Who else hates this guy (Gregg Wallace)?

Haggisman said:
Oh of course, I'm not passing judgment on any behaviour other than that particular clip, I have no idea if he has any particular track record, or what goes on off-air. It just seemed like a very poor example to use, as both presenters make (IMO) equally as appropriate/inappropriate comments, but only one of them seems to be getting any comeback from it.
Click to expand...

Right, OK. Yea, I think people are being a bit extreme with comments like

Hawk Tuah said:
Next years BBC line up is going to be a real hoot with any hint of sexual innuendo now being treated as criminality.
Click to expand...

There is obviously more going on than just a bit of on air double entendre from either of them. Greg has been pulled up for inappropriate behaviour and had a reprimand from HR previously. And there are off air complaints from work colleagues too.

And from what we've heard, no one incident seems particularly egregious, but it all adds up as the complaints keep coming in.

Haggisman said:
I guess re-runs of any Carry On films are right off the cards then :p
Click to expand...

They are of their time, they probably wouldn't be made nowadays! :p

Saying that, they never play Benny Hill anymore, what's acceptable in society changes
 
robj20 said:
It just shows how many people are such hypocrites though.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure its as simple as that, it's a trickle down from the the historic men in power welding that power/position for sexual benefit. Did it also happen the other way round, yes, but probably 1%.

And so these type of things are seen as diluted versions of the serious abuse cases.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
And from what we've heard, no one incident seems particularly egregious, but it all adds up as the complaints keep coming in.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much all I was getting at, if he's doing this sort of thing on a regular basis and maybe going a little bit further in private when nobody's watching, as some of the accusations suggest.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
Right, OK. Yea, I think people are being a bit extreme with comments like



There is obviously more going on than just a bit of on air double entendre from either of them. Greg has been pulled up for inappropriate behaviour and had a reprimand from HR previously. And there are off air complaints from work colleagues too.

And from what we've heard, no one incident seems particularly egregious, but it all adds up as the complaints keep coming in.



They are of their time, they probably wouldn't be made nowadays! :p

Saying that, they never play Benny Hill anymore, what's acceptable in society changes
Click to expand...
Times change, the really funny tom&jerry I remember as a kid don't ever get shown anymore
 
Littlenose said:
Just for clarity - It was John who made that comment, and I along with a couple of others were wondering why John's allowed to say that kind of thing, yet Greg is being picked up for similar comments.
Click to expand...
Depends on the tone and the persona, it's not just the words it's the way there are said. If it is just a simple criticism of the food then it's not a problem, if it followed by a wink and a giggle and a smug grin then maybe it is. A significant number of people have found his behaviour offensive and complained, there is a sting of internal investigations maybe John has the same hidden in the cupboard or maybe he just doesn't offend people.

There are a few presenters that just give me the ick when I watch them interact with women, Greg was one Paul Hollywood is another there is just something about them.
 
Hawk Tuah said:
Next years BBC line up is going to be a real hoot with any hint of sexual innuendo now being treated as criminality.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying any hint of innuendo is banned they are saying if you get a string of complaints for offending women in the workplace and contestants on your shows then you will be investigated. I still don't think anything he has done was hugely serious and he would likely have been given a final warning and allowed to return to work, yesterdays absolutely bonkers social media activity though will have cost him his job.
 
a1ex2001 said:
They would almost certainly be doing a different form of comedy as nobody would pay to watch the carry on style humour tastes and acceptability change over time it's only natural!
Click to expand...
Austin Powers was not that long ago and was the same humour..... albeit framed slightly differently.
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
I think his replacement should be Monica Galetti. She’s a top chef and a good presenter, and she is already on the professionals series of it, so she is familiar with the job.
Click to expand...

Goes to show you can watch all the episodes, read the books and own the apron and then one post makes you realise that after all these years, that person is a she....

UC11BXa.gif
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Nobody is saying any hint of innuendo is banned they are saying if you get a string of complaints for offending women in the workplace and contestants on your shows then you will be investigated. I still don't think anything he has done was hugely serious and he would likely have been given a final warning and allowed to return to work, yesterdays absolutely bonkers social media activity though will have cost him his job.
Click to expand...
He's not being investigated though. His accusers were given front stage all over the BBC News site. An investigation is irrelevant now, his career is destroyed.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Nobody is saying any hint of innuendo is banned they are saying if you get a string of complaints for offending women in the workplace and contestants on your shows then you will be investigated. I still don't think anything he has done was hugely serious and he would likely have been given a final warning and allowed to return to work, yesterdays absolutely bonkers social media activity though will have cost him his job.
Click to expand...
Come on, he was never getting that job back.
 
Participant said:
Have you ever been in a group of middle-aged women, lmao they are absolutely unhinged and brutal themselves. Cancel culture claims another.
Click to expand...
my ex wife went to a hen doo with a stripper.......... she was no naive snow flake however when she came back she said if blokes had done even half of what they got up to to a female stripper there would have been arrests or people taken out the back for a bit of a head wobble from a bouncer. Now you could blame it on the stripper for letting things go as far as they did i suppose, but if you are gonna do that then the shoe has to go on the other foot too and use the same argument for when men take things too far and cross the line into being offensive, be it verbally or what ever.

we are in this weird period imo where the pendulum has swung massively the other way, where men have to really watch what they do or say, but women get to take things far further and its all still a bit of a laugh.

case in point the ulrika video above, could you imagine, even back then someone grabbing her boob and giving it a good squeeze? (and i am just as hypocritical too because I would not be offended if that happened to me from a woman but would be very wary doing it to a woman even as a prank!)
 
Last edited:
Janesy B said:
"PERSON gets held to account to the same standards every PERSON in the workplace should be held to, what's the big deal."

If you want to be pedantic.
Click to expand...

Not really... "Man" in the first instance is correct as, unless Gregg Wallace can correct me, he is a Man. "Person" in the 2nd part is more accurate as using "man" in that instance can suggest that people are held to different standards depending on if they are a man or a woman.... BTW, I did consider using "person" for both then realised it would be incorrect

I wasn't being pedantic. If GW saying "woman", in his "middle class, woman of a certain age" rant, and this part is being classed as a problem (been reported as misogynistic) then it cuts both way when the whole discussion is about him and what he has done and said :)
 
Last edited:
The guy is obviously a grade a prat with zero self-awareness ...however so far at least, he seems guilty of having a crude sense of humour and nothing more.

Guilty of making dirty jokes and crude comments in female company - which apparently now is "inappropriate and unacceptable".

One female commentator today quoted as saying "no female enjoys hearing crude humour" - well some of the women I have worked with in the past would I think agree to differ.

Yes he is an arrogant idiot but this pile on - trial by media is unpleasant to see but it seems in TV land these days you are guilty until proved guilty.

Should he be on TV - no but has he actually done anything to warrant this level of hysteria ?

The bigger question is whether the BBC and their production companies have once again been caught protecting one of their stars over all else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom