Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Masterchef
Comments
-
Hmmm, "slavery". I didn't imagine it then.sam3110 said:I'm sure many people that try and defend idiots like Wally Wallace would have been the kind of people trying to defend slavery and rasict comments all those years ago too. Times move on but clearly some people can't/won't0 -
All joking aside……mortified may be a little strong, but I certainly wouldn’t set out to intentionally offend anyone.holyjo said:
Pithy and direct … nailed itSuedeAdidas said:
Shut up you pompous wanker.holyjo said:
If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.'SuedeAdidas said:
100% agree.cfgs said:Thing is Gregg you might have been having an innocent "joke" and didn't want to harass anyone, but the world has moved on. Be a geezer if you want but only with like minded people. I love a joke but would be a ashamed if one of my Dad Jokes offended one person out of 4000.I’ll rip the piss out of anyone but I’d be mortified if I actually ever offended or upset anyone.I think that knowing/understanding your audience has always been a key life skill. It is more important today than ever.Christopher Hitchens
Are you seriously saying you’d be mortified if you offended or upset anyone . How can we think creatively and articulate thought within that absurd parameter .The very nature of debate , humour , critical thinking demands it
NB - not a comment at all on what Millwall Greg has allegedly doneAny good?0 -
I can only presume that those defending Gregg Wallace would be quite happy if he had groped their wife/partner/daughter/female friends? (page 8 of this thread if you missed it).12
-
All joking aside too … in most circumstances nor would I. In rare circumstances I aim to do do nothing else.SuedeAdidas said:
All joking aside……mortified may be a little strong, but I certainly wouldn’t set out to intentionally offend anyone.holyjo said:
Pithy and direct … nailed itSuedeAdidas said:
Shut up you pompous wanker.holyjo said:
If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.'SuedeAdidas said:
100% agree.cfgs said:Thing is Gregg you might have been having an innocent "joke" and didn't want to harass anyone, but the world has moved on. Be a geezer if you want but only with like minded people. I love a joke but would be a ashamed if one of my Dad Jokes offended one person out of 4000.I’ll rip the piss out of anyone but I’d be mortified if I actually ever offended or upset anyone.I think that knowing/understanding your audience has always been a key life skill. It is more important today than ever.Christopher Hitchens
Are you seriously saying you’d be mortified if you offended or upset anyone . How can we think creatively and articulate thought within that absurd parameter .The very nature of debate , humour , critical thinking demands it
NB - not a comment at all on what Millwall Greg has allegedly doneAny good?1 -
Always the same people looking to defend the indefensible under the guise of 'wokeness'. Oh well.
Glad he's getting what he deserves, shame he's made probably enough to retire on anyway.1 -
Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"4 -
I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn2
-
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.1 -
He went on it 10 years ago.IdleHans said:I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn
Him and his partner Aliona hated each other, by all accounts.
‘I love dancing, but if I were paired with somebody who liked me then I would have done better,’ he said.0 -
North Lower Neil said:
He went on it 10 years ago.IdleHans said:I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn
Him and his partner Aliona hated each other, by all accounts.
‘I love dancing, but if I were paired with somebody who liked me getting all handsy and telling sexually explicit stories then I would have done better,’ he said.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
28 -
Forgive me for not paying attentionNorth Lower Neil said:
He went on it 10 years ago.IdleHans said:I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn
Him and his partner Aliona hated each other, by all accounts.
‘I love dancing, but if I were paired with somebody who liked me then I would have done better,’ he said.
0 -
Always someone else’s fault.North Lower Neil said:
He went on it 10 years ago.IdleHans said:I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn
Him and his partner Aliona hated each other, by all accounts.
‘I love dancing, but if I were paired with somebody who liked me then I would have done better,’ he said.4 -
Absolutely, we are all allowed our own opinions. And I don't disagree with the point you've made. What I'm saying, as someone booked to attend another diversity and inclusion course today instead of doing a days work us, true inclusion would be to treat everyone the same regarding letching and objectificationWheresmeticket said:
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.2 -
He supports the spanners, not the Dippers!JaShea99 said:
Always someone else’s fault.North Lower Neil said:
He went on it 10 years ago.IdleHans said:I imagine his invitation to compete in the next season of Strictly might now be quietly withdrawn
Him and his partner Aliona hated each other, by all accounts.
‘I love dancing, but if I were paired with somebody who liked me then I would have done better,’ he said.0 -
In an ideal world - but the context is important no?Carter said:
Absolutely, we are all allowed our own opinions. And I don't disagree with the point you've made. What I'm saying, as someone booked to attend another diversity and inclusion course today instead of doing a days work us, true inclusion would be to treat everyone the same regarding letching and objectificationWheresmeticket said:
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.0 -
Tell you what Chippy, why don't you turn up to your next meeting, preferably one involving younger women you've never met before, wearing nothing but a sock over your cock. I'm sure everyone will be fine with it. Just 'bants' yeah?Chippycafc said:
No it's used by people who are sick anf tired of idiots who have nothing better to do all day who find trivial things to pretend to be angry about.ME14addick said:
Woke, a very overused word these days, to justify behaviour which is no longer acceptable.Chippycafc said:Instead of watching masterchef tonight. Switch over to that's TV and see till death us do part, benidorm and benny hill show.
Enjoy the times when people could laugh and not take life too seriously.
This fake anger woke nonsense has got to stop.
ffs...8 -
Context is everything, but if the context is the panel of witches on loose women giving it "you don't get many of them in a biscuit tin" whenever they have a male they find attractive on, or anytime Rylan or Judge Rinder makes a sexually suggestive remark in the name of banter and they are treated the same as Gregg Wallace misbehaving and essentially doing the same thing but less overtly perhaps. Then awesome but if the context is its ok for loose women and Rylan but not some shaved gibbon from masterchef then thats not progress.Wheresmeticket said:
In an ideal world - but the context is important no?Carter said:
Absolutely, we are all allowed our own opinions. And I don't disagree with the point you've made. What I'm saying, as someone booked to attend another diversity and inclusion course today instead of doing a days work us, true inclusion would be to treat everyone the same regarding letching and objectificationWheresmeticket said:
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.
The thing with that sort of stuff is it can make you feel a bit of a Mary for speaking up about it, especially as a man. One of my main drivers for getting into mobile DJing was the ease with which I could meet women, that also came with a level of entitlement from women that as the DJ you are some sort of sport for them and can be treated as such, is that OK because men before my generation used to have the same hands on approach, a fast & loose attitude to respecting womens space and women in general? Of course it isn't and to be honest I could handle myself in those situations but that shouldn't really excuse the behaviour any more than when a woman can deal with a workplace sexcase
1 -
I used to do a bit of DJing years ago. Didn't f*****g happen to me!Carter said:
Context is everything, but if the context is the panel of witches on loose women giving it "you don't get many of them in a biscuit tin" whenever they have a male they find attractive on, or anytime Rylan or Judge Rinder makes a sexually suggestive remark in the name of banter and they are treated the same as Gregg Wallace misbehaving and essentially doing the same thing but less overtly perhaps. Then awesome but if the context is its ok for loose women and Rylan but not some shaved gibbon from masterchef then thats not progress.Wheresmeticket said:
In an ideal world - but the context is important no?Carter said:
Absolutely, we are all allowed our own opinions. And I don't disagree with the point you've made. What I'm saying, as someone booked to attend another diversity and inclusion course today instead of doing a days work us, true inclusion would be to treat everyone the same regarding letching and objectificationWheresmeticket said:
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.
The thing with that sort of stuff is it can make you feel a bit of a Mary for speaking up about it, especially as a man. One of my main drivers for getting into mobile DJing was the ease with which I could meet women, that also came with a level of entitlement from women that as the DJ you are some sort of sport for them and can be treated as such, is that OK because men before my generation used to have the same hands on approach, a fast & loose attitude to respecting womens space and women in general? Of course it isn't and to be honest I could handle myself in those situations but that shouldn't really excuse the behaviour any more than when a woman can deal with a workplace sexcase9 -
DaveMehmet said:
I used to do a bit of DJing years ago. Didn't f*****g happen to me!Carter said:
Context is everything, but if the context is the panel of witches on loose women giving it "you don't get many of them in a biscuit tin" whenever they have a male they find attractive on, or anytime Rylan or Judge Rinder makes a sexually suggestive remark in the name of banter and they are treated the same as Gregg Wallace misbehaving and essentially doing the same thing but less overtly perhaps. Then awesome but if the context is its ok for loose women and Rylan but not some shaved gibbon from masterchef then thats not progress.Wheresmeticket said:
In an ideal world - but the context is important no?Carter said:
Absolutely, we are all allowed our own opinions. And I don't disagree with the point you've made. What I'm saying, as someone booked to attend another diversity and inclusion course today instead of doing a days work us, true inclusion would be to treat everyone the same regarding letching and objectificationWheresmeticket said:
I disagree with this on the grounds that the context for "straight" men harassing and abusing women and gay men and children is so established in our culture, openly and since time immemorial means that there is not a real equivalence between the examples.Carter said:Firstly and very clearly. I dislike Gregg Wallace and I always have done. @Leuth summed up whats happened here, the BBC wanted what they believe to be a working class geezer looks like and they employed that screaming bell cheddar.
I believe the allegations are most likely with merit but I would if there was only one and the accusation was "he smiled at me".
And you know what, yeah fair one nobody should be having to put up with unsolicited advances of a man talking graphically about his sex life or him putting his hands on aq woman without solicitation or invitation. My take is, I hope the same level of scrutiny is applied to any accusations against homosexuals or women who are only having a bit of harmless fun/objectifying someone. As that happens in plain sight and whilst it doesn't offend me per se, it does give rise to people like Gregg Wallace to point to that and say "so if they can, I can"
In my opinion obvs.
The thing with that sort of stuff is it can make you feel a bit of a Mary for speaking up about it, especially as a man. One of my main drivers for getting into mobile DJing was the ease with which I could meet women, that also came with a level of entitlement from women that as the DJ you are some sort of sport for them and can be treated as such, is that OK because men before my generation used to have the same hands on approach, a fast & loose attitude to respecting womens space and women in general? Of course it isn't and to be honest I could handle myself in those situations but that shouldn't really excuse the behaviour any more than when a woman can deal with a workplace sexcase
7 - Sponsored links:
-
Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.8
-
Unfortunately there are doubled standards everywhere. However, its pretty easy to not be an unfunny inappropriate spanner.5
-
Describing women as "witches" because they're doing/saying something you don't like is steeped in 100s of years of misogyny. It might be totally unconscious but that doesn't mean it isn't misogynisticCarter said:
Thats not misogyny, its me not being very nice in the name of unpleasant descriptive humour but I wouldn't include it on the bingo card.Chizz said:Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.4 -
What if they are actually witches? We should be told.fenaddick said:
Describing women as "witches" because they're doing/saying something you don't like is steeped in 100s of years of misogyny. It might be totally unconscious but that doesn't mean it isn't misogynisticCarter said:
Thats not misogyny, its me not being very nice in the name of unpleasant descriptive humour but I wouldn't include it on the bingo card.Chizz said:Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.0 -
2 -
We all are.SporadicAddick said:
What if they are actually witches? We should be told.fenaddick said:
Describing women as "witches" because they're doing/saying something you don't like is steeped in 100s of years of misogyny. It might be totally unconscious but that doesn't mean it isn't misogynisticCarter said:
Thats not misogyny, its me not being very nice in the name of unpleasant descriptive humour but I wouldn't include it on the bingo card.Chizz said:Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.
It’s a badge of honour.
Carry on.5 -
This is where we still are as a society. Thousands of years of male power and privilege but still scared of witches.3
-
Careful. They might turn you into a newt.SporadicAddick said:
What if they are actually witches? We should be told.fenaddick said:
Describing women as "witches" because they're doing/saying something you don't like is steeped in 100s of years of misogyny. It might be totally unconscious but that doesn't mean it isn't misogynisticCarter said:
Thats not misogyny, its me not being very nice in the name of unpleasant descriptive humour but I wouldn't include it on the bingo card.Chizz said:Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.0 -
Or worse…………a Nigel 😳Rizzo said:
Careful. They might turn you into a newt.SporadicAddick said:
What if they are actually witches? We should be told.fenaddick said:
Describing women as "witches" because they're doing/saying something you don't like is steeped in 100s of years of misogyny. It might be totally unconscious but that doesn't mean it isn't misogynisticCarter said:
Thats not misogyny, its me not being very nice in the name of unpleasant descriptive humour but I wouldn't include it on the bingo card.Chizz said:Furious that my Misogyny Bingo card didn't have "panel of witches" on it.3
This discussion has been closed.
