December 5, 2009 by Mike Battista

Play TV Canada Has No Legs

As a follow-up to my post Play TV Canada is a Scam, I watched it again last night. Once again, I couldn’t turn away; it’s like a train wreck. A train wreck with the conductor begging you for money while he wades through the victims.

One such victim was brave enough to speak up last night. What sounded like an older gentlemen said, through beeped out swearing, something like “you people sure are takin’ advantage of a lot of people, and I oughta-” before he got cut off. Good for you, angry old man. You’re fighting the good fight.

Here is one of last night’s “puzzles”:

I’ll write it out:

4 girls are travelling on a bus
each of them have 3 baskets
in each basket there are 4 cats
each cat has 3 little kittens

HOW MANY LEGS ARE IN THE BUS?

Plastered on the bumper of the picture of the bus, for some reason, it says “1 cat 4 feet.”

The host constantly emphasized that this is a simple logic puzzle. And indeed, it does seem to be a straightforward math problem. Hey, let’s figure it out!

All we need to do is figure out how many cats there are, and how many humans there are, then count their legs. Let’s do cats first. There are 4 girls, with 3 baskets each, so there are 4*3 = 12 baskets. In each basket there are 4 cats, and each of them has 3 kittens, so each basket has 4*3 = 12 cats. With 12 baskets and 12 cats in each one, there are 12*12 = 144 cats.
[Edit: whoops… Heather on Facebook pointed out that I forgot to count the 4 cats in each basket. It should be 16 cats/kittens per basket.]

How about humans? Well, the question only said there are 4 girls travelling on the bus, so 4.

Each cat has 4 legs. 144 cats times 4 legs = 576 cat legs.
Each person has 2 legs. 4 people times 2 legs = 8 human legs.

Which brings us to a grand total of 584.

Someone called in with this answer. “No, I’m sorry, that’s not it,” said the host.

What? Well, we must have missed something. Hmm, ok they’re going by bus, maybe it’s reasonable to assume that there is a driver, even though the question doesn’t say that. He or she has two more legs, so that brings the total to 586.

Someone called this in. “Nooo, sorry.”

Maybe they’re counting the “legs” of each seat, and we’re supposed to use our psychic powers to determine how many seats this fictional bus has, then get some answer larger than 586. In any case, I couldn’t stand that crap any longer, so I shut it off.

Then, in the comments to my last post about this, Kathy (who actually managed to win some money from these people, but still doesn’t recommend calling), managed to wait until the end: “Well, of course no-one got the ‘right’ answer of 222 legs.”

…what? Even if you add other ridiculous assumptions, the answer can’t be less than 586.

They don’t reveal how the answer was arrived at, so there is no way of verifying their solution. Even if there was (e.g., “lol, we meant kitten fetuses without fully developed legs”), it’s not the straightforward solution that they explicitly claim it is. PlayTV is a despicable scam. It’s not impossible to win, but the conditions of winning that they describe are completely different than the actual conditions of winning.

If you want to get involved in shutting Play TV (a.k.a. CallTV) down:

Contact the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council with your complaints. Feel free to link back to this blog. A decision has actually already been made about an identical scam; they deemed it a violation of the Canadian broadcasting code of ethics. I am baffled as to why it is still on the air, then.
Contact Canwest, who owns Global TV. Point out Canwest’s stated values (e.g., “Win, but win fairly, with integrity and honesty”).
Raise awareness with your own blogging, tweeting, talking, or whatever.

P.S. Please, debate and dispute my math. I’d love to see how anyone can get 222 out of that.

UPDATE: Gavin on Facebook made the suggestion that maybe the kittens aren’t actually in the bus (i.e., the cats “have” kittens in the sense that a person can “have kids” even if they’re not present at the time).

So ignoring the kittens:

4*3*4 cats * 4 legs = 192 cat legs.
4 girls + 1 driver * 2 legs = 10 human legs.
5 seats to sit in * 4 legs = 20 chair legs.

= 222 legs.

Which is the “right” answer. I guess that almost makes sense, except none of the weird assumptions are actually in the question, and what kind of bus only has 5 seats?

That’s right, the short bus. Which is probably what whoever wrote this quiz was riding.

151 thoughts on “Play TV Canada Has No Legs”

Kathy | December 5, 2009 at 1:37 pm

I actually got 776 legs:

4 girls X 2 legs each = 8 legs

4 girls X 3 baskets = 12 baskets

12 baskets X 4 cats in each basket = 48 cats

48 cats X 4 legs each = 192 legs

48 cats X 3 kittens each = 144 kittens

144 kittens X 4 legs each = 576

Therefore, 8 legs + 192 legs + 576 legs = 776 legs (this answer was phoned in)

There is a bus driver, so add 2 legs = 778 legs (this answer was phoned in)

776 legs + 2 bus driver legs – 4 legs (cat outside the bus) = 774 legs (not sure if anyone guessed this)

776 legs – 4 legs of cat outside bus = 772 legs (this answer was called in)

Well, you get the picture. Even if you assume there are seat legs on the bus, there’s just no logic, computation, or permutation to come up with 222 legs. Give me a break!
Mike | December 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm

I posted a “solution” (if you can call it that) in an update to the post.
Brian J M | December 6, 2009 at 12:38 am

4 girls
1 driver
48 cats in baskets
5 cats visible in bus (strays ??)
kittens abandoned/ignored
Goodnight all
__________________
To above was my solution, as posted in a dedicated thread, for the same puzzle.
We’re getting quite good at these puzzles now. Not for the purpose of phoning in, we’ve all learnt the hard way, just for discussion etc.
It would be nice if you have something similar and we could probably compare puzzles/answers etc.

I did have a spreadsheet ready for these Cat/Leg puzzles but this was a departure from the norm. Also the question changed from ‘on the bus’ to ‘in the bus’.

~~~

Do they give you matchstick puzzles, the aim of which is to move two matches and make the highest number?

Regards,
BrianJM
Mike | December 6, 2009 at 2:24 am

That works too, but I think the chair leg solution is more elegant given the text of the question alone. Either way it’s a stretch, though.

Where is the forum you discuss this on?

I haven’t seen the matchstick one, but I do remember reading about it somewhere.

Thanks for stopping by, Brian.
Shaun | December 6, 2009 at 3:11 am

I watched that too and figured they were screwing people. I watched it again tonight. The problem was, “what is the sum of the numbers on the screen?” The screen had the numbers 112, 12, 1, 2, and the words seventy five, twelve, and twenty one. Adding up all these numbers gets an answer of 235. I thought maybe only the numbers should be counted (127) or only the words (108). They got 368. Where does that number come from? I’m not from Canada though.
Andre | December 6, 2009 at 3:40 am

Yeah Shaun I finished watching that called in twice and was told I was close to getting a hold of them. Show is sheer stupidity. I figured the only way to get that answer was by adding 235+127=362 then adding 112, 12, 1, 2 = “4 numbers.”.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. I rarely watch television and this is the reason why. Stupid garbage flooding the networks
David Thornton | December 6, 2009 at 5:42 am

I am an old man and actively persuing these “snake oil” carnival hacks on Global TV. I have called police and notified CRTC. CRTC wanted a written complaint, then reveal they have had a number of complaints. So why the hell are they not acting on those complaints? I would like to know how many people have complained to the CRTC, the fraud squad etc.

Also, this is an illegal lottery under section 206 (1)(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Read that and see if this B.S., does not exactly fit that definition.

I know of which I speak: being unsuccessfully sued for $10,000,000 and receiving a very well thought out judgment from the Ontario Superior Court respecting Section 206 [1][e] CCC and crooks like these. These gambling frauds and schemes masked as “business opportunities” and this one as an “innocent game” are targeting university and college students and now even high school kids and need to be shut down.

The Corruption in the Canadian Government is abhorrent. Believe it or not, government personnel, RCMP and police on down, corrupt lawyers, accountants and obviously some of the media are in these schemes, and the rest closing their eyes to it. It is up to people on forums such as these, to hassel authorities and expose and oppose these international money-laundering crooks, liars, gangsters and thieves.

dave CBNow

http://www.crimebustersnow.com
gatoraid@sympatico.ca
905-963-3389
Mike | December 6, 2009 at 11:17 am

Shaun & Andre: I put a screen capture of that one here: Play TV Dec 6 Puzzle.

The closest I can get is adding each number both as itself and as its individual parts. E.g., for 112, add up 112, 11, 12, 1, 1, 2. Doing this for all of them, I get 361.

And what’s with the animals?

David: Thank you so much for fighting against this. I have sent complaints to Global and the CBSC. I hope that if everyone involved continues to receive them, something will be done.
robert | December 6, 2009 at 5:50 pm

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I have filed a formal complaint with Broadcasting Standards. I was told that my complaint won’t be reviewed for six months – backlog in cases. I see that the show is now 2 hours in duration – I guess they want to make as much as they can before the issue is addressed.
Robert
Brian J M | December 6, 2009 at 6:36 pm

Hi Mike,
this is from Ireland and we have the show for 3 hours every night. There have been lots of complaints. 16 upheld. Oct & Nov still to be heard.
Links:
the forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055614836

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p= 63197879&postcount=11047 (CATS) 5 days later they’re (cats) back but it’s legs ON bus. This brings the cat on top into play & more!

Complaint summary
http://www.bai.ie/broadcasting_complaints_decisions.html

and detail
http://www.bai.ie/compliance%20decisions/BCC%20Complaint%20Decisions%2025Sept%2009.doc

Have fun
BrianJM
Brian J M | December 6, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Oo ps:
there is an errant space in the 2nd link above.
It should be:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63197879&postcount=11047
Mike | December 6, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Robert: Awesome. The more complaints the better.

Brian: Thanks for the links! Looks like the puzzles are exactly the same in Ireland as they are here in Canada, just with a different host. We could probably get the answer from wherever it airs first, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were different answers for the same puzzle.

As for the number puzzle, as fermat69 pointed out in the other post, my solution above is right except I forgot the “seven” in “seventy.” Add 7 to my 361 and you get the correct answer of 368.
Blake | December 7, 2009 at 2:46 am

Hey guys,

Glad to see that I’m not the only one out here that’s angry about this. You’re right about the same puzzles being in Ireland though…people have the answers posted on that other forum. 222 was posted on there on Nov 26. However, even if we were able to get the answers to try and use them, it wouldn’t be worth calling in. Since so few people get through, the show would still make money even if we had the answer and were calling!

The best plot for temporarily screwing them over would be to monitor this show, monitor the questions already documented on that thread and see if any match up, then post the answers on your blog right away. If there was enough exposure, perhaps people that were thinking of playing the game would come on here, and maybe then we could stick it to’m! However, it should be noted that it’s not worth calling in under any circumstance anyways.

And another thing, that 222 explanation seems decent. But here’s more ambiguities:

-looking at the picture, it appears that one of the girls is driving the bus. Either that, or they have a separate girl bus driver.

-since when do seats on buses have legs? Is it like a flat floor with stackable chairs or something? You could hardly call the support rails and structure “legs”. In my experience on a school bus, there’s only 2 “legs” in the aisle and the other side is usually welded to the frame. Not only that, but there’s not 5 seats on a bus, much more. If they had 5 chairs though…how ridiculous.

These guys are such a bunch of crooks anyways. Shame on global for not holding their broadcasting to a certain standard. We should boycott them as well. I don’t want our networks going the way they have in other countries and airing this crap all over the place.
Brian J M | December 7, 2009 at 5:43 am

Do you guys have a forum where this is discussed?
It would be much easier.
Just had another cats/legs/bus game. Different numbers of girls/baskets etc. It’s on our forum.
Incidentally, if you get a similar question which says ‘tourist bus’ don’t forget 2 legs for the tour guide.
Brian J M | December 7, 2009 at 6:18 am

Just been looking through my archives and came across the same number game (368). We had it on Nov. 16.
Mike | December 7, 2009 at 10:35 am

So it looks like we have at least one way to screw them. As soon as a puzzle is posted, we see if it has already been answered in another country. If it has, we spread the word about the right answer, on forums and here if I’m home and paying attention. 🙂

Then, and this is key, we enter online at http://calltv.com/playtvcanada/. It’s free, and if they’re honest, we have the same chance of getting on the air as people who pay to call in.

If we saturate the viewers with enough people doing this, they’ll be paying out a lot more often, to people who are not giving them any money. Probably not enough to affect their bottom line, but it helps (and we have a tiny chance of making money).

Here is a Canadian forum that has discussed contests like these: Frugalshopper.ca.

And if anyone out there gets an answer to me during the show, I will do my best to post it right away, and make it easily Googlable.
Brian J M | December 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Mixed bag now.
Searching for something containing playtv is not good unless you can filter SONY related stuff.
Your show probably starts an hour or two after ours finishes and I should be in bed.
What if I were to sign up to ‘wordpress’ essentially for the purpose of posting puzzles/answers. (including pics.) The TV broadcaster here and PlayTV are actively scanning our forum so maybe a wordpress account can be made to allow access to registered members only.
Any ideas on that?
Aran | December 11, 2009 at 8:16 pm

Hows it going guys-

the ‘how many legs are on the tourist bus’ bullshit is being aired here in Ireland.

Girlfriend just blew almost all her credit before she got sense.

Fucking joke.

Anybody reading this,follow the above link mentioned by the other Irish guy above to complain about these criminals.
Isaac | December 12, 2009 at 2:10 am

it says 4cats=16 legs on the front of the bus
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 2:48 am

4-girls=8 Legs……4 cats=16 Legs……+ 3 Baby’s = Total of 36 legs on the bus>>>>Yahoo
Eddie | December 12, 2009 at 2:53 am

I thought the answer was initially 8, then 10 witht he bus driver..
Also, cats do not have legs (and if they are counting legs, then you could only count the back legs as the front ones are paws (or arms) if they are calling the back paws legs)

Anyways I think I will complain to global and the links above, and my local MP and perhaps even start petitions to end local TV and global if this is the stuff they are going to air on OUR local tv “THAT MATTERS”
yeah right! I will be resigning my signature and informing global about the boycott local tv campaign, if this is the stuff they are choosing to air.
It reminds me of Playmania which I used to regularly watch on GSN. I actually liked the other one, thoug there were way less calls but way more puzzles in one show. They were also “easy” to get and no bogus scams, besides who is getting through. Though having puzzles with logical answers…and this is not logical what they are claiming, since logic would be an answer of 8 or 10 ONLY.
Kepp your recordings as well, though I am sure global has to keep copies, I would like to have evidence of such a scam.
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 2:56 am

lmfao i keep call’n in & they say i reach’d my limit & couldnt get threw as they said i was at my Limit of Calls So NOW I GET A BUSY SIGNAL>> Too Fk’N Funny.THis IS FIXED!!!!WHAT A WASTE OF TIME FOLKS. 2 FK’n Funny Shud Of KNow!!!Stick Ur GAME…..They Control The CALLS SO U HAVE NO CHANCE. Just Keep Call’n YOU will SEE WHAT I MEAN!!! >>>>Bastids<<<<
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 2:57 am

PLUS I KNEW THE ANSWER IT WAS 36 Legs On the BUS!! So They CONTROL THE PHONE & I HAVE NO CHANCE IN HELL>>>>>>>FK”ERS
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 3:00 am

Right the Bus DRIVER SO ITS 38 Legs Totally!!!!! GDI ITS FIXED THEY CONTROL THE PHONE LINES GQQD FK’N LUCK
Eddie | December 12, 2009 at 3:02 am

When I call through, I receive a “this number is not in service, check and call again, though I had the right number…
Also, I had to say,
The pathetic loser host should iron his shirt before hitting national tv. What a joke. I love how the “producers don’t know what you will state as your answer” though the answer gets answered right at the end of the show.
and if the answer does include the buses “seats legs” I would assume that is fraud right there on the spot. I think I will discuss this with a lawyer at my law firm as well to see how warranted this show is with these answers.
Lol, I just waited up til midnight to see the answer before realizing, they air a second hour (though under a different timeslot so that you believe it is over at midnight, but it goes again from 12-1, instead of just showing 11pm-1am.)
I am so furious..
PLEASE CALL IN AND VOICE YOUR COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE “LOCAL TV MATTERS CAMPAIGNS”
I think the CRTC and global does not care if we complain jsut about this show, but if we threaten to boycott “LOCAL TV altogether” which is their new thing that us canadians need to support, then perhaps they might get a little worried.
Eddie | December 12, 2009 at 3:06 am

lol, debbie i think we are both wasting our time, I have taped it and am going to bed..Feel free to remove this comment I just found it funny that both os us have reported more than once in like 10 minutes… 😐

and make sure you iron his shirt next time fools. And purchase a shirt that did not come from value village. A $200 dollar shirt might make this trash look somewhat more attractive.
MEL AND SHANDI WHERE ARE YOU?
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 3:06 am

THEY SAY WAIT TIL THE NEXT SHOW!!! & NOW I GET A BUSY SIGNAL TO FUNNY…& I NEVER GOT IN THE FIRST TIME & CANT NOW THEY CONTROL HOW MANY TIMES U CALL IN ……. I WILL NEVER WATCH IT AGAIN!!! I WILL TELL U THAT IT’S A…..FARSE, THEM ASSHOLES CANT EVEN RUN A GAME SHOW RIGHT….THE END DEBBIE Grrrrrrrrrrr
debbiemariehogg | December 12, 2009 at 3:22 am

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO THEY NOT SHOW’N HIS SHIRT NOW & I SWITCH’D IT BK JUST 2 SEE THE HOST’S WRINKLE SHIRT & THEY JUST SHOW’N HIS HEAD & THEY CANT COUNT THE BUSES LEGS THAT’S ILLEGAL FROM THE QUESTION??? I WANNA C MY PHONE BILL NOW & THEN I WILL GO C MY LAWYER AS I TAPED IT ON CAM THE CALLS & EVERYTHING THEY SAID ON THE PHONE…..I WILL GET MORE THEN LEGS BACK IF I DID THIS RIGHT???? CAREFUL CANADA ON THIS BULLSHIT SHOW!!!
Eric | December 12, 2009 at 3:23 am

That crazy show is on right now, but now there’s 4 baskets in each hand instead of 3…LOL i fell for this, i kept calling and calling then the recording said to try on their next game…i never really got through?
Tim | December 12, 2009 at 4:04 am

Just so people know the answer to the question.
4 girls on a bus with 4 baskets in each hand
Each basket has 4 cats in it
Each Cat has 3 kittens
One cat gets away

How many legs on the bus.

Answer is 1379 ….

Are you kidding me ?
Tim | December 12, 2009 at 4:06 am

Answers I was thinking was 2052, but then thought the kittens were not on the bus and was thinking 516… lol … how do you get a odd number of legs ?
Guy | December 12, 2009 at 4:14 am

They had another legs-on-a-bus one on tonight which nobody got. The host tells us the answer was 1539 yet there was never any mention of pirates or other amputees! How the hell do you get an odd number out of this one?

Not that it matters but . . .

4 girls
4 baskets IN EACH HAND
4 cats in each basket
each cat has 3 kittens
1 cat gets away (with or without its kittens isn’t made clear)
Guy | December 12, 2009 at 4:17 am

Uh, 1539, 1379, whatever, it definitely ended in a 9 . . .
jennifer | December 12, 2009 at 4:25 am

I wanted to who so bad i called and called from one of my cell and then i get i message to try back on their next show so i took my husband cellphone and kept calling everytime they said i was getting closer then i got a automated message saying i’ve used up my chances of getting through and i should call on their next show what i wanna know is never got through and yet still i’m gonna be billed i wanna see how much it’s gonna cost me this show is a real scam
Rudy | December 12, 2009 at 4:27 am

actually, tonights answer was 1359 not 1379 or 1539 ( I taped it because i had to walk to the dog and wanted to know the answer)…..an odd number, not an even number. Guess we didn’t figure amputees.

Must be factoring chair legs etc. BOGUS
Harley D | December 12, 2009 at 4:30 am

I cannot believe this show.I tried to call the number from my cell phone as i do not have a land line and the damn number will not even go through so i called my mom to dial the number from her home phone and she got through but only to be told to call back again,you are close to getting through.The question i have is why can i not get through on my cell phone by dialing #5656.This is a canadian show and i live in canada and have rogers prepaid wireless so what the hell is going on with these bastards.Even though it might be a big scam why do i not have the chance to get ripped off in canada. LOL DRH(69)TIT
DEAN | December 12, 2009 at 4:46 am

296
Raven | December 12, 2009 at 5:35 am

I saw this show tonight (in BC) with the same question you have posted up top.. The answer they came up with was 445.. I dont know how they get an odd number.. Let alone a different answer from what you have.. what a scam.. how do they let these people on tv..
Mike | December 12, 2009 at 10:54 am

Thank you so much for your comments, everyone.

It’s clear that going by the exact same assumptions as the last bus/cat question, you get a different answer. This is pretty solid evidence that there is no one logical answer to the question; promising that there is a good answer, then, is a lie. We all have good logical and legal grounds to call this a fraud and a scam. Complain loud and often.

I’m still a sucker for wanting to know how they got the answer though. Anyone have a screen capture? Was there a picture with someone’s leg hanging out the bus or something? There’s really no explanation, from that text alone, that would lead to an odd number.
robert | December 12, 2009 at 11:12 am

I received an email from Jeno Torocsik at Telemedia – Hungary. He creates all these quiz shows – how he got my email, I don’t know – he was requesting that I watch a video. If you google his name, you will see that these shows are coming from studios in other countries and that the tv stations are paid to carry them – for example several shows are coming from Russia and Malta. I didn’t watch the video.
Check it out

Robert
joe | December 12, 2009 at 12:32 pm

its a show only a smart fool might get the right answer,because these questions must be made by the king of all fools, so lets all not be fooled anymore and quit watching the show
Eddie | December 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm

I am completely pissed. an odd number of legs equals 0 logic at all. And if they are unwilling to describe their logic at the end than it is clearly not a logic puzzle.
Justin | December 13, 2009 at 3:22 am

Ha!

Harley D — You did not get in via cell because it was a prepaid plan. It is the nature of the billing service that does not allow the game show company to charge you.

Now, this show played on GLOBAL Toronto from 2 to 3 am EST on Dec. 12/09. Many others claim they saw the show this morning… or on Saturday night. However it seems everyone is getting the same person hosting — but a different show altogether. It’s almost like the go across the country through the time zones… I bet there will be one coming up on the Global Maritimes Channel at about 3:30 am EST… I would love to see the new puzzle they have on now.

The puzzle I saw was “Add up all the numbers in the picture”. It was easy, yeah… but it was a picture of a hockey team.

So, there were numbers on the picture in big font, some on the ice, there were numbers in the corner for the picture date and time, there were numbers that YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY SEE (and I have 20/20 vision) on each hockey player’s jersey.

It was a joke! So, I Google “PlayTV Scam”, and I get this blog. Hmmm… and I’m not alone in this.

As a business man though, this is great way to make a few hundred thousand per week.

As for the local tv debate… check out what your sat or cable tv provider has to say. Side with them, they have the right story — unbiased.

-JB
Cheers.
Rudy | December 14, 2009 at 11:26 pm

I”m sticking with fantasy football. At least I know I’m not getting scammed
Pete | December 19, 2009 at 3:53 am

just watched tonight from Toronto, and there was a cat/bus question, after trying with the cell phone once and not getting through i decided to look up this company “PlayTV” and found this blog.

it’s definately a scam as the puzzle went on for more than an hour with a prize of 6550 and then no one ended up winning it of course, while a $100 consolation was given at the end.

Thank God i looked this up before i tried calling in again…

I hope this show gets shut down, It is evil and fraudulent and most likely illegal.
cleebie | December 19, 2009 at 4:13 am

this icludes the kittens

3 (baskets) * 4 (girls) = 12 baskets
12 (baskets) * 4 (cats) = 16 cats
16 (cats) * 3 (kittens) = 48 cats in total
48 (cats) * 4 (legs) = 192
4 girls + 1 driver * 2 legs = 10 human legs.
5 seats to sit in * 4 legs = 20 chair legs.

192 (cat legs) + 10 (Human Legs) + 20 (chair legs)= 222 legs.
Joel-Edmonton | December 19, 2009 at 4:26 am

December 19th episode played the same one, and they came up with it being 449, how?
cleebie | December 19, 2009 at 4:33 am

revised this icludes the kittens

step 1: 4 girls are travelling on a bus
each of them have 3 baskets

3 (baskets) * 4 (girls) = 12 baskets

step 2: in each basket there are 4 cats

12 (baskets) * 4 (cats) = 16 cats

step 3:each cat has 3 little kittens

16 (cats) * 3 (kittens) = 48 cats in total

step 4: how many legs

48 (cats) * 4 (legs) = 192

4 girls + 1 driver * 2 legs = 10 human legs.
5 seats to sit in * 4 legs = 20 chair legs.

192 (cat legs) + 10 (Human Legs) + 20 (chair legs)= 222 legs.
Joel-Edmonton | December 19, 2009 at 4:38 am

so im reading the posts and ppl are seing the same cats/bus episode, anyway one episode they came up with 445, and tonight was 449………how the hell could you get a odd number let alone 2 different anwsers.
cleebie | December 19, 2009 at 4:47 am

i would have to see the question again for dec 19
cleebie | December 19, 2009 at 4:48 am

the first episode was a different quertion
with an answer of 222 see the break down in steps
unknown | December 19, 2009 at 5:54 am

We have in Croatia same quiz with same type of games. When the contestants started to complain the told them that they should not only count legs but also find and count all the numbers on the picture.
Just for information that show isn’t been recording in Canada. It’s been recording in Budapest in 20+ studios of Telemedia interacTV for more them 40 countries across the world, for example Croatia(Nova lova), Slovenia (Srečna linija, Fantastični klic), Spain (Llamando se gana, Ganas de ganar, Marca y gana, Suerte por la manana), France (L’ appel gaganant, La nuit ensemble), Serbia (lovac na novac), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Kešolovac), Brazil (Hyper QI, Quiz show), Ireland (PlayTV Ireland), Romania, China, Russia…
Sue | December 19, 2009 at 6:35 am

I think the answer for the Dec. 19 quiz is an odd number because one girl is in the act of getting off so one of her legs may be off the bus as she steps down.
(girl legs: 5 girls X 2 legs – 1 leg = 9)
Where the final 449 comes from, I can’t imagine. I like the point that the cats may not have their kittens with them and seat legs might count but working that out does not come to 449, considerably short. Also, a girl can have a basket of cats at home but not have it with her. Tonight’s answer can only be arrived at by leaving SOME of the kittens/baskets out with no reference to this in the quiz.

cleebie, Your 48 “cats” should read 48 kittens and you left out the 16 cats.

Dec. 19 quiz: 5 girls on a bus, each has 4 baskets, each basket holds 3 cats, each cat has 5 kittens, 1 girl is getting off the bus
Pingback: Play TV Canada Complaint: Global’s Response « Mike Battista’s Blog
cleebie | December 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm

i have 16 cats, each one has 3 kittens which are bay cats, so if you multiply 16 adult cats by 3 baby hitten cats you have a total of 48 cats in total
Fred | December 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Sue,

Actually it was 4 baskets per arm and the girls were “traveling” on the bus – implies there is a driver.

Assumptions:
1) The girl is half way off the bus (one foot on, one foot off)
2) Half her cats are also off the bus.
3) Although the cats have kittens, the kittens aren’t with them.

I get:
– Bus Driver = 2 legs
– 4.5 girls (1 half way off bus) = 9 legs
– 4.5 girls * 4 baskets/arm * 2 arms/girl * 3 cats/basket * 4 legs/cat = 432

2 + 9 + 432 = 443 legs

Not sure where the other 6 legs come from…

Actually, depending on how far on/off the girl exiting the bus is, her and her cats could be between all still on the bus or all off. So, the answer could be anywhere between:
2 + 8 + 384 = 394 legs and
2 + 10 + 480 = 492 legs
Mike | December 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I came to a similar answer as you, Fred.

The only thing I could think of was that there were 6 seats, each with one “leg.”

Or 3 seats with 2 legs.

Who knows. There is no way of getting any of this from the question without guessing wildly.

Anyone still following along with this, be sure to check out Global’s response to my complaint: https://mikebattista.com/2009/12/19/play-tv-canada-complaint-globals-response/
Big Fish Poker | December 19, 2009 at 4:12 pm

How does this show work? When you call in, do you always get a chance to answer? How in the world do they get 449 from that answer…it is impossible.

What a stupid game.
Mike | December 19, 2009 at 4:18 pm

No, it is basically a lottery. Calling just gives you a (very small) chance of getting on the air, which is your only chance to answer.
Sue | December 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm

Mike

I like 3 double seats with 2 legs each: window end of seat attaches to side of bus, ailse end of seat has 2 legs. They are like that on old buses.
See this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/the1secondfilm/1021866903/

The driver’s seat is on a pedestal.
Sue | December 19, 2009 at 11:38 pm

from
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/23784837/The-game-show-goes-on

” Just how little chance you actually have of getting through came out during a recent hearing of the Commons select committee on culture, media and sport. In a submission, ITV said there was a one-in-400 chance of any consumer successfully calling through to the studio to play. The broadcaster admitted that, in peak time, it got up to 6,000 calls per minute. On average, one call every 85 seconds was successful. Each caller paid 75p regardless of call success. “
Sue | December 20, 2009 at 1:42 am

Fred and Mike,

So, the Dec.18 puzzle

4 girls are travelling on a bus
each of them have 3 baskets
in each basket there are 4 cats
each cat has 3 little kittens
HOW MANY LEGS ARE IN THE BUS “CORRECT ANSWER 222”

driver = 2 legs
4 girls = 8 legs
4 girls x 3 baskets/girl x 4 cats/basket x 4 legs/cat = 192 legs

2 + 8 + 192 = 202 : short by 20 legs

Since this is the same type of puzzle basically and, in the two pictures, the bus is the same then shouldn’t it have the same kind of seats with the same #of legs????

Okay. I don’t mind if this is a TV lottery with the skill testing question in advance but the producers should be required to publish the solution to the puzzle to prove there IS a solution. Gaming for money when the game cannot be won is illegal.
Sue | December 20, 2009 at 1:57 am

Sorry. I meant the Dec 4/5 puzzle (Mike’s copy of picture).
David Thornton | December 20, 2009 at 2:19 am

Gaming for money when the game CAN be won is illegal in Canada.

Section 206 (1)(e) CCC.

dave – CBNow
David Thornton | December 20, 2009 at 2:22 am

Unless it is a legally registered lottery

dave – CBNow
moses | December 20, 2009 at 2:30 am

wow this show is a scam they just showed a puzzle with a bee with all sorts of numbers 23 +9 +30+555+150+1+250+200+2+10+15=1245 doesnt it but a person called in and said 1245 and the girl host said it was wrong what a scam scam scam.
moses | December 20, 2009 at 2:40 am

Was just wondering do they actually send the money that the contestants win to them?
Mike | December 20, 2009 at 2:45 am

If they are consistent with their puzzles, as they claim to be, then the answer to the one Moses mentions (still on as I write this) should be the total off all numbers both individually and pulled apart (e.g., 250 = 250+25+50+2+5+0). This is what they’ve done before with similar puzzles.

I really can’t bother to sum it all up, and I’m certainly not gonna spend money on it, but that should be it. If it’s not (and it’s probably not), then it’s even more proof that there is not one unique answer.

And Dave, this is certainly nothing more than a lottery. No different than buying a Super 7 ticket; there’s a chance of winning, but you have a random chance of getting on air, then a random chance of picking the nearly-random number in the envelope.
CrimeBustersNow | December 20, 2009 at 2:45 am

Why not? They make thousands it would just be part of the expenses.

What you seem to be missing is that it is all irrelevant this is an illegal scheme a violation of gambling laws in Canada,

dave – CBNow
Mike | December 20, 2009 at 2:46 am

Yes Moses, I’ve heard reports that if you do manage to get on the air and answer correctly, they will send a cheque. Might take a few phonecalls though.
Joel-Edmonton | December 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm

call this number to make complaints: 1-800-348-5358

they are the gaming guys of canada

or call Michelle who is the person in charge of broadcasting at global tv, her line is 1-416-967-0022…..if you google letter to canwest playtv scam, you’ll see a letter a guy got back from her.
leith | December 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Thanks a lot for your great infornative man
Sue | December 23, 2009 at 7:33 pm

SQUINTING AT THE PICTURES

“unknown” from Croatia said their viewers were given the hint to also count what can be seen in the picture. I put Mike’s 2 pictures of the 2 puzzles side by side: the one with 4 GIRLS and the one with 5 GIRLS. I looked really hard at the 2 pictures and there are differences. For instance, the driver’s face in the 4 GIRL puzzle is in profile with mouth open and smiling. In the 5 GIRL picture, he is facing forward and appears to be whistling. This makes no difference to the answer but provides a clue that the pictures differ.

In the 4 GIRL picture, I see a fat lady with white curly hair leaning out of the last window.
Some of the same pixels are in the 5 GIRL picture but some aren’t, so it is just a blur and no longer shows a lady.

In the 4 GIRL picture, I can also see, through the front window, a man in a black jacket, a man behind his shoulder in profile and a man further back on the right in a black jacket and black tie.
Again, in the 5 GIRL picture, the pixels are blurred and no people are seen.

In the 4 GIRL picture, it is easy to see 3 windows along the side of the bus.

It is ridiculous to expect anyone to squint hard enough to see these extra people and it is probably harder when looking at the picture on a TV screen.

However, using these extra people and the appropriate number of seats, I sort of get the answer for the 4 GIRL puzzle.

I assumed each window corresponds to a bus seat, each attached to the wall of the bus at one end and with 2 legs on the aisle. I assumed another 3 seats on the other side of the aisle for a total of 6 seats. (The driver’s seat is on a pedestal.)

4 girls + driver + lady leaning out the window + 3 men seen through the front window = 9 humans

9 humans x 2 legs/human = 18 legs
6 bus seats x 2 legs/seat= 12 legs

18 + 12 + 192 cat legs = 222 legs

And I mean SQUINT, especially for the men seen through the front window. They are tiny and so are not even in perspective. The only reason you can see them is by peering at the area where the pixels change in the other picture. There is no way I would consider this a FAIR puzzle
assuming I’m right and I’m not even sure of that.

I haven’t tried the 5 GIRL picture but obviously you have to try and figure out how many cats are on the roof of the bus: 3? 4? 5?
Juan | December 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm

We had a similar one here in SA with a few minor diferences, the only way I got to a answer was to conclude that 1 seat=1 leg now thats just stupid.
James | January 2, 2010 at 4:07 am

Similar question on playtvcanada but it was around christmas so the question was…

santa
5 elves
each elf has 4 baskets
each basket has 2 cats and 2 kittens
two elves leave the bus
how many legs are on the bus?

now i don’t know if the elves left with the baskets or not and i am too lazy to do the math again but the point of this comment is that the the “right” answer was an odd number…

I was of course assuming the cats, elves, and santa were not handicapped…

P.S. If I remember right they said the answer was 447…. :S
Nick | January 2, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Hi

I saw this show on air for the last week. The first time i saw it i knew what they were doing.

Its just a big money making scheme for them. Seriously look at it , they can make up some answer. The hole point is to make it look easy so you will call in and loose 2$. Plus they only pick at random ppl to answer.

Who knows how many ppl call in could be thousands every game.

DONT PLAY THIS simple as that. Go blow it at the casino you would have more luck. I might make a post about this at my blog.
Shane Farrell | January 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm

ITS ALL A SCAM
In ireland the question was the exact same but each girl had 2 baskets not 3 and the answer was 662 which is impossible seeing as there is now les cats.
J R Mebo | January 2, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Check out PuzzleTwits on twitter & twitgoo. The game is different and the wording “336 legs” is part of total as are cats visible in bus and pics on side!
E Kendall | January 9, 2010 at 4:15 am

Iwatched the show tonight and was pissed at the endind when he was showing the answer It was about moving 2 match sticks to get the highest number at the end he never held up the answer kind of crumpled it the went on to a new one. I fell this is about as scamy as one can get llets get together and get the bull shit off tv
J R Mebo | January 9, 2010 at 6:04 am

What was the puzzle? i.e. the start number
CrimeBustersNow | January 9, 2010 at 6:15 am

You can catch it all on the other thread.

PlayTV Canada (aka The Quiz Hour aka Money Wave aka Game Time aka Call TV aka Nameless TLN / CHCH Call-in Game Show aka L’Instant Gagnant) is a Scam
Lisa, Dublin, Ireland | January 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Hi again from Ireland.

See it’s still the same with you over there as it is with us.

The last Cats on Bus (use the same pic as you do) was

5 GIRLS ON BUS
EACH GIRL HAS 5 BASKETS
IN EACH BASKET ARE 5 CATS
EACH CAT HAS 5 KITTENS

ANSWER: 962

Was noted that 243 was on front of bus where bus no.usually is. Also some cats painted on bus side.

That was the smallest answer ever for that game..but as usual nobody won. They don’t want anyone winning….they make a fortune from the calls that don’t get through.

We had Matchsticks Game last night…and lots of quick connections..(that’s because they knew nobody would come up with their fantastic solution). And no answer – it’s being carried over to next show! normally the answer to this game is something like 8^225…

Why don’t you go to our link: ‘PlayTVdiscussion for the discussion of puzzles only’ – you would see the link if you google it.

We discuss it while it is on air each night (12midnight – 3am).

People are joing this board because lots have lost money from phoning in!

Lisa
Paul | January 18, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Ladies and Gentelmen,
We have been dooked… no question.
I also called with the answer to the number of legs on the bus and was totally floored when the answer was given an impossible result. After all my math is restricted to electronics engineering. I saught the hepl of a PHD, MBA, Accountants, Mathematitions and a cast of many. All with the same result. “IMPOSSIBLE”.
Fellow bloggers it begs the question! What is the CRTC doing about it? This in my opinion if fraud. Perhaps a class action law-sute would be appropriate. Thank you for allowing me to vent out.
CrimeBustersNow | January 18, 2010 at 3:56 pm

You can simply go to your local police station with a dvd of the show, point out the fraud and lay a formal complaint. Then come back and let everyone know the result of your complaint. Any world-wide fraud may be reported to your local police as a first step.

dave

crimebustersnow.com
Sam I Am | January 23, 2010 at 8:09 am

I saw this show for the first time tonight.

There was no ambiguity in the puzzle I saw, but no one got it, and the answer they revealed at the end was mathematically impossible.

My complaint was about (a) their obviously wrong answer, and the out-of-hand rejection of the correct answer with no recourse to the caller, (b) the lack of transparency as to how they came up with their answer, and (c) their failure to disclose the odds of your received-and-paid-for call being accepted “randomly” to attempt an answer.

I sent in a complaint to the CBSC, with a reference to the previously-decided case. Thank you for the information.
J R Mebo.ire | January 23, 2010 at 10:20 am

->Sam I Am

I would be most interested to know which puzzle you refer to. I can’t think of any which would be unsolvable and unambiguous.
PL | January 23, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Please remove the name and email address after the submission has been made.
Jack | January 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm

it’s BS
Jo | January 24, 2010 at 8:09 pm

Last night I saw this show for the first time. There was only one puzzle for the entire show and nobody won. The wacky thing was that it was an addition problem like add up all the numbers in all the triangles etc. Every number on the screen was divisible by 5 but the answer they gave ended in a 2!!!???
Chris | January 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Let’s talk about the triangles!
The numbers are 5, 10, 20, 100 and 50
anwser 882.
I would love to see how they got this numbers! I was able to count up to 800:
185+5+10+20+150+15+30+35+170+180 = 800
10 difrent triangles
Search me for the other 82 got know idea.
J R Mebo.ire | January 25, 2010 at 4:08 pm

Re triangles & 882.
I would love to see a graphic because it is virtually meaningless without.
Has anybody uploaded the image?
Jo | January 26, 2010 at 1:20 am

/|\
/ /|\ \
/ / | \ \
/ / | \ \
/ / | \ \
/ / | \ \
/ / | \ \
/ / | \100\
/ / | \ \
/ 5 / 10 | 20 \ 50 \
——————————-

my recollection is this diagram and the instruction to add up all the numbers in all the triangles. I also came up with 800, but obviously the correct answer must end in 0 or 5.
Jo | January 26, 2010 at 1:22 am

well this diagram is not exactly what I intended, but picture a triangle divided into 4 smaller triangles all with the same apex.
Jennifer | January 29, 2010 at 3:52 am

omg….this is the 1st time i watched this show. The question on now is …. “If you write down the numbers between 1-121. How many times will you write down 1”

I believe the answer is 43 unless im missing a trap lol

So far they have had few (very few) callers with answers like “1” “26” “36”….I couldn’t call bc my cell is not able to call…..and thank god bc i did try! They suck u in and any one just tuning in doesn’t know she was asking for 30mins now and upping the stakes……and i even thought “well….it must be real bc its on tv” I DIDN’T KNOW THEY COULD DO A SCAM LIKE THIS LIVE ON TV grrrrrrrrr!!!!
Jennifer | January 29, 2010 at 3:59 am

Well…..the answer is 52….and im too tired to figure it out again lol what a scam…
Shi | January 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Re triangles & 882:
Either this is a straight scam or there’s some brilliant answer, since there’s NO way you get a “2” with multiples of 5. Only thing I can think of is if there was another triangle somewhere else on the screen.

As for the “how many 1’s from 1-121”, it was actually straightforward. Just don’t forget 111 counts as 3, 110 counts as 2, etc. The only trick was the “between” part (ie don’t count 1 & 121), and surprisingly the host gave that part away! “If you don’t see me here next time, that’s why” LOL

I’ve noticed that when the prize is a reasonable amount (<$500), the puzzle answers are somewhat legit, but as soon as you go over $1000 you KNOW there's going to be a BS Answer & they're goning to pull the "I'll give $100 for a wrong answer" crap at the end.
CrimeBustersNow | January 30, 2010 at 10:47 pm

This is fraudulent and illegal gambling under section 206 (1)(e) and section 380 (1) Canadian Criminal Code see posts above.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
Shi | January 31, 2010 at 4:26 am

Dave:
Please stop with your allusions re the criminal code. I know that you are well intentioned, but making faulty legal arguements that any first year law student could easily poke holes into does NOT help.

Case in point:
S206(1)(e) won’t fly because they’re not giving away prizes simply because you pay the $2, they’re paying you because you win a game of “skill”. Read the last part of 1(e) carefully.
The closest thing you could argue is S206(1)(f), but it won’t work since they’re not giving away “goods, wares or merchandise”.

And even if you could find a provision under ANY subsection of 206(1) to stick, you’ll still lose because they still offer the option of a “no-pay entry”.

S380(1) is too broad, not to mention you still have to deal with actually proving “fraud”(good luck with that!)

In short, these could could hire a law student and defeat your arguements. Imagine if they hired a real lawyer!

If you strongly feel about this, hire a criminal lawyer (or pay a law student) to come up with a stronger arguement, one that people would feel confortable submitting to a crown attorney.
CrimeBustersNow | February 1, 2010 at 3:47 am

Really! And are you, Shi, either a lawyer or law student? And how many cases have you won, or laws are you responsible for changing or having repealed. Your problem, like most, especially professionals is that you are seeking complicated answers and solutions to simple problems. Play TV Canada is simply an illegal lottery – a gambling scheme.

Now, I received the same arguments you present Shi, from police, prosecutors, and lawyers when I was told that having a product and being allowed to sign up free or with a small payment for “a kit” made the Network “shell” corporations,” Treasure Traders International and Business In Motion legal, or the product at the very least kept these corporations just “inside the law” and that these legally registered “corporations” could not possible fall under section 206 (1) (e ) of the C.C.C. All the obfuscating nonsense criminals use in their attempts to mask their fraud and circumvent the law.

I was also told by a very competent lawyer that I would lose in a liable suit because you simply cannot call some who has not been convicted of a criminal offence a crook, a liar, a gangster, a criminal, a money-launder, racketeering thief, and for good good measure, a scum bag. I was also told that even a criminal is entitled to their personal property and that a list of 18,000+ names; proprietary property, copied from from this crook’s corporate computer and sent to me anonymously, would have to be returned and would I would be ordered not to use any copy of it. I was warned by my friendly lawyer that if I persisted I would likely end up being buried in and un-winnable multi-million dollar liable & slander suit, my website shut down, and no one would ever here from me again….. And I was also, for months, forced to put with condescending attacks from the likes of you, and far worse, on the internet and elsewhere.

Well, I had cost the crook about $3 billion before he served me with a mere $10,000,000 libel suit. My friendly lawyer said… “You are “well intentioned” but I told you; stick with attacking his “business model” and what you can prove; stay away from calling him “a racketeer, gangster etc. I would like to help you but you have no viable defense”…. or, how did you put that, “Shi”….. “In short, these could (sic) could hire a law student and defeat your arguements (sic). Imagine if they hired a real lawyer!”???…. and that, near word for word what the lawyer said…. You need to broaden your thinking before you make such condescending attacks Shi!!!

My lawyer asked “So, what Do you have for a defense??? I replied “The ‘Clean Hands” maxim.” He laughed… “You will get nowhere with that.” I asked… “do you lawyers really read the law and understand the real significance of these various provisions.” He replied… “that is not a defense for defamatory liable… what else you got?” …… “Balance of Convenience” I replied….. “Again, that’s no defense for defamatory liable” he repeated…. undeterred I countered .. “Well I think it is, the way I read the law.”

We then engaged in a bit of a discussion; something about his, ah… decade-and-half legal experience, expertise and many cases “under his belt” vis-à-vis my grade 10 technical education etc. And no other lawyer, no friend, no one would see my point, no matter how many times they read section 206 (1)(e) CCC,… agreeing fully with the legal opinion that Section 206 (1)(e) CCC, the “Clean Hands Maxim” and the “Balance of Convenience” are not a defense against defamatory liable of publicly denouncing a business owner as a gangster, racketeer etc….. Imagine that???

Now, this crook, did not come at me with mere law students, as you have suggested is all that is necessary to humiliate me in a court case; he used the prestigious 24 lawyer law firm of Keyser Mason Ball — yes Shi…. “real” lawyers; expert MLM lawyers out of Mississauga Ontario.

The Judge told me straight out and in the same sentence asked … “I know what a pyramid scheme is, but how is this business a pyramid scheme?” (a violation of 206 (1)(e) CCC). It took all day to “unwind the scheme” before the judge, who many times stopped me and asked ….. give that to me again, until it was abundantly manifest to the judge that this was indeed a scheme under section 206 (1)(e) C.C.C.

That day, without council, I “kicked the collective asses” of this 24 lawyer experienced MLM law firm in the Ontario Superior Court. When the Judge offered the opportunity to explain how this business was conducted in a manner that it was NOT a violation of said section, the lawyer had nothing, literally nothing, as the Judge observed in his written judgment @ paragraph 35…

[35]… In the absence of evidence that even begins to rebut the assertions made by Thornton, and faced with the prospect of the plaintiffs coming to court to request equitable relief when it seems that their own hands may well be far from clean, there is no doubt in my mind that the balance of convenience favours Thornton.
=========

The “Clean Hands Maxim” & “Balance of Convenience” just as I maintained all along!!!

It required six months for the judge to prepare the well thought out precedent setting Judgment rendered November 30, 2006 in Treasure Traders International v. David John Thornton. This is the last paragraph of that 18 page precedent setting decision ….

[41] By corollary, it will be open to the plaintiffs to bring another injunction application before trial, but only the event that they are prepared to adduce probative evidence at such time that would call into doubt the prima facie case of illegality that the respondent Thornton has successfully made out.

Beaten…. their… (count them)…. “24 tails between their collective legal legs” and with no viable counter argument; not withstanding all the crooks millions and this 24 lawyer prestigious law firm, this crook’s lawyers never “took advantage” of the judge’s offer of another “kick at the can.”

The judge also observed @ paragraph 24 of his Judgment….

[24]…There is no doubt that his intent was to provide warnings to the public regardless of the harm it might cause to the plaintiffs, or indeed others who might be engaged in similar schemes.

Did you get that Shi….. “INDEED OTHERS [Play TV Canada] WHO MIGHT BE ENGAGED IN SIMILAR SCHEMES.”

EXCERPT @ paragraph 23

[13]… to all appearances, the schemes were substantially the same. Finally, Thornton drew the court’s attention to s. 206 (1)(e) of the criminal code, which states as follows: [omitted for brevity]

Now again, anonymous poster, Shi, how many judgments have you successfully obtained from the Superior Court, or any court, for that matter, especially under section 206 (1)(e) of the CCC???

Pigeon King International is another scheme: Simply a nice “quiet business”…. “buying and selling pigeons” to build a breeding flock. I accused this crook of being “ENGAGED IN A SIMILAR SCHEME.” (re: Judge @ Par. [24] above)… under the same sections: s. 206 and 380 CCC.

Government and Police authorities denied this was a fraud or an illegal Ponzi scheme (gambling) or a violation of any law. In fact a Fraud Officer of the Waterloo Regional Police, without proper journalistic scrutiny was allowed to appear on “well lawyered” CTV National News (“mouth-piece” for police) and state that they could find nothing illegal in this massive “pigeon breeding” operation. CBC (also “parrots” for the police) with their own “in house” lawyers, without resistance or scrutiny, allowed the CBC News Anchor to declare to the world …. “This is clearly legal in Canada.”

My voice and constant allegations were suppressed and I was actually threatened by Halton Regional Police at my home that if I contacted ANYONE who worked at CTV I would be arrested and jailed. This PKI operation I have been fighting since Aug 2007, when the scheme was first brought to my attention.

Fast forward to last week January 25, 2010…. EXCERPT:

Police pronounce Pigeon King a Ponzi

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/police-pronounce-pigeon-king-ponzi-2578

Like its sick ambiguous games of cat’s legs, match-sticks and triangles, no matter how it is disguised, Play TV Canada is a illegal gambling scheme; an illegal lottery under s. 206 (1)(e) CCC and obvious fraud under s. 380 CCC.

And those of authority who allow this B.S. such as the CRTC, Competition Bureau, Securities and Exchange Commission, RCMP, local police, the prosecutors office, our local MP’s and MPP’s etc, are the facilitators, and enablers of these illegal schemes and frauds permeating the legitimate economy. That’s the truth: That IS reality.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
B.O.B. | February 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm

WOW what a legal argument!

Dave is “MY COUSIN VINNY” …. “I want him!!!”

Let’s get Play TV CANADA!!!

P.O. consumer
Mike | February 3, 2010 at 11:50 am

Indeed, we really appreciate what you are doing, Dave. Thank you!
CrimeBustersNow | February 3, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Thanks Mike, But if we are serious about getting these “bald faced,” absolutely disgusting, unconscionable fraud artists we need to get more militant.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
steve | February 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm

putting pressure on global to take these con artists off the air is one way….refusing to pay the telephone provider for “calls” is another…apparently they can collect their $1.99 even if you get a busy signal and hang on for 18 seconds…refusal to pay cannot be held against your credit rating…although they can harrass you it is totally without teeth ….i’ve seen this show only once (how many numbers inside all the triangles) and i couldn’t believe how ambiguous it was with absolutely no explanation of how they arrived at the answer….shame on global for associating themselves with these scumbags
Sam I Am | February 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm

-> J R Mebo.ire

The puzzle was the “how many triangles are in this triangle” one, where they’ve taken a triangle and sectioned it such that there are smaller triangles inside. The viewer’s job is to count how many. The puzzle itself was not ambiguous. Their result was dubious at best.

I have registered a formal complaint with the CBSC, and am currently in correspondence with the broadcaster (Global Television).

Global’s position so far is that the producer has ensured them that they have a “robust, audited methodology” for answering their puzzles, and that that’s good enough for them. I’ve just finished writing my second letter questioning trustworthiness of the producer in conceiving and conducting the contest, and asking that they review his methodology and the show in question.

Depending on Global’s response to my second letter, I may pursue the issue and ask the CBSC for a ruling against Global as well (hopefully Global will resolve the issue without the need, though).
steve | February 13, 2010 at 5:45 pm

for me the ambiguity stems from the fact that basic rules may or may not exist…..for example take the number “15”…it is one number that consists of 2 numbers…is it reasonable to expect that they may consider the 1 and the 5 as two numbers?…i have seen them use this methodology in some of their puzzles….basic arithmetic rules may not apply…..it’s appalling that they can produce an answer to the puzzle without explaining how they arrived at it to appease the poor sots who wasted their cash……
abun | February 22, 2010 at 4:14 pm

The answer to the riddle is 10, 990…you have to read the riddle very carefully and slowly! I run a trivia business and this puzzles stumps my players everytime!
CrimeBustersNow | February 22, 2010 at 6:50 pm

Hello abun and all.

You seem really proficent at figuring out and interpreting puzzles and rules “abun”. Can you figure this one out and tell us what it means….

conducts, manages or is a party to any scheme, contrivance or operation of any kind by which any person, on payment of any sum of money, or the giving of any valuable security, or by obligating himself to pay any sum of money or give any valuable security, shall become entitled under the scheme, contrivance or operation to receive from the person conducting or managing the scheme, contrivance or operation, or any other person, a larger sum of money or amount of valuable security than the sum or amount paid or given, or to be paid or given, by reason of the fact that other persons have paid or given, or obligated themselves to pay or give any sum of money or valuable security under the scheme, contrivance or operation; – source??? “trivia” of 206 (1)(e) CCC.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
BJM | February 24, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Hi guys.
Just stuck more pics on http://twitgoo.com/u/PuzzleTwits.
If you haven’t already had puzzles like that then it’s well worth remembering just in case.
BJM | February 27, 2010 at 6:31 pm

and many more at

http://twitgoo/u/PuzzleTwits

O.K. you may never see any of them or you already have but next time you tune in; who knows?
John | February 28, 2010 at 1:38 am

@Dave

Asked and answered. Shi already gave you the answer to that one. You should actually read the response instead of going on some rant about how you got sued.
CrimeBustersNow | February 28, 2010 at 5:28 pm

To John

Perhaps you should learn to read a little better John. I said THIS one not THAT one. This one meaning what immediately followed. Now, you seemed to have missed the point. Since you seem to have difficulty solving thinly masked puzzles??? I will explain it just for you.

The “puzzle” I was referring to is the meaning (interpretation) of that law I quoted. And that’s not a “rant” you ignorant A$$ … It is the law in Canada that forbids the fraud you seemed so enamored with guessing the answer to.

Dumb answers to dumb illegal puzzles is quite irrelevant to the real issue of the illegality of these frauds and a national media acting as facilitators and enablers, perpetrating an indictable offence in this country by international, money-laundering, racketeers.

That’s why they use puzzles to confuse those who evidently can’t see the illegality. So, “how many feet are on the bus” or how many triangles in a picture are quite irrelevant. Perpetrating this illegal scheme is a violation of Canadian law.

Now, If you want to take shots at some one John, you should at least have the guts to come out of your hole of anonymity. Attacking from anonymity is rather cowardly John. Like high schools girls that anonymously attack there fellow classmates on the internet.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
CrimeBustersNow | February 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm

P.S. I thought it was clear that Shi is just another anonymous poster who produced no identity nor legal credentials and couldn’t seem to produce any case won in any Superior Court, especially under section 206 (1)(e) he improperly interpreted.

I have; and it speaks for itself John. And mind you the Judge didn’t find it to be a “rant” notwithstanding it took some time to unravel the masked fraud and explain it in court…. so I think his opinion, being on record and of course for others to use as a precedent, certainly has far more credibility and impact than the opinion of some annoying, anonymous smart A$$ from Cyber Space.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com

p.s Those who can’t follow and understand logical arguments; in their attempts to sound intelligent, often, along with other displays of ignorance, will repeatedly attack with the word “rant.”
Mike | March 1, 2010 at 9:48 am

Dudes. Let’s not resort to name calling. Neither a poster’s personal history and passion for speaking about the issue, nor their degree of anonymity, has any bearing on the validity of their arguments.

Let’s stick to the arguments, then, rather than labeling anything as a rant or an anonymous ass.

Also, thank you to everyone for the continued updates, especially Dave and BJM.

I still have not heard anything since my last blog post on this.
John | March 1, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Yeah, cool it Dave. Irrational outbursts like that are what got you in trouble with the law.

Lets clarify: We ARE talking about 206(1)(e) of the CC. There is no “This or that”. You asked how PlayTV doesn’t violate 206(1)e. Shi answered that; it’s in PLAIN ENGLISH in the last part of (1)e. Heck, it’s right there in your own post. Or is it too difficult for you to understand that we need to spell it out? Surely that’s not needed for someone of your “legal experience”.

You keep harping that PlayTV violates 206(1)e when it’s clear it doesn’t. So drop it and move on.
CrimeBustersNow | March 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

Well readers you have to decide what is truth and what you want to believe and what you want to to about it.

A good “rule of thumb” is to ignore or scrutinize very careful anything touted by anonymous posters who appear from cyber space offering advice, “business opportunities,” legal opinions, or attempt to tear down the works of known organizations and the opinions of “credible” lawyers.

Also employ some discriminating thinking and common sense. John “WHO,” the anonymous poster above attempting, with credentials neither implied nor proven and offering no background as to who he is or what he does or the number of times, he may or may not have fought court battles and what judgments he may or may not have won, attempts to set himself up as some kind of expert in the field of criminal law offering advice, and opinion on law, specifically section 206 (1)(e) of the Criminal Code, and using as his legal counsel, reference, and support, simply another anonymous poster identified as “Shi:” ……Shi “WHO.”

He/she also suddenly appeared from cyber space offering advice, and opinion on law, specifically section 206 (1)(e) of the Criminal Code also with credentials neither implied nor proven and offering no background as to how many times HE/SHE may or may not have fought court battles and what judgments HE/SHE may or may not have won ….. Seems a bit like the “blind leading the blind, I’d say:” But according to THEM of course, they are certainly convinced THEY know what they are talking about.

What I offer is concrete recent legal history. Like Markopolos who investigated and proved the Madoff Ponzi scheme but had no influence in shutting it down (it actually collapsed on its own: Madoff turned himself in: Markopolos then came out of the woodwork). On the record, I publicly exposed, and actively set about to destroy the massive, over $100,000,000 Pigeon King International Ponzi scheme operating out of Waterloo Ontario, informing authorities it was a Ponzi scheme and that in most cases police are involved in these frauds a fact which seriously influences, and impedes fair and equitable enforcement of the law.

The point here is that I repeatedly informed the Ontario Securities Commission, the Federal Competition Bureau, RCMP, OPP, Manitoba authorities, police in the Waterloo Regional where PKI’s head office was located, attorneys general, Phone Busters, Crime Stoppers, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Better Business Bureau, etc, of this Ponzi scheme.

Now, the Ontario SEC, Federal Competition Bureau, RCMP, OPP, attorneys general, Manitoba authorities etc, refused to deal with it. Many denied it was a Ponzi scheme. The rest refused to comment, simply willing to adopt the findings of police.

Now, of course anyone familiar with pyramid/Ponzi schemes, particularly at this juncture, will know that they are illegal and sanctioned under section 206 (1)(e) CCC….

Months later, like John and Shi, the self-appointed “legal minds” here, the Waterloo Regional Police, in effect denounced my allegations and assertions that this was indeed a Ponzi scheme, sactioned under section 206 (1)(e) CCC. Police appeared on national television assuring victims and potential victims and the public that there was nothing criminally illegal in this “operation.” The well “lawyered” CBC News gratuitously stated, “this is CLEARLY legal in Canada” subjecting this abhorrent fraud to their typical humor while North American farm families were being destroyed and monetary losses grew by tens of millions of dollars.

Now, need we take a “poll” to establish “which side of the fence” the anonymous John and Shi, self-appointed experts on law would have stood on THAT issue, vis-à-vis my “stand alone” allegations of a Ponzi scheme, a violation of section 206 (1)(e)

Fast-forward to today. Police have now reversed themselves having to agree with my original very clear legal assertions. They have had to face the fact that Pigeon King International IS a Ponzi scheme and that at least one Ontario Provincial Police officer was it and “fed” inside information before anyone else, prior to the bankruptcy.

So, readers, I stand on the official confirmation that legally I was absolutely correct in all aspects of this fraud police willfully “turned their back on” for over two years. So, I urge you to check facts and historical performance and determine whether information you might be considering comes from an anonymous source, vis-à-vis an identifiable person or organization.

From Google

Police pronounce Pigeon King a Ponzi

3 Feb 2010 … Galbraith and Pigeon King International Inc. defrauded many citizens of Canada …. a breeder and police officer from the Listowel area, … 15, 2008, which alleges that an OPP officer was a PKI breeder. ….. According to the Kitchener Record only 18 creditors showed up at the meeting yesterday

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=the+record+kitchener+pigeon+king+ponzi+opp+listowel&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Now, to clarify John’s position on this “Play Canada Scam” we need to ask whether he believes it’s legal or not, and if not, what LAW DOES it violate and why?

And to clear up his other attempt to “muddy the waters;” I do not, as John asserts, have a problem with the law, as clearly manifest by the number of cases I have won, had dismissed or stayed. My problems are not with law: My problems are with police. And police are NOT THE LAW: A very dangerous misconception, and that, John the “self appointed expert on law,” should know, and if not, be reminded of; neither are police (according TO LAW) above or beyond the law.

My problems are false arrest and imprisonment (which is clearly evident, caught on camera by CBC Marketplace; the charges in that incident, dropped, when the RCMP were informed of that fact) and the other major problem; police perjury.

Now, those facts, of course “glossed over” and ignored by the likes John here, attempting to “spin stories” in an effort to discredit the truth, in his now persistent quest to “tear a person down” he seems to have aggressively challenged since he charged onto the forum. That’s the self evident truth ….. That now, proven reality…… I constantly advise people who turn to the internet for the wealth of information found here, apply common sense, follow the money, and for heaven’s sake, don’t be misled by anonymous people who actually appear to know what they’re talking about.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
CrimeBustersNow | March 2, 2010 at 6:43 am

One may want to consider the information in the link below. It may serve to broaden your perspectives….. and for heaven’s sakes don’t parrot what many complacent Canadians say…… “BUT NOT IN CANADA EH!!!”..

“Whistleblower” Randy Rankin of the Ottawa area was “taken out” at his home, with a single shot to the back of his head, to shut HIM up. His daughter found him over the computer.

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/03/madoff_whistleb_1.html

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
BJM | March 6, 2010 at 7:09 am

Suddenly at Ballymount on March 6th

http://twitgoo.com/fvr06

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64778569&postcount=16842

Enjoy
sherry rhodes | March 7, 2010 at 2:48 am

i stumbled upon this program tonight and cannot believe the crtc is allowing such a blatant scam. the hostess just advised the audience that the “spot the difference” gane has reached a high degree of “difficultiness” and she cannot spot the difference either.
would someone pls post this on you tube, it is sunday, march 7 at 2:46 est.

thanks, sherry
John | March 8, 2010 at 10:56 pm

So Dave seems to have a problem with: the Ontario SEC, Federal Competition Bureau, RCMP, OPP, attorneys general (SIC), the (in his own words) “near useless BBB”, and (again, his own words) the “Corrupt Canadian Government”. He seems to believe that he is right and all of these organizations are wrong.

To quote you: “A good “rule of thumb” is to ignore or scrutinize very careful anything touted by anonymous posters who appear from cyber space offering advice, … legal opinions…”
Have you forgotten that if was YOU that suddenly appeared and brought up this whole CC argument? By your logic, we should be ignoring or scrutinizing YOU.

The way in which you respond by demeaning others or inflating your credentials, instead of actually addressing the argument speaks volumes about you. Your responses suggest you have anger management issues which I sincerely hope you will seek help for. Interestingly enough, going on demeaning or vindictive tirades when confronted with opinions different from his seems to be quite the norm for him. Performing a quick search on him brings up the many message boards where he espouses his self-righteous arguments and anger-fueled responses to others. Here is one of the interesting takes on this character:

cbnscam.blogspot.com

And after all this, he STILL hasn’t addressed how PlayTV violates 206(1)e. Again, a plain English reading of the section says it doesn’t. Forget Law School, try Grammar School. If you can’t answer this simple question, DROP IT and move on!
CrimeBustersNow | March 9, 2010 at 3:59 am

Anonymous John wrote….

So Dave seems to have a problem with: the Ontario SEC, Federal Competition Bureau, RCMP, OPP, attorneys general (SIC), the (in his own words) “near useless BBB”, and (again, his own words) the “Corrupt Canadian Government”. He seems to believe that he is right and all of these organizations are wrong.

To quote you: “A good “rule of thumb” is to ignore or scrutinize very careful anything touted by anonymous posters who appear from cyber space offering advice, … legal opinions…”
Have you forgotten that if was YOU that suddenly appeared and brought up this whole CC argument? By your logic, we should be ignoring or scrutinizing YOU.

The way in which you respond by demeaning others or inflating your credentials, instead of actually addressing the argument speaks volumes about you. Your responses suggest you have anger management issues which I sincerely hope you will seek help for. Interestingly enough, going on demeaning or vindictive tirades when confronted with opinions different from his seems to be quite the norm for him. Performing a quick search on him brings up the many message boards where he espouses his self-righteous arguments and anger-fueled responses to others. Here is one of the interesting takes on this character:

cbnscam.blogspot.com

And after all this, he STILL hasn’t addressed how PlayTV violates 206(1)e. Again, a plain English reading of the section says it doesn’t. Forget Law School, try Grammar School. If you can’t answer this simple question, DROP IT and move on!

========

Yes I do “have a problem with: the Ontario SEC, Federal Competition Bureau, RCMP, OPP, attorneys general (SIC) [sic] [incidentally look it up, “John Who” that is the proper spelling and/or grammar; plural – referring to more than one attorney general],… (in his own words) “near useless BBB”, and (again, his own words) the “Corrupt Canadian Government”. …. me and hundreds of thousands of others in this country and other countries scammed by Canadian fraudsters and scam artists.

“John Who” wrote also…. “To quote you: “A good “rule of thumb” is to ignore or scrutinize very careful anything touted by anonymous posters who appear from cyber space offering advice, … legal opinions…”

Have you forgotten that if (SIC) [it] was YOU that suddenly appeared and brought up this whole CC argument? By your logic, we should be ignoring or scrutinizing YOU.”

Well here we are again, another anonymous poster, ….misquoting, misinterpreting and looking for an argument rather than the truth. “John Who”; his diatribe only confirms what I have asserted.

“John Who” in his blind unjustifiable rage, seems to have missed the operative word, “ANONYMOUS.” So, here’s ANONYMOUS “John Who” directing readers to an ANONYMOUS web site devoted to, and filled with unsubstantiated nonsense, gossip and outright provable lies directed at me and our organization, without realizing, I would guess, that spreading FALSE rumors even copying those of others spreading them around is legally actionable.

But as you see readers, John hides in the shadows of anonymity refusing to take responsibility for his own statements or the gossip of others that he spreads around the world. And with his bias, seems to totally ignore, that, that blog opens with a direct attack on me.

I went to both “companies” (shell corporations) mentioned in that blog, by invitation to evaluate their operation. Whoever put up that website didn’t have the courtesy to contact me to discuss the gossip they printed and spread from other gossips, just like “John Who” here. Anonymous “John Who,” willfully blind ignores that fact.

Now if anonymous “John Who” would read and educate himself, and search with even a modicum of unbiased honesty, or contacted me directly, since I’m NOT anonymous, and do Not operate an anonymous web site, and I DO, before I write opinions, contact anyone who leaves contact information, or make sure that what I find and what I publish is true AND WILL “stand up in a court of law,” he would find that his unjustified attacks and innuendo, and I quote… “By your logic, we should be ignoring or scrutinizing YOU”…… is unwarranted, based on anonymity .

I do explain to potential victims, trust NO one; scrutinize, but look for, and accept the truth. I have many times stated… i.e. if I post on our website, a document purportedly from the FBI, or as I have done, from the “Department Trade and Industry” in the U.K., don’t accept that at face value. Anyone can counterfeit the seal and letterhead of the FBI, DTI, SEC, or any organization as is being done currently all over the Internet. Simply go directly to the FBI, DTI, SEC, etc, and cross-reference to verify if the same document, word for word, exists on their website. If still in doubt look up their phone number, call and authenticate their website. Simple…. Now, how do we scrutinize “John Who” here.

John could be one the crooks of “Play Canada,” a crook from another scam, following me about the Internet which they certainly do, or a corrupt cop; many are posting false statements attacking me on the internet, and some, believe it or not identify themselves; or even personnel from these government agencies I’m exposing…….

BTW, Catch tonight’s Colbert Report. On his show, he had the “financial detective,” Harry Markopoulos who attempted to expose the infamous Bernie Madoff, and who just “echoed” what I have been stating on the Internet for years. So, readers, you figure out the truth: The facts are now all around you.

So, to once again answer the question about PlayTV, since “John Who” here, seems to be unable to comprehend the simple truth and logic of section 206 (1)(e) CCC…. (suggesting it is ME who should go to Grammer School) …..simply interpreted, it is this……

“If, in any scheme, a “pool of money” (or any valuable security) is distributed through any means, to others in the scheme in a greater amount than they paid in, unless licensed by the government, is illegal under Canadian gambling laws, which is patently obvious in this scam; or if you understand Latin …… “Res ipsa loquitur (L)- because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more.

See, that is where there is a diversion in opinions. But so far, my opinions have been upheld in law; the latest in the Ontario Superior Court, which again, “John Who,” “willfully blind” simply chooses to ignore. However, (as “John Who” seems to agree) should we not scrutinized carefully, this anonymous “John Who” himself, and inquire if HE has some “anonymous” “credential” he is not revealing here: What about it, anonymous “John Who.”

Now, the Judge of the Criminal Court has, on her own, (last Friday) and without my prompting, found that decision of Judge Quigley with respect to section 206 (1)(e) CCC and is to consider it in the CRIMINAL proceeding against Alan Kippax, one of the most prolific pyramid fraudsters in Canada. Now although the local Mississauga News (Mississauga where Kippax perpetrates his pyramid scheme and where police are corruptly protecting his scam against prosecution like Al Capone in the ’30s) refuses to publish these finding, notwithstanding the comments of the judge last Friday March 5, 2010….. However, a woman posted a comment below that news story pretty well summing it all up in one paragraph. (her name I verified from the list of 18,000 plus names taken from the crook’s computer that the Judge refused to order me to return to this money-laundering Racketeer) ……. quote..

“Kippax – not only guilty of this but so much more

This is not a legitimate reason to delay sentencing as there are hundreds of others who can testify as to the horrendous character of this animal. The only problem, Kippax has either paid them off or has threatened them with countersuits and worse if they come forward.

Justice Deena Baltman, I beg you, nail him to the wall!

L. Jane

Now, that’s the truth….. Anonymous “John Who” …. That IS the reality!!!! So why not forget the semantics, stick to what is just, and stop UNWARRANTED attacks unless you are one of the scammer. Now, remember, all attacks are not unwarranted as you will know, if you bother to read carefully the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court in TTI & BIM v. David John Thornton…. It is what it is.

dave -CBNow

crimebustersnow.com

http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/627296–judge-asked-to-re-open-trial

The court decision… http://webmusic-musiqueweb.org/WMMW_Site/WebDemos/dt1/dt1_court_order_tti_bim_vs_thornton.pdf
John | March 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Dave seems to always harp back to his insistence that anonymity = lack of credibility. I’m starting to even doubt you are even the real Dave Thornton, especially since you make NO MENTION of PlayTV on your website, even though you are clearly interested in them.

So put your money where your mouth is. If you really are Dave and you really are confident about your S206(1)e argument, put it on your website, crimebustersnow.com. Just state that the call-in TV show “PlayTV Canada” (www.calltv.com/playtvcanada) violates Section 206(1)e of the Canadian Criminal Code and the reasons why you believe so. Heck, just cut & paste your previous comment if you want. (While you’re at it, post of link to this blog as well.)

Then post the link here on this board.

If you can’t, it either means:
1) You aren’t the real Dave, and just some fake posing as him OR
2) You have so little confidence in your argument that you’re not willing to put your name on it, making you no better than the anonymous posters you disparage.

Ball’s in your court.
CrimeBustersNow | March 12, 2010 at 1:14 pm

JOHN WROTE: March 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Dave seems to always harp back to his insistence that anonymity = lack of credibility.

I’m starting to even doubt you are even the real Dave Thornton, especially since you make NO MENTION of PlayTV on your website, even though you are clearly interested in them.

So put your money where your mouth is. If you really are Dave and you really are confident about your S206 (1)(e) argument, put it on your website, crimebustersnow.com. Just state that the call-in TV show “PlayTV Canada” (www.calltv.com/playtvcanada) violates Section 206(1)(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code and the reasons why you believe so.

Heck, just cut & paste your previous comment if you want. (While you’re at it, post of link to this blog as well.)

Then post the link here on this board.

If you can’t, it either means:

1) You aren’t the real Dave, and just some fake posing as him OR
2) You have so little confidence in your argument that you’re not willing to put your name on it, making you no better than the anonymous posters you disparage.

Ball’s in your court.

To John and readers of these forums..

John is trying to put more words into my mouth and again with innuendo, trying to make something out of nothing. (BTW John did you find that more then one attorney general (plural) is “attorneys general???) That would seem to indicate we can rule out you being a lawyer or law student, unless a very incompetent one.

For the record John, your narrow equation, anonymity = lack of credibility is neither accurate nor is it my view. I worked for over two years with an anonymous British entity identifying himself only as “Captain Blyth. I suspect he was in the government. He said he was very close to “these people” and the scam was quickly shut down by British authorities. I was able to cross check any documents and information and able to put trust in him and his information, albeit anonymous, because it was credible.

One should simply be very cautious about believing anything an anonymous person is touting particularly when they’re spreading other people’s anonymous gossip and unfounded accusations, especially provable unfounded allegations, with the intent to discredit someone else…. And of course when I know the nonsense you are selectively “cherry picking” from others on the internet and bring here is false or “twisted.” Here is one of the threads in this website if you are looking for the truth.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/1/15892.html?1134910576

It is the little things one looks for as a detective: A detective with integrity adheres to the truth in what the facts he uncovers, reveal. He does not attempt to “spin” facts into innuendo, the motivation of which is to “paint a sinister picture;” and a mirror image of the truth to destroy someone. …. Like when the media and police conspired to destroy a person who is uncovering their corruption by making a “big deal” out of occurrence reports. i.e. Published….. “He admits he has had 36 occurrences in the past two years [1998 – 2000] with the OPP.” …. Now, that looks pretty horrendous considering these 36 occurrences consist as they do, of assault, assault with a weapon, drugs, theft, causing a disturbance etc, etc, and in a space of only two years… if you see what I mean.

So what were they; these occurrences? This fellow ran a municipal trailer park though a tender because the town could not control it. He cleaned it up and actually got a write-up in a Canada-Wide prestigious camp ground magazine. The assaults etc, were on him!!! One of them serious: Attacked at 3:00 AM by a hammer wielding assailant who broke his ribs and smashed the telephone as he attempted to dial 911: He found a lady’s purse on the beach and turned it in, not realizing nor particularly concerned that it generated “a numbered occurrence report.” He threw out the drug users and dealers who had ridden “rough shot” over the park for years: He helped a fellow stopped by the police late one night with his tail lights out. It was a short circuit, the wire burned. He replaced the burned wire and the fellow, police would not allow to continue with his lights out, who needed to get home for work the next day, was on his way with his family. That generated an occurrence report. The cops called him a “good Samaritan.” He simply replied… “It was nothing really. I had the tools, I knew how to fix it, and the hour or so it took was nothing compared to the inconvenience this fellow and his family were facing. I hope if I am ever in trouble someone will do the same for me.”

Then the illegal pyramid scheme came to town. And unaware of those of authority in it, he attempted to get two women their money back and that’s when “all hell broke lose” and eventually these occurrence reports were deliberately used and taken out of context, along with myriad other fabricated “evidence” spun into gossip and unjustly used against him: Some of the very gossip, John, you’re picking up on the Internet, and without checking the validity, actively spreading it.

And yes that was me John. Never needed to ever mention it, until my credibility was viciously attacked.

It has been said… “Lies are easy: It is the truth that takes a lot of explaining.”

Now, addressing your other issues: About carrying Play TV Canada on my website: I am simply extremely busy dealing with several of these schemes world-wide; all with much larger losses than $2 or $100 a hit. Right now I am investigating the the case of the 70 year-old Ontario Reeve, a former politician who shot to death a Vietnamese-Canadian Ontario Provincial Police Office. They were from the same church. I have come across some interesting information that I believe, bears investigating.

I also have to admit, I am not technically very good on the computer. I actually do not know how post or even edit stories on my own website making it much easier to post on these specific blogs where frauds are being discussed. I feel victims need to be aware of the “big picture” and why these frauds are even allowed to start up in the first place and the power behind them….. It is political corruption and corruption within government and law enforcement and the duplicity of the media, as is apparent with Global TV airing this particular scam….. i.e. How do you think, for example, Global TV would handle the story of the massive pyramid scheme, a violation of section 206 (1)(e) operating with a few miles of their own studios involving people of authority, government personnel, church ministers etc???…. Good question to ponder within the “big picture”, don’t you think, John???

And you question my identity. Now if you were any kind of an amateur detective at all, before spreading all kinds of new gossip and innuendo, all you need do is contact me from the CrimeBustersNow website to confirm who I am. On every post I sign my name Dave – CBNow and my contact information below crimebustersnow.com . There you can read the decision of the Ontario Superior Court which identifies me as David John Thornton – Oakville Ontario and my email so I can be contacted. You can also find me all over the internet phone# and all. I don’t know if phone numbers are allowed here, but that’s what a smart “detective” (amateur or otherwise) would do.

Now John, after challenging two multimillion dollar companies, and successfully defending myself in that $10 million liable suit against the 24 lawyer prestigious law firm, and the crooks I go after, don’t you think your accusation…. “You have so little confidence in your argument that you’re not willing to put your name on it, making you no better than the anonymous posters you disparage”……. actually “rings a bit hollow???”

However, to make you happy I will write a story and get my guy in Quebec to post it along with comments pasted from this forum, and the link to Mike Battista blog. Actually it’s not a bad idea to post the link on our site. I have simply been to busy with frauds much bigger than this one: However, directly involving the media as it does, there is a unique situation reflected here; a larger principle, with larger implications. Maybe it will get the attention it deserves. Thank for the suggestion. And consider this…

EXCERPT:

“Year 2000. Six women have been charged for taking part in a pyramid scheme. Among them an RCMP officer’s wife and a well known Winnipeg celebrity. The pyramid scheme is called WINE. It stands for “Women Improving their Needs through Financial Empowerment.”
The lure is make a $5,000 investment, and benefit from the returns. Police say the original investment goes to the people at the top, the people at the bottom are supposed to attract more women. Police won’t say how much money is involved, but six women are charged with getting involved.”

Marjorie Stevens is one of them. She’s a television personality known for her career as a broadcaster at CKND, the Global affiliate in Winnipeg. She’s also been charged with laundering the profits.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/03/10/mb_pyramid031000.html

2009 – And the schemes are back.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=w.i.n.e.+pyramid+scheme+global+personality+rcmp&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

This certainly gives rise to a profound question….. With government and police authorities “willfully blind” protecting this fraudulent gambling scheme perpetrated by Global TV, would any right thinking individual expect Global TV to expose the massive pyramid scheme being perpetrated openly by police, corrupted government personnel, lawyers, accountants, church ministers, etc., within a few miles of the Global TV Studios. Global TV are suppressing the truth and covering up police scams, and the police reciprocate by protecting Global TV from just prosecution.

It’s the way the “game is played” and many of the rest of the media are ignoring, suppressing, participating in, or being paid off through “advertising” for promoting these various fraudulent pyramid/Ponzi schemes and illegal gambling. (Just like Al Capone in the ’30 ……just a bit more subtle.)

That is the truth ……. That is the reality.

And John; in answer to this challenge… “So put your money where your mouth is. If you really are Dave and you really are confident about your S206 (1)(e) argument, put it on your website, crimebustersnow.com. Just state that the call-in TV show “PlayTV Canada” (www.calltv.com/playtvcanada) violates Section 206(1)(e) of the Canadian Criminal Code and the reasons why you believe so. Heck, just cut & paste your previous comment if you want. (While you’re at it, post of link to this blog as well.)

Here you go John: THE LINK – CLICK> http://www.crimebustersnow.org/html/global_and_play_tv.html

David John Thornton
aka Dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
lilly | March 13, 2010 at 3:51 am

does anone know the answer to the triangle puzzle holy S*it!!!!!!
CrimeBustersNow | March 17, 2010 at 1:16 pm

The answer is on the other thread….. as of March 26 Play TV Canada is off the air.

dave – CBNow

crimebustersnow.com
Pingback: Play TV Canada Pwned: Going Off the Air March 26th « Mike Battista’s Blog
Mike | March 23, 2010 at 10:29 am

For anyone still following this post, there’s another update about the situation here: https://mikebattista.com/2010/03/21/play-tv-canada-pwned-going-off-the-air-march-26th/
CrimeBustersNowg | April 7, 2010 at 10:10 am

Hi guys

If anyone is still out there, help is needed in South Africa with this same “Play Tv” scam.

dave – CBNow
International Fraud Investigation

http://www.crimebustersnow.com

p.s. Another pyramid/Ponzi scam sweeping the country perpetrated through real estate agents etc, is in trouble and will soon “bite the dust.” FHTM

Check it out. Click> http://www.crimebustersnow.org/html/fhtm_canada.html
Burt | April 7, 2010 at 8:04 pm

This show is a bloody scam and I think Global finally took it off the air. I called in thinking it was a legitimate game to the tune of $42. They showed triangles within triangles having numbers in them and you had to guess the total.

An Irish tart with nice cleavage (but still a dirty, stinkin’, lyin’, cheatin’, filthy, slutty whore of a con artist) cons you into calling and is always soooo disappointed that callers have the wrong answer, then goes on about how someone should have had the correct answer by now. When it comes time for them to show you the answer, they do NOT prove how they got their solution. It’s a scam and I hope it’s off for good.

I believe this show is broadcasted from Hungary. I have seen various hosts and none of them have Canadian accents or Canuck lingo. The Irish slut always refers to the Pound Sign (#) as “hatch”; as in “Call us from your cell phone on Hatch 5656.” How Canadian is that????? LOL, I am surprised anyone called! I only knew what a hatch-symbol was thanks to an Australian friend.

***Now the SUPER GOOD NEWS that will help you, but tick off a lot of cellular phone companies.***

***By law, you can get a refund if, and only if, these calls were your first calls to #-Numbers/900 from your cell phone.*** I got my $42 refunded!

*** Telecom Decision 2006-48-Paragraph 31, known as: FIRST TIME WAIVER FOR 900/# CALLS. Google it or contact the CRTC; but the jist of it states: Amounts on phone bill should be waived by provider. *** (CRTC was helpful and friendly when I spoke to them)

I got Fido to waive the charges, although it took 2 calls and 2 managers to do it.

I believe that the Telephone Companies bear some responsibility to whom they give 900/# numbers—if it’s not legit, then the company didn’t do their homework or signed a bullshit contract with the TV show to collect the $2 from their telephone subscribers.

If cell phone companies are forced to refund money, then hopefully they won’t allow these buttholes to scam their subscribers. I know we got duped and have some responsibility, but telephone companies are NOT completely innocent in this scam in the quest for revenue themselves.

***So, if you were a first time caller of #-numbers from a cell, then call *611 from your cell phone for customer service and demand a refund as per: Telecom Decision 2006-48-Paragraph 31; like mentioned… I got it and I have learned my lesson!***

Most cell phone companies will re-rate your bill from 3 – 6 months ago. (Don’t let them tell you that it is too late.)

Sorry for this being so long, please tell everyone you know who called “PlayTV Canada Scam Show”

Please let us know if you were successful.

Thank you
CrimeBustersNow | April 7, 2010 at 8:41 pm

I have gotten back thousands for the likes of victims of “12 Daily Pro” Ponzi scheme on their credit card. But this I did not know. Thanks for the info Burt.

If everyone demanded their money back it would be uneconomically viable for these international crooks to continue.

I would be inclined to demand your money back regardless of how many times you called and how long it has been, simply on the bases this is a criminal fraud; international racketeering; a criminal conspiracy to defraud.

Thanks again Burt.

dave – CBNow
International Fraud Investigation

crimebustersnow.com
CrimeBustersNow | April 8, 2010 at 8:29 am

This is PLay-TV

In co-operation with 70+ TV channels worldwide, producing 140+ hours of live programs daily, managing a dedicated and experienced staff of over 500, you can rely on us to provide you with real value. What’s more: you’ll never pay us, because it is we who are going to pay you, either by buying your airtime or sharing the premium rate text messaging and call revenues.

CallTV, our unique live, interactive game format that is currently aired in more than 40 different countries is designed to generate massive revenues even in off-prime periods while providing all viewers with exciting, high-quality entertainment. The proprietary technologies we have developed for the shows give us the possibility to optimize performance based on real-time data.

http://www.calltv.com/index1.html

dave – CBNow
International Fraud Investigation

crimebustersnow.com
CrimeBustersNow | April 8, 2010 at 8:33 am

BTW – “Massive Revenues” equates to “Massive Losses” for the poor, the desperate and the unsophisticated.

dave – CBNow
International Fraud Investigation

crimebustersnow.com
John | April 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm

I think we can agree that it’s the misrepresentation that PlayTV perpetrates that we have a problem with. The problem is that Dave also practices this misrepresentation.

My issue lies with the fact that Dave Thornton continues to misrepresent himself as someone versed in law. If some lunatic wants to rant on the web, it’s hardly unusual. But the danger is that someone might actually trust this guy, give him “donations”, or be put in a detrimental position as a result of his bogus legal knowledge. For example a person with a legit case might miss a limitation period and have his case thrown out because he was wasting his time consulting with this fake expert when he should have gone to a real lawyer.

Now Dave will of course argue that he is competent at law, and keeps coming back to this one case. (He claims multiple cases but gives no proof of any others). So let us look at the Truths & Reality of the BIM/TTI case, right from the document he provided.

Fiction: Dave brags about beating 24 prestigious lawyers
Fact: In reality all he got was their most junior lawyer who was just in her year of practice. Yet he continues to give the false impression that he “beat” “24 prestigious lawyers”.
Proof-www.kmblaw. com/patricia_s.html

Fiction: Dave claims he successfully obtained judgment from the Court under section 206 (1)(e) of the CCC.
Fact: You can’t obtain judgment under any section of the CCC in a civil proceeding like this. Ask any high school law class on this one.

Fiction: Dave claims he has won a trial he argued himself.
Fact: The “trial” was a motion for interlocutory injunction, i.e. getting a remedy before a trial is held. Basically it’s like getting a temporary court order (e.g. to get Dave to shut up) before a trial verdict is reached. As the judgment states, it’s a VERY high threshold, as you’re giving the plaintiff what they want without going through an actual trial.
Now, if the tables were turned and it was Dave who was asking for the injunctive relief against BIM or PlayTV and actually got it without the help of a lawyer, I will eat my words and gladly respect his legal abilities. But that’s not the case.
Bottom line: Dave Thornton only got an injunction against him denied, which is NOT A TRIAL and not overly difficult given the high threshold.

There are other things like Dave asking for relief which (as the judgment states) is inappropriate or out of the jurisdiction of the court; Epic Amateur Fail! As the old adage goes: “The self-represented litigant has a fool for a client”.
BTW Dave, I guess you never did figure out that the “SIC” that I pointed out was the fact Crown Attorney is capitalized, and has nothing to do with whether it’s plural. It’s something that any Lawyer, Law Student or even high school student would know. You also improperly refer to “Judge Quigley”, which is another amateur mistake.
Law is not something that Dave with his Grade 10 education should be giving advice on. There’s a reason why lawyers presently go through 8 years of post-secondary education to get their license. Assuming of course, they have no criminal convictions.

Which brings up another point: Dave’s issues with the law. I refer not only to the “occurrences” but also actual arrests, allegations against the police, etc. It doesn’t take much to get a background check on someone, and it appears that you’ve angered some people enough to have at least one run on you. But we can leave that to those interested “detectives” to discover. The point is that you wouldn’t get financial advice from someone who has gone bankrupt (on top of which has no formal training), and neither should you get criminal law advice from someone who has multiple run-ins with the law.
John | April 18, 2010 at 9:27 pm

I think we can agree that it’s the misrepresentation that PlayTV perpetrates that we have a problem with. The problem is that Dave also practices this misrepresentation.

My issue lies with the fact that Dave Thornton continues to misrepresent himself as someone versed in law. If some lunatic wants to rant on the web, it’s hardly unusual. But the danger is that someone might actually trust this guy, give him “donations”, or be put in a detrimental position as a result of his bogus legal knowledge. For example a person with a legit case might miss a limitation period and have his case thrown out because he was wasting his time consulting with this fake expert when he should have gone to a real lawyer.

Now Dave will of course argue that he is competent at law, and keeps coming back to this one case. (He claims multiple cases but gives no proof of any others). So let us look at the Truths & Reality of the BIM/TTI case, right from the document he provided.

Fiction: Dave brags about beating 24 prestigious lawyers
Fact: In reality all he got was their most junior lawyer who was just in her year of practice. Yet he continues to give the false impression that he “beat” “24 prestigious lawyers”.
Proof-www.kmblaw. com/patricia_s.html

Fiction: Dave claims he successfully obtained judgment from the Court under section 206 (1)(e) of the CCC.
Fact: You can’t obtain judgment under any section of the CCC in a civil proceeding like this. Ask any high school law class on this one.

Fiction: Dave claims he has won a trial he argued himself.
Fact: The “trial” was a motion for interlocutory injunction, i.e. getting a remedy before a trial is held. Basically it’s like getting a temporary court order (e.g. to get Dave to shut up) before a trial verdict is reached. As the judgment states, it’s a VERY high threshold, as you’re giving the plaintiff what they want without going through an actual trial.
Now, if the tables were turned and it was Dave who was asking for the injunctive relief against BIM or PlayTV and actually got it without the help of a lawyer, I will eat my words and gladly respect his legal abilities. But that’s not the case.
Bottom line: Dave Thornton only got an injunction against him denied, which is NOT A TRIAL and not overly difficult given the high threshold.

There are other things like Dave asking for relief which (as the judgment states) is inappropriate or out of the jurisdiction of the court; Epic Amateur Fail! As the old adage goes: “The self-represented litigant has a fool for a client”.
BTW Dave, I guess you never did figure out that the “SIC” that I pointed out was the fact Crown Attorney is capitalized, and has nothing to do with whether it’s plural. It’s something that any Lawyer, Law Student or even high school student would know. You also improperly refer to “Judge Quigley”, which is another amateur mistake.
Law is not something that Dave with his Grade 10 education should be giving advice on. There’s a reason why lawyers presently go through 8 years of post-secondary education to get their license. Assuming of course, they have no criminal convictions.

Which brings up another point: Dave’s issues with the law. I refer not only to the “occurrences” but also actual arrests, allegations against the police, etc. It doesn’t take much to get a background check on someone, and it appears that you’ve angered some people enough to have at least one run on you. But we can leave that to those interested “detectives” to discover. The point is that you wouldn’t get financial advice from someone who has gone bankrupt (on top of which has no formal training), and neither should you get criminal law advice from someone who has multiple run-ins with the law.

In regards to “cherrypicking”, you are no different in saying those disparaging you are false and those supporting you are “the truth”. Like this one, which poses the interesting argument that Crimebustersnow is an extortion tool:

canexec.com

I could post many more such websites, but the point is that there are reports of your involvement in everything from extortion to sexual assault of your spouse. These are serious allegations which could easily be seen as damaging to CBNow, and as you correctly pointed out, are legally actionable. Yet you don’t take any legal action whatsoever against any of them. Granted, it might be difficult to go after random posters, but there are plenty of these websites which prominently advertise their owners. Yet your silence would indicate there is some truth to these. You can’t say you are “too busy” to deal with these allegations, or that they are “too minor” when your reputation is integral to your role as “president” of CBNow. (Oh wait, you’re too busy with your “investigation into the murder of a police officer”, right?)

Furthermore, you talk about going “militant”, yet the extent of your actions is to make random postings on blogs/messageboards. You have yet to allude to a single recent legal action that was *initiated by you* (or by you on behalf of victims) against any of these “fraudsters”. Why don’t you listen to your own suggestions and take it to the police? Is it your prior issues with police or your general distrust of them that’s preventing you? Or, as previously stated, just your lack of confidence in your argument?

Back to PlayTV, I invite Mike and any others to read “Games of Skill and Chance in Canada” by Michael Lipton (an actual Toronto lawyer) which conclusively gives a legal explanation why PlayTV does not violate of any section of the Criminal Code, particularly s206. I got my copy via jstor, which all University Students have access to, but other sites have it as well. Bottom line is that while the ethicality might be questionable, the legality is sound.
Best way to deal with something technically legal like this is to raise awareness and file complaints, for which I applaud Mike for doing & succeeding. The worst thing would be to rant that it’s illegal without having an understanding of the law.

There seems to be little point to continuing a legal debate with a 70 year old with no legal (or even post-secondary) education, over a show that has been cancelled. But who knows, their contract with Global was until this summer, so it, or a similar program might come back on another network. I’m sure debates will then resume.

What I hope to get across is this: Dave Thornton, go ahead and continue your little crusades and solicit your $25 donations. But DON’T misrepresent yourself as someone versed in law. You have never won a trial. You have never successfully argued ANY section of the CCC. Your misguided thinking that you are somehow a legal expert is akin to someone who advertises they can overhaul a car because they know how to change the oil. Leave law to real lawyers, or you WILL get burned (this time by a lawyer with more than a year of experience). Consider yourself advised.
BrianJM | April 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm

+1 John.
You asked him to put something on his web site and explain ‘206’. Well he got something on his site but failed to address ‘206’. However, for those who haven’t seen it, he quickly lost touch with the subject and repeated stuff which he has said here more than once, which I got into the habit of skipping through because it was unrelated to the general topic.

Finally, it’s been 7 weeks since the show finished on this side of the pond and the final batch of complaints has just been finished.

Regards to all.
BrianJM
CrimeBustersNow | April 25, 2010 at 12:49 am

To John & Brian JM

s. 206 (1)(e) is explained in the following link by Judge Quigley as a result of my presentation in the Superior Court. Almost any fool can understand it and apply its relevance to Play TV and other such “Rob Peter to Pay Paul” scams: However, you Brian JM & John, seem to be belong to a unique breed of fool who simply cannot…. or for the sake of deliberately trying to mislead others and disseminate false and libellees information simply feign that ignorance.

Judge Baltman who has just convicted Alan Kippax of dangerous driving causing death and while he awaited sentencing, subject to a motion for a mistrial, had found that civil court decision on her own, recognizing it as RELEVANT in this CRIMINAL case, the prosecuting attorney having improperly withheld the information from the court while Kippax’s lawyer (now dismissed) attempted to “paint Kippax as an “upstanding businessman” operating a “business”, as he described, (in reality a pyramid fraud) keeping thousands employed and asking for a suspended sentence vis-à-vis a four year prison term….. Interesting!!!

I certainly hope Judge Baltman not only “grills” the prosecutor on why he withheld this information in his submission, but admonishes him for so doing.

Kippax’s new lawyer, the famous James Lockyer seems to have abandoned (hopefully only temporarily) his famous roll as champion of the innocent and downtrodden as a lawyer for the “Innocence Project” to defend a notorious scam artist whom, with his vicious minions, has defrauded, threatened, assaulted, libeled, and intimidated with frivolous multi-million dollar law suits, those who attempt to oppose him, all confirmed by available records and now by his own words in a 1 hour and 24 minute Internet conference call, March 21 2006, which I recorded and can be listened to by clicking the icon beneath his picture at this link. Part way through liable and threatening etc, I introduce myself.

My previous assault by one of his vicious minions is discussed as he incites hundreds to send me bombs and instructions to harass myself and others complainants. Kippax admits his association with the RCMP etc., disparages the judge who has just convicted him and openly demonstrates his contempt for the fact the judge sent his lawyer an email referring to that same decision of Judge Quigley, (the one you to can’t seem to understand) condemning his lawyer’s assertions of the claim, Kippax is an “upstanding businessman.”

The conference call – Click> http://www.crimebustersnow.org/html/b_i_m__and_earnfirm.html

Kippax also has an interesting “spin” on why I won that judgment….. “The Superior Court could not be seen to ultimately award a $10,000,000 judgment against a $400/mth welfare recipient in favour of a multi-million dollar businessman.”… Quite a spin from reality, surely even you two fools can see through.

These two cases will lead to some very interesting future Canadian Jurisprudence I suspect; Kippax due back in court this Monday April 26 2010 @ 10:00 am.

dave-CBNow
CrimeBustersNow
International Crime Investigation
crimebustersnow.com
Tom | April 26, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Hey Guys,
thank you you all for posting , and i share your anger about people who allow these companies to take people’s hard earned money…

unfortunately, who ever calls is responsible for their own expenses, like by entering to a casino and throwing $1000 on the Roulette can cause you lose all your money in less than 1 minute.

My Idea, after reading that is hurting these people where it really hurts, Their bank account..

And the Plan is:

1. one must call at the end since there are possible solutions for each quiz (that’s the trick)
2. But the quizes are being recycled in different countries (i am in Spain at the moment, and I must say, it’s the most stupid thing i’ve even watched, i have muted the TV set , but i want to see the answer and analyze..

question here is
Total of all numbers in the image:

2+4+7×0-(24/6)+5-1-3-8=?

anyway, i was wondering if there is someone had seen this one before.

3. The show is quite long (to maximize revenue from callers) so we can build communication based on PAST results in each ones country to have a better idea about the answer.

I would like to hear your thoughts about that

cheers
tomas
CrimeBustersNow | April 26, 2010 at 7:32 pm

HI Thomas

You seem to miss the point. This is not only an illegal gambling scheme it is an unfair and fraudulent gambling scheme. Tjis type of fraud illegal i monst countries.

dave – CBNow
crimebusternow.com
CrimeBustersNow | April 27, 2010 at 2:22 am

Also winning their infinitesimal prizes do nothing to hurt them financially. They take in $10s of thousands per hour. Winning even $5000 only encourages thousand more of the financially unsophisticated to participate and keeps the fraud going.

dave – CBNow

International Fraud Investigation
crimebustersnow.com
Anonymous | May 2, 2010 at 8:55 pm

On Global last night, they aired what appeared to be a forced announcement about Play TV Canada. They said that they were in violation of the Criminal Code (I think that’s what it was) and they had failed to provide an accurate description of how they came up with answers to their puzzles. I’m happy to say that I never called in to the show, even when it made a brief appearance on TLN a few years ago. However, Brain Battle got a few bucks from me before I realized it was a scam. I used to send hundreds of free entries to the show, when they were unlimited. They were quick to limit entries to one per show when they received so many of my free entries. This time, after you made an entry, a message would appear after it’s sent saying that you weren’t selected and pressured you to call or text if you want to play. They even started having commercial breaks, where it was possible for them to change answers on their board without viewers noticing. They even had shots of the studio during game play which allowed them to change answers as well. Also, producers would hand a new card to the host from time to time or the host would say that he dropped his card, even though you never saw him do so. Back to Play TV Canada, they had a limit of 25 entries per show and even though there was never any pressure from the web entry to call or text, I wasn’t selected to go on air. I wasn’t surprised at all.
Devyn | July 6, 2010 at 2:03 am

I stumbled upon this completely by accident—apparently this is still going on, though.

http://calltv.com/shows.htm

they have shows all around the world. they promise to channels “high revenue even at off-peak times”—sounds like selling a scam to me ;]
BrianJM | July 6, 2010 at 3:06 am

Nothing new here.
Try a search in YouTube for “Telemedia”.
Anonymous | August 10, 2010 at 12:34 am

TLN, who originally aired this a year before Global did is currently airing the show again nearly every day. How is this allowed to continue?
Randy | August 13, 2010 at 1:14 am

Check out Mike’s other blog:

PlayTV Canada (aka The Quiz Hour aka Money Wave aka Game Time aka Call TV aka Nameless TLN / CHCH Call-in Game Show aka L’Instant Gagnant) is a Scam
Stuart | September 1, 2010 at 12:56 am

They had the exact same question on the show again tonight except 5 girls and 5 cats.
Pingback: PlayTV Canada (aka Game Time) is a Scam « Mike Battista’s Blog
alimmefrawl | July 15, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Индивидуальная разработка диеты, рационального питания.
Вы уже на диете, и вам не терпится поделиться со всем миром своими первыми достижениями и услышать слова поддержки в трудную минуту, когда так хочется все
Азбука Диет – информация о здоровье и правильном питании, диетах и похудении, На сайте мы собираем самые разные диеты: как для похудения (например,
Лучшие диеты. Считайте калории – худейте не голодая, на этом сайте вы узнаете секреты похудения с помощью бесплатных диет. Мы собрали опыт таких диет как:
Не все диеты одинаково полезны! Нет диетам, или Простой путь к снижению веса · Низкокалорийная диета (считаем калории) · Низкоуглеводная диета
Burt | December 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm

Do NOT call in to this show, you’ll NEVER win!!!

Re: December 27, 2011 game at 01:00 a.m.
I have concluded that:

“L” in each corner may count as a 7 and/or the Roman numeral of 50

“*” are the Roman numerals of X and I (note: I can’t copy the star they use which consists of 3 overlapping, intersecting lines.)

“(“ count as Roman numeral C

“)” count as Roman Numeral C (an upside down “C”)

“+” count as the Roman numeral X

“-“(subtraction symbol) count as the Roman numeral “I”

“?” is made to look like the Roman numeral C

“=” counts as an 11 and/or is the Roman numeral “II“ which 1+1 and/or 2 per their scamming game

BUT, I still do NOT get 944 per their solution, though I have come close. Does anyone get 944?

By the way… it’s not a solution since they do not prove it; and when adding… you find the SUM!!! Their English even is a scam or plainly sucks.

Therefore:
L = 50 and/or 7, also 50 for them is also 5+0=5
┘= 50 and/or 7
┌ = 50 and/or 7
┐= 50 and/or 7
( = 100 and/or 1 (1+0+0=1)
) = 100 and/or 1 (1+0+0=1)
* = (X+I) 11 and/or 2
+ = 10
Subtraction symbol ‘-‘ = 1 (but do you count it twice since it may be the Roman numeral1 too?)
= is 11
= is also 2

Their sum/solution is NO SOLUTION… a solution requires PROOF; they’re just adding numbers willy-nilly.

I bet if they got a Supermarket Receipt or a Dinner/Bar Bill for $944, they would be the first to complain that they don’t understand it and would DEMAND AN EXPLANATION. Why don’t viewers get one???

Please do NOT call in to play this scam game.

Thank you and have a nice Christmas / New Year Holiday!
aabmin2016tni | January 21, 2016 at 12:04 am

Dear #uname! We invite you as a user with a good reputation to take the test .
http://o.5g7.ru/
The users who will test completely, will be raised reputation.
Colin Barr | June 1, 2017 at 11:26 am

Despite the question, bla bla cats, bla bla kittens bla bla girls, in the end the actual question is “How many legs are on the bus?” Last time I looked a bus actually has wheels, not legs!! So the actual answer should be zero.
Wandile Tshotsho | February 11, 2022 at 6:16 pm

B4
Pingback: Global and Play TV – My Blog