[TV] Greg Wallace

[nickjhs]

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."

Of course I would accept their account of events in your example, but this is a far way from the demand by protesters for a blanket "believe the victims". This demand IS a call for guilty until proven innocent.

 

[clapham_gull]

Of course I would accept their account of events in your example, but this is a far way from the demand by protesters for a blanket "believe the victims". This demand IS a call for guilty until proven innocent.

He's not on trial.

 

[Pevenseagull]

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.

I'd have probably gone with a fart.

 

[nickjhs]

He's not on trial.

Are you completely incapable of understanding what is being said.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Are you completely incapable of understanding what is being said.

Projection.

 

[The Clamp]

Of course I would accept their account of events in your example, but this is a far way from the demand by protesters for a blanket "believe the victims". This demand IS a call for guilty until proven innocent.

Nobody has said that. Quite the opposite.

Thing is, I agree with a lot of what you are writing. But you’re making a real hash out of it as well as accusing people of things they’re not doing. Ironically.

 

[nickjhs]

Nobody has said that. Quite the opposite.

Thing is, I agree with a lot of what you are writing. But you’re making a real hash out of it as well as accusing people of things they’re not doing ironically.

All I have done is speak in general terms about the state of things in the UK. The Wallace stuff is an example, here once again we have trial by media and people in general. I have made the point that very few people on this forum have mentioned that as it stands these are just allegations, and I find that worrying. I was asked broader questions on what I found problematic with the current changes in society and I gave examples. One of which is the demand for believe the victim àlso known as guilty till proven innocent. All of which I feel are related to this particular situation. You for one took my response to the questions posed by both Hugo and Harry completely out of context.

 

[Eric the meek]

All I have done is speak in general terms about the state of things in the UK. The Wallace stuff is an example, here once again we have trial by media and people in general. I have made the point that very few people on this forum have mentioned that as it stands these are just allegations, and I find that worrying. I was asked broader questions on what I found problematic with the current changes in society and I gave examples. One of which is the demand for believe the victim àlso known as guilty till proven innocent. All of which I feel are related to this particular situation. You for one took my response to the questions posed by both Hugo and Harry completely out of context.

Don't forget you accused me of taking something you wrote out of context as well !

 

[Wardy's twin]

He's not on trial.

Trial by media. If anything thing illegal comes out it might be difficult going to a real trial.

 

[nickjhs]

Don't forget you accused me of taking something you wrote out of context as well !

Which one? Was I correct? If I was wrong I apologise

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Trial by media. If anything thing illegal comes out it might be difficult going to a real trial.

It already has. Harassment, indecent exposure and sexual assault have already been alleged.

 

[Eric the meek]

Which one?and was I correct, If I was wrong I apologise

The point is, that you accuse multiple people of taking what you write, out of context.

Do you think this is a problem with your audience, or a problem with what you write?

 

[Wardy's twin]

It already has. Harassment, indecent exposure and sexual assault have already been alleged.

So how do you have a 'fair ' trial given how much has been said. Not defending him .

 

[Napper]

Gregg said hurty words . Hang him

 

[Eric the meek]

So how do you have a 'fair ' trial given how much has been said. Not defending him .

But you are defending him. You are campaigning for him to have a fair trial.

I would have thought it more important that his 17 (and counting) alleged victims get a fair trial.

 

[clapham_gull]

Gregg said hurty words . Hang him

Where did you learn the phrase "hurty words" and when did you start using it.

 

[Napper]

Where did you learn the phrase "hurty words" and when did you start using it.

Don’t cry bud

 

[wellquickwoody]

But you are defending him. You are campaigning for him to have a fair trial.

I would have thought it more important that his 17 (and counting) alleged victims get a fair trial.

Surely a fair trial for ALL would be the most important?

 

[clapham_gull]

Don’t cry bud

No I'm genuinely interested. I read Rachel Johnson using it, Sue Hall (Tory London Mayor Candidate) as are a number of right wing journalists and commentators.

It's also been used extensively on social media to defend the Southport riots.

I'm interested where it has come from and whether you've been using it for a long time.

 

[Eric the meek]

Surely a fair trial for ALL would be the most important?

17 (alleged) victims. Maybe there are more we don't know about. But let's draw a line under it at 17.

Is he:

a) Probably not guilty
b) Probably guilty

You can do this Woody.