Gregg Wallace

[myothernameis]

The unseen latest MasterChef series (with GW and JT) WILL be broadcast, BBC confirms

Wonder how much of this new series will be heavily edited, especially where Gregg Wallace, makes a unappropriated comment, which might have remained in the program, last series

[fredhiggins]

Cut to 30 mins then?

[DastardlyDick]

The BBC will have paid the production company a lot of money for making the two series, so they've more of less got to use it, they'll also be looking at the revenue from overseas sales.

[chrishornx]

The BBC will have paid the production company a lot of money for making the two series, so they've more of less got to use it, they'll also be looking at the revenue from overseas sales.

all insured

[southcoastpunter]

all insured

not so sure you are right on that! What insured term could they potentially claim on? and if you do claim on insurance the next year / event insurance go up a lot! so it still costs them

[chrishornx]

not so sure you are right on that! What insured term could they potentially claim on? and if you do claim on insurance the next year / event insurance go up a lot! so it still costs them

you have it one nail on the head fair and square - if they claim then the premium will no doubt increase next year but nothing like as much as the benefit of the payout. however it is possibly the reason they are going ahead avoid increased premiums

why do you think they couldn't claim ?

[scutty brown]

Wonder how much of this new series will be heavily edited, especially where Gregg Wallace, makes a unappropriated comment, which might have remained in the program, last series

How difficult and expensive would it be to use AI & video editing trickery to convert his image into a new avatar of someone else? Voice would be relatively easy to disguise.

[DastardlyDick]

all insured

I doubt it - just think what the premiums would be!  You''re basically asking someone to pay for changing your mind.

[Jumping Jack Flash]

not so sure you are right on that! What insured term could they potentially claim on? and if you do claim on insurance the next year / event insurance go up a lot! so it still costs them

Cover would be provided under a Media policy where the insured perils are slightly different to a traditional commercial insurance policy to allow for presenter “loss of attraction”. The BBC undoubtedly carry a significant level of self-insurance so they carry part of that risk themselves and it’s generally offset by them being able to charge more when selling the series worldwide. Wallace and Torode’s fall from grace in the UK probably won’t affect global sales of the show. In some regions there’s a chance that sales could increase.

[bigden40]

Tbh why wouldn’t they air it? 

Wallace might be a scrote but he didn’t kill anyone, there’s no criminal action coming from this.  He behaved badly and has been sacked. The series in the can gets aired, after all it’s ultimately about the contestants not the presenters.

[southcoastpunter]

, after all it’s ultimately about the contestants not the presenters.

i think that is rather a naive comment - most series are very much about the presenters. Just consider what has happened to "Top Gear"

I would think it safe to say that the BBC's decision to go ahead with the series is (in a large part) down to financial considerations so either it considers it can not claim on any insurance it may have, recognises that doing so would attract much larger premiums in the future or its self insured so would pick up the cost itself anyway.   

[chrishornx]

I doubt it - just think what the premiums would be!  You''re basically asking someone to pay for changing your mind.

your doubt may be misplaced

BBC carry extensive cover for such eventualities both for the cost of producing a programme and for potential earnings worldwide

many, many of their programmes do not need appropriate  cover - Eastenders for example is recorded weeks in advance and if a key character does something wrong then it is easy to change storylines or even kill off a character if subsequently found guilty in court. Live sport or news doesn't need the relevant cover as they can simply change the newsreader or presenter.

the likes of Coca cola, Persil, Jaguar etc all carry the cover for similar circumstances to protect their losses.

it won't be, as suggested,  a case of the BBC deciding they aren't covered by 'any of the insurance they have' it would only be covered by a specific policy but they do definitely carry the cover.

The cost of insuring against a 'disgraced' star overstepping what is perceived as  acceptable behaviour  is far less than the costs of abandoning a production or recasting as a result of a disgraceful act.

the premiums would not be that big , around 1.5% of the sum insured but that is built into the overall costing as not having the cover would be very expensive if something happened
 
whereas there was no real loss with Huw Edwards or Saville there were substantial losses with Cosby and Spacey. If Lineker was found fiddling with boys there would be no real loss to the BBC  but there would be if it was Cillian Murphy when doing Peaky Blinders

[Jumping Jack Flash]

i think that is rather a naive comment - most series are very much about the presenters. Just consider what has happened to "Top Gear"

I would think it safe to say that the BBC's decision to go ahead with the series is (in a large part) down to financial considerations so either it considers it can not claim on any insurance it may have, recognises that doing so would attract much larger premiums in the future or its self insured so would pick up the cost itself anyway.

I think you’re missing an important point here. The series that they are going to show is MasterChef, not Materchef the Professionals or Celebrity MasterChef. The contestants will have worked damned hard to get on the show, often whilst working full time in their current jobs. Why should they be denied their chance to shine because of the actions of an egotistical twat?

Previous MasterChef winners have gone on to run successful restaurant chains, to have successful TV careers and to work in Michelin starred kitchens and who knows what a contestant in this upcoming series will go to achieve?

[RedKettle]

I think you’re missing an important point here. The series that they are going to show is MasterChef, not Materchef the Professionals or Celebrity MasterChef. The contestants will have worked damned hard to get on the show, often whilst working full time in their current jobs. Why should they be denied their chance to shine because of the actions of an egotistical twat?

Previous MasterChef winners have gone on to run successful restaurant chains, to have successful TV careers and to work in Michelin starred kitchens and who knows what a contestant in this upcoming series will go to achieve?

100%

I was about to post exactly that.

[webpunter]

Indeed
My post #199
Its difficult to fathom that GW cant be edited out

[southcoastpunter]

Yes of course the contestants are an important factor - their cooking skills and personality - but so are he presenters! Why do TV channels pay lots of money to presenters if it didn’t matter - just get some new unknowns - pay them peanuts and hope for the best!!

[chrishornx]

Yes of course the contestants are an important factor - their cooking skills and personality - but so are he presenters! Why do TV channels pay lots of money to presenters if it didn’t matter - just get some new unknowns - pay them peanuts and hope for the best!!

that somewhat contradicts your earlier suggestion that 'most series are very much about the presenters'

masterchef is just as much if not more about the amateur chefs and the grub they cook up

[southcoastpunter]

that somewhat contradicts your earlier suggestion that 'most series are very much about the presenters'

masterchef is just as much if not more about the amateur chefs and the grub they cook up

I said and as you have quoted above "most series" (not all) and "are very much about their presenters" and not JUST about their presenters. MC is imo no different - its current level of popularity has been about both presenters and contestants! That is not so say the BBC (or its outsourced production company) can't find other good and popular presenters but getting two completely unknowns to host the programme probably would see a fall off of its popullarity and viewing numbers. so there is some (note the word "some") correlation between sucess of the series and popularity of the presenters!

And again as previously said, the decision by the BBC to show the series and not can it is, in part, about financial considerations. I never suggested they shouldn't and deny contestants the opportunity to shine and promote themselves etc!

[RedKettle]

I said and as you have quoted above "most series" (not all) and "are very much about their presenters" and not JUST about their presenters. MC is imo no different - its current level of popularity has been about both presenters and contestants! That is not so say the BBC (or its outsourced production company) can't find other good and popular presenters but getting two completely unknowns to host the programme probably would see a fall off of its popullarity and viewing numbers. so there is some (note the word "some") correlation between sucess of the series and popularity of the presenters!

And again as previously said, the decision by the BBC to show the series and not can it is, in part, about financial considerations. I never suggested they shouldn't and deny contestants the opportunity to shine and promote themselves etc!

I really do not think financial considerations came into it - the BBC are under massive pressure over recent errors and front and centre would be not making this worse.  The cost of this show would not even have factored, the reputational position is all - they needed to get the call right.  Which I think  they have.

[chrishornx]

I said and as you have quoted above "most series" (not all) and "are very much about their presenters" and not JUST about their presenters. MC is imo no different - its current level of popularity has been about both presenters and contestants! That is not so say the BBC (or its outsourced production company) can't find other good and popular presenters but getting two completely unknowns to host the programme probably would see a fall off of its popullarity and viewing numbers. so there is some (note the word "some") correlation between sucess of the series and popularity of the presenters!

And again as previously said, the decision by the BBC to show the series and not can it is, in part, about financial considerations. I never suggested they shouldn't and deny contestants the opportunity to shine and promote themselves etc!

i never said 'all series' and never said series were JUST about the presenters - most shows are bigger than the presenters and evolve over time without real loosen audience size -Death in Paradise, Midsomer Murders, Silent Witness, Antiques Roadshow, Question Time, Last of the Summer Wine Eastenders

Has anybody suggested that you said the BBC should can MC?

And why do you think the BBC couldn't claim other insurance ?

[southcoastpunter]

redkettle - i don't disagree that the BBC needed to "get their call right" - but i am sure the financial situation must have come into their consideration as part of making that call - or it should have done anyway! Most organisations (commercial, NFP, charity, local gov etc) will always take financial considerations into account - that is not to say its the only consideration but one of a number! And FWIW, i agree that on balance, they have come to the right decision - and they acknowldged that not everone will support / agree with that decision!

chroshornx - suggest you read what i said again! And i don't know for a fact (i have never claimed that) that the BBC can't claim on any insurance they have in place to cover this situation - do you know for a fact they have appropriate insurance in place and could claim on it if they wanted and that it would make little difference to future premiums if they did?

[chrishornx]

chroshornx - suggest you read what i said again! And i don't know for a fact (i have never claimed that) that the BBC can't claim on any insurance they have in place to cover this situation - do you know for a fact they have appropriate insurance in place and could claim on it if they wanted and that it would make little difference to future premiums if they did?

I am aware that you don't know for a fact that the BBC can't claim on insurance ebb you clearly doubt it . AS you said yourself

'What insured term could they potentially claim on? '

yes they carry suitable cover but are not now suffering a loss. But why do you think or consider making a claim would have little difference to future premiums. I suggest you also read what I said earlier in this thread as I told you directly 'if they claim then the premium will no doubt increase next year'

[RedKettle]

redkettle - i don't disagree that the BBC needed to "get their call right" - but i am sure the financial situation must have come into their consideration as part of making that call - or it should have done anyway! Most organisations (commercial, NFP, charity, local gov etc) will always take financial considerations into account - that is not to say its the only consideration but one of a number! And FWIW, i agree that on balance, they have come to the right decision - and they acknowldged that not everone will support / agree with that decision!

Yes I get what you are saying - but the BBC charter review is the biggest finance issue facing the BBC - hence getting the reputational call right is everything, the cost of the programme is literally nothing compared to that.

[chrishornx]

Yes I get what you are saying - but the BBC charter review is the biggest finance issue facing the BBC - hence getting the reputational call right is everything, the cost of the programme is literally nothing compared to that.

agree with that

[southcoastpunter]

wouldn't the safest thing to do re the reputational call have been to can the series and not show it?

chrishornx - you appear to be saying i said  "But why do you think or consider making a claim would have little difference to future premiums" -  i never said that.

[southcoastpunter]

and anyway - this is getting boring now. The BBC have decided to show the series so that is that!

No more comment from me!

[chrishornx]

chrishornx - you appear to be saying i said  "But why do you think or consider making a claim would have little difference to future premiums" -  i never said that.

you are right you didn't say those exact words
'
but you did say do you know for a fact they have appropriate insurance in place and could claim on it if they wanted and that it would make little difference to future premiums if they did?'   which is the same thing really

[webpunter]

Me thinks the bbc are liking the attention that screening the series will bring, what can possibly go wrong ? 
They think they are bomb proof
& with the review which will change fuck all + whichever Govt is at Westminster not wanting to incurr their displeasure they'll ride it out
Yet again they misread the room & are more than happy to put a misogynist on their screens prime time
Its disrespectful to women especially those who have the bravery to come forward & make complaints
Half of which have been upheld
Some rap sheet

The smug cunt GW will be desperate that it will be shown, look i'm on TV again so i didnt do that much wrong
I'm feeling that there is more to come on this
If i had dynamite stuff on GW & / or complicity of the BBC i'd be playing my cards close to my chest
See which way the wind blows see what else comes out & right at the last moment drop the bombshell a proppa bunker buster

In the meantime even more people will refuse to pay the licence fee
External Link/Members Only
"BBC licence fee crisis as 300,000 more UK households refuse to pay £175"

More ?, wonder what the overall figures are 
Especially amongst younger age groups they rarely even watch TV let alone the bbc
The Courts cant deal with the case load, not a hope 
People choose not to pay the licence fee they get threatening letters debt collectors & repsond with 'take me to court'
& in the unlikely event they ever get to court they simply say that the bbc is not fit for purpose as they support paedos & mysoginists
& even when they sack the latter they still decide to screen the series WTF 
GW will no doubt add a few more tens of thousands deciding not to pay as a matter of principle especially as the series approaches
It will cost the bbc even more money & resources to pursue those not paying
& the outcome of Courts can be very unpredictable
Its not that hard for people to crowd fund being taken to Court by the bbc, there;ll be small donations aplenty
I'll wedge up a tenner for a bit of fun & these will add up gathering media attention along the way
& a few very generous donations with some high end legal help from those with an axe to grind
Oh dear

If the bbc had half a brain they'd work out how to edit him out cant be that difficult
And they can make an announcement programme edited blah blah

[superchamp]

Yes, with a bit of AI ingenuity, I'm sure that the BBC could substitute Clive Myrie and Clare Balding for Wallace and Torrode.

[DastardlyDick]

Me thinks the bbc are liking the attention that screening the series will bring, what can possibly go wrong ? 
They think they are bomb proof
& with the review which will change fuck all + whichever Govt is at Westminster not wanting to incurr their displeasure they'll ride it out
Yet again they misread the room & are more than happy to put a misogynist on their screens prime time
Its disrespectful to women especially those who have the bravery to come forward & make complaints
Half of which have been upheld
Some rap sheet

The smug cunt GW will be desperate that it will be shown, look i'm on TV again so i didnt do that much wrong
I'm feeling that there is more to come on this
If i had dynamite stuff on GW & / or complicity of the BBC i'd be playing my cards close to my chest
See which way the wind blows see what else comes out & right at the last moment drop the bombshell a proppa bunker buster

In the meantime even more people will refuse to pay the licence fee
External Link/Members Only
"BBC licence fee crisis as 300,000 more UK households refuse to pay £175"

More ?, wonder what the overall figures are 
Especially amongst younger age groups they rarely even watch TV let alone the bbc
The Courts cant deal with the case load, not a hope 
People choose not to pay the licence fee they get threatening letters debt collectors & repsond with 'take me to court'
& in the unlikely event they ever get to court they simply say that the bbc is not fit for purpose as they support paedos & mysoginists
& even when they sack the latter they still decide to screen the series WTF 
GW will no doubt add a few more tens of thousands deciding not to pay as a matter of principle especially as the series approaches
It will cost the bbc even more money & resources to pursue those not paying
& the outcome of Courts can be very unpredictable
Its not that hard for people to crowd fund being taken to Court by the bbc, there;ll be small donations aplenty

Trouble is, I believe that non payment of TV Licence is now under the "Single Justice" system, which is done on documents alone - essentially, a rubber stamp. It's alleged that the "Enforcement Officers are not above lying and that they're on commission for both Licence Sales and prosecutions, so getting both is a decent pay day for them, if true.

[webpunter]

Trouble is, I believe that non payment of TV Licence is now under the "Single Justice" system, which is done on documents alone - essentially, a rubber stamp. It's alleged that the "Enforcement Officers are not above lying and that they're on commission for both Licence Sales and prosecutions, so getting both is a decent pay day for them, if true.

Wasn't aware of that
SJP used on lots of iffy stuff
Some of the train operators are having to cough up £millions
External Link/Members Only
This is the best bit 
"The SJP allows those who plead guilty to some low-level, non-imprisonable crimes to resolve their case without going to court"
What this actually means is that its generates lots of ££ & isn't subject to any scrutiny

[daviemac]

Why do people insist on turning every bloody thread into a political one. 

[WARSZAWA16]

I know there are much more important things going on in the world, but I have always wondered why everybody on these cookery shows tends to eat standing up? Can anyone enlighten me? 

[webpunter]

Why do people insist on turning every bloody thread into a political one. 

I'm wondering if this is referring to me
Its not political as it doesnt make any difference which party is at Westminster, the same outcome
Large businesses bypass the usual checks + balances in this case train operators circumventing due legal process with SJPs
Even more the case when its a public type set up / public 'ownership' - i.e. the BBC
It would be very difficult for a Plc business to be able to secure a carte blanche with SJPs at the ready
Customers would vote with their feet however a bit difficult when people need to catch the train to get to work go out & live their lives coz there is only one provider
& as it happens the TV licence rules & regulations mean people need one to watch any TV station despite the fact that only one providor is the recipient
As it happens some of the train operators are so shite they are now back into public ownership
Its just like the vennells venerable institution which is The Post Office
Above the law, they pay little / no regard to it just like the BBC
GW is a miso, the BBC do we care like fuck we do we'll screen the series as it's already been filmed & its all about the £££
Their behaviour is like why a dog licks a certain part of its anatomy ...
Whichever party are in Westminster they play pass the parcel / hot potato, so this is a-political
The same outcome train passengers, Sub Post Masters & now licence fee payers are fair game & get fucked over 

[daviemac]

I'm wondering if this is referring to me

Sorry if I've made a mistake but I had thought that External Link/Members Only.gov.uk/government/publications/train-company-prosecutions/train-company-prosecutions  being a government publication relating to the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice being aware of several train companies having been prosecuted in error was political. 

I should add that in certain circumstances a television licence is not required to watch any program Greg Wallace has been in.

[webpunter]

Sorry if I've made a mistake but I had thought that External Link/Members Only.gov.uk/government/publications/train-company-prosecutions/train-company-prosecutions  being a government publication relating to the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice being aware of several train companies having been prosecuted in error was political. 

I should add that in certain circumstances a television licence is not required to watch any program Greg Wallace has been in.

I'll err on the side of caution & let this one rest 

[Blackpool Rock]

I see he's now launching legal action against the BBC for Data protection 

External Link/Members Only

[Adoniron]

Stop digging Gregg.

[DastardlyDick]

I see he's now launching legal action against the BBC for Data protection 

External Link/Members Only

I hope he's been saving his money - this could cost him a fortune!

[webpunter]

Stop digging Gregg.

He would be well advised to do this
Better to let this drop below the horizon as much as possible
He just cant help himself, like his 'women of a certain age' comment

On Talk Sport news round up this morning they mentioned that GW seems to think that in addition to the supposed DataP issue he can also get the outcome of the BBC investigation - i.e. him fired - reversed
He's got three hopes:  no hope Bob Hope & his .... 
Then again he is supposedly autistic [it didnt take him long to play this card + the suicidal bollox like Phil  ] so its all the bbc's fault for not putting appropriate measures in place 
Like for example getting signs made up for inside his house reminding him not to open the front door wearing only a dressing gown & his cock in a sock 

He wants his day in Court he's lucky he hasn't had one already given his mysoginistic behaviour towards women, lots of them
Its not beyond the realms of possibility that another woman [or women] come forward & say x, y & z
I cant see the BBC doing anything other than putting up a very robust defence to GWs court action
If i were in a position of seniority at the BBC deciding on what course of action to take ending up in him being fired, that i would hold back some stuff for future use if needed
Trump cards as it were [nothing to do with DJT i would add]

& as @DD highlights it could very expensive for him [if he loses]
Even if he gets a partial victory on some minor detail of DataP awarding of costs is far from predictable
These could wipe him out
The BBC lawyers will never run out of money thats for sure, there are some 24 million licence fee payers footing the bill
& with the backlash of over the latest series being televised the public will be expecting a firm line to be taken *
A real shame if the myso cunt were to get bankrupted 

* i heard on Talk Sport maybe end of last week early this that the DG of the BBC said there could be other examples of their staff not behaving as they should have been

[myothernameis]

I see he's now launching legal action against the BBC for Data protection 

its like the Coldplay kisscam, and Andy Byron deciding to sue Coldplay, he on a losing court case.  Anyone who attends a concert, there are notice, that tell you, you maybe filmed, and your rights explained

Gregg Wallace taking on the BBC, a lot of his accusers, the information can be freely obtain in the public domain.  What next from Gregg will he sue the accusers, and challenge to prove there case

Will Greggs sue Gregg Wallace for the fun of it

[webpunter]

What next from Gregg will he sue the accusers, and challenge to prove there case

He'd be a busy bee, 83 allegations & 45 upheld
Crack on why dont you

Pretty obvious he's unhinged
If someone is determined enough to pursue something they will find lawyers willing to take the case on
Advising a balanced middle ground on likely outcomes could go either way blah blah
However GW wont see things in the same way, oh dear
& the lawyers advise BTW you have to pay the vast majority of the anticipated fees upfront
As for no win no fee forget it 

[southcoastpunter]

If i were in a position of seniority at the BBC deciding on what course of action to take ending up in him being fired, that i would hold back some stuff for future use if needed

that could well back fire - "so if it was that bad, that important, why didn't you act on it immediately ? - well obviously you didn't think it was that bad or important then, Mr Senior Manager"

[webpunter]

that could well back fire - "so if it was that bad, that important, why didn't you act on it immediately ? - well obviously you didn't think it was that bad or important then, Mr Senior Manager"

In a battle best not to fire all your ammo at once
You draw out a response
There can be stuff which the bbc are working on, joining the dots see what develops blah blah *

The bbc's 'investigation' is exactly that
Its not like its in a Court situation where there is evidence disclosure

* what develops - oooh i have recently diagnosed autism feeling suicidal - those old chesnuts 
I wonder what more bollox he's yet to try & conjure up

I think that the new series should be aired
For the efforts & careers aspirations / opportunities for the contestants
However minus GW
Lots of films TV programmes are made with AI i seriously cant believe that the BBC couldn't edit out GW & still have a programme
There may be a delay in the series being screened & it costs ££
How much ££ do the bbc waste every year on bollox then make a belated apology blah blah safe in the knowledge that the square root of fuck all will happen to them

If the programme was on Amazon or Netflix it would be like fuck off you're fired - immediately - best of luck trying to sue us we will wipe you out
GW's response would be about as illuminating as a damp firework 

His inclusion on the bbc on a daily basis normalises mysogony & makes it appear acceptable 
Attacks on women by men are on the increase & the bbc aren't helping matters thats for sure

Back to drawing out a response
You hit the oppo hard sort of, enough for them to take notice & try & repair whatever damage it is
As they are trying to repair whatever it is this is when you hit them really hard taking out those who have come to help

Off you fuck you myso cunt
When people realise that they will be destroyed for such behaviour they just might think twice before doing it

Its like GW is on the offensive seemingly confident that he'll be cleared
One reason for him thinking this is that he sees [& admires himself] on the bbc every day at the mo
I wager more than once how many times has he's watched each episode ? [wanking in his dressing gown with his fave sock]

He seems to think he's gonna get a soft landing just like  ⬇️
Where's the welsh paedo gone ? [most likely abroad somewhere nice paid for by the bbc payoff]
Phil's return to TV seems to have hit the buffers, oh dear

[southcoastpunter]

Btw - I am in no way defending him - just pointing out that if you sit on info too long before taking any action, it diminishes its value and significance and opens you up ( the bbc in this case) to criticism for not taking any action when it knew about it!

[DastardlyDick]

The Autism claim is just ridiculous - I know people who are "on the spectrum", and even they recognise that his behaviour is wrong!
Instead of throwing law suits around, he needs to realise that he's now toxic, is basically unemployable in a presenting role, and should reserve his money if he wants to continue his lifestyle.

[webpunter]

Btw - I am in no way defending him - just pointing out that if you sit on info too long before taking any action, it diminishes its value and significance and opens you up ( the bbc in this case) to criticism for not taking any action when it knew about it!

Indeed there is a shelf life
As for not taking any action the bbc have been doing this for years
Way worse than this doing their best to keep their high profile employees away from criticism
The list is getting longer
Par example the bbc provided a car + driver to allow Brand to pick up a 16 year old girl err .... from school [whats the betting he likes the skoolie look ?] 
& somehow didnt seem to have any details of these repeated journeys

[chrishornx]

If the programme was on Amazon or Netflix it would be like fuck off you're fired - immediately - best of luck trying to sue us we will wipe you out
GW's response would be about as illuminating as a damp firework 

And yet Amazon show 17 series of Wallace on Masterchef.

A case of double standards?

[webpunter]

And yet Amazon show 17 series of Wallace on Masterchef.

A case of double standards?

There must be some sad ***** wanting to watch previous series me think they have the square root of FA better to do
Yep DS
The bbc sell programmes around the world so MasterC will be everywhere

[DastardlyDick]

And yet Amazon show 17 series of Wallace on Masterchef.

A case of double standards?

That and they've paid for it.
The BBC make a lot of their money from selling their programmes abroad.