[TV] Greg Wallace

[drew]

Being found innocent does not mean you are not guilty, it just means that you have gone through a system of testing the evidence of the claim against you. I would be happy with the slogan listen to the accuser, but believe the victim is essentially saying guilty until proven innocent, which I will never support. As I stated the court system is far from perfect, but if you then require the defendant to prove their innocence it gets far worse. The very statement that you make "does not mean we won't believe the victims until something has been through court" is essentially you saying you agree with guilty until proven innocent, even if that is not what you think it most certainly is the result of such a statement.

Only a very small minority are completely exonerated by a court, ie found innocent. The rest are either found guilty or found that the evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt and therefore found not guilty. As I understand it, the records don't show on the spectrum of doubt where an accused person sits.

Being found not guilty is in no way the same as being found innocent!

 

[drew]

Brother. Guilty by association in your eyes?

Well, as an example, along with her brother, she broke covid lockdown rules. The rules that were imposed were for the hoi polloi, not the Johnsons!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well, as an example, along with her brother, she broke covid lockdown rules. The rules that were imposed were for the hoi polloi, not the Johnsons!!

Stanley had an interesting intepretation of them to enable him to fly to Greece.

 

[pb21]

Rachel Johnson: the Gregg Wallace storm shows we've all gone mad — I stand with him

Speaking as a middle-class woman of a certain age, I know I should stand with my sisters Kirsty and Kirstie and Aasmah and all the other media kweens who have called out Gregg Wallace so bravely for off-colour comments that made them feel uncomfortable.

www.standard.co.uk

Decent article written by a women about the hurty words

Just read it, and some of the best bits of this decent article are below.

you’ve got to love someone whose name is spelt like the popular sausage rolls purveyor

If the entertainment industry is going to delete all the obnoxious toxic males in its ranks, there will be no one left

I don’t want to live in a country where hurty words – and not real crimes – can break careers as easily as eggs.

Got to say I don't love Gregg because his name is the sames as Greggs, bit weird if you do IMO.

Deleting all obnoxious toxic males, like Gregg, will not result in an empty entertainment industry, or maybe it would, in that case that's a real issue...

Just because something isn't Illegal doesn't mean it's right or good. I would have thought the entertainment industry would be better off if obnoxious toxic males, like Gregg, aren't hanging around. Besides his career isn't broken, he's probably got new roles lined up as we speak.

I quite like watching Greg's shows, probably would/will watch them in future too, assuming he doesn't end up presenting some culture wars shite on GB News. But if you're going to go around being an obnoxious toxic male, not just a bit of a cheeky chappy and risqué as the article allude, eventually you'll face the consequences of that.

 

[sparkie]

David Coote must be relieved news has moved on.

David who ? I've forgotten already.

 

[aolstudios]

Well, as an example, along with her brother, she broke covid lockdown rules. The rules that were imposed were for the hoi polloi, not the Johnsons!!

& their father

 

[marlowe]

.... . I would be happy with the slogan listen to the accuser, but believe the victim is essentially saying guilty until proven innocent, which I will never support. As I stated the court system is far from perfect, but if you then require the defendant to prove their innocence it gets far worse. The very statement that you make "does not mean we won't believe the victims until something has been through court" is essentially you saying you agree with guilty until proven innocent, even if that is not what you think it most certainly is the result of such a statement.

There's a world of difference between "believing" someone and coming to a legal verdict.

It's quite possible and even reasonable to believe someone without any evidence whatsoever. Sometimes our personal judgements are based purely on trust, not evidence.

For instance if your wife or partner came home in a highly distressed state telling you they'd been sexually assaulted, would your response be, "I'm sorry love but I'm afraid I can't believe you until I've heard your alleged assaulter's version of events."

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I have simply answered questions. If you are incapable of reading the preceding question and then my following answer, that is hardly my fault.

A bit more concise and a lot less verbose would go along way. I’m not the only one who finds your post confusing. Now it may be due to you being a bit to high brow for the rest of us or you just trying sound clever, whatever it is, concise would be nice.

 

[Triggaaar]

Being found innocent does not mean you are not guilty, it just means that you have gone through a system of testing the evidence of the claim against you. I would be happy with the slogan listen to the accuser, but believe the victim is essentially saying guilty until proven innocent, which I will never support

Yes I agree we shouldn't automatically assume the accused is guilty. For example I didn't ever think there was proof that Ched Evans was guilty of rape. But in this particular case, with the number of accusers, and Gregg's ridiculous comments (certain age and class) I'm quite comfortable believing the victims. Not that I'd put him behind bars, but i don't think it's appropriate for him to still present the show.

. As I stated the court system is far from perfect, but if you then require the defendant to prove their innocence it gets far worse.

That's not what's being asked.

he very statement that you make "does not mean we won't believe the victims until something has been through court" is essentially you saying you agree with guilty until proven innocent

See above

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Rachel Johnson: the Gregg Wallace storm shows we've all gone mad — I stand with him

Speaking as a middle-class woman of a certain age, I know I should stand with my sisters Kirsty and Kirstie and Aasmah and all the other media kweens who have called out Gregg Wallace so bravely for off-colour comments that made them feel uncomfortable.

www.standard.co.uk

Decent article written by a women about the hurty words

In what is a BIZARRE article, this is my personal highlight

"If the entertainment industry is going to delete all the obnoxious toxic males in its ranks, there will be no one left"

Seems a good reason to leave them unchallenged then. What an odd odd point to make.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Apologies if covered but not going to read the 25 pages I’ve got to catch up on!

Must say, this is just odd behaviour, he’s not well

 

[aolstudios]

.

 

[Napper]

Apologies if covered but not going to read the 25 pages I’ve got to catch up on!

Must say, this is just odd behaviour, he’s not well

very , shes not even fit




joking before pc lynch mob arrive

 

[Seagull58]

Apologies if covered but not going to read the 25 pages I’ve got to catch up on!

Must say, this is just odd behaviour, he’s not well

Not diarrhoea, I very much hope.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Apologies if covered but not going to read the 25 pages I’ve got to catch up on!

Must say, this is just odd behaviour, he’s not well

A man can't even paraphrase the Bellamy Brothers without being cancelled and being sent to prison.

If I said you had a beautiful body, would you lick my arsehole?
If I swore you were an angel and kept my cock clean would you lick me tonight?

 

[WATFORD zero]

A man can't even paraphrase the Bellamy Brothers without being cancelled and being sent to prison.

If I said you had a beautiful body, would you lick my arsehole?
If I swore you were an angel and kept my cock clean would you lick me tonight?

That is absolutely dreadful,



you mean Dr Hook and the medicine show

 

[joydivisionovengloves]

 

[Eric the meek]

View attachment 193371

That potato has more class, likeability, judgement, and future than Gregg Wallace...

 

[marlowe]

This afternoon I had cause to be alone in a small cramped lift with a woman I'd met only seconds earlier.

As we stood in the lift together making small talk, I couldn't help but think of Gregg Wallace and the lift anecdote about him, and I thought to myself, under what possible circumstance would I think it appropriate to tell my newly acquainted female lift companion about the sex act I'd performed with my wife this morning. It really brought it home to me how truly wierd that sort of behaviour was.

I even found myself over-compensating to not come across as predatory or intimidating and sub-consciously tried to keep as much distance between us as possible in the very cramped space. I was probably coming across as more weird than if I'd just behaved normally without the Wallace effect on my behaviour.

While all these thoughts were going through my mind I felt the urge to share my Wallace related musings with her but I stopped myself because I realised that would have been just wrong and a little creepy.

It would have been totally inappropriate to even mention the mere name of Wallace to a woman I'd only just met I was alone in a lift with, let alone behaving in a similar manner to him.

 

[BadFish]

There's a world of difference between "believing" someone and coming to a legal verdict.

It's quite possible and even reasonable to believe someone without any evidence whatsoever. Sometimes our personal judgements are based purely on trust, not evidence.

For instance if your wife or partner came home in a highly distressed state telling you they'd been sexually assaulted, would your response be, "I'm sorry love but I'm afraid I can't believe you until I've heard your alleged assaulter's version of events."

I wonder if the refusal to process any evidence without the process of a court of law is a reflection of binary black and white thinking.

My guess is that most people can hold the idea the Wallace is legally innocent along side the growing suspicion that he is probably a sex pest. As more people come forward it becomes more likely that it is true. Although with nuance in mind we can accept that this isn't a certainty, because this certainty can only really come through an investigation process.

Those that engage in binary thinking can of course only see innocent or guilty with no gradation of each.