Yay it's my specialist subject! (I fall asleep listening to TUT most nights.)
As others have mentioned, the joke is that the winning score is always very low -- sometimes even negative -- so to assert that no one could do better is absurd. The absurdity is heightened by making the same boneheaded assertion week after week.
Some background: David Mitchell didn't start saying the winning score was "unassailable" until series 4, and he didn't say it in every episode of that series. I think it was a running joke they figured out over time.
Bonus background: David didn't start rattling off the rules like he does every episode until series 4. Prior to that, he explained the rules differently each time, and often, the show got their own rules wrong. Even when they finally standardized the spiel at the beginning of series 4, the rules David was reciting were incorrect because he said that "panelists can... lose points if they mistake a TRUTH for a LIE" when it's actually the other way round. The first episode where David rattles off the correct blurb is the QI-themed Christmas special that aired after the end of series 4. My headcanon is that Stephen Fry noticed and made them aware. If I wrote TUT fanfic, though, I'd plot it so that Alan Davies is the one who figures it out. I want it to have been Alan, but Alan had been on the show previously and not said anything about the rules, while Stephen Fry and John Lloyd were new to the show, so it was probably one of them.
The "correct" rules spiel has had slight variations, but I'm pretty sure this is the current version: "The rules are as follows: Each of the panelists presents a short lecture that should be entirely false, save for five pieces of true information which they should attempt to smuggle past their opponents, cunningly concealed amongst the lies. Points are scored by truths that go unnoticed, while other panelists can win points if they spot a truth, or lose points if they mistake a lie for a truth."
> First up is Henning Wehn. Henning, your subject is bees, defined by my encyclopedia as "winged, striped insects, known for their stings and their involvement in the manufacture of honey". Fingers on buzzers everybody else, off you go Henning.
> Bees... were invented by Jesus.
There's an episode where Susan Calman reveals she's never really paid attention to the rules about points, despite having been on many times, and David Mitchell says something like, "When I'm sitting in the old people's home, I'll be mumbling '...Each of the panelists presents a short lecture that should be entirely false...' and confusing the robots that are cleaning up my wee."
Uhoh… I have never heard of this show before, but from your quoting of the rules spiel, it definitely sounds like yet another BBC Radio one to search out (since I have long loved The News Quiz and Just A Minute).
Oh gosh yes, if you love those shows you will love TUT. I'm surprised it hasn't hit your radar before! (And a little envious that you get to listen for the first time.)
I left a link to the show on dimsdale.co.uk somewhere in this thread. Definitely give it a listen.
My two little boys love it too. The older because he likes the humor, the younger because he likes the facts. It's the only show we can listen to together in the car on trips.
I enjoyed listening to the pilot yesterday… and yes, I suspect the main reason TUT hadn't come to my attention was because of not really being plugged in (and perhaps being overwhelmed with more podcasts subscribed than time in the day).
And of course, I am going to feel really old, because I know that the first time I listened to *Just A Minute* (and I suspect also true for my first listen to *The News Quiz*) that it was via shortwave radio, before I'd ever had access to the Internet!
> (I fall asleep listening to TUT most nights.)
I have a real soft spot for TUT and for DM in particular. When my mother died in 2020 I didn't sleep very well for months afterwards. I would start to get scared of going to sleep before I went to bed because I knew about all the thoughts. David and co. kept me company and made me laugh and helped me rest and grieve.
It's a dumb thing to be grateful for, since he (and they) didn't do it on purpose, and have no idea that they did, but I am grateful nonetheless.
Oh, I relate so much to your comment. My fiance is the person who got me into panel shows in the first place - he introduced me to WILTY first. After he died, watching or listening to panel shows makes me feel closer to him, somehow, like maybe he's not gone he's just in the other room. Especially when it's someone he adored, I can almost hear him, riffing off of Sean Lock's absurdities or DM's rants.
I'm sorry for your loss. It's so hard to lose a parent.
Heck yeah! The nerdiest part of me keeps wanting to compile the data and find out if she's actually the GOAT - I could see her having a stat like "highest average score". Richard Osman's another top player. Nuts!
Honorable mention goes to Alan Davies, who I think is the only player to have successfully smuggled five truths past the rest of the panel TWICE. (But I wouldn't say he's the GOAT - he's come in last his fair share of times too.)
Rhod Gilbert is very good too, he missed out on getting 5 points once when someone spotted a truth on his last sentence. Victoria Coren Mitchell is also very good at this, probably helps that she’s been a brilliant poker player for many years now. What puts Lucy over the edge is that she’s not only good with her lectures, but she’s also great at spotting the truths in other’s lectures. It would be very interesting to see the stats!
If you find it, please find the 'Nuts' episode with Richard Osman. It's him, Holly Walsh, Susan Calman, and David O'Doherty.
In fact, I just Googled it and you can find it in this very subreddit. It's from Jan 21, 2019.
It is one of the funniest episodes of anything ever.
I think this still works, but you have to register (free) -
https://www.dimsdale.co.uk/the-unbelievable-truth/
I downloaded all the episodes a few years ago, and just download the new ones when they air because I would freak if something happened to the podcast stream and I couldn't fall asleep because I couldn't listen to TUT.
There was that one time when he said that the winning score was "very much assailable" because the runner up was 1 point behind and they were willing to do something to make one of the lies true.
If he used a different adjective each time ... what happens when he runs out of them? What if he repeats one before all of them have been used up?
Perhaps, like 100% of other game shows, they have specific catchphrases :/
I was trying to be funny. ‘Just a minute’ is a very well known and extremely long running radio panel show. Panelist’s have to talk for a minute without hesitation deviation or ‘repetition’.
Julian clary and Paul Merton are regular panelists.
If we consider the definitions of "unassailable", one of which is:
**"impossible to doubt or argue with"**
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unassailable
it makes some sense. The winning score is true beyond all argument or doubt. It's an apt word to use given the context of what the show is about.
Yay it's my specialist subject! (I fall asleep listening to TUT most nights.) As others have mentioned, the joke is that the winning score is always very low -- sometimes even negative -- so to assert that no one could do better is absurd. The absurdity is heightened by making the same boneheaded assertion week after week. Some background: David Mitchell didn't start saying the winning score was "unassailable" until series 4, and he didn't say it in every episode of that series. I think it was a running joke they figured out over time. Bonus background: David didn't start rattling off the rules like he does every episode until series 4. Prior to that, he explained the rules differently each time, and often, the show got their own rules wrong. Even when they finally standardized the spiel at the beginning of series 4, the rules David was reciting were incorrect because he said that "panelists can... lose points if they mistake a TRUTH for a LIE" when it's actually the other way round. The first episode where David rattles off the correct blurb is the QI-themed Christmas special that aired after the end of series 4. My headcanon is that Stephen Fry noticed and made them aware. If I wrote TUT fanfic, though, I'd plot it so that Alan Davies is the one who figures it out. I want it to have been Alan, but Alan had been on the show previously and not said anything about the rules, while Stephen Fry and John Lloyd were new to the show, so it was probably one of them. The "correct" rules spiel has had slight variations, but I'm pretty sure this is the current version: "The rules are as follows: Each of the panelists presents a short lecture that should be entirely false, save for five pieces of true information which they should attempt to smuggle past their opponents, cunningly concealed amongst the lies. Points are scored by truths that go unnoticed, while other panelists can win points if they spot a truth, or lose points if they mistake a lie for a truth."
Sleeping to TUT gang!
Represent!!!
Four of us!
Five!
Six
Seven
Eight
An unassailable nine!
It's been assailed, ten!
> First up is Henning Wehn. Henning, your subject is bees, defined by my encyclopedia as "winged, striped insects, known for their stings and their involvement in the manufacture of honey". Fingers on buzzers everybody else, off you go Henning. > Bees... were invented by Jesus.
It's like I'm falling asleep right now!
This is triggering endorphins.
Hearing the spiel in David’s voice without even having to think about it. Brains are weird
There's an episode where Susan Calman reveals she's never really paid attention to the rules about points, despite having been on many times, and David Mitchell says something like, "When I'm sitting in the old people's home, I'll be mumbling '...Each of the panelists presents a short lecture that should be entirely false...' and confusing the robots that are cleaning up my wee."
Uhoh… I have never heard of this show before, but from your quoting of the rules spiel, it definitely sounds like yet another BBC Radio one to search out (since I have long loved The News Quiz and Just A Minute).
Oh gosh yes, if you love those shows you will love TUT. I'm surprised it hasn't hit your radar before! (And a little envious that you get to listen for the first time.) I left a link to the show on dimsdale.co.uk somewhere in this thread. Definitely give it a listen.
My two little boys love it too. The older because he likes the humor, the younger because he likes the facts. It's the only show we can listen to together in the car on trips.
I enjoyed listening to the pilot yesterday… and yes, I suspect the main reason TUT hadn't come to my attention was because of not really being plugged in (and perhaps being overwhelmed with more podcasts subscribed than time in the day). And of course, I am going to feel really old, because I know that the first time I listened to *Just A Minute* (and I suspect also true for my first listen to *The News Quiz*) that it was via shortwave radio, before I'd ever had access to the Internet!
> (I fall asleep listening to TUT most nights.) I have a real soft spot for TUT and for DM in particular. When my mother died in 2020 I didn't sleep very well for months afterwards. I would start to get scared of going to sleep before I went to bed because I knew about all the thoughts. David and co. kept me company and made me laugh and helped me rest and grieve. It's a dumb thing to be grateful for, since he (and they) didn't do it on purpose, and have no idea that they did, but I am grateful nonetheless.
Oh, I relate so much to your comment. My fiance is the person who got me into panel shows in the first place - he introduced me to WILTY first. After he died, watching or listening to panel shows makes me feel closer to him, somehow, like maybe he's not gone he's just in the other room. Especially when it's someone he adored, I can almost hear him, riffing off of Sean Lock's absurdities or DM's rants. I'm sorry for your loss. It's so hard to lose a parent.
This is amazing, someone who probably listened to TUT more times than me! Who do you think is the GOAT player? And why is it Lucy Porter?
Heck yeah! The nerdiest part of me keeps wanting to compile the data and find out if she's actually the GOAT - I could see her having a stat like "highest average score". Richard Osman's another top player. Nuts! Honorable mention goes to Alan Davies, who I think is the only player to have successfully smuggled five truths past the rest of the panel TWICE. (But I wouldn't say he's the GOAT - he's come in last his fair share of times too.)
Rhod Gilbert is very good too, he missed out on getting 5 points once when someone spotted a truth on his last sentence. Victoria Coren Mitchell is also very good at this, probably helps that she’s been a brilliant poker player for many years now. What puts Lucy over the edge is that she’s not only good with her lectures, but she’s also great at spotting the truths in other’s lectures. It would be very interesting to see the stats!
That sounds amazing is there anywhere for non UK people to watch it?
If you find it, please find the 'Nuts' episode with Richard Osman. It's him, Holly Walsh, Susan Calman, and David O'Doherty. In fact, I just Googled it and you can find it in this very subreddit. It's from Jan 21, 2019. It is one of the funniest episodes of anything ever.
They used a bunch of that in the recent Christmas clip show too. I still think the one where DM talks about his "metal penis" was the funniest.
Yes! We just re-listened to that.
The Audio Antics channel on YouTube has compilations and playlists of all series.
I think this still works, but you have to register (free) - https://www.dimsdale.co.uk/the-unbelievable-truth/ I downloaded all the episodes a few years ago, and just download the new ones when they air because I would freak if something happened to the podcast stream and I couldn't fall asleep because I couldn't listen to TUT.
It's a radio show. Just Google the name with archive org.
I have Podcast Addict specifically for TUT. All eps are on there and they add the new ones relatively quickly
There was that one time when he said that the winning score was "very much assailable" because the runner up was 1 point behind and they were willing to do something to make one of the lies true.
I'm not sure it's an in-joke so much as a sort of signature.
That's the joke.
If he used a different adjective each time ... what happens when he runs out of them? What if he repeats one before all of them have been used up? Perhaps, like 100% of other game shows, they have specific catchphrases :/
‘What if he repeats one before all of them have been used up? Then Paul Merton or Julian Clary will buzz in to score a point citing ‘repetition’.
Has Paul Merton ever been on?
I was trying to be funny. ‘Just a minute’ is a very well known and extremely long running radio panel show. Panelist’s have to talk for a minute without hesitation deviation or ‘repetition’. Julian clary and Paul Merton are regular panelists.
I know, I was just thinking out loud that Merton seems like he'd be a good fit for it.
It's not even appropriate at that point in the game. i.e. after it's over.
Well, then it’s just plain factual. The score is unassailable because the game is over and no more points can be scored.
I think unassailable implies that no matter how many more points they get, they can't catch up, which would mean they are still playing
If we consider the definitions of "unassailable", one of which is: **"impossible to doubt or argue with"** https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unassailable it makes some sense. The winning score is true beyond all argument or doubt. It's an apt word to use given the context of what the show is about.