tubechallenge.com

Which one? BBC? ITV?

garion24wales wrote:Which one? BBC? ITV?

national newspapers

What newspapers? I'll go and look

It made the People. It is therefore probably in the Sunday Mirror too!

Here is The People link

http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-n ... -23242588/

Okay, I'm going to sit here with my cynic's hat firmly on for a minute or two.

I may be alone in thinking this, but Marc's attempt and evidence etc., sets a couple of alarm bells ringing in my head.

Before I continue, this is far from sour grapes. Those of you who know me already will know I've never done a Full Network, and don't really care about holding the World Record

For me, the way Marc went so far above and beyond what Guinness require that it seems a little suspicious. The fact he has a video of each and every station, with a copy of that day's newspaper, and that he's had the whole thing 'verified' by a barrister suggests that he was very afraid that Guinness might have thought something wasn't quite kosher with his attempt. When log books, witness statements and photographs have always been enough in the past, methinks the tube challenger doth protest too much.

Honestly, how many of you former record holders have worried that Guinness might think you're making the whole thing up when you submitted your evidence?

So it got me thinking. Just how easy would it be to 'fake' a Full Network in this day and age? I think the answer is 'quite'.

What with the accessibility of the WTTs (which, IIRC, contain the train numbers) one is now able to draw up a very convincing log book to support one's claim (as long as they have a route in the first place). Witness statements/photographs/videos probably aren't even worth the paper they're (metaphorically speaking) written on. E-mail accounts can be created, date stamps on photos/videos can be set to whatever you like etc.,

I do wonder too. What with all the correspondence and verifications that GWR must surely have to deal with on a daily basis, how much effort do they actually put in to verifying something that would be so time consuming (checking any number of train numbers, chasing up witnesses etc.,) as a Full Network?

Anyway, I'm not accusing. I'm just saying what's on my mind.

[/cynic]

Are you suggesting that with a medium amount of research, some computer wizardy and no conscience whatsoever I could get myself a world record without leaving my desk?

Sod the gym, I'm taking the easy route!

jamesthegill wrote:Are you suggesting that with a medium amount of research, some computer wizardy and no conscience whatsoever I could get myself a world record without leaving my desk?

Sod the gym, I'm taking the easy route!

I don't see why not. The stopwatch can be covered by a willing accomplice, whilst a quick glance at the WTTs will give you all the information you need to construct a perfectly cromulent logbook. All you need are 16/17 e-mail addresses for your hourly witness statements, and a few days in order to take the necessary photos, and you're home and dry.

Let's just hope Guinness isn't reading the forum...

I think that must be the first use of the word "cromulent" on this forum.

scrxisi wrote:Search implies it is the second

My search implies that there have been 3 uses of the word cromulent

I have discussed the Full Network GWR many times and the fact that is very, very easy to fudge the whole thing... It is easy enough to reset digital cameras and all other aspects that make up the "evidence" can be got around. Personally that's not for me, the satisfaction is the biggest part of it...

I bet if you were caught cheating on the GWR you would never be allowed to set another world record EVAR!

mullardo wrote:Let's just hope Guinness isn't reading the forum...

Well, if I were to do a fake one, I wouldn't submit it under Jamesthegill - I'd do it under my real name, Samuel Cawley.

But I don't get it - why would you bother? And the idea of taking pictures of every station/roundel/train/commuter is just what some people enjoy doing.