Gregg Wallace

[kaz7]

Ha ha scraping the barrel you asked for examples I gave them to you, you dont like been proved wrong then, you said they don’t exist, so your argument is wrong, again tell me why the woman making false accusations had not been made to pay up? I know full well what Wallace is been accused of you are the one twisting the narrative.

Stop being a sexist pig , men like you would kill him if he harrassed your wife or daughters in their workplace but dont give a shit about others

 

[lefty goldblatt]

you do not insult a man's quiche...ya just don't do it...

It's all flan(ell)

 

[Blue Maverick]

Which only happens because instead of accepting culpability for their actions, rich powerful people weaponise the court system to make it impossibly expensive to seek justice and make it as traumatic an experience as possible as a way to discourage other claimants.



There’s so much wrong with this statement.

1) No one destroyed his life or career. He’s not even been an actor for 20 years and this was over a 1 episode cameo return.

2) The accuser gets the same anonymity he did. He chose to make the allegations against him public, so if people decide to stop buying his Brie because they think he’s a sex pest, that’s all on him.

3) The police not being able to prove a 27 year old allegation doesn’t mean the accuser lied.

4) ITV studios are allowed choose to believe the accuser and their own internal HR investigation even if the evidence isn’t enough for a criminal conviction.

5) You’ve invented the idea the accuser was female. Wilson doesn’t know who it was.

Essentially you’ve heard a one sided sob story sold to the Sun and chosen to believe every word of it, then invented some details of your own to suit your own prejudices (assuming it was a woman, assuming it was a false accusation).

1. Did you watch the video about the stress he was under about been accused.
2. Pretty sure his accuser knows him but he doesn’t know their identity.
3. Well who is lying then?
4. They had no investigation and they lied about been contacted by the police to come to that conclusion, so they terminated him on a lie, he lost out financially as well.
5. Have you watched the video? The complainant said he put his hand up her skirt!
So yes it’s a woman. No invention, suggest you go back and watch the video.

 

[domalino]

1. Did you watch the video about the stress he was under about been accused.
2. Pretty sure his accuser knows him but he doesn’t know their identity.
3. Well who is lying then?
4. They had no investigation and they lied about been contacted by the police to come to that conclusion, so they terminated him on a lie, he lost out financially as well.
5. Have you watched the video? The complainant said he put his hand up her skirt!
So yes it’s a woman. No invention, suggest you go back and watch the video.

To be honest I’m not that interested in watching a video of a guy telling his side of a story with zero fact checking or input from the other side. It was bad enough enduring reading the written interview on the suns website which didn’t mention the skirt.

Although given this guy is neither rich nor famous and sells cheese for a living, where does that fit in with your belief that all of this is done for money? His accuser got no financial benefit.

As for the others (2) Yeah and the fact he was accused by someone was kept confidential until he announced it to the world. (3) Statistically probably him (4) He’s welcome to publicly sue the production company if he thinks he’s been wrongfully terminated and get all the details out in public. He’s chosen to go on holiday instead.

 

[chesterbells]

Career over. Divorce and bankruptcy hopefully.

The guy is an absolute cock. Talentless man of limited intelligence, a bully boy and get the impression he is someone who loves degrading people by acting like the runners etc are his servants and he is royalty.

The divorce; let’s see.
I vaguely recall reading an interview with him a few months ago in the Saturday edition of The Times magazine. He made some surprising comments about his partner in that, and about how he organises their home life, and about his attitude when she said she wanted a child (which I think can be summed up as, if you want but don’t expect me to have much to do with it). It was all a bit odd.

 

[Blue Maverick]

To be honest I’m not that interested in watching a video of a guy telling his side of a story with zero fact checking or input from the other side. It was bad enough enduring reading the written interview on the suns website which didn’t mention the skirt.

Although given this guy is neither rich nor famous and sells cheese for a living, where does that fit in with your belief that all of this is done for money? His accuser got no financial benefit.

So you come on here accusing me of something without even watching what I put on, I took you for better than that. She got no benefit because it went nowhere because he didn’t do it, I’m sure some fancy solicitor would’ve been all over it had it gone to court. Meanwhile he’s lost thousands in fees trying to get it sorted.

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

To be honest I’m not that interested in watching a video of a guy telling his side of a story with zero fact checking or input from the other side. It was bad enough enduring reading the written interview on the suns website which didn’t mention the skirt.

Although given this guy is neither rich nor famous and sells cheese for a living, where does that fit in with your belief that all of this is done for money? His accuser got no financial benefit.

he may have bought her off with a truckle of cheddar?

 

[mosssideblue]

 

[Mon Autre]

Which only happens because instead of accepting culpability for their actions, rich powerful people weaponise the court system to make it impossibly expensive to seek justice and make it as traumatic an experience as possible as a way to discourage other claimants.



There’s so much wrong with this statement.

1) No one destroyed his life or career. He’s not even been an actor for 20 years and this was over a 1 episode cameo return.

2) The accuser gets the same anonymity he did. He chose to make the allegations against him public, so if people decide to stop buying his Brie because they think he’s a sex pest, that’s all on him.

3) The police not being able to prove a 27 year old allegation doesn’t mean the accuser lied.

4) ITV studios are allowed choose to believe the accuser and their own internal HR investigation even if the evidence isn’t enough for a criminal conviction.

5) You’ve invented the idea the accuser was female. Wilson doesn’t know who it was.

Essentially you’ve heard a one sided sob story sold to the Sun and chosen to believe every word of it, then invented some details of your own to suit your own prejudices (assuming it was a woman, assuming it was a false accusation).

There's an irony in some of these people accusing the Wallace complainants of being after money, citing the plight of a man who was sold a story to The Sun, for money.

 

[domalino]

There's an irony in some of these people accusing the Wallace complainants of being after money, citing the plight of a man who was sold a story to The Sun, for money.

These false accusations are all about money, to prove it, here's this example of someone who made an accusation and never sought any financial benefit!

A cynic would also point out the big sob story interview he sold to the Sun also happens to just be coinciding with the announcement of him him going on tour doing some live cooking show.