Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they'll be looking for new jobs" one is charging £200 for 121 training! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it will be very disappointing for the 2024 contestants if the season doesn't get shown, especially for the winner. " Very difficult to show now, but it's not the contestants fault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it will be very disappointing for the 2024 contestants if the season doesn't get shown, especially for the winner. " Yes it's really bad for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps AI could transform the presenters into replacements. It must have been highly stressful for the contestants - and still is, with this uncertainty - as well as the crew. " Or mute their voices, blur their faces and have subtitles | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or mute their voices, blur their faces and have subtitles" I reckon they should overlay their faces with cartoonish emoticons and have Craig Cash re-record John Torode's commentary with Alan Carr re-recording Greg Wallace's commentary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should be Nigella bit of eye candy " Grace Dent has already recorded Celebrity Masterchef and two Christmas specials but unfortunately they are with Torode. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should be Nigella bit of eye candy worth a watch!" She is not scandal proof either. Allegedly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In house bbc politics and ppl being naughty is over played and honestly is very boring." Amen | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With the technology available now, I'm sure it's possible to edit out 95%++ of any offending individual. " Now both judges have been sacked it will be challenging to edit them out of tasting of the dishes, their feedback and the judging deliberations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they'll be looking for new jobsone is charging £200 for 121 training!" Per hour? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. " You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. " really! Whatever are you laughing and joking about that makes you afraid to do it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right?" Seen way too many people hauled in front of HR for absolutely nothing, so yes I agree with you, but no I don't do it any longer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right?" Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on." It was only seen as 'banter' by him. People are sick of men passing off their gross actions as 'banter', it's not remotely funny | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. really! Whatever are you laughing and joking about that makes you afraid to do it? " One guy was laughing and joking about a news article he was reading in his newspaper that someone took offence to, he got a disciplinary! Crazy world we live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on. It was only seen as 'banter' by him. People are sick of men passing off their gross actions as 'banter', it's not remotely funny " Yet you choose to miss my point. It was not just him. Wallace, Torode, the celebs, the producers, the crew, so many people were not offended at the time. Perhaps some felt it a little cringey but nothing more than that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on. It was only seen as 'banter' by him. People are sick of men passing off their gross actions as 'banter', it's not remotely funny Yet you choose to miss my point. It was not just him. Wallace, Torode, the celebs, the producers, the crew, so many people were not offended at the time. Perhaps some felt it a little cringey but nothing more than that. " His behaviour was first reported in 2015, people were offended at the time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on. It was only seen as 'banter' by him. People are sick of men passing off their gross actions as 'banter', it's not remotely funny Yet you choose to miss my point. It was not just him. Wallace, Torode, the celebs, the producers, the crew, so many people were not offended at the time. Perhaps some felt it a little cringey but nothing more than that. His behaviour was first reported in 2015, people were offended at the time" 10 years ago and so offensive nothing was done. Really?. The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a large part of the fault lies with the BBC. They should have dealt with this swiftly and promptly as soon as it was brought to their attention, then they wouldn’t find themselves in this situation. They never learn. " Exactly. As the behaviour stopped in 2018 I think someone did have a talk with Wallace, should have happened sooner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think a large part of the fault lies with the BBC. They should have dealt with this swiftly and promptly as soon as it was brought to their attention, then they wouldn’t find themselves in this situation. They never learn. " They don't and neither do many big organisations. It's always swept under the carpet because the person behaving in this way is too important or successful and the people they're harassing aren't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is exactly why I no longer laugh and joke at work anymore, way too many sensitive souls out there. Mr F. You know that it's not illegal to laugh and joke, right? Apparently it is, why has Wallace been sacked? There was no physical assault, just what was seen as banter at the time from a loud, arrogant man. Torode joined in and I suspect some of the complainants possibly did too, but times change and once the complaints bandwagon starts rolling it always surprises me how many jump on. It was only seen as 'banter' by him. People are sick of men passing off their gross actions as 'banter', it's not remotely funny Yet you choose to miss my point. It was not just him. Wallace, Torode, the celebs, the producers, the crew, so many people were not offended at the time. Perhaps some felt it a little cringey but nothing more than that. His behaviour was first reported in 2015, people were offended at the time 10 years ago and so offensive nothing was done. Really?. The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything" Ok. You lost me at 'snowflakes' we will have to agree to disagree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything" You mean in the same way they considered the Jimmy Saville allegations? And look how that ended up. Like it or not times they are a changing. The days of folk putting up with sexual innuendo, unacceptable inappropriate body contact and racist comments has passed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything You mean in the same way they considered the Jimmy Saville allegations? And look how that ended up. Like it or not times they are a changing. The days of folk putting up with sexual innuendo, unacceptable inappropriate body contact and racist comments has passed. " Hahaha! I knew someone would bring that up. You are really comparing Saville to Wallace? Serious sexual abuse over five decades compared to a few bad jokes in a kitchen over a few years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything You mean in the same way they considered the Jimmy Saville allegations? And look how that ended up. Like it or not times they are a changing. The days of folk putting up with sexual innuendo, unacceptable inappropriate body contact and racist comments has passed. Hahaha! I knew someone would bring that up. You are really comparing Saville to Wallace? Serious sexual abuse over five decades compared to a few bad jokes in a kitchen over a few years? " No she's comparing the BBC dismissing or overlooking reports of bad behaviour in both instances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything You mean in the same way they considered the Jimmy Saville allegations? And look how that ended up. Like it or not times they are a changing. The days of folk putting up with sexual innuendo, unacceptable inappropriate body contact and racist comments has passed. Hahaha! I knew someone would bring that up. You are really comparing Saville to Wallace? Serious sexual abuse over five decades compared to a few bad jokes in a kitchen over a few years? " No. If you read what I said I was on about the BBC and how they handle allegations. Regardless of what the allegations are, they should be dealt with. Investigated promptly, etc etc. Not wait until folk have enough of their inaction and take matters into their own hands. Each company has policies and procedures for handling stuff like this, it looks like the BBC just brushed this (and other matters like this) under the carpet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BBC would have considered it and thought what a lot of nonsense. Today they have to consider all the sensitive little snowflakes who get offended by anything You mean in the same way they considered the Jimmy Saville allegations? And look how that ended up. Like it or not times they are a changing. The days of folk putting up with sexual innuendo, unacceptable inappropriate body contact and racist comments has passed. Hahaha! I knew someone would bring that up. You are really comparing Saville to Wallace? Serious sexual abuse over five decades compared to a few bad jokes in a kitchen over a few years? No. If you read what I said I was on about the BBC and how they handle allegations. Regardless of what the allegations are, they should be dealt with. Investigated promptly, etc etc. Not wait until folk have enough of their inaction and take matters into their own hands. Each company has policies and procedures for handling stuff like this, it looks like the BBC just brushed this (and other matters like this) under the carpet. " If you read my previous comment where I pointed out this behaviour stopped 7 years ago it would appear it was "dealt with", as you probably know people like Wallace do not stop until they are stopped. Same with Saville, apparently there were many opportunities to stop him but the BBC put their heads in the sand. If Rantzen, who claims she knew decades ago had said anything it could have been stopped. The most watched woman on TV set up Childline but allowed him to carry on. Other "celebs" also claimed they knew, so it is not just the organisations to blame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency." Probably not if you were bringing a lot of business and making loads of money for them. The goal posts for acceptable behaviour widen significantly in line with benefits to the organisation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. Probably not if you were bringing a lot of business and making loads of money for them. The goal posts for acceptable behaviour widen significantly in line with benefits to the organisation " Yep they do indeed. And this is where the BBC are at fault. It should be an equal playing ground and all rules should apply to everyone. The type of behaviour may vary. The response should not. Whether it’s a “bad joke” or something far more serious—if there’s a complaint, it needs to be properly investigated. That’s not radical. That’s just HR doing their job. And I think if someone can’t handle that without screaming about snowflakes and free speech, then maybe they’re the fragile one and should take a look at their own behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Harvey67 where did you see that Wallace's behaviour stopped seven years ago ? Between 2005 and 2014 there were 12 allegations made. " There is a thing called Google.Initially there were 12 accusations over the period you say,that grew to 83 up til 2018. There was one from 2021,Penny Lancaster was upset when Wallace queried whether she should have left a lotus flower in her soup. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency." I agree with you but should point out that many people who work for the BBC are not employees, they are private companies contracted to the BBC. This is mainly for tax reasons but I suspect they will not be subject to the same rules as you and I. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. Probably not if you were bringing a lot of business and making loads of money for them. The goal posts for acceptable behaviour widen significantly in line with benefits to the organisation Yep they do indeed. And this is where the BBC are at fault. It should be an equal playing ground and all rules should apply to everyone. The type of behaviour may vary. The response should not. Whether it’s a “bad joke” or something far more serious—if there’s a complaint, it needs to be properly investigated. That’s not radical. That’s just HR doing their job. And I think if someone can’t handle that without screaming about snowflakes and free speech, then maybe they’re the fragile one and should take a look at their own behaviour." Indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency." As I pointed out,his behaviour stopped in 2018.Just found this,which validates your point "Wallace is said to have received a warning from BBC bosses in 2018 after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quizshow Impossible Celebrities. Two of the women who complained told BBC News that he made staff feel uncomfortable by talking about his sex life and making “disgusting” sexual jokes. The broadcaster reported that a formal HR investigation took place and concluded that “many aspects of [Wallace’s] behaviour were both unacceptable and unprofessional”. In a subsequent letter, seen by BBC News, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear “how seriously the BBC takes this matter”. His bad behaviour stopped, (except for the Lancaster nonsense) so perhaps the women who failed to report him earlier failed others? Kirsty Wark can hardly be considered a "weak woman" and could have made it public or pushed for an investigation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man behaves badly. Women! Why didn't you stop him? " This behaviour was aimed solely at women, so why didn't they? Screaming you are equal but expect men to rescue you. Women do all the bad things men do,not so many granted,but take responsibility for yourselves ffs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. As I pointed out,his behaviour stopped in 2018.Just found this,which validates your point "Wallace is said to have received a warning from BBC bosses in 2018 after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quizshow Impossible Celebrities. Two of the women who complained told BBC News that he made staff feel uncomfortable by talking about his sex life and making “disgusting” sexual jokes. The broadcaster reported that a formal HR investigation took place and concluded that “many aspects of [Wallace’s] behaviour were both unacceptable and unprofessional”. In a subsequent letter, seen by BBC News, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear “how seriously the BBC takes this matter”. His bad behaviour stopped, (except for the Lancaster nonsense) so perhaps the women who failed to report him earlier failed others? Kirsty Wark can hardly be considered a "weak woman" and could have made it public or pushed for an investigation." How many warnings do you think you and I would have by an employer before we were sacked if our company received more than 5 complaints about us? Three? At most? That’s being generous. The BBC received many, and over 45 of those complaints about him were upheld. He had SEVERAL formal warnings by the BBC. Several! And so his behaviour stopped in 2018. Good for him. He finally was made to see sense. Let’s give him a clap on the back. He behaved like an ass. The BBC also behaved like an ass. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man behaves badly. Women! Why didn't you stop him? This behaviour was aimed solely at women, so why didn't they? Screaming you are equal but expect men to rescue you. Women do all the bad things men do,not so many granted,but take responsibility for yourselves ffs" You're implying that women should take responsibility for preventing men behaving badly. How about men taking responsibility for themselves and just not behaving badly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. As I pointed out,his behaviour stopped in 2018.Just found this,which validates your point "Wallace is said to have received a warning from BBC bosses in 2018 after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quizshow Impossible Celebrities. Two of the women who complained told BBC News that he made staff feel uncomfortable by talking about his sex life and making “disgusting” sexual jokes. The broadcaster reported that a formal HR investigation took place and concluded that “many aspects of [Wallace’s] behaviour were both unacceptable and unprofessional”. In a subsequent letter, seen by BBC News, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear “how seriously the BBC takes this matter”. His bad behaviour stopped, (except for the Lancaster nonsense) so perhaps the women who failed to report him earlier failed others? Kirsty Wark can hardly be considered a "weak woman" and could have made it public or pushed for an investigation. How many warnings do you think you and I would have by an employer before we were sacked if our company received more than 5 complaints about us? Three? At most? That’s being generous. The BBC received many, and over 45 of those complaints about him were upheld. He had SEVERAL formal warnings by the BBC. Several! And so his behaviour stopped in 2018. Good for him. He finally was made to see sense. Let’s give him a clap on the back. He behaved like an ass. The BBC also behaved like an ass. " Sorry, you miss the point.There were no "repeated warnings". After several complaints he was given one warning in 2018 and it appears his behaviour changed as except for Lancaster there have been no other complaints.You think anyone should lose their livelihood after one warning? No one complained or warned him prior to that so he thought it was acceptable. That makes him stupid,nothing more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man behaves badly. Women! Why didn't you stop him? This behaviour was aimed solely at women, so why didn't they? Screaming you are equal but expect men to rescue you. Women do all the bad things men do,not so many granted,but take responsibility for yourselves ffs You're implying that women should take responsibility for preventing men behaving badly. How about men taking responsibility for themselves and just not behaving badly? " Don’t be silly now. We should just complain and the well documented historically effective system will fix everything up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man behaves badly. Women! Why didn't you stop him? This behaviour was aimed solely at women, so why didn't they? Screaming you are equal but expect men to rescue you. Women do all the bad things men do,not so many granted,but take responsibility for yourselves ffs You're implying that women should take responsibility for preventing men behaving badly. How about men taking responsibility for themselves and just not behaving badly? " You are implying only men should be responsible for anything that happens. It should not happen, but if it does and no one does anything then women should drag it into the light. Or do you think women should just deal with it as in this case and say nothing for 20 years? If Kirsty Wark had called it out then all the victims following her may have been spared. Or is the new cause "Justme" rather than "Metoo"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. As I pointed out,his behaviour stopped in 2018.Just found this,which validates your point "Wallace is said to have received a warning from BBC bosses in 2018 after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quizshow Impossible Celebrities. Two of the women who complained told BBC News that he made staff feel uncomfortable by talking about his sex life and making “disgusting” sexual jokes. The broadcaster reported that a formal HR investigation took place and concluded that “many aspects of [Wallace’s] behaviour were both unacceptable and unprofessional”. In a subsequent letter, seen by BBC News, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear “how seriously the BBC takes this matter”. His bad behaviour stopped, (except for the Lancaster nonsense) so perhaps the women who failed to report him earlier failed others? Kirsty Wark can hardly be considered a "weak woman" and could have made it public or pushed for an investigation. How many warnings do you think you and I would have by an employer before we were sacked if our company received more than 5 complaints about us? Three? At most? That’s being generous. The BBC received many, and over 45 of those complaints about him were upheld. He had SEVERAL formal warnings by the BBC. Several! And so his behaviour stopped in 2018. Good for him. He finally was made to see sense. Let’s give him a clap on the back. He behaved like an ass. The BBC also behaved like an ass. Sorry, you miss the point.There were no "repeated warnings". After several complaints he was given one warning in 2018 and it appears his behaviour changed as except for Lancaster there have been no other complaints.You think anyone should lose their livelihood after one warning? No one complained or warned him prior to that so he thought it was acceptable. That makes him stupid,nothing more" Fair enough, I’ll own that ‘several’ was technically wrong, it was two formal warnings (one in 2017 and one in 2018). But honestly? Two is still enough to show a pattern, and the fact remains: the BBC didn’t exactly cover itself in glory handling the situation. And they really should have learnt by now. You call him stupid. I call him a letch. 🤷🏻♀️ We will have to agree to disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe not, but the organisation was the employer. If the behaviour/incident happened during work time then ultimately the buck stopped with them. Let’s face it, if you or I were brought in by HR due to such allegations we would have a new arsehole torn. Not given multiple tickings off and leniency. As I pointed out,his behaviour stopped in 2018.Just found this,which validates your point "Wallace is said to have received a warning from BBC bosses in 2018 after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quizshow Impossible Celebrities. Two of the women who complained told BBC News that he made staff feel uncomfortable by talking about his sex life and making “disgusting” sexual jokes. The broadcaster reported that a formal HR investigation took place and concluded that “many aspects of [Wallace’s] behaviour were both unacceptable and unprofessional”. In a subsequent letter, seen by BBC News, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear “how seriously the BBC takes this matter”. His bad behaviour stopped, (except for the Lancaster nonsense) so perhaps the women who failed to report him earlier failed others? Kirsty Wark can hardly be considered a "weak woman" and could have made it public or pushed for an investigation. How many warnings do you think you and I would have by an employer before we were sacked if our company received more than 5 complaints about us? Three? At most? That’s being generous. The BBC received many, and over 45 of those complaints about him were upheld. He had SEVERAL formal warnings by the BBC. Several! And so his behaviour stopped in 2018. Good for him. He finally was made to see sense. Let’s give him a clap on the back. He behaved like an ass. The BBC also behaved like an ass. Sorry, you miss the point.There were no "repeated warnings". After several complaints he was given one warning in 2018 and it appears his behaviour changed as except for Lancaster there have been no other complaints.You think anyone should lose their livelihood after one warning? No one complained or warned him prior to that so he thought it was acceptable. That makes him stupid,nothing more Fair enough, I’ll own that ‘several’ was technically wrong, it was two formal warnings (one in 2017 and one in 2018). But honestly? Two is still enough to show a pattern, and the fact remains: the BBC didn’t exactly cover itself in glory handling the situation. And they really should have learnt by now. You call him stupid. I call him a letch. 🤷🏻♀️ We will have to agree to disagree." Not at all, I agree with you, he is a letch. A very stupid one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man behaves badly. Women! Why didn't you stop him? This behaviour was aimed solely at women, so why didn't they? Screaming you are equal but expect men to rescue you. Women do all the bad things men do,not so many granted,but take responsibility for yourselves ffs You're implying that women should take responsibility for preventing men behaving badly. How about men taking responsibility for themselves and just not behaving badly? You are implying only men should be responsible for anything that happens. It should not happen, but if it does and no one does anything then women should drag it into the light. Or do you think women should just deal with it as in this case and say nothing for 20 years? If Kirsty Wark had called it out then all the victims following her may have been spared. Or is the new cause "Justme" rather than "Metoo"?" Let me get this straight. Was Greg Wallace a grown man with a modicum of fame solely responsible for his behaviour or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. " Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective." I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help? "Over your trousers!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help?
Over your trousers! "Of course. I know, I know. You're impressed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help?
Over your trousers!
Of course.
I know, I know. You're impressed " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help?
Over your trousers!
Of course.
I know, I know. You're impressed
"I'm not sure our HR department are pleased though.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and I don't expect men to rescue me I expect them to behave decently. That's not being rescued that's just expecting grown adults to know what's right. Im wearing my superman underpants, does that help?
Over your trousers!
Of course.
I know, I know. You're impressed
I'm not sure our HR department are pleased though. "Probably something to do on your own time in the privacy of your own home  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that." Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness " But these women have stood up for themselves and he's facing the consequences of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. 50 years of pointlessness " What happened 50 years ago ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness " Oh give over. So you’re saying if a woman stays silent, she’s complicit. If she speaks up, she’s weak. If she pushes back, she’s pathetic? That’s not insight, that is just outdated chauvinism dressed up as commentary. The real irony is you’re accusing women of failing to evolve but are still clinging to ideas that should’ve been left behind with rotary phones and ashtrays in offices. The 70’s are calling and you’re still listening! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness Oh give over. So you’re saying if a woman stays silent, she’s complicit. If she speaks up, she’s weak. If she pushes back, she’s pathetic? That’s not insight, that is just outdated chauvinism dressed up as commentary. The real irony is you’re accusing women of failing to evolve but are still clinging to ideas that should’ve been left behind with rotary phones and ashtrays in offices. The 70’s are calling and you’re still listening!" I do enjoy pushing the buttons of people like you,it amuses me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. 50 years of pointlessness What happened 50 years ago ? " Sex equality act 1975 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness Oh give over. So you’re saying if a woman stays silent, she’s complicit. If she speaks up, she’s weak. If she pushes back, she’s pathetic? That’s not insight, that is just outdated chauvinism dressed up as commentary. The real irony is you’re accusing women of failing to evolve but are still clinging to ideas that should’ve been left behind with rotary phones and ashtrays in offices. The 70’s are calling and you’re still listening! I do enjoy pushing the buttons of people like you,it amuses me." Of course you do. It’s easier to call it ‘button pushing’ than admit you may be wrong.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To sum up this post in its entirety "Women=no responsibility for self". The woman's perspective. I missed this gem! Calling it ‘no responsibility’ when a woman doesn’t accept mistreatment is just victim blaming dressed up in a blanket of misogyny or dress it up how you like, it’s still that. Oh hush,you want equality without responsibility, that is quite pathetic. No misogyny here dear,just pity that 50 years on so many women cannot stand up for themselves. Do you know how many of Wallace’s "victims" regularly call themselves "strong,independent women"? Most,if not all,but then present themselves as weak and needy. 50 years of pointlessness Oh give over. So you’re saying if a woman stays silent, she’s complicit. If she speaks up, she’s weak. If she pushes back, she’s pathetic? That’s not insight, that is just outdated chauvinism dressed up as commentary. The real irony is you’re accusing women of failing to evolve but are still clinging to ideas that should’ve been left behind with rotary phones and ashtrays in offices. The 70’s are calling and you’re still listening! I do enjoy pushing the buttons of people like you,it amuses me. Of course you do. It’s easier to call it ‘button pushing’ than admit you may be wrong. "Never wrong dear,I am a man after all. Question for you. Why do women have smaller feet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
