@supernova No mention in the post of age or class of the women. One does not poke the sleeping, hungry, potentially face-eating leopards.
I’m still trying to understand why those complaining have done so to the BBC? The BBC doesn’t make the programme or hire anyone who works on it from the presenters down to the admin assistants. Surely if you want to complain you would do so at the time and to the people responsible for the programme.
I’m still trying to understand why those complaining have done so to the BBC?
who complained to BBC and when?
ultimately the BBC spends license/tax payers money commissioning the show so I think they do have an interest in ensuring standards are upheld.
it sounds like a number of people did raise concerns with the production company and little or no action was taken. Others may not have complained at the time if:
- they were in a competition and complaining about one of the judges
- they were media production crew who are on flimsy employment arrangements
- they thought they were the only person / a one off
Just need to get rid of the horrible Monica Galetti and her absurd “skills tests” now.
Au contraire, Monica is the best thing about Masterchef.
I only (sometimes) watch the Professionals one now, and mainly for her.
Plenty of TV chefs and food-adjacent presenters out there to choose from to replace GW.
I reckon they will go for a woman of a certain age.
Plenty of TV chefs and food-adjacent presenters out there to choose from to replace GW.
Just needs a bit of sally salt and polly pepper!
I'll see your Ainsley and raise you,
I’ll see your Ainsley and raise you,
You know it's going to be Paddy McGuinness, don't you? 😀
I’m still trying to understand why those complaining have done so to the BBC? The BBC doesn’t make the programme or hire anyone who works on it from the presenters down to the admin assistants. Surely if you want to complain you would do so at the time and to the people responsible for the programme.
OK so I never worked on MasterChef, but I've seen how it could happen.
After a series or two they start to put their foot down / throw some weight around either making demands about how things are done, editorial decisions' etc. They stop asking if you'd like a cup of tea and start asking you to make them one. After 20something series they're fing unbearable. I don't know if that's an underlying part of personalities common to people who agree to be on TV, or a version of the Stanford Experiment where the power just gets to them. There's one show in particular I can't believe is still running because the star is known for making junior production staff cry, and the production company staffed it with less and less experienced people both because they weren't paying enough and because no one wanted to do it twice. My job was niche enough that I didn't have to be there very often and didn't rely on it for a paycheck so I may have eyerolled him when he went off on one, which upset him somewhat....
In that particular case there was no show without him.
I guess with longer running shows you end up in a catch 22, do you do the right thing and out them but admit you've been covering it up for 20+ series which makes you look just as bad (the Welby paradox?). Or do you keep quiet, which appealing especially to indie TV producers because there's f all new stuff being commissioned at the moment and long running shows are a cash cow that keeps the lights on.
A chat show on Friday nights and there are glasses of wine?
No, AFAIK Graham still has national treasure status but I've never worked on that sort of show.
TBH the fact I'm not going to tell you who it is shows you the problem. I've zero skin in the game anymore, but he has a mountain of cash and probably better lawyers. If he ever gets his day in the tabloids I'll happily be in the "13 other people have come forward since these allegations were made" but I'm not sticking my neck above the parapet. PopBitch have touched on it before though so maybe that time will come.
Cougar2Free Member
I’m still trying to understandYou’re not, are you.
Yes I am. Presumably you can’t explain it hence your comment.
You complain to the company that you contracted to appear in the programme with. You complain about other employees at that company. You don’t complain to a third party who neither you or the other participant have a contractual arrangement with.
Fingers crossed for Ainsley.
It'll send the "no matter what the cause I'm on the side of the anti-woke bloke" lot into an attack of the vapours that will be magnificent to behold.
It's hard to believe that, in 20 years of straying over the being an out of order prat line fairly regularly, no one ever said "Err, Gregg, that's a bit too close to the knuckle old chap". He will have had multiple opportunities to stop being a berk. There will be other former contestants out there too who were pretty pissed off about stuff he did or said and who haven't made a complaint.
It's hard to feel too much sympathy. Personally I think this probably wouldn't have ended his career if it hadn't been for his doubling-down on Instagram.
It’s hard to believe that, in 20 years of straying over the being an out of order prat line fairly regularly,
Is there any evidence beyond he said she said to support that statement. Or are you just assuming he is guilty. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. Nothing has been shared in public to substantiate either sides case hence investigations are being carried out.
You complain to the company that you contracted to appear in the programme with. You complain about other employees at that company. You don’t complain to a third party who neither you or the other participant have a contractual arrangement with.
so @chrismac do you know for sure that none of the people you claim have complained to the BBC: 1. Complained to the production company? 2. Have no contractual arrangement with the BBC? The story is not really that Wallace was out of order, it’s that the producers knew he was out of order and did nothing.
Do you think that BBC News had no right to investigate this? Because that seems to be what you are implying. Surely any journalist who hears rumours of impropriety and complaints going without action is entitled to investigate that and if there is a story to progress it. Are you confusing “spoke to a BBC journalist” with “complained to the BBC”.
Yes I am. Presumably you can’t explain it hence your comment.
TBF, when you're a poster who everyone thinks "I know exactly what their stance will be" as soon as they see the username on this kind of thread...
Then expect to be called out on stuff.
Is there any evidence beyond he said she said to support that statement. Or are you just assuming he is guilty. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. Nothing has been shared in public to substantiate either sides case hence investigations are being carried out.
QED. Thanks for making my point for me a second time.
Touché. You seem to be signed up to the guilty without any knowledge of the facts. From what I’ve read the bbc have both been spoken to as journalists and complained at as if they are responsible. I have no idea as to who version, if anyone’s, is the truth. If he is found to have done something wrong I expect to see him in court accused. I’m struggling to see why Monica or Marcus would hang around and risk thier reputations if they thought there was something wrong that could tarnish their image.
All I’m suggesting is we wait to see what the outcome of the investigations are rather than sack him and decide who should replace him before we know the facts.
Ooh wait.
Tell Ainsley to hang fire.
What about Jack Monroe?
Now that would be magnifico. The 'proper blokes' on Twunter will go into meltdown. It'd be epic.
If he is found to have done something wrong I expect to see him in court accused.
You are unlikely to end up in court for being a a complete knob, he has not been accused of stuff that would end up in court.
Not trying to derail the conversation, but struck by the number of column inches dedicated to GW, versus the almost total non-mention of Conor Mcgregor's (civil) conviction for a very serious sexual assault.
You complain to the company that you contracted to appear in the programme with. You complain about other employees at that company. You don’t complain to a third party who neither you or the other participant have a contractual arrangement with.
@chrismac honestly, depending on where in the food chain you were then you probably would go to the channel not the production company. If we were talking about everyday production staff then maybe it'd be different. But anything senior or on-screen I'd probably say the channel isn't the wrong answer.
For starters the channels now have whistleblowing numbers for exactly this sort of shit. They're on the call sheets.
Secondly if you're runner/researcher/junior/assistant your complaint will have to pass up through so many pairs of hands who are paid weekly that I can see how it would eventually reach the desk of "well I'm not biting the hand that feeds". That's not a slight against people working in TV production, it's human nature proven time and time again. Even if it reaches the production company executives they're then balancing a precarious job that could be canceled at any minute (not in a cancel culture sense, just not commissioned) that pays hundreds of peoples mortgages Vs someone who has probably already moved onto the next gig.
The channel on the other hand is writing the cheques and it's their name metaphorically above the door. No-one outside the industry knows who Banijay are. The channel is the the one with the power to tell your boss' boss' boss to fire someone.
Yes I am. Presumably you can’t explain it hence your comment.
Well, if you are being genuine then you've begged the question. You've asked why people have "complained to the BBC" with no further detail that anyone has complained to the BBC. Who complained? When?
BBC News has done some digging after they got wind of it because, hey, remember when journalists undertook investigations? But that's a gulf from someone filing a formal complaint.
Is there any evidence beyond he said she said to support that statement. Or are you just assuming he is guilty. I have no idea if he is guilty or not.
After the story broke he took to the Internet boasting that there were "only" 13 complaints made about him. Now I'm happy to concede that someone might had gone down the "he said she said" route to make baseless claims in order to try and squeeze out a payoff. But, generously, 13 is 12 too many.
All I’m suggesting is we wait to see what the outcome of the investigations are rather than sack him
He hasn't been sacked. He has "stepped aside."
@chrismac - if a court is the right place to resolve this, then the police not the production company might have been a more appropriate point to complain to. But most of the stuff I’ve heard suggested, nobody is suggesting illegality. That doesn’t mean it is ok, and it’s irrelevant right now whether he did or didn’t do most of it - he’s essentially unemployable as a presenter on mainstream entertainment, especially after how he chose to response to the claims.
He'll turn up with Reet Smugg and Farridge on Gutteral Bollox Naturally
It’s hard to believe that, in 20 years of straying over the being an out of order prat line fairly regularly, no one ever said “Err, Gregg, that’s a bit too close to the knuckle old chap”
His reply would probably have been something like:
"That's what the wife said!!..."
That’s what the wife said
What one? He's had 4...
What one? He’s had 4…
To go though one divorce is unfortunate, to go through three is context?
Not trying to derail the conversation, but struck by the number of column inches dedicated to GW, versus the almost total non-mention of Conor Mcgregor’s (civil) conviction for a very serious sexual assault.
It's a fair question, and my interpretation is that we already knew CMG was a very nasty piece of work. The story did get reported and he didn't put out a video blaming the victim (happy to be corrected if he did). I've also yesterday read a thought piece about his "fall from grace". Oh, and he's from the RoI.
GW is a UK household name, was still admired by many (see the OP here) and has gone full Partridge in his response. A big part of the news is what's novel, and this is quite novel.
Idea for a TV show.
Put Wallace, and all of the other “celebrity” undesirables, on an island in the Antarctic and leave them there.
Call it Nonce Island.
Now Harry,don't be coy.
You were really thinking more Battle Royale 😉
Nope.
Show would be 4 minutes long. Celebrity Nonces stood on an ice covered volcanic beach with a box of MRE and bivi bags. Footage taken from a drone as it goes back to the ship. Credits, including a list of all of the people that they have abused. End.
Theme tune would be "Don't get mad, get even" by The Age of Chance.
Damn, so no weaponised combine harvesters..
Is dissapoint. 🙂
BBC News has done some digging after they got wind of it because, hey, remember when journalists undertook investigations? But that’s a gulf from someone filing a formal complaint.
I do remember when this happened and journalists were honourable people who investigated stories and allegations. They worked hard to seek out the evidence to support or refute those allegations. They would interview those making the allegations and those who were accused and publish well thought out news stories and programmes. What we have now, and not just this story, is trial by social media and the press with none of this investigation and corroborating of facts that used to be the hallmark of good journalism.
"Put Wallace, and all of the other “celebrity” undesirables, on an island in the Antarctic and leave them there.
Call it Nonce Island."
Not defending GW in any way, but nothing so far paints him as a "nonce".
Why don’t celebs who get caught out like this ever apologise??
I mean a genuine apology rather than one of those faux “sorry if you were offended” type ones.
Some do, Ant McPartlin ****ed up, apologised and booked himself into rehab.
I think it comes down to being a decent person rather than an obnoxious bell end though.
none of this investigation and corroborating of facts that used to be the hallmark of good journalism
Rose tinted glasses on there. Journalism failed so many people in the past. The bar was so high that even Saville’s crimes went on without public challenge.
t. The bar was so high that even Saville’s crimes went on without public challenge.
True. It he did have the support of prime ministers and the royal family which helped him bury the story.
Idea for a TV show.
Put Wallace, and all of the other “celebrity” undesirables, on an island in the Antarctic and leave them there.
Call it Nonce Island.
wait, what?
So GW makes some ill judged attempts at humour therefore;
a) you think that makes him a nonce
b) you want to watch him be killed, live on tv, in the name of entertainment…?
Give your head a wobble
You think I was being 100% serious?
