A monkey licence though. Really?

Surely for the actual example it is because they said "monkey" though, which is a bit of a daft guess. I do think, however, that when they are guessing under time pressure people will blurt out stuff that certainly doesn't make them stupid people. I think many of the examples in this thread are just that it is a stupid (or daft) answer when looking from outside.

Why not, it's an unusual thing to keep as a pet, so the government might've wanted to keep track. As I said, I'm probably on the wrong thread.

Or trolling. In which case you got me, well done.

Really not, but if you think that, that's a shame.

If you think enough people owned a monkey as a pet prior to 1987 that the Government felt they had to introduce a licensing system to keep track of them all, then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

According to the rspca website to keep most species of primates as a pet you would need a dangerous wild animal licence under an act that seems to date from 1976.

I know that, and how many people do you think actually had one back then?

I've no idea. If you're asking me to guess I'd say none to very few. Given you knew that licence existed I must admit I find some of your previous posts confusing.

Deleted

The licence didn't exist to keep track of them though, was my point. Dog licences were brought in to keep a record of how many dogs were owned as pets in the UK, you know, given the fact a dog is a very common domestic pet. The same cannot be said for monkeys.

Actually, the question was about the abolition of a licence, not the introduction. I honestly have no idea why hundreds, probably thousands of laws were introduced or got rid of at any point in history. I certainly have no idea how many people kept dogs before or after 1987 for there to have been licences. Nor do I know how many people kept snakes or llamas back then (or now frankly).

The point is, that while I could laugh at people for not knowing lots of things that are completely obvious to me, I wouldn't. Calling them stupid for it is even more terrible. I guess some people have to have people to look down on to make themselves feel better. I trained to become a teacher to try and help others learn. Anyway, I know I'm taking an Internet forum too far so I'll leave this thread alone from now on.

Celebrity Mastermind

John Humphreys: What popular type of sparkling wine is named after the region in Northern France where it is produced?

Stacey Solomon: Ermm. Ermm. Jacobs Creek?

THE WINNER

Fifteen To One, Wednesday 2nd September 2015

SANDI TOKSVIG: Complete the popular rhyme which describes the fate of each of King Henry VIII's wives. 'Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded...'

CONTESTANT: (looks blank) Errrr... Pass.

OMG .

Fifteen To One the other day.


Which iconic 50s movie star had roles in East of Eden, Giant and Reble Without A Cause?

Answer: Harrison Ford



I know the guy is getting on a bit but come on!

Reminds me of a favourite of mine from a few years ago, though I forget exactly where I heard it:
"Who plays Clint Eastwood? Is it Harrison Ford?"

Eh? There was a question on a quiz asking who plays Clint Eastwood?

Pointless

Woman thought All Around The World from 1989 was by the Spice Girls!

I think this was on Tipping Point.

What name links a 16th century philosopher and Statesman with a 20th century painter?

Rembrandt.

If you haven't a clue, that's just as likely to be correct as Francis Bacon to be fair.

Many would not know Francis Bacon, that's fine. But if someone thinks Rembrandt was last century, it begs the question as to how they passed the audition.

Why is that such a stupid answer? A bit early for them yes, but if you don't know anything about them it is not so stupid.

They weren't going until 1996. Although to be fair it depends on the age group of the contestant and how into music they were.

(EDIT: only just realised the bit you added is much the same as my second sentence...)