Greg Wallace suspended

Yes,mits a minefield, trying to investigate historical allegations. It’s hard enough investigating allegations made soon after the alleged offence.

For every time something is dismissed as attention seeking,being a snowflake and encouraging unwanted sexual attention, there is more encouragement for the person to carry right on.

Galaxy

I think there is an interesting question to ask about why some famous men are not 'cancelled' because of their behaviour. So I think GW has behaved hideously, I dont however think his behaviour is as bad as Boy George's for example. Then you have Bill Wyman and others.

That is a good point. I don't understand that.

MissAdventure

The best way of trying to combat false allegations, and true ones, is by having a no blame culture for those who are victims, and suitable punishments for people making false accusations.

It needs to be across the board, and start with "just" bottom slapping.

Again it is difficult. Someone with mental health issues make a false allegation, they are being taken to court for perverting the course of justice and they commit suicide. Is that justice?

Maybe I worked in a police station for too long.

Iam64

I’m well aware women can and do behave abusively, False allegations are made by women but they’re a tiny minority in comparison with the numbers of women and children who are abused by men.
A woman is murdered every week by a man, usually a partner, often when she’s trying to leave.
Repeating these truths doesn’t in any way suggest ‘all men should suffer’. On the contrary, it suggests we need effective investigations to establish the truth.

So we are in agreement then, ruining lives whether by abuse or lies isn't on but it still leaves the question of how you ensure that. One of the big problems is how you have an effective investigation 20, 30 or 40 years later. Where is the forensic evidence, where are the witnesses and do they even remember as it might have been something that didn't seem significant to them at the time. It is a minefield.

The best way of trying to combat false allegations, and true ones, is by having a no blame culture for those who are victims, and suitable punishments for people making false accusations.

It needs to be across the board, and start with "just" bottom slapping.

I think there is an interesting question to ask about why some famous men are not 'cancelled' because of their behaviour. So I think GW has behaved hideously, I dont however think his behaviour is as bad as Boy George's for example. Then you have Bill Wyman and others.

I’m well aware women can and do behave abusively, False allegations are made by women but they’re a tiny minority in comparison with the numbers of women and children who are abused by men.
A woman is murdered every week by a man, usually a partner, often when she’s trying to leave.
Repeating these truths doesn’t in any way suggest ‘all men should suffer’. On the contrary, it suggests we need effective investigations to establish the truth.

Doodledog

MissInterpreted

There's a big difference between someone with a grudge making a spurious complaint against someone and many different people coming forward with similar allegations against that one person though.

There is. And whilst the Shaun Wilson case seems awful, the account above is putting the best spin on it - the accusation was that he put his hand up someone's skirt and groped her, so who knows why it was 'reduced' to clothed bottom touching?

Yes, four months' filming plus repeat fees etc would be a lot to lose (and SW is claiming to have been planning a relaunch of his career), but it would have cost ITV money to pay him off and replace him with John Thompson, and the publicity is bad for them (and was made worse by the secrecy surrounding the exit), so they won't have done it lightly.

As ever, we don't know the full story. If he is, indeed, innocent, the reaction is very heavy-handed, but why do people believe him and not the women in the GW case? Or the Russell Brand case? Or the boys in the Phillip Schofield and Huw Edwards cases? In the case of SW the TV company had a lot to lose by going ahead and sacking him, in all the others they had a lot to gain by covering things up.

From what I've read ITV said it was a hand up skirt but the police have said that wasn't correct, it was he was alleged to have touched her bottom. Again we only know what is presented to us by the media, I used to work in a police station and sometimes what I read in the newspapers about a case I'd prepared the court file for was virtually unrecognisable. What you have quoted illustrates the dangers of publicity, if in fact the complaint she made to the police was he touched her bottom the "fact" that is now out there is more serious than that.

I haven't said I believe him I was quite clear that it could be true or it could be a lie or a mistake, my point is the sort of reactions that ruin lives are dangerous. Don't you think that about any male you care about? I have a husband, a brother, sons, grandsons, son in law etc etc and I would be no happier with this sort of thing happening to them than I would be if a man touched or harassed my daughter, sister, granddaughters or daughters in law.

To be clear I wouldn't be happy with any of those men in my life doing something like this, I also wouldn't be happy if any of those women in my life made false allegations about an innocent man.

If we look at rape allegations men falsely accused have committed suicide and women who weren't believed have done the same. My question was how can you protect them all?

MissInterpreted

There's a big difference between someone with a grudge making a spurious complaint against someone and many different people coming forward with similar allegations against that one person though.

There is. And whilst the Shaun Wilson case seems awful, the account above is putting the best spin on it - the accusation was that he put his hand up someone's skirt and groped her, so who knows why it was 'reduced' to clothed bottom touching?

Yes, four months' filming plus repeat fees etc would be a lot to lose (and SW is claiming to have been planning a relaunch of his career), but it would have cost ITV money to pay him off and replace him with John Thompson, and the publicity is bad for them (and was made worse by the secrecy surrounding the exit), so they won't have done it lightly.

As ever, we don't know the full story. If he is, indeed, innocent, the reaction is very heavy-handed, but why do people believe him and not the women in the GW case? Or the Russell Brand case? Or the boys in the Phillip Schofield and Huw Edwards cases? In the case of SW the TV company had a lot to lose by going ahead and sacking him, in all the others they had a lot to gain by covering things up.

Nobody is suggesting all men should suffer, though.

Iam64

Men sexually abuse men women and children. A man can do this and ruin lives
That’s a much more likely scenario than a man’s life being runined by an isolated accusation

Actually women do abuse men and children, did you hear the case of the woman who kept her 3 year old in a drawer? Should all women suffer because of her?

Iam64

Men sexually abuse men women and children. A man can do this and ruin lives
That’s a much more likely scenario than a man’s life being runined by an isolated accusation

That doesn't make it OK though, surely no one actually thinks it is fair enough to accuse an innocent man and ruin his life because other men have done worse?

Men sexually abuse men women and children. A man can do this and ruin lives
That’s a much more likely scenario than a man’s life being runined by an isolated accusation

MissInterpreted

There's a big difference between someone with a grudge making a spurious complaint against someone and many different people coming forward with similar allegations against that one person though.

I think for the guy from Coronation St it is just one complaint so different to the Greg Wallace case, I have no idea if it is spurious but my point was someone can do this and effectively ruin someone else's life. It seems like for the Coronation St actor, I think his name is Sean something, it is one complaint and it has still caused months of anxiety, loss of earnings, loss of reputation.

The only thing I can think of is the information is confidential unless something is proved in court but of course that stop other people with a genuine grievance coming forward. Like I said before I don't know how you can protect both sides.

I also think this isn't just a male female thing, Kevin Spacey was accused by other men.

It's women's fault, not sure if Eve was midde class and probably not middle aged but the Fall of Man was instigated by a woman.

Why women just can't accept it's all their fault that men behave as they do is beyond me.

And another one -many thanks Doodledog

There is a boundary issue here. Sex offenders escalate.

It’s been reported today that women have come forward claiming he pushed his groin into them, or touched their bottom. To those who shout it wasn’t that bad I say how bad does it have to be before a man, especially one where a power imbalance exists, is called outb

There's a big difference between someone with a grudge making a spurious complaint against someone and many different people coming forward with similar allegations against that one person though.

Fleurpepper

theworriedwell

There are lots of channels so no one is made to watch him. I've never watched any of his programmes as I'm not interested so don't know anything about him.

Agreed. However I watch for the contestants and their imagination and skills- same for Strictly.

We all like different things and obviously lots of people like the shows I'm just not one of them.

Wyllow3

👏👏👏 Very well explained. I was also intrigued yesterday at the garage looking at all the headlines/newspapers nearly all on Wallace.

Levels of current interest doesn't mean that other issues are not significant or more significant, or one doesnt care. It means that culturally a sort of tipping point on what is acceptable has been reached on coercive emotional control.

I think it can be dangerous. Have you seen the actor who was on Coronation St years ago, he was due to be in the show again this year for 4 months, so 4 months pay plus repeat fees is probably quite a lot.

He was dropped as someone, apparently he can't be told who, has said he touched their bottom 17 years ago. The police have dropped it, no evidence, no witnesses, no previous mention of this to anyone, complainant can't say when it happened. Now he might have done it but then again he might not and he has lost work/money, his name is dragged through the mud and this will forever come up on the internet.

How are both sides protected? I honestly can't see how they can be. Complainants need to be believed and supported but suppose it is someone with a grudge, someone who just doesn't like you and can make a short statement and ruin you.

I don't know what the answer is.

Jaxjacky

Christmas Masterchef specials have been pulled from the schedule.

Yes I heard this. Is a shame for those who took part but can understand the reasoning seeing as it would probs be prime time viewing over Xmas, even Xmas day, with families sitting down to watch a man accused of sexual misconduct making jolly with celebs.
A bit sick making.

Christmas Masterchef specials have been pulled from the schedule.

Babs03

Well said Doodledog.
Agree totally.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Me too.

👏👏👏 Very well explained. I was also intrigued yesterday at the garage looking at all the headlines/newspapers nearly all on Wallace.

Levels of current interest doesn't mean that other issues are not significant or more significant, or one doesnt care. It means that culturally a sort of tipping point on what is acceptable has been reached on coercive emotional control.

Well said Doodledog.
Agree totally.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽