I think the way the show works is public knowledge.
...
It may well be on sites like this, but it's not amongst those of us who don't generally follow TV forums (I realise I may be a minority in that regard on here).
Very interesting to know though! I've caught a bit of it in passing and always wondered why they went on it, and why one or two seemingly very serious fall outs (one involving quite serious violence) were put aside in the interviews after the 'case', and they made up.
Small claims court isn't expensive by any means for whoever posted about that - that's the whole point of it.
There may be a tv exposure part to it but it's really all about not having to pay lawyers.
I doubt she asked who pays the judgment if it went in her favour ( I haven't watched it ).
Normally in a small claims case, Michael would have paid. So if she didn't ask, why would she assume it was anything else?
Curious how Marquis claimed to know "exactly" how it worked. I've been watching these shows since The People's Court had Judge Wapner and I have no idea.
But it's all besides the point isn't it. He was after a reaction, he honed his provoking skills with 2 weeks of lessons from his master. ;-)
Quite a few people do seem to know how such shows work, though, and when Ash was on Rinder and it was being discussed, it wasn't hard to find out.
I agree about his provoking skills, but I'm surprised they worked so well on Aisleyne when she'd known better when it was Helen.
I'm not sure.....we had UTV (ITV Ulster) which changed to UTV Ireland. I think I saw it scheduled on that. But it's very very unknown here in Ireland and I'm amazed that Marc is au fait with its format and procedures.
Strange because he doesn't really seem to know too much about some of the BB "legends" either.
Normally in a small claims case, Michael would have paid. So if she didn't ask, why would she assume it was anything else?
Quite a few people do seem to know how such shows work, though, and when Ash was on Rinder and it was being discussed, it wasn't hard to find out.
I agree about his provoking skills, but I'm surprised they worked so well on Aisleyne when she'd known better when it was Helen.
Why would she? As I said I didn't see it so I don't know what exactly happened My point is that I wouldn't ask who paid as long as it was paid, the whole point is to get paid.
I've had 2 friends show up on The People's Court. He wasn't going to pay her and by going on the People's Court she got paid. It's the point isn't it? Who would ask whether the person or the show paid? I don't care, never even crossed my mind to think about it. I assume everyone gets paid as anyone else who appears on tv does, whether it's a significant amount or just per diem. Ain't no free.
But it's not the point, the point was to provoke, he couldn't care less about it, what he wanted to do was provoke AIsleyne. He's just had 2 weeks of lessons. :cool:
I guess he was able to provoke her because she was off guard from the eviction. It's an adrenaline sort of experience I'd imagine. She had some drink as well. Marquis for once it seems stayed sober.. a plan perhaps. Wouldn't put it past him. Her apologizing and offering to talk declawed his aggression, he was left sans smirk, sans smile and speechless.
Agreed Vesna But Marc did say he was drunk, although he said he'd earlier stopped drinking (more like he necked all his share at once I reckon!) - but less drunk than he had been. Then later Sam comes in to smother him with her cure-all smiles and he seems to be struggling to finish the food he was eating ages ago before the others went to bed.
If you watch the main clip again he has to concentrate a bit to count up to three!
Is anyone else considering going on Judge Rinder after hearing how it works.
Yes I said as much on another forum. Could do with all my creditors taking me on there, I could be debt free and it wouldn't cost a penny. After that maybe a friend could take me on and we could split the 'compo'
Is anyone else considering going on Judge Rinder after hearing how it works.
I only knew how these shows worked after watching the Judge Rinder show when Ash and Michael were on it. I've watched Judge Judy before, but had no idea. It's certainly worth considering if you want to clear a debt and don't mind having your dirty laundry aired in public.
Somebody in the house said that Marc is a complete tw*t when he has a beer and I think this just proved it.
He was just too thick to understand what Aisleyne was saying. He was trying to say that she got paid for going on Judge Rinder. She said she didn't get paid for it but her "friend's" fine was paid for him. Marc then says so you did get paid and she had to repeat it all over again.
Quite simply she didn't get any appearance fee so didn't get paid in real terms. Marc was wrong, Marc lost the argument and Marc is an absolute knobhead.
I only knew how these shows worked after watching the Judge Rinder show when Ash and Michael were on it. I've watched Judge Judy before, but had no idea. It's certainly worth considering if you want to clear a debt and don't mind having your dirty laundry aired in public.
No wonder all the 'plaintiffs' chuckle under their breath all the time and laugh at all of Rinder's shite jokes!
It's perfectly clear to everyone and has been for decades that shows like Judge Judy and Rinder pay the fines. It has said so at the end of each show since Judge Judy's first episode.
She did make a fool of herself by being dishonest. She knew bloody rightly that the show would pay otherwise why would she be dragging him to a TV set rather than a court. She's done various TV work since leaving BB and for someone in her position to be unaware of that is beyond ridiculous.
Somebody in the house said that Marc is a complete tw*t when he has a beer and I think this just proved it.
...
Sam loves it though, gives her a chance to get some attention from him without him abusing her when all the others have left him on his own/gone to bed (if tonight's anything to go by).
Like the girl because I think she has a kind heart but it's a bit sad really isn't it?
Why would she? As I said I didn't see it so I don't know what exactly happened My point is that I wouldn't ask who paid as long as it was paid, the whole point is to get paid.
I've had 2 friends show up on The People's Court. He wasn't going to pay her and by going on the People's Court she got paid. It's the point isn't it? Who would ask whether the person or the show paid? I don't care, never even crossed my mind to think about it. I assume everyone gets paid as anyone else who appears on tv does, whether it's a significant amount or just per diem. Ain't no free.
You're conflating two different things: a fee for appearing in the show and the repayment of the loan. Of course someone might care whether their friend would have to repay the loan or not. (Someone could care if it was their enemy too.)
Did you watch last night's show? She said she knew her friend wouldn't have to pay. Then when Marc pressed the point, she went wild saying she didn't know until it was paid, swearing on her mother's grave, and so on. Eh? What was that about?
BTW Marc said he'd done the show, so that may be why he knows how it works.
But it's not the point, the point was to provoke, he couldn't care less about it, what he wanted to do was provoke AIsleyne. He's just had 2 weeks of lessons. :cool:
He found something that did provoke her, though. Not everything would.
(Chloe played a role in escalating things too, btw.)
I guess he was able to provoke her because she was off guard from the eviction. It's an adrenaline sort of experience I'd imagine. She had some drink as well. Marquis for once it seems stayed sober.. a plan perhaps. Wouldn't put it past him.
Do you think he could have provoked her just as much about any old thing? Really?
Her apologizing and offering to talk declawed his aggression, he was left sans smirk, sans smile and speechless.
This is like going to the ratings thread and finding that someone always has some way to make the numbers sound good. Someone always finds some way to make whatever Aisleyne does sound good and to make it seem she somehow won whatever conflict she's been in. It doesn't even have to fit reality. (He was not, for instance, left speechless.)
Why would she? As I said I didn't see it so I don't know what exactly happened My point is that I wouldn't ask who paid as long as it was paid, the whole point is to get paid.
I've had 2 friends show up on The People's Court. He wasn't going to pay her and by going on the People's Court she got paid. It's the point isn't it? Who would ask whether the person or the show paid? I don't care, never even crossed my mind to think about it. I assume everyone gets paid as anyone else who appears on tv does, whether it's a significant amount or just per diem. Ain't no free.
But it's not the point, the point was to provoke, he couldn't care less about it, what he wanted to do was provoke AIsleyne. He's just had 2 weeks of lessons. :cool:
I guess he was able to provoke her because she was off guard from the eviction. It's an adrenaline sort of experience I'd imagine. She had some drink as well. Marquis for once it seems stayed sober.. a plan perhaps. Wouldn't put it past him. Her apologizing and offering to talk declawed his aggression, he was left sans smirk, sans smile and speechless.
Although I have never watched Judge Rinder I am an avid fan of Judge Judy and I never knew the programme paid the fines. You learn something new everyday thanks posters for enlightening me
He was just too thick to understand what Aisleyne was saying. He was trying to say that she got paid for going on Judge Rinder. She said she didn't get paid for it but her "friend's" fine was paid for him. Marc then says so you did get paid and she had to repeat it all over again.
Quite simply she didn't get any appearance fee so didn't get paid in real terms. Marc was wrong, Marc lost the argument and Marc is an absolute knobhead.
No, that's not correct. It was not about an appearance fee. Neither of them were talking about an appearance fee.
Here are the main points of the initial argument.
Ash explained why she went on the show and said "I knew my friend would be ok because he wouldn't have to pay me". (Note that they're talking about who paid to Ash what her friend owed her.)
Mark said "meaning fake, because they paid you" and "they paid you, not your friend" -- that is, the show, not her friend, paid Ash the amount her friend owed her.
Ash said "no, they didn't". (Edit: It's possible Ash misunderstood here and thought he meant an appearance fee or similar. However, he soon made it clear that he didn't.)
Marc said "you just said they paid you what he owed you".
Ash said "they paid his fine"
Marc said "what he owed you. But they paid you. Yes or no?"
Ash said yes, "so why would you not go on it?"
Then Marc said so you didn't go through the normal legal process ... and for him (her friend) to pay you in small claims court.
Then for some reason Ash started saying "I didn't know that, I didn't know that, I didn't know that they were going to pay it."
Marc then said "the point is that I'm right. You did go on it knowing it was fake."
At that point, Ash gets angry and said "I just told you I didn't know that they were payning it until they paid it. Listen, on my mother's grave (she gets up and starts pointing) I did not know that they were going to ****ing pay his bill."
At no point then or later were either of them talking about an appearance fee.
No, that's not correct. It was not about an appearance fee. Neither of them were talking about an appearance fee.
Here are the main points of the initial argument.
Ash explained why she went on the show and said "I knew my friend would be ok because he wouldn't have to pay me". (Note that they're talking about who paid to Ash what her friend owed her.)
Mark said "meaning fake, because they paid you" and "they paid you, not your friend" -- that is, the show, not her friend, paid Ash the amount her friend owed her.
Ash said "no, they didn't".
Marc said "you just said they paid you what he owed you".
Ash said "they paid his fine"
Marc said "what he owed you. But they paid you. Yes or no?"
Ash said yes, "so why would you not go on it?"
Then Marc said so you didn't go through the normal legal process ... and for him (her friend) to pay you in small claims court.
Then for some reason Ash started saying "I didn't know that, I didn't know that, I didn't know that they were going to pay it."
Marc then said "the point is that I'm right. You did go on it knowing it was fake."
At that point, Ash gets angry and said "I just told you I didn't know that they were payning it until they paid it. Listen, on my mother's grave (she gets up and starts pointing) I did not know that they were going to ****ing pay his bill."
At no point then or later were either of them talking about an appearance fee.
Yup...
If I have time tomorrow I may transcript the whole thing, though you have summed this up beautifully and accurately. Aisleyne was caught out in a blatant lie, and then used her dead mother to make out she wasn't lying
I stopped watching the show when ex reality contestants appeared to sue "their mate" . It was embarrassing to see how desperate Ash , Rex and Luke were to get on the TV .
If I have time tomorrow I may transcript the whole thing, though you have summed this up beautifully and accurately. Aisleyne was caught out in a blatant lie, and then used her dead mother to make out she wasn't lying
I'm not sure it was a lie. It comes down to whether you think, as Marc seems to, that Aisleyne knew before she went on Judge Rinder that the show would pay her what her friend owed her, or whether you think Aislyene could be telling the truth when saying she didn't know then, but only later: not until they paid it.
The problem for the case that Aisleyne didn't lie is that she said "I knew my friend would be ok because he wouldn't have to pay me" as part of explaining why she went on the show. However, she said that after saying (also as part of the explanation) "he ruled the case in my favour". Like this: "... he ruled the case in favour. I knew my friend would be ok because wouldn't have to pay me, and I got my money." So it could be that she was running together things she knew before going on the show and things she didn't know until later.
But she also seemed to be agreeing the first time Marc said the show was fake.
(It would be useful to have a full and complete transcript, but it wouldn't change the main point I was trying to make in my post, namely that Marc wasn't getting confused and talking about an appearance fee.)
Marc was being obnoxious and picking on her. I presume that's because he was drunk. It's none of his business and it doesn't matter to him who paid what to whom or who knew what. There was no justification for the aggressive questioning and accusations (You went on it knowing it was fake...you are lying) and proclamations of I am right because I know the law... We don't know what she knew or didn't know and it doesn't matter either. What a nasty way to carry on.
Here's some more detail for part of what I reported earlier:
Mark said "meaning fake, because they paid you."
Ash said "yeah, but don't tell me that, that --"
Marc replied, saying he can tell her because he knows the law and "they paid you, not your friend". -- that is, the show, not her friend, paid Ash the amount her friend owed her.
Ash said "no, they didn't". It's possible Ash misunderstood here and thought he meant an appearance fee or similar. However, he soon made it clear that he didn't:
Marc said "you just said they paid you what he owed you".
Ash said "they paid his fine"
Marc said "what he owed you. But they paid you. Yes or no?"
Ash said yes, "so why would you not go on it?"
So at that point, she seemed to accept that it was "fake" in the way Marc meant: that the show paid her what her friend owed her, rather than her friend having to pay it. She even seemed to think it was win-win: she got her money but her friend didn't have to pay it.
Yes I said as much on another forum. Could do with all my creditors taking me on there, I could be debt free and it wouldn't cost a penny. After that maybe a friend could take me on and we could split the 'compo'
Precisely.
I don't understand why Marckq made such a big deal out of it.
His tone is so accusatory and he was so desperate to prove himself right.
Right from the off he was looking for a fight over an issue that really doesn't matter.
Yes, exactly.
He does it all the time, then sits back and grins when they get annoyed.
Comments
It may well be on sites like this, but it's not amongst those of us who don't generally follow TV forums (I realise I may be a minority in that regard on here).
Very interesting to know though! I've caught a bit of it in passing and always wondered why they went on it, and why one or two seemingly very serious fall outs (one involving quite serious violence) were put aside in the interviews after the 'case', and they made up.
Small claims court isn't expensive by any means for whoever posted about that - that's the whole point of it.
Normally in a small claims case, Michael would have paid. So if she didn't ask, why would she assume it was anything else?
Quite a few people do seem to know how such shows work, though, and when Ash was on Rinder and it was being discussed, it wasn't hard to find out.
I agree about his provoking skills, but I'm surprised they worked so well on Aisleyne when she'd known better when it was Helen.
Strange because he doesn't really seem to know too much about some of the BB "legends" either.
Why would she? As I said I didn't see it so I don't know what exactly happened My point is that I wouldn't ask who paid as long as it was paid, the whole point is to get paid.
I've had 2 friends show up on The People's Court. He wasn't going to pay her and by going on the People's Court she got paid. It's the point isn't it? Who would ask whether the person or the show paid? I don't care, never even crossed my mind to think about it. I assume everyone gets paid as anyone else who appears on tv does, whether it's a significant amount or just per diem. Ain't no free.
But it's not the point, the point was to provoke, he couldn't care less about it, what he wanted to do was provoke AIsleyne. He's just had 2 weeks of lessons. :cool:
I guess he was able to provoke her because she was off guard from the eviction. It's an adrenaline sort of experience I'd imagine. She had some drink as well. Marquis for once it seems stayed sober.. a plan perhaps. Wouldn't put it past him. Her apologizing and offering to talk declawed his aggression, he was left sans smirk, sans smile and speechless.
If you watch the main clip again he has to concentrate a bit to count up to three!
Yes I said as much on another forum. Could do with all my creditors taking me on there, I could be debt free and it wouldn't cost a penny. After that maybe a friend could take me on and we could split the 'compo'
This is relevant to this thread slightly too
https://twitter.com/dannypaul12341/status/614927972756287488
Oh dear Danny. kept his nose out for once, when he had the EXACT same opinion ;-)
I only knew how these shows worked after watching the Judge Rinder show when Ash and Michael were on it. I've watched Judge Judy before, but had no idea. It's certainly worth considering if you want to clear a debt and don't mind having your dirty laundry aired in public.
What business was it of Marcs?
He was just too thick to understand what Aisleyne was saying. He was trying to say that she got paid for going on Judge Rinder. She said she didn't get paid for it but her "friend's" fine was paid for him. Marc then says so you did get paid and she had to repeat it all over again.
Quite simply she didn't get any appearance fee so didn't get paid in real terms. Marc was wrong, Marc lost the argument and Marc is an absolute knobhead.
No wonder all the 'plaintiffs' chuckle under their breath all the time and laugh at all of Rinder's shite jokes!
And Danny was a coward not to say what he knew the truth to be:)
She did make a fool of herself by being dishonest. She knew bloody rightly that the show would pay otherwise why would she be dragging him to a TV set rather than a court. She's done various TV work since leaving BB and for someone in her position to be unaware of that is beyond ridiculous.
Sam loves it though, gives her a chance to get some attention from him without him abusing her when all the others have left him on his own/gone to bed (if tonight's anything to go by).
Like the girl because I think she has a kind heart but it's a bit sad really isn't it?
You're conflating two different things: a fee for appearing in the show and the repayment of the loan. Of course someone might care whether their friend would have to repay the loan or not. (Someone could care if it was their enemy too.)
Did you watch last night's show? She said she knew her friend wouldn't have to pay. Then when Marc pressed the point, she went wild saying she didn't know until it was paid, swearing on her mother's grave, and so on. Eh? What was that about?
BTW Marc said he'd done the show, so that may be why he knows how it works.
He found something that did provoke her, though. Not everything would.
(Chloe played a role in escalating things too, btw.)
Do you think he could have provoked her just as much about any old thing? Really?
This is like going to the ratings thread and finding that someone always has some way to make the numbers sound good. Someone always finds some way to make whatever Aisleyne does sound good and to make it seem she somehow won whatever conflict she's been in. It doesn't even have to fit reality. (He was not, for instance, left speechless.)
No, that's not correct. It was not about an appearance fee. Neither of them were talking about an appearance fee.
Here are the main points of the initial argument.
Ash explained why she went on the show and said "I knew my friend would be ok because he wouldn't have to pay me". (Note that they're talking about who paid to Ash what her friend owed her.)
Mark said "meaning fake, because they paid you" and "they paid you, not your friend" -- that is, the show, not her friend, paid Ash the amount her friend owed her.
Ash said "no, they didn't". (Edit: It's possible Ash misunderstood here and thought he meant an appearance fee or similar. However, he soon made it clear that he didn't.)
Marc said "you just said they paid you what he owed you".
Ash said "they paid his fine"
Marc said "what he owed you. But they paid you. Yes or no?"
Ash said yes, "so why would you not go on it?"
Then Marc said so you didn't go through the normal legal process ... and for him (her friend) to pay you in small claims court.
Then for some reason Ash started saying "I didn't know that, I didn't know that, I didn't know that they were going to pay it."
Marc then said "the point is that I'm right. You did go on it knowing it was fake."
At that point, Ash gets angry and said "I just told you I didn't know that they were payning it until they paid it. Listen, on my mother's grave (she gets up and starts pointing) I did not know that they were going to ****ing pay his bill."
At no point then or later were either of them talking about an appearance fee.
If I have time tomorrow I may transcript the whole thing, though you have summed this up beautifully and accurately. Aisleyne was caught out in a blatant lie, and then used her dead mother to make out she wasn't lying
Marc is a prize chump and so argumentative.
I really loathe the clown.
I'm not sure it was a lie. It comes down to whether you think, as Marc seems to, that Aisleyne knew before she went on Judge Rinder that the show would pay her what her friend owed her, or whether you think Aislyene could be telling the truth when saying she didn't know then, but only later: not until they paid it.
The problem for the case that Aisleyne didn't lie is that she said "I knew my friend would be ok because he wouldn't have to pay me" as part of explaining why she went on the show. However, she said that after saying (also as part of the explanation) "he ruled the case in my favour". Like this: "... he ruled the case in favour. I knew my friend would be ok because wouldn't have to pay me, and I got my money." So it could be that she was running together things she knew before going on the show and things she didn't know until later.
But she also seemed to be agreeing the first time Marc said the show was fake.
(It would be useful to have a full and complete transcript, but it wouldn't change the main point I was trying to make in my post, namely that Marc wasn't getting confused and talking about an appearance fee.)
Mark said "meaning fake, because they paid you."
Ash said "yeah, but don't tell me that, that --"
Marc replied, saying he can tell her because he knows the law and "they paid you, not your friend". -- that is, the show, not her friend, paid Ash the amount her friend owed her.
Ash said "no, they didn't". It's possible Ash misunderstood here and thought he meant an appearance fee or similar. However, he soon made it clear that he didn't:
Marc said "you just said they paid you what he owed you".
Ash said "they paid his fine"
Marc said "what he owed you. But they paid you. Yes or no?"
Ash said yes, "so why would you not go on it?"
So at that point, she seemed to accept that it was "fake" in the way Marc meant: that the show paid her what her friend owed her, rather than her friend having to pay it. She even seemed to think it was win-win: she got her money but her friend didn't have to pay it.
Interesting..
Yes, exactly.
He does it all the time, then sits back and grins when they get annoyed.