions are invited from any interested organisation or
individual by 16 November 2006. It is expected that a single morning of oral
evidence would take place shortly after the closing date for submissions.

Submissions should be sent by e-mail to , preferably as
a Word file and not as a pdf document. We strongly encourage respondents to
send electronic copies of submissions, although we will accept hard copies,
addressed to Sally Broadbridge, Inquiry Manager, Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. Submissions should
give the name and postal address of the person sending the memorandum and
should state whether it has been prepared specifically for the Committee. If
the memorandum is from an organisation rather than an individual, it should
briefly explain the nature and membership of the organisation. The Committee
may publish some of the submissions it receives. For more guidance on the
preferred format, see http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm.

Membership of the Committee:

Mr John Whittingdale OBE (Chairman) (Conservative)

Janet Anderson (Labour) Alan Keen (Labour)

Philip Davies (Conservative) Rosemary
McKenna (Labour)

Mr Nigel Evans (Conservative) Adam Price
(Plaid Cymru)

Paul Farrelly (Labour) Mr Adrian
Sanders (Liberal Democrat)

Mr Mike Hall (Labour) Helen
Southworth (Labour)




Contact

House of Commons Committee Office, 7 Millbank, SW1P 3JA

Tel: 020 7219 6188 (fax 2031) E-mail:

Website
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta..._and_sport.cfm




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received
it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any
unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has
been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heracles Pollux wrote:
Just received via email:

or should that be...........

Quadruple Money Round!

£50,000
Mr John Whittingdale OBE (Chairman) (Conservative)
Janet Anderson (Labour)
Alan Keen (Labour)
£25,000
Philip Davies (Conservative)
Rosemary McKenna (Labour)
Mr Nigel Evans (Conservative)
£12,500
£12,500
Adam Price (Plaid Cymru)
Paul Farrelly (Labour)
Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat)
£3,000
Mr Mike Hall (Labour)
Helen Southworth (Labour)

I am so deeply sorry for that **** gag.

fr.

The biggest con with these shows is that they would appear to demand a
skill element and thus fall within the law regarding prizes and not
being a game a chance.

However, they dump most calls so your only chance of winning is to get
through the lottery of the call dump e.g. every 100th call gets
through.

I suspect the skill element, once you get through, keeps them within
the law but couple that with the incredibly obvious clues they provide
to get rid of the jackpot and it just boils down to a lottery which is
more or less illegal.

Same with BA stands for i) Big Aircraft ii) British Airways or iii) Buy
Another. 0.01% chance you get the question wrong but 99.99% chance you
don't get through in the first place.

In article .com,
says...

The biggest con with these shows is that they would appear to demand a
skill element and thus fall within the law regarding prizes and not
being a game a chance.

However, they dump most calls so your only chance of winning is to get
through the lottery of the call dump e.g. every 100th call gets
through.

I suspect the skill element, once you get through, keeps them within
the law but couple that with the incredibly obvious clues they provide
to get rid of the jackpot and it just boils down to a lottery which is
more or less illegal.

Same with BA stands for i) Big Aircraft ii) British Airways or iii) Buy
Another. 0.01% chance you get the question wrong but 99.99% chance you
don't get through in the first place.



There other "skill element" for some puzzles is equally dodgy.

They have so many possible answers that even if you get through you've
minimal chance of selecting the right one. Effectively a lottery.

I can recall one word puzzle which went on for weeks. I specifically
remember it because the word "****" fitted in along with hundreds of
others.

The "mathematical" ones usually give the impression that you can
(easily) work out the answer. Often with a taunting presenter suggesting
that all you have to do is follow the instructions if you are clever
enough. Many callers do just follow the literal instructions and give
out the "obvious" answer which is of course wrong.

The "correct" one if it is announced gives no details as to how it is
really worked out. Even with both the puzzle and the answer its well
nigh impossible to see what they've done. I suspect this is to conceal
stuff like "that 'v' in the second word obviously is a roman numeral for
5".

Steve.

In message , Stephen Henson
writes
In article .com,
says...

The biggest con with these shows is that they would appear to demand a
skill element and thus fall within the law regarding prizes and not
being a game a chance.

However, they dump most calls so your only chance of winning is to get
through the lottery of the call dump e.g. every 100th call gets
through.

I suspect the skill element, once you get through, keeps them within
the law but couple that with the incredibly obvious clues they provide
to get rid of the jackpot and it just boils down to a lottery which is
more or less illegal.

Same with BA stands for i) Big Aircraft ii) British Airways or iii) Buy
Another. 0.01% chance you get the question wrong but 99.99% chance you
don't get through in the first place.



There other "skill element" for some puzzles is equally dodgy.

They have so many possible answers that even if you get through you've
minimal chance of selecting the right one. Effectively a lottery.

The most worrying aspect is that even if people do come up with one of
the many possible words on their list, they can just say "no, it's not
there" until they decide to let someone win.

There is no way to know if they are lying, which is what makes it so
potentially dodgy.
--
Ian

allan tracy wrote:
The biggest con with these shows is that they would appear to demand a
skill element and thus fall within the law regarding prizes and not
being a game a chance.

However, they dump most calls so your only chance of winning is to get
through the lottery of the call dump e.g. every 100th call gets
through.

I suspect the skill element, once you get through, keeps them within
the law but couple that with the incredibly obvious clues they provide
to get rid of the jackpot and it just boils down to a lottery which is
more or less illegal.

There is no skill element, just luck, but someone manages to phone
through (in some cases more than once), and state the correct answer
and win some money, so it's hardly a con. I was watching Quiz Call on 5
last weekend and a caller actually got through twice, winning £5000 on
one occasion. I don't see a problem other than the fact a lot of ****s
phone in repeatedly with the same wrong answer and it soon becomes
monotonous TV, but then there's always the off switch.

In article ,
says...
The most worrying aspect is that even if people do come up with one of
the many possible words on their list, they can just say "no, it's not
there" until they decide to let someone win.

There is no way to know if they are lying, which is what makes it so
potentially dodgy.


The "mathematical" ones on some channels sometimes give a range of
possible answers and may also indicate if it is higher or lower than
their "answer" (guess).

These frequently go on until almost the last possible moment when it has
been narrowed down to one or two numbers.

Although it isn't possible to tell for sure if they are cheating a
statistical analysis of the results might show that the probability of
winning is consistently far worse than the expected value.

Steve.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:41:23 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:




Maybe someone could email them what I happened to see on Quizmania a
couple of weeks ago. A caller was put through and he clearly sounded
under 18 (under 12 to be honest). Nonetheless, D.K. asked what his
answer was anyway, and he said what his guess was. At this point, she
finally noticed, and asked him if he was over 18. He said no, so
instead of cutting him off, she said "is there anyone else in the
house who is 18 who can say the answer for you?". That's the TV quiz
equivalent of buying alcohol from an off-licence and then giving it to
some kids outside, and even they seemed willing to admit it as she
said "we shouldn't really be doing this anyway", as she waited and
waited for someone else to get on the phone.

Yet they seem more than happy to broadcast their illegal frauds to the
nation!

"Stephen Henson" wrote in message
...

Other tactics include reading out letters from "fans", talking to an
invited "celebrity", stupid chatter, dancing around (in the manner of
Hugh Dennis "disco Dad") and just plain padding "we'll be taking a
caller any time now" for several minutes on end.

Maybe they could use similar tactics to what the Dutch use for their
phone-in quiz show type things. Some extremely attractive presenters,
such as:
Gigi Ravelli
http://images.google.co.uk/images?sv...=gigi+ravelli+
Wytske Kenemans
http://www.moppies.nu/index.php?opti...topic& id=713
And my favourite, Celine Huijsmans!
http://www.moppies.nu/index.php?opti...k=topic&id=778
Cheers
Jeff

In article ,
says...
"Stephen Henson" wrote in message
...

Other tactics include reading out letters from "fans", talking to an
invited "celebrity", stupid chatter, dancing around (in the manner of
Hugh Dennis "disco Dad") and just plain padding "we'll be taking a
caller any time now" for several minutes on end.

Maybe they could use similar tactics to what the Dutch use for their
phone-in quiz show type things. Some extremely attractive presenters,
such as:
Gigi Ravelli
http://images.google.co.uk/images?sv...=gigi+ravelli+


140 vaginas?

http://www.glizzy.nl/images/20060808_ravelli1.jpg
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1120 DVDs, 339 games, 290 CDs, 108 cinema films, 36 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever