I believe it's the latest far right trope used by people who want to be able to write "burn the immigrants" and "lick my a***hole" without consequence.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[TV] Greg Wallace
- Thread starter Beach Hut
- Start date
I agree with you that he must have a fair trial. Of course.
But I also agree with those who say nobody has said he must have done it.
But lots of people have said that they don't like him. I used to feel a bit sorry for him and now I don't like him. His comments about 'a certain type of middle ages middle class female' was enough for me to not like him.
All that aside, you got me thinking when you suggested that if someone held a gun to your head and demanded a binary verdict you would say 'guilty'.
Clearly the evidence has not been tested or contested. So in fact we can't make a binary decision. And yet.....so I wonder if there is an event horizon when so many people step forward to accuse a celebrity it is inevitably the case it is true.
I am thinking Savile of course (albeit he died before it all came out). Guilty? I would imagine he was, even without a trial. Be we can't be certain.
Kevin Spacey? I seem to recall he was found guilty then not guilty, but we are now venturing into the world of very expensive lawyers.
Dave Jones? Not guilty
Max Clifford - guilty.
Russell Brand - has he been charged with anything? Yet?
Harvey Weinstein - guilty
It seems that the only unequivocal not guilty was Jones. Not really a celeb. And his 'case' was rather specific and involved only a couple of accusers, who melted away when the trial was due because they had been making stuff up out of malice and/or fishing for money. Apparently.
So, on balance, with 17 accusers and counting, the odds don't look to be in Wallace's favour.
Hang on, I missed someone. An obvious one. Oh yes...
Trump. Apparently not guilty.
On that note, I have no idea if Wallarse has done anything or not. Nobody does. Apart from him and his accusers.
I think you're basing your argument on the assumption that the allegations against Wallace warrant a criminal trial. That certainly wasn't the case when the allegations first emerged when your disagreements on this thread first started.
And even with the emergence of the newer allegations which might merit a criminal trial it doesn't mean to say there will necessarily be one, for a variety of reasons.
But in the absence of a criminal trial, whether the allegations merit it or not, your argument is denying us the right or privilege to express our moral outrage, disapproval or personal judgement.
For instance the allegations against both Savile and Al-Fayed were never tested in a Court of law, and that's not merely because they both died at the opportune moment. Both the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had numerous opportunities to prosecute both of them when they were alive but decided not to.
So in the absence of the allegations and evidence against those two being legally tested in Court does your argument also apply to those two?
What is your personal verdict on:
Savile: Guilty or not Guilty, or Reserve Judgement?
Al-Fayed: Guilty or not Guilty, or Reserve Judgement?
Nitram
Well-known member
- Jul 16, 2013
- 2,300
What are you doing taking a reasoned and proportional take on this?What trial ? Not seen anywhere that this is likely to go to a prosecution.
Internal investigation, no trial, no jury. Employers decide on whether misconduct is evident and if so decide on the outcome
Don’t you know the facts that it’s disgusting how the world is going when a middle aged man can’t have a bit of fun at work and it turns into a media circus by woke and hurty people over a bit of bantz.
Loads of old women making historical allegations they can’t prove. They are probably all are lesbians anyway and don’t know what they are missing.
Give Gregg his day in court so he can show what a true geezer he is. It’s what the non woke and non hurty people want and will be much more entertaining!
schmunk
Why oh why oh why?
schmunk
Why oh why oh why?
I fear you're conflating our criminal and civil court systems.
In a criminal matter there is the requirement for the prosecution to adequetely prove guilt and otherwise there is a presumption of innocence. This is not however anything to do with this matter in hand - so far I understand Gregg Walace has not been charged with any criminal offence, and with the allegations I've seen to date I find it unlikely he will be charged at all. Of course, IANAL and other evidence may still be presented.
In a civil matter, judgement is given on a mere balance of probability. There is no requirement for a presumption of innocence, so in a matter where there are 17 (presumably credible) witnesses making similar allegations about Greg it is not unreasonable to expect he would be found at fault and potentially liable for damages (cash, not prison...). Whether such a civil case will be brought is yet to be seen. N.B. there is no jury for civil cases, tainted or otherwise.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,969
You cut and pasted that from Wikipedia.
What’s the charge, being an arse? Probably guilty.
Not moving with the times? Probably guilty.
Sexual assault? Innocent till proven guilty.
Whereas you are guilty of trying to be a condescending prat.
Not moving with the times? Probably guilty.
Sexual assault? Innocent till proven guilty.
Whereas you are guilty of trying to be a condescending prat.
It's not about Wallace it's about the process and where we are heading. I am absolutely opposed to the concept of "believe the victim" for the reasons I have stated. I couldn't care if there were 17 or 1700 allegations. We need to listen to the complaints, and the target of the complaints and decide what actually occurred based on testing the evidence and from these investigations work out the appropriate punishment (if any). I get that it can be very difficult to bring this kind of allegation and we should make the process as painless as possible, but we cannot throw out the basic principle that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. As to Wallace I don't yet have an opinion, like everyone else, I only have a load of media reports to go on, these reports may be a whole bunch of hyperbole or just the tip of the iceberg. If the allegations of sexual innuendo/bullying are found, then, of course, he should be reprimanded. I also believe in protecting the complainants and the target of the complaints until an outcome has been reached, to this end I disagree with naming people who have been charged but not yet found guilty. .
I am also very concerned that we have gone way too far in protecting people from being offended there are far too many examples of people being precious about (to quote someone else on this thread) nasty words and this is why I brought in stuff regarding social change and the grotesque thing that the Woke movement has become. If the allegations in this particular case are shown to be true then this goes beyond nasty words and needs to be dealt with.
Can you show where I said Wallace must be reprimanded, without first saying something like "if guilty" I strongly suspect you have once again quoted me out of context. If however I did not make that clarification it should be obvious that this was an unintentional mistake on my part.
Last edited:
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,429
Perhaps you should reply to those that 'come as close without saying it' rather than suggesting it is a general theme of the thread.
We were just talking about what effect all the coverage might have if there were a trial, there has been an accusation of some level of sexual assaultWhat trial ? Not seen anywhere that this is likely to go to a prosecution.
Internal investigation, no trial, no jury. Employers decide on whether misconduct is evident and if so decide on the outcome
Err I kind of have, the post where I said this was directed at the person I quoted. Go back and read it again without skimming through. Here I'll help you, this is the line you have taken offense at " If I am reading you correctly you are saying because there are so many complaints he must be guilty" can you show me where I take aim at the whole thread? Sure in an earlier post I pointed out that not many comments pointed to the fact that these are as yet untested allegations and that I found this somewhat concerning, and I stand by that comment. But the line you are so concerned about was clearly targeted.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,457
No, this thread is about Wallace and his victims.
As you are determined to widen the discussion, a good place to start might be a lot closer to home.
Australia is a generation behind the times. A good 30 years.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Read about the difference between employment law and criminal law, in England & Wales.
Nobody, at this stage, is talking about criminal law.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,969
Or ignoring the fact that reputable news sources have reported he's been formally warned before and wasn't contracted again for a different series because of his behaviour.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,457
You don't remember what you've written do you?
Here is the relevant post.
There is no prefix of 'if guilty' or similar. How have I taken 'and I don't have any issue with him being reprimanded in this case', out of context?
What was the context, if you didn't mean 'I don't have any issue with him being reprimanded in this case' when you wrote 'I don't have any issue with him being reprimanded in this case'?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,691
So. To sum up. The guy's an odious creep who should never again be allowed to appear on our screens before the watershed
as I said if I wrote that without the clarification of not guilty then I clearly made an unintentional error.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,457
Moving on, is there a debate going on in Australia with 'woke', 'progressives' and 'worldviews'? A debate about the epidemic of sexual harassment in Australia, that I showed you in the link I posted in post #754?
Is this the background to your evangelical zeal on this Gregg Wallace thread?