Back in the old days, if we wanted scurrilous, titilating gossip and accusations, we had to buy a newspaper.

Barely anybody buys newspapers anymore.

You'd think that would have put an end to gossip and accusations but it hasn't. With the increased polarisation of the world, news sites like the BBC are increasingly less likely to cover serious political issues - probably through a fear of being accused of bias, which they get from both sides. Instead, they're bombarding us with the type of content that used to wrap chips.

Once serious and respected broadcasters like the BBC are spending more and more time taking up the mantel of the News of the World.

These stories deserve coverage and scrutiny but the balance is simply not there. These are serious allegations so they deserve serious coverage. There are 9 (nine) stories about the Gregg Wallace accusations on the BBC website right now. NINE! If the bloke is guilty of serious workplace misconduct (or worse) then treat it seriously as such and ensure an impartial investigation can take place. Above all else, if we as a society are truly concerned about these kind of -alleged- incidents then we should care equally about truth and justice and as such we shouldn't rush to judgement until all the facts are evident and the evidence has been verified.

Who'd have thought 30 years ago that the BBC would take off where the News of the World departed?

It's trial by media. It needs to stop.

Great to see an obvious creep like Wallace squirm.

Good stuff Beeb....more of the same please!

Quick look at BBC news, in order:
Biden pardon for son
Greg wallace
Syria
Italian purees, Chinese forced labour tomatoes
Elton john's eye sight
Israeli
Oldest Post office victim
Something about the dictionary
Sudan
Rayner housing targets
Georgia's PM


I could go on but it looks like a pretty even split, maybe it's your interests on the algorithm....

Heh. You're having a go at 'trial by media', but you can bet this thread will turn into a 'trail by UTC', but I suppose that's the purpose of starting this thread.

Would like to put an honourable mention to the "i" newspaper whose coverage seems less sordid than the others, going off the front page.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:24 am

Would like to put an honourable mention to the "i" newspaper whose coverage seems less sordid than the others, going off the front page.

Decent rag now the Guardian's vanishing up it's own bum.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:23 am

Heh. You're having a go at 'trial by media', but you can bet this thread will turn into a 'trail by UTC', but I suppose that's the purpose of starting this thread.

"Trial by UTC" is not the intention.

The intention is to encourage us to look at the story objectively and understand that the accusations might not be as they first appear. They might be true. They might have elements of truth in them. They could be distortions of a small truth. They could be entirely fabricated. We really do not know.

We all need to look at our biases and recognise that, whatever we think about Gregg as a 'personality' or his TV shows, this is a fundamental issue for society.

We're creating the perfect conditions for orchestrated witch hunts and miscarriages of justice by encouraging this kind of trial by media.

Plenty of people are likely to post their distaste of Gregg on here which will underline the point.

If we want serious allegations to be investigated seriously should be appalled at the lurid way this story is being covered. Justice cannot be served via trial by media. This is key for alleged victims as much as it is for alleged perpetrators.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:32 am

"Trial by UTC" is not the intention.

The intention is to encourage us to look at the story objectively and understand that the accusations might not be as they first appear. They might be true. They might have elements of truth in them. They could be distortions of a small truth. They could be entirely fabricated. We really do not know.

We all need to look at our biases and recognise that, whatever we think about Gregg as a 'personality' or his TV shows, this is a fundamental issue for society.

We're creating the perfect conditions for orchestrated witch hunts and miscarriages of justice by encouraging this kind of trial by media.

Plenty of people are likely to post their distaste of Gregg on here which will underline the point.

If we want serious allegations to be investigated seriously should be appalled at the lurid way this story is being covered. Justice cannot be served via trial by media. This is key for alleged victims as much as it is for alleged perpetrators.

I can just imagine the pile on if the BBC hadn’t given this story decent coverage, it’s absolutely in their best interest to do so. Looking at their website it doesn’t seem like their coverage is ‘lurid’, more reporting the facts.

Greggs getting a tough ride here. A lot of it appears to be scripted, and the editors certainly didn't remove it. People being outraged 7 years after something happened sounds like a plea for attention to me.

Tbf, there's always been trial by media and it's just migrated from one platform to another. I guess reporting had to be slightly more circumspect in the past because it was a bit easier to bring libel cases if spurious allegations were printed as fact, but the internet has ridden rough shod over that to some extent.
Regarding the specific case in question, Wallace, I personally have never taken to him on TV, but that doesn't automatically mean he's guilty of anything. What does sometimes intrigue me in these kinds of cases is how many people pile on by suddenly raising something which was (allegedly) said in say 2013 or whatever and had really upset them, but they hadn't mentioned it previously. What I will also say, is that weird post Wallace put out yesterday didn't do himself any favours whatsoever and must have had his lawyers heading for the whiskey!

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:08 am

I can just imagine the pile on if the BBC hadn’t given this story decent coverage, it’s absolutely in their best interest to do so. Looking at their website it doesn’t seem like their coverage is ‘lurid’, more reporting the facts.

A fair point about the consequences of them dodging the story martin.

However, decent coverage =/= incessant tabloid coverage.

As previously stated, there are NINE articles on the website alone covering this single story. It's been their lead story on the website for about 3 days. The sheer weight of this and the inclusion of specific details in the alleged (potentially false, we don't know) incidents qualifies as lurid in my book. Do we really need intricate details of the allegations??? This is tabloid journalism treatment.

Prior to this is was Al Fayed. Again, an important story. But here the BBC are on easy street as he's dead. If they'd covered it before his death I'd have had a great deal of respect for them.

As previously stated: These ARE important stories and the deserve coverage. But they deserve serious coverage that respects the fact that there will be two sides and that does not favour either side until a thorough and impartial investigation is completed.

Gregg is being left to issue his own statements via social media whilst the BBC are providing a platform to his alleged victims. If we truly want to respect the alleged victims, then we should ensure their allegations are able to be heard properly and NOT undermined by a biased 'trial by media'.

Using some of the logic on here, we should be asking Jimmy Savile to forgive us.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 8:32 am

We're creating the perfect conditions for orchestrated witch hunts and miscarriages of justice by encouraging this kind of trial by media

We're creating the perfect conditions for witch hunts etc? When has it been any different since we've had mass literacy rates amongst the population? The Victorians had their penny sleaze-sheets, and they sold by the million. You might as well rant at the sky when it's snowing.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:25 am

We're creating the perfect conditions for witch hunts etc? When has it been any different since we've had mass literacy rates amongst the population? The Victorians had their penny sleaze-sheets, and they sold by the million. You might as well rant at the sky when it's snowing.

There's always been this propensity.

The difference is stated in the OP - this was previous the preserve of the sensationalist press. You pay for your penny dreadful, read the lurid details then use it to wrap chips.

Now, the BBC has taken up the mantel. This is not the kind of thing a public funded respectable national broadcaster should be doing.

Somebody has mentioned Savile. What we are witnessing is the backlash to years of BBC people covering for Savile. They've simply decided to do the wrong thing to the other extreme.

It needs to stop.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:24 am

Gregg is left to issue his own statements via social media whilst the BBC are providing a platform to his alleged victims. If we truly want to respect the alleged victims, then we should ensure their allegations are able to be heard properly and NOT undermined by a biased 'trial by media'.

Let’s get it straight, Wallace has chosen to issue his own statements via social media. I don’t think for one second that the BBC haven’t asked him for comment.

Rowls, I don't really want to defend the BBC because the org has a history of sweeping under the carpet when it comes to their 'stars', so to speak, however, I'm not seeing any sensationalism in their reporting on this matter.

Gregg Wallace was elevated from a fruit and vegetable stall in London’s Borough Market to becoming a TV presenter. I would find it astonishing if somebody with his background did not involve himself with sexual banter and humour, especially in the very early years dating back to 2017 when some of these instances are alleged to have taken place. If these inappropriate actions were taking place during filming then surely his co presenters like Marcus Wareing, John Torode and others should have intervened by at least having a word with Gregg himself or the producers of the show.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:21 am

Greggs getting a tough ride here. A lot of it appears to be scripted, and the editors certainly didn't remove it. People being outraged 7 years after something happened sounds like a plea for attention to me.

Poor Wallace, bless him.
He’s made people unhappy in their place of work having previously been warned. He then goes on the attack making out he’s the victim. Typical gaslighting type of approach. But poor Gregg eh.
Maybe if you had a close relative that’s had to put up with this then you’d have a different reaction.

It's indicative of the state of the public these days that there's more interest in a TV presenter making a few jokes than what's going on in Syria right now.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:38 am

It's indicative of the state of the public these days that there's more interest in a TV presenter making a few jokes than what's going on in Syria right now.

The Guardian, The Telegraph and Daily Mail considering it worthy of front page headlines/coverage. Not surprised that The Metro gives it front page coverage but the more serious papers should not be devoting so much coverage to this story. Indicative of the times we live in.

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But calling names won’t hurt me

We are now a society where the latter line of that saying isn’t true
Think I should complain to my old University about being called “A Lancastrian dick end” by some of my fellow students
It wasn’t nice made me upset and gave me PTSD and was unable to complete my degree because I failed the final exams
Oh no sorry that would be today not 55 years ago

Stproc wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:38 am

Poor Wallace, bless him.
He’s made people unhappy in their place of work having previously been warned. He then goes on the attack making out he’s the victim. Typical gaslighting type of approach. But poor Gregg eh.
Maybe if you had a close relative that’s had to put up with this then you’d have a different reaction.

Have the script writers, director and editor suffered the same targeting?

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:08 am

Have the script writers, director and editor suffered the same targeting?

No, because they didn’t make the comments!

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:00 am

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But calling names won’t hurt me

We are now a society where the latter line of that saying isn’t

It was never true.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:35 am

Rowls, I don't really want to defend the BBC because the org has a history of sweeping under the carpet when it comes to their 'stars', so to speak, however, I'm not seeing any sensationalism in their reporting on this matter.

Well, it's a subjective matter. Everybody can see if it differently.

From my perspective, nine individual articles on a single story and the level of detail in the allegations crosses that line from what is required in order to report the story into the lurid.

If you play word association and start with the work 'lurid' a lot of people will suggest 'details' as the next word. The details are all there in the BBC articles and they aren't necessary to reporting the story, especially if you want to remain fair and impartial.

I’ve just headed to the BBC news site on my phone browser and of the 71 items on its homepage, just 2 relate to this story - the second being the same article as the first but relinked on the ‘most read’ list - of which it sits top.

I have no sympathy for Greg Wallace or anyone if they have legitimately done anything wrong in their position

I enjoy Masterchef and would be sad to not have him on it but if he's done wrong , he's done wrong

What I do find funny and extremely hypocritical is the majority of people crucifying him will have made jokes exactly the same as what he has done in their own places of work through the years with zero intent of offence and non taken.

If something comes out that's unacceptable , fair enough ... That's different.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:36 am

I’ve just headed to the BBC news site on my phone browser and of the 71 items on its homepage, just 2 relate to this story - the second being the same article as the first but relinked on the ‘most read’ list - of which it sits top.

I’ve looked and I can’t find 9 individual articles, there’s four or five at most plus links to the same story on iPlayer.

Talking of chip paper the Daily mail doesn't go overboard at all with it's front page. It's already damned Wallace and the BBC (which it has a long term aim to destroy).

cblantfanclub wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:07 am

Talking of chip paper the Daily mail doesn't go overboard at all with it's front page. It's already damned Wallace and the BBC (which it has a long term aim to destroy).

Exactly - this is tabloid journalism. Not what we should expect from a national publicly funded broadcaster.

It’s a disgrace that gregg Wallace is getting cancelled for a bit of banter yet they protect people like Huw Edward’s, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc etc.

The MSM are nothing but a cabal of wrong uns.

Done well for himself has Gregg,don't think it will bother him what people think being an ex Millwall thug.

The Shire Claret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:39 am

I have no sympathy for Greg Wallace or anyone if they have legitimately done anything wrong in their position

I enjoy Masterchef and would be sad to not have him on it but if he's done wrong , he's done wrong

What I do find funny and extremely hypocritical is the majority of people crucifying him will have made jokes exactly the same as what he has done in their own places of work through the years with zero intent of offence and non taken.

If something comes out that's unacceptable , fair enough ... That's different.

It was only the Equality Act being introduced in 2010 that deemed inappropriate comments to be classed as sexual harassment and therefore unlawful. So obviously sexual banter was commonplace in the years preceding that and was part of everyday working life for the vast majority.

kentonclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:44 pm

It was only the Equality Act being introduced in 2010 that deemed inappropriate comments to be classed as sexual harassment and therefore unlawful. So obviously sexual banter was commonplace in the years preceding that and was part of everyday working life for the vast majority.

Any it still will be today which is my point

There will be people out there that are giving him peters in the office and in the next sentence telling everyone what bad stuff they got up to at the weekend

that's what irks me

but again, if he's done wrong to unacceptable levels, it needs to be dealt with.

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:21 am

Screenshot_20241202_112027_WhatsApp.jpg

It's obvious he couldn't give a toss ,he's on a wind up and it's certainly working.

Lip wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:08 pm

It's obvious he couldn't give a toss ,he's on a wind up and it's certainly working.

Who? Me?

You think trial by media is a good thing?

Go on.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:21 am

Greggs getting a tough ride here. A lot of it appears to be scripted, and the editors certainly didn't remove it. People being outraged 7 years after something happened sounds like a plea for attention to me.

Isn't that what it's all about nowadays. Drag something up from the past for attention or compensation.

Just don't say hello when you pass someone in the street. You'll get done for harassment.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:27 am

Exactly - this is tabloid journalism. Not what we should expect from a national publicly funded broadcaster.

And if they didn't report it, those with an agenda would accuse the BBC of sweeping it under the carpet. The BBC has a history of circling the waggons when it comes to protecting their employees, but they can't do this anymore - so we end up with a case of 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'.

I think it is, very much so and it’s wrong. I do have some sympathy with Gregg Wallace. Unfortunately times have changed and not necessarily for the better, you have to be so careful on the words you use say for instance compliment a person on how they look, otherwise you’re accused of wrong doing. If Gregg Wallace had have accepted it was wrong and said sorry and offered to apologise to all those accusers it would I think have helped him, I’m amazed he wasn’t advised to do that rather than reply with yesterdays statement. I think his career is over unfortunately.

beddie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:33 pm

I think it is, very much so and it’s wrong. I do have some sympathy with Gregg Wallace. Unfortunately times have changed and not necessarily for the better, you have to be so careful on the words you use say for instance compliment a person on how they look, otherwise you’re accused of wrong doing. If Gregg Wallace had have accepted it was wrong and said sorry and offered to apologise to all those accusers it would I think have helped him, I’m amazed he wasn’t advised to do that rather than reply with yesterdays statement. I think his career is over unfortunately.

I think had he apologised he'd have accepted guilt, and it doesn't sound like he's done anything wrong. Unfortunately we live in an attention-desperate society. People say they are a vegan for attention. People say they are vegetarian for attention. People say they are no longer a him or her for attention.

hoosier-daddy wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:37 pm

I think had he apologised he'd have accepted guilt, and it doesn't sound like he's done anything wrong. Unfortunately we live in an attention-desperate society. People say they are a vegan for attention. People say they are vegetarian for attention. People say they are no longer a him or her for attention.

I wholeheartedly agree with your final sentence! Absolutely, definitely! (But as a vegetarian, that's as far as I'll go. Sorry, didn't I already mention I was a vegetarian?? )

He’s been a bit of a knob, but probably doesn’t deserve the pile on that’s currently happening with the tabloids, let alone having his career ruined.

You’d think they’d have learned their lesson by now and would just let the investigation run its course.

beddie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:33 pm

If Gregg Wallace had have accepted it was wrong and said sorry and offered to apologise to all those accusers it would I think have helped him, I’m amazed he wasn’t advised to do that rather than reply with yesterdays statement.

I agree with this. An apology and move on, but yesterday was the mark of a very naive person, especially for someone who has spent more than a couple of decades in the spotlight and is supposed to be media savvy. He allowed his high-handed ego to get the better of him.

There are levels of banter.
If you don't know the person you should go PC. If you know the person and they know you, you should know how far you can go.
It's only a joke if both find it funny, so if you don't know how they will react, keep it to yourself.
Why choose to make someone feel uncomfortable for your own amusement?

Again, why apologise if he's done nothing wrong. This will certainly divide people.

Thing is, reading the stories, he hasn’t learned any lessons. Complaints have been raised and he’s been talked to in the past but the behaviour seems to have continued. He was told how uncomfortable he was making people feel, had a chance to change, but didn’t. With all the celebrities that have had this sort of trouble over the last decade or so you’d have to be a complete moron to think you could continue to behave in the way he has.

hoosier-daddy wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:50 pm

Again, why apologise if he's done nothing wrong. This will certainly divide people.

Or he could just have stopped doing it!

Dark Cloud wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:46 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with your final sentence! Absolutely, definitely! (But as a vegetarian, that's as far as I'll go. Sorry, didn't I already mention I was a vegetarian?? )

I didn't mean it for all cases of course. I mean in general. People in general just do my bloody head in by making life choices like that. A certain few I can understand.