Greg Wallace suspended

Did Jack the Ripper murder women because it was 'just how he was'?

Being 'just the way he is' is not a defence against anything.

We can all pride ourselves on being a great judge of character, with an ability to sniff out 'creepy' or otherwise dodgy characters, but as often as not that's because we've been lucky enough not to have been significantly affected by them.

Most older women will have come across lecherous colleagues who made inappropriate comments in the workplace, but people can't get away with that now, thank goodness. Most of us have not, however, been confronted by a man with the power to wreck our career dancing about naked except for a strategically placed sock. A very different kettle of fish. As is someone in a position of power rubbing his un-underpanted penis against us as he 'squeezed past', or making 'jokes' about the smell of his Aunt's vagina, or going into detail about sex acts with his unfortunate wife. If people dismiss this sort of thing as 'banter' it says a lot about their standards, and anyway, nobody has the right to expect others to put up with it just because they don't care.

It's just wrong to dismiss something like that as though it's on the same lines as giving Nigel from Planning a 'hard stare' for ogling our breasts in 1978. It's not the same thing at all.

What becomes clear when something like this is in the news is that every woman has a story of some man whose brains were not in his head, but the woman did not instantly make a fuss or report it to anyone in authority, because she would either be thought to have made it up to get him into trouble or she would be told it was just a joke, or just banter.

I knew someone who as the wardrobe mistress and costume sewer for a theatrical company. One man always turned up for fittings minus his underpants. Serve him right if there had been a nasty accident with pins or scissors.

Well said Doodledog 10:08:42

Doodledog

Did Jack the Ripper murder women because it was 'just how he was'?

Being 'just the way he is' is not a defence against anything.

We can all pride ourselves on being a great judge of character, with an ability to sniff out 'creepy' or otherwise dodgy characters, but as often as not that's because we've been lucky enough not to have been significantly affected by them.

Most older women will have come across lecherous colleagues who made inappropriate comments in the workplace, but people can't get away with that now, thank goodness. Most of us have not, however, been confronted by a man with the power to wreck our career dancing about naked except for a strategically placed sock. A very different kettle of fish. As is someone in a position of power rubbing his un-underpanted penis against us as he 'squeezed past', or making 'jokes' about the smell of his Aunt's vagina, or going into detail about sex acts with his unfortunate wife. If people dismiss this sort of thing as 'banter' it says a lot about their standards, and anyway, nobody has the right to expect others to put up with it just because they don't care.

It's just wrong to dismiss something like that as though it's on the same lines as giving Nigel from Planning a 'hard stare' for ogling our breasts in 1978. It's not the same thing at all.

Bravo Doodledog!

I could not have said it better.

Well said Doodlebug 👏

I did laugh at the line 'Nigel from planning in 1978'

I think we've all known a Nigel in our time

I don’t know if it was because I did my apprenticeship in a strick union house or that the mother of the chapel cared for our welfare.
Of course the printers, compositors, Lino type operators swore and joked amongst themselves but never ever in front of the women.
Not that I would have been shocked, I was brought up in a very Sweary house.

Doodledog

Did Jack the Ripper murder women because it was 'just how he was'?

Being 'just the way he is' is not a defence against anything.

We can all pride ourselves on being a great judge of character, with an ability to sniff out 'creepy' or otherwise dodgy characters, but as often as not that's because we've been lucky enough not to have been significantly affected by them.

Most older women will have come across lecherous colleagues who made inappropriate comments in the workplace, but people can't get away with that now, thank goodness. Most of us have not, however, been confronted by a man with the power to wreck our career dancing about naked except for a strategically placed sock. A very different kettle of fish. As is someone in a position of power rubbing his un-underpanted penis against us as he 'squeezed past', or making 'jokes' about the smell of his Aunt's vagina, or going into detail about sex acts with his unfortunate wife. If people dismiss this sort of thing as 'banter' it says a lot about their standards, and anyway, nobody has the right to expect others to put up with it just because they don't care.

It's just wrong to dismiss something like that as though it's on the same lines as giving Nigel from Planning a 'hard stare' for ogling our breasts in 1978. It's not the same thing at all.

Great stuff 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Eeeuw!!!! I have just read 2 of the actual things Wallace said to the woman who wrote his book, apparently mentioned on the Victoria Derbyshire programme, and I was eating my lunch at the time of reading ......yuk!!!!

I find him completely unattractive (repulsive, actually, if I'm allowed to say that) which made these 2 comments even more disgusting. Eeeuw! Eeeuw!

I just don’t know why any man anywhere would ever imagine that women he is not involved with intimately would want to see or hear about his penis.
I personally can’t think of anything more tedious.

petra

I don’t know if it was because I did my apprenticeship in a strick union house or that the mother of the chapel cared for our welfare.
Of course the printers, compositors, Lino type operators swore and joked amongst themselves but never ever in front of the women.
Not that I would have been shocked, I was brought up in a very Sweary house.

Funnily enough, I worked in the newspaper industry and none of the printers, compositors etc were ever a problem. Yes, there were jokes - stuff like being sent for 'a long stand' and so on - but nothing more than that. The only men I had problems with were right at the top of the food chain, so to speak.

"Same as Strictly’s Revd Richard Coles. He wrote that he used to loiter in public toilets or park up in laybys hoping to get casual sex with somebody which he usually did. Totally repulsive yet he is almost a national treasure."

Homosexuality was partially decriminalized in 1967. The law enable consenting adults of the same sex to have intercourse in private provided that the were over the age of 21. It was not fully decriminalized until 2004. After 1967 anti gay laws were more heavily policed. It was often difficult for gay men to meet like minded people - hence laybys and "cottaging"

I met my DH in 1968 and we went, out of interest, to the two pubs in the Earls Court/Kensington area where gays used to hang out. One, the Coleherne was where the "biker boys" went (the wore leathers). The other was where the "pretty boys" went. I remember two of them used to wear pastel coloured dungarees with matching berets and one had a small poodle with dyed hair.

I often preferred the company of gay men because the sexual element was missing from their conversations with women. I think many preferred talking to women rather than to straight men.

I remember one Sunday afternoon we went for a walk on Hampstead Heath with one of DH's flat mates and he announced that he was "bi-sexual". I think he couldn't bring himself to say he was gay. I particularly liked him because he said that my hair was like spun gold. Who wouldn't like to hear that phrase?

Over the years we've mixed with many gay men - dancers, artists etc etc and I can honestly say that I've never heard any of them using the language used by Wallace.

Happily the opinions of Primrose53 are now in the minority. She has conflated Wallace's behaviour with that of someone convicted of sex crimes with children. As far as I'm aware, he has not been accused of the latter behaviour.

Doodledog
Nigel from Planning

Dinahmo
Hence the saying that every woman needs a gay best friend (meaning a male gay BF).

Dinahmo

"Same as Strictly’s Revd Richard Coles. He wrote that he used to loiter in public toilets or park up in laybys hoping to get casual sex with somebody which he usually did. Totally repulsive yet he is almost a national treasure."

Homosexuality was partially decriminalized in 1967. The law enable consenting adults of the same sex to have intercourse in private provided that the were over the age of 21. It was not fully decriminalized until 2004. After 1967 anti gay laws were more heavily policed. It was often difficult for gay men to meet like minded people - hence laybys and "cottaging"

I met my DH in 1968 and we went, out of interest, to the two pubs in the Earls Court/Kensington area where gays used to hang out. One, the Coleherne was where the "biker boys" went (the wore leathers). The other was where the "pretty boys" went. I remember two of them used to wear pastel coloured dungarees with matching berets and one had a small poodle with dyed hair.

I often preferred the company of gay men because the sexual element was missing from their conversations with women. I think many preferred talking to women rather than to straight men.

I remember one Sunday afternoon we went for a walk on Hampstead Heath with one of DH's flat mates and he announced that he was "bi-sexual". I think he couldn't bring himself to say he was gay. I particularly liked him because he said that my hair was like spun gold. Who wouldn't like to hear that phrase?

Over the years we've mixed with many gay men - dancers, artists etc etc and I can honestly say that I've never heard any of them using the language used by Wallace.

Happily the opinions of Primrose53 are now in the minority. She has conflated Wallace's behaviour with that of someone convicted of sex crimes with children. As far as I'm aware, he has not been accused of the latter behaviour.

He wasn’t talking about decades ago.

A former MasterChef contestant has claimed that Wallace's comments are just the "tip of the iceberg".

The unidentified ex-contestant (who apparently asked to remain anonymous) alleged the show had a 'toxic environment' and even considered quitting on the first day.

This is not another "middle-class woman of a certain age", but a man - a man who alleges widespread abuse of contestants.

He didn't 'speak-out' at the time because he'd signed an NDA.

Talking to Sky's Katie Spencer, he admitted he's "never seen anything like it". He believes there is - or was - a systemic problem, larger than just Wallace.

... perhaps he's a middle-class man of a certain age, who knows? Or maybe he's one of those who've "nothing better to do" as has been suggested on here about the women who complained?

I'm not going to apologise for my sarcasm. The very concept that women should simply put up with persistent offensive behaviour rather than ruin a man's life or career really pushes my buttons. Women have been 'putting-up' with this kind of behaviour, especially in the work-place, for as long as I can remember - because they've been deemed to be the ones causing offence by daring to say that it makes them feel uncomfortable - they are supposed to 'handle' it - to manage their emotions, so as not to rock the boat and hinder the career or prospects of an uncivilised pest who will be further emboldened by their silence and acquiescence.

Well, to hell with that!

Well said Dickens and others. There is nothing "grown up" about putting up with inappropriate behaviour because a man wants you to put up with it.

@Dickens,
This again brings me back to Torode, he has distanced himself saying he only turned up to film and was no friend of Greg, but if other contestants noticed this toxic environment in which Greg obviously thrived, how could Torode not have witnessed the same and more importantly reported it.
If the women were ignored as per surely it would have been good if a man did speak up like the contestant in your post.
Very strange.

John Torode hit the jackpot when he got the Masterchef gig. A failed restaurant, a lot of debt. A good, but not remarkable or extraordinary chef.

He wouldn't have wanted to rock the boat and jeopardise his position and his future income which is now probably considerable when you look at everything he's done since fronting the programme and is now likely to be a very nice pension thank you very much.

He has always said that they're not friends outside the programme and don't socialise. (Although him being Best Man at Wallace's latest wedding bucked that trend a bit).

He's played a kind of "drip, drip" game over the years to distance himself from Wallace.

He is now saying that he did make representations about Wallace. He's probably an ok guy - I don't recall ever hearing him say anything that would offend or act in a way that would make you think he was anything but a reasonable bloke.

ferry23 John Torode sold his restaurants Smiths of Smithfield (which is still open) and The Luxe.

Whilst under his ownership they had a turnover of over £9 million.

Not sure why you thought he had a failed restaurant

GrannyGravy13

ferry23 John Torode sold his restaurants Smiths of Smithfield (which is still open) and The Luxe.

Whilst under his ownership they had a turnover of over £9 million.

Not sure why you thought he had a ^failed restaurant^

I stand corrected then GrannyGravy - I had it in my mind that that was the case, I thought I had read it many moons ago.

Must be relying on my more mature memory

Under John Torode (of Masterchef fame), Smith’s of Smithfield (S.O.S.) was an institution. Workers from myriad industries congregated early for power breakfasts, piping hot coffee and chatter. Simplicity, quality and effectiveness coalesced beautifully. In new, corporate hands, and without Torode’s oversight, S.O.S. is now a shadow of its former self. My recent visit there was among my most disappointing gastro-ventures.
Palatemag 2018

Why are people trying to damn John Torode just by the fact he was a colleague of Wallace?
Guilty by association?

No, you’re right ferry23, I remembered reading about it too, he has had a failed restaurant, just not that recently. By the looks as if he learned from his mistakes though.
www.ft.com/content/754889d4-7a60-11df-9cd7-00144feabdc0
I think it’s probably the right time to change both the hosts, because in the public mind Torode and Wallis are a duo, so maybe John Torode could move on to another programme, and somebody new could host Masterchef, and give it a refresh. I hope they keep Marcus and Monica though, they are both so good at what they do.

No, you’re right ferry23, I remembered reading about it too, he has had a failed restaurant, just not that recently. By the looks as if he learned from his mistakes though
He made the mistake of opening another one, too soon, in the wrong place.
He then opened a third restaurant:

Additionally, Torode opened another restaurant The Luxe in Spitalfields, which following years of leadership and dedication, Torode opted to eventually sell The Luxe along with Smiths of Smithfield. However, during his tenure, both restaurants made a turnover of £9.2 million

But do carry on destroying his reputation and suggesting he leaves Masterchef if that pleases you, just because his colleague is a misogynistic sex pest.

Guilt by association.

Allira

^No, you’re right ferry23, I remembered reading about it too, he has had a failed restaurant, just not that recently. By the looks as if he learned from his mistakes though^
He made the mistake of opening another one, too soon, in the wrong place.
He then opened a third restaurant:

Additionally, Torode opened another restaurant The Luxe in Spitalfields, which following years of leadership and dedication, Torode opted to eventually sell The Luxe along with Smiths of Smithfield. However, during his tenure, both restaurants made a turnover of £9.2 million

But do carry on destroying his reputation and suggesting he leaves Masterchef if that pleases you, just because his colleague is a misogynistic sex pest.

Guilt by association.

What do you mean trashing his reputation? I meant that the programme is in a rut, and that fresh blood would revitalise it, which I think it needs. John Torode is a good presenter, but there are other roles he could take on, which I also suggested. He’d be good on Saturday Kitchen.

I don't think anyone is trying to trash his reputation Allira.

I made a point of saying he seems like an ok bloke and has never said or done anything offensive. And that he's always said he's not friends with Wallace outside of the programme.

I personally would like him to stay fronting Masterchef and I'm pretty sure he may be asked for input as to a suitable replacement. I hope so anyway.