Gregg Wallace

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
gordondaviesmoustache said:
That’s subjective and I think it’s likely the person who wrote that was white. And it depends in the context.

I’ve got black friends who aren’t remotely offended by certain terms and others who are bothered by exactly the same one.

I’m happy to revisit my view (as ever) if I’m provided with more particulars than what some **** at the BBC decides is extremely offensive to them.

I’m sure it will come out in the wash.
Click to expand...
Your making an assumption the racist language Torode used was against black people, like you say everything will come out in the wash, but you going on about your black friends like you know what was exactly said is jumping the gun quite a bit.
 
balotellishaircut said:
Your making an assumption the racist language Torode used was against black people, like you say everything will come out in the wash, but you going on about your black friends like you know what was exactly said is jumping the gun quite a bit.
Click to expand...
That’s fair comment up to a point, but I was deploying black people because I’m not black. So I’m viewing their behaviour through that prism, given the discussion was about different people’s reaction to purportedly racist terms. If I did it about two white mates, don’t think the optics would be great.

So I made no such assumption.
 
GH64 said:
It does add up.
He says he doesn’t remember, but the allegation is that he said something and apologised, which means that even though he doesn’t remember anything about the incident, at the time he must have recognised that he said something bad.
So well and truly stitched up.

Even worse that the person said it wasn’t meant badly, why say anything then.

Farcical.
Click to expand...

Just to add the term "social setting" often has the inclusion of alcohol involved, so the guy might have been drunk when he said what he said and apologised after, which is what may explain why he doesn't remember the moment when being asked to recall it.
 
Bigga said:
Just to add the term "social setting" often has the inclusion of alcohol involved, so the guy might have been drunk when he said what he said and apologised after, which is what may explain why he doesn't remember the moment when being asked to recall it.
Click to expand...

But that's not how it works. Anyone who over hears you can make a complaint if they don't like it. It doesn't need to be a racist comment, it could be calling someone a bald twat, or wing nut, or a ginger.

I started a thread a few weeks ago about an incident at work regarding a volunteer. She said in front of others and me that " i bet you will go back and say that crazy black lady said".
I was shocked she thought i would used these words.
There has been an investigation and she has been told not to assume what people might say.
She still thinks she said nothing wrong and using black to describe her is OK.

The workplace is becoming a minefield, she implied i was racist and the company are to scared to get rid incase she plays the racist card.

In my eyes she is the one who is racist.
 
give it to gordon said:
But that's not how it works. Anyone who over hears you can make a complaint if they don't like it. It doesn't need to be a racist comment, it could be calling someone a bald twat, or wing nut, or a ginger.

I started a thread a few weeks ago about an incident at work regarding a volunteer. She said in front of others and me that " i bet you will go back and say that crazy black lady said".
I was shocked she thought i would used these words.
There has been an investigation and she has been told not to assume what people might say.
She still thinks she said nothing wrong and using black to describe her is OK.

The workplace is becoming a minefield, she implied i was racist and the company are to scared to get rid incase she plays the racist card.

In my eyes she is the one who is racist.
Click to expand...
Well done mate. You can't let crazy black ladies be racist to you at work or where does it all stop?
 
give it to gordon said:
But that's not how it works. Anyone who over hears you can make a complaint if they don't like it. It doesn't need to be a racist comment, it could be calling someone a bald twat, or wing nut, or a ginger.

I started a thread a few weeks ago about an incident at work regarding a volunteer. She said in front of others and me that " i bet you will go back and say that crazy black lady said".
I was shocked she thought i would used these words.
There has been an investigation and she has been told not to assume what people might say.
She still thinks she said nothing wrong and using black to describe her is OK.

The workplace is becoming a minefield, she implied i was racist and the company are to scared to get rid incase she plays the racist card.

In my eyes she is the one who is racist.
Click to expand...

I don't want to make a comment about what you've experienced because it will get argumentative from my objective PoV.

However in the Torode incident, if he genuinely doesn't remember the incident and is reported anyway, why is the apology discounted? After all, wouldn't the original subject of comment back up the complainee? It seems to me, he accepted the apology and moved on.

It makes a difference if the person involved was great mates with the complainee, but it doesn't come across that way. It comes across as 'offended on behalf of'.

Does that makes sense?
 
give it to gordon said:
But that's not how it works. Anyone who over hears you can make a complaint if they don't like it. It doesn't need to be a racist comment, it could be calling someone a bald twat, or wing nut, or a ginger.

I started a thread a few weeks ago about an incident at work regarding a volunteer. She said in front of others and me that " i bet you will go back and say that crazy black lady said".
I was shocked she thought i would used these words.
There has been an investigation and she has been told not to assume what people might say.
She still thinks she said nothing wrong and using black to describe her is OK.

The workplace is becoming a minefield, she implied i was racist and the company are to scared to get rid incase she plays the racist card.

In my eyes she is the one who is racist.
Click to expand...
There is a Polish guy who always refers to me as "my black friend ". He started this after he found out I was born in South Africa. I am not black.
 
I think the BBC has to disclose what is alleged to have been said. Don’t see what choice they have.

It’s also troubling that this finding has been made without the source of the complaint apparently being able to identify the date or even the year it took place with any level of certainty.

I get with sexual abuse it’s often difficult to pinpoint particular dates, especially if it’s been a campaign of sexual assault, and the victim is young, but with a single incident like this it’s hard to imagine how anyone who was subject to a highly offensive racist comment wouldn’t be able to recall when it took place, even by reference to other events in the news or their personal life.

Think this is all very convenient. Wallace had to go, of course he did, but I see this as very different, at least based on what I know so far.
 
Has Torode been sacked (the headline) or just not had his contract renewed (in the BBC article)? In my world those are very much two different things.

If it’s the latter then the BBC must have proof otherwise they are at danger of being sued by the presenter for defamation perhaps?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Something doesn't add up.

In one paragraph, he has "no recollection" of the incident, then in a later paragraph he says, "I apologised immediately afterwards".

Extracts from the BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8j1vzngdjpo)

On Monday, the TV chef said he had "no recollection" of the incident, adding: "I do not believe that it happened."

In an Instagram post on Monday, Torode revealed he was the subject of an allegation of using racist language, upheld as part of an inquiry into separate allegations against Wallace.

He said the allegation was that he made the remarks in a social setting in 2018 or 2019.

He added that the allegation included that the "person I was speaking with did not believe that it was intended in a malicious way and that I apologised immediately afterwards".
Click to expand...
I read that as the report says that he apologised afterwards but he still has no recollection of the incident- or having to make the apology. He says, : "I do not believe that it happened."

What I find strange about John Torode story is that the Investigation has discovered these allegations - but it does not sound as if he has had the opportunity to defend himself or cross-examine the complainant - which feels like a lack of natural justice. I'm involved in investigating complaints in a work context - and although it lengthens the process - I would never expect my report to be simply accepted without the opportunity for the person being complained about getting the opportunity to defend themselves.
 
In his statement on Tuesday, external, Torode said: "Although I haven't heard from anyone at the BBC or Banijay - I am seeing and reading that I've been "sacked" from MasterChef.

"I repeat that I have no recollection of what I'm accused of. The enquiry could not even state the date or year of when I am meant to have said something wrong."
Click to expand...

All seems a bit odd.
 
Bigga said:
I don't want to make a comment about what you've experienced because it will get argumentative from my objective PoV.

However in the Torode incident, if he genuinely doesn't remember the incident and is reported anyway, why is the apology discounted? After all, wouldn't the original subject of comment back up the complainee? It seems to me, he accepted the apology and moved on.

It makes a difference if the person involved was great mates with the complainee, but it doesn't come across that way. It comes across as 'offended on behalf of'.

Does that makes sense?
Click to expand...
Don’t apologise. It is an admission of guilt, even if you didn’t say anything and were just trying to calm things down.
“I didn’t say that, I can’t believe you thought I said those horrible words and I’m going to take it up with HR” is the way of the future.
 
cyan said:
I read that as the report says that he apologised afterwards but he still has no recollection of the incident- or having to make the apology. He says, : "I do not believe that it happened."

What I find strange about John Torode story is that the Investigation has discovered these allegations - but it does not sound as if he has had the opportunity to defend himself or cross-examine the complainant - which feels like a lack of natural justice. I'm involved in investigating complaints in a work context - and although it lengthens the process - I would never expect my report to be simply accepted without the opportunity for the person being complained about getting the opportunity to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
It's all a bit weird. I can't fathom out if he's actually had his current contract terminated, or whether it just hasn't been renewed, which from a legal standpoint are entirely different situations as @Citizen of Legoland alluded to in an earlier post.

Whatever happened, it hasn't been handled it well. There have been institutional failings at the BBC. It hasn't been a well functioning organisation for a long time.
 
Torode gets the equivalent of the "managers vote of confidence from the chairman". There is no way back.

 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It's all a bit weird. I can't fathom out if he's actually had his current contract terminated, or whether it just hasn't been renewed, which from a legal standpoint are entirely different situations as @Citizen of Legoland alluded to in an earlier post.

Whatever happened, it hasn't been handled it well. There have been institutional failings at the BBC. It hasn't been a well functioning organisation for a long time.
Click to expand...

BBC don’t make the program or run the production. It’s made by an independent production company.

My understanding is that Torode was given the option of a year off and HR training. He declined and his contract was terminated. The investigation was done by an outside law firm and the production company appear comfortable with their position especially as they gave Torode an out which he declined.
 
BobKowalski said:
BBC don’t make the program or run the production. It’s made by an independent production company.

My understanding is that Torode was given the option of a year off and HR training. He declined and his contract was terminated. The investigation was done by an outside law firm and the production company appear comfortable with their position especially as they gave Torode an out which he declined.
Click to expand...
Understanding from where?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top