Major Prizes NOT Awarded (REVISED 19 OCT) to the Winners...research project
Hi there
I'm trying to do some research, just for my personal interest, on major competitions where the prizes WERE NOT awarded, as promised.
Now usually "Mr google" is my friend, but on this occasion he hasn't been much help.
One of these 2 items featured on prime time Australian telly at the time, so I thought it appropriate to post here.
Please post any info you may have under this same thread and/or send onto me personally at
catherinejemma@myway.comREMOVEthisBIT remove the obvious bit.
In the latter half of 1986 some fellow went through over several days and won the main prize on Channel Nein's "Sale Of The Century" (sic)
During the show the guy, a retired doctor had given the answer "aphasia".The answer they had intended to be correct was "Dyslexia". However medically there is some area of overlap in these terms.
After a telephone break.....one moment please......yes our judges have decided that we will accept that as the correct answer
Only right up towards the end of the episode, did the shows "producer" (in tv terms =accountant) OVER-RIDE the judges and cancel the points for that question. Therefore he did not have enough credits to win the full prize and would have had to risk it all, again, and come back the next day, and win again, in order to win the whole lot. Not surprisingly he decided to leave then and there, with everything except the cash jackpot 9the final and largest part of the prize)
Now because these eps are filmed in advance of airings, it was widely publicised when this ep was to air, which from memory was a Thursday night, in the latter half of 1986
Now I begged a friend of mine who had 2 videos if he would please record this ep for me, I couldn't do it myself because I was busy doing something for him, at that time.
He couldn't be bothered recording it for me, but did speak to his dad who spoke to some other bloke, who had watched the ep, and what he saidwas......(mmm, not really the same as me having it on videotape to this day....is it ?)
Anyway apparently in a cunning stunt, yes Channel Nein were Stunning Cunts, re-edited the footage to make it look like the competitor volunteerily gave up the cash jackpot, because, as a retired doctor, he was already amillionaire and didn't need the money
I'm guessing I'm the only private individual in Australia who intended to record this ep for my permanent archives, and as, because of circumstancesbeyond my control I ended up NOT getting, no-one else did either.....
There's another case, not televised as such
This second case happened in New Zealand before I left in the first half of1986 (how much before, I cannot remember). Now in NZ at the time there was NO Lotto. However there was a regular raffle ticket style lottery, sold at corner stores and newsagents etc, called the "Golden Kiwi" (although old people often referred to it as the Art Union)
Similar to local neighbourhood and community raffles, you could fill in your name and address details on the numbered stubb (optional but recommended), which later gets returned to headquarters, and you keep the tear-off part of the ticket (which also bears the same serial number as the stubb)
It was a clear condition of this raffle style lottery that you *HAD* to present the ticket in order to recieve the prize money (Not sure but I think that by then the prize was $200,000 which would buy you 4 family homes then.)
After one raffle draw someone claimed the prize but DID NOT have the ticket.The independant NZ lotteries commission or whatever they called themselves at that time, did of course pay out the total first prize to this claimant, even that it absolutely broke their own, absolute rules.
Soon thereafter a person bearing the actual ticket turned up wanting their first prize claim honoured.
The lotteries commission refuised to pay them saying "sorry the money is gone" (yeah mate like it's the same $1 notes and the like that buy thetickets that pay for that month's prize)
Further the lotteries commission hinted that the 2 women involved were in conspracy with each other, I remember they made these claims in such a carefully worded way that they'd never be legally actionable, but that was their clear meaning
The last I heard, the actual ticket bearer still had not recieved one penny of the prize money
Does anyone have anymore detailed or exact information on the above listed 2 events, Sale of the Century or Golden Kiwi lottery ?
Note that if you think "it couldn't happen to me" just read the rules for any major competition. Somewhere it'll say "the judges decision is final, and no correspondence will be entered into" which unfortunately, legally means, that you can win the prize and yet have no legal claim on them in any civil court. Only if the Crown/State Prosecutor wants to, could a criminal charge for fraud be initiated. (Well that's how I'd understand it)
REVISED 19 OCT 2006
Oh hey I's just remembering an even more recent incident, this one in Australia (one of the Eastern States I think) Here in Australia, for just a few dollars a year, a Lotto player can REGISTER with the Lotteries commission. They then issue you with an electronic swipecard which you get swiped whenever you make a Lotto entry, if you win and forget to take your paper ticket back to the agency to claim your prize, a cheque is mailed out to your address automatically a few weeks later. Registrations can be in the names of individuals or a SYNDICATE (eg a workplace syndicate with colleagues)
Just a year or 2 back someone won a large Lotto prize and even though they had that ticket registered under their own personal swipecard some colleague from his workplace lodged a protest and claimed they should have a syndicate share of the prize (even though it was NOT the ticket registered under the workplace syndicate's swipecard)
So the Lotteries commission have refused to make any pay out in this case and have said that they'll only pay the winner if he runs a case through court and wins it. The legal costs will be huge and last I heard he was unable to fund a court case in advance of recieving any winnings....a catch 22 situation.
This was another case where the relavent lotteries commission simply refused to pay out a valid prize. Look the ticket was registered to this guy's own name using his own personal lottery swipecard. The Lotteries commission *SHOULD* pay him by default *UNLESS* some other party has gone to the required court and got a court order to stop payment in advance of it being made. There is a 14 day automatic hold on all major lottery payments in Australia. If there is NO interim court order within that 14 days PAY THE BLOKE, gggrrr it makes ME ANGRY thinkin' about it, I wonder what it makes HIM feel like.
The item was featured on either channel 7's Today Tonight show, or possibly and less likely, ch 9's A current Affair (I've only had access to that channel's show since March of 2005, so if it was before that date it would almost have had to be Today Tonight). Yes I know that neither of those programs could be called anything other than "low quality television journalism" but they aren't normally "outright lies" (with the exception of Channel 7's DAVE "SLUGGO" RICHARDSON (why they keep employing this bloke when time after time he keeps getting caught committing journalistic fraud, I dunno). This ends the later added revision.
cheerio
Cate
I'm trying to do some research, just for my personal interest, on major competitions where the prizes WERE NOT awarded, as promised.
Now usually "Mr google" is my friend, but on this occasion he hasn't been much help.
One of these 2 items featured on prime time Australian telly at the time, so I thought it appropriate to post here.
Please post any info you may have under this same thread and/or send onto me personally at
catherinejemma@myway.comREMOVEthisBIT remove the obvious bit.
In the latter half of 1986 some fellow went through over several days and won the main prize on Channel Nein's "Sale Of The Century" (sic)
During the show the guy, a retired doctor had given the answer "aphasia".The answer they had intended to be correct was "Dyslexia". However medically there is some area of overlap in these terms.
After a telephone break.....one moment please......yes our judges have decided that we will accept that as the correct answer
Only right up towards the end of the episode, did the shows "producer" (in tv terms =accountant) OVER-RIDE the judges and cancel the points for that question. Therefore he did not have enough credits to win the full prize and would have had to risk it all, again, and come back the next day, and win again, in order to win the whole lot. Not surprisingly he decided to leave then and there, with everything except the cash jackpot 9the final and largest part of the prize)
Now because these eps are filmed in advance of airings, it was widely publicised when this ep was to air, which from memory was a Thursday night, in the latter half of 1986
Now I begged a friend of mine who had 2 videos if he would please record this ep for me, I couldn't do it myself because I was busy doing something for him, at that time.
He couldn't be bothered recording it for me, but did speak to his dad who spoke to some other bloke, who had watched the ep, and what he saidwas......(mmm, not really the same as me having it on videotape to this day....is it ?)
Anyway apparently in a cunning stunt, yes Channel Nein were Stunning Cunts, re-edited the footage to make it look like the competitor volunteerily gave up the cash jackpot, because, as a retired doctor, he was already amillionaire and didn't need the money
I'm guessing I'm the only private individual in Australia who intended to record this ep for my permanent archives, and as, because of circumstancesbeyond my control I ended up NOT getting, no-one else did either.....
There's another case, not televised as such
This second case happened in New Zealand before I left in the first half of1986 (how much before, I cannot remember). Now in NZ at the time there was NO Lotto. However there was a regular raffle ticket style lottery, sold at corner stores and newsagents etc, called the "Golden Kiwi" (although old people often referred to it as the Art Union)
Similar to local neighbourhood and community raffles, you could fill in your name and address details on the numbered stubb (optional but recommended), which later gets returned to headquarters, and you keep the tear-off part of the ticket (which also bears the same serial number as the stubb)
It was a clear condition of this raffle style lottery that you *HAD* to present the ticket in order to recieve the prize money (Not sure but I think that by then the prize was $200,000 which would buy you 4 family homes then.)
After one raffle draw someone claimed the prize but DID NOT have the ticket.The independant NZ lotteries commission or whatever they called themselves at that time, did of course pay out the total first prize to this claimant, even that it absolutely broke their own, absolute rules.
Soon thereafter a person bearing the actual ticket turned up wanting their first prize claim honoured.
The lotteries commission refuised to pay them saying "sorry the money is gone" (yeah mate like it's the same $1 notes and the like that buy thetickets that pay for that month's prize)
Further the lotteries commission hinted that the 2 women involved were in conspracy with each other, I remember they made these claims in such a carefully worded way that they'd never be legally actionable, but that was their clear meaning
The last I heard, the actual ticket bearer still had not recieved one penny of the prize money
Does anyone have anymore detailed or exact information on the above listed 2 events, Sale of the Century or Golden Kiwi lottery ?
Note that if you think "it couldn't happen to me" just read the rules for any major competition. Somewhere it'll say "the judges decision is final, and no correspondence will be entered into" which unfortunately, legally means, that you can win the prize and yet have no legal claim on them in any civil court. Only if the Crown/State Prosecutor wants to, could a criminal charge for fraud be initiated. (Well that's how I'd understand it)
REVISED 19 OCT 2006
Oh hey I's just remembering an even more recent incident, this one in Australia (one of the Eastern States I think) Here in Australia, for just a few dollars a year, a Lotto player can REGISTER with the Lotteries commission. They then issue you with an electronic swipecard which you get swiped whenever you make a Lotto entry, if you win and forget to take your paper ticket back to the agency to claim your prize, a cheque is mailed out to your address automatically a few weeks later. Registrations can be in the names of individuals or a SYNDICATE (eg a workplace syndicate with colleagues)
Just a year or 2 back someone won a large Lotto prize and even though they had that ticket registered under their own personal swipecard some colleague from his workplace lodged a protest and claimed they should have a syndicate share of the prize (even though it was NOT the ticket registered under the workplace syndicate's swipecard)
So the Lotteries commission have refused to make any pay out in this case and have said that they'll only pay the winner if he runs a case through court and wins it. The legal costs will be huge and last I heard he was unable to fund a court case in advance of recieving any winnings....a catch 22 situation.
This was another case where the relavent lotteries commission simply refused to pay out a valid prize. Look the ticket was registered to this guy's own name using his own personal lottery swipecard. The Lotteries commission *SHOULD* pay him by default *UNLESS* some other party has gone to the required court and got a court order to stop payment in advance of it being made. There is a 14 day automatic hold on all major lottery payments in Australia. If there is NO interim court order within that 14 days PAY THE BLOKE, gggrrr it makes ME ANGRY thinkin' about it, I wonder what it makes HIM feel like.
The item was featured on either channel 7's Today Tonight show, or possibly and less likely, ch 9's A current Affair (I've only had access to that channel's show since March of 2005, so if it was before that date it would almost have had to be Today Tonight). Yes I know that neither of those programs could be called anything other than "low quality television journalism" but they aren't normally "outright lies" (with the exception of Channel 7's DAVE "SLUGGO" RICHARDSON (why they keep employing this bloke when time after time he keeps getting caught committing journalistic fraud, I dunno). This ends the later added revision.
cheerio
Cate
posted by Catherine Jemma at 10:38 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home