Warning: this article contains some strong language of a sexual nature.
Following a series of complaints of historical allegations of misconduct against presenter Gregg Wallace, Banijay UK, the production company behind MasterChef, recently announced an external review.
It must be emphasised that the review is ongoing, and any wrong-doing denied. Nevertheless, it’s worth taking time to consider the politics and legalities surrounding what seems by many to be considered harmless ‘saucy banter’. That very term describes an air of ‘cheeky chappy’ fun.
There’s no denying that a group of friends engaging in witty banter replete with double-entendres can be enjoyable, provided everyone is on board. It’s clear from many comments on social media that the assumption made about ‘banter’ in the MasterChef kitchen is that the complainants are fun-spoiling ‘snowflakes’.
It’s nice to imagine our favourite TV personalities as friends as we enjoy their easy, witty exchanges. Indeed, their livelihoods depend on their ability to weave this spell. We don’t want to tune in to unpleasantness, and it certainly shouldn’t look like they are having to work hard. And yet ‘work’ is precisely what they are doing: those easy exchanges on our screens are underpinned by employment contracts.
An undercurrent of something stronger
What may be perfectly acceptable behaviour amongst consenting friends is often not suitable for the work environment, particularly if there is an undercurrent of something stronger; and it’s all too easy to cross that line. What’s more, our individual ‘lines’ are likely to be triggered at different points: what makes me feel uncomfortable may not bother you in the slightest, and vice versa.
An important point about ‘banter’ is that it is two-way: a playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks. If it’s one-way, targeted or ‘loaded’, it isn’t banter. Within the workplace, if innuendo and comments on any level make someone feel uncomfortable, they have a legal entitlement to expect it to stop. There is no need for an explanation from the individual, and the views on the matter of other people present have no bearing.
All this is covered by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It relates to any unwanted conduct at work that has the purpose or effect of violating another’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.
This does not relate purely to sexual harassment; it embraces age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Significantly here, it expressly includes sexual comments, gestures, jokes, innuendos, advances, flirting, discussions of the perpetrator’s own sex life, indecent exposure and unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature.
Crossing the line
Way beyond banter, some of those behaviours may cross yet a further line: they might also be criminal acts. Sexual harassment involving physical contact, for example brushing in a sexually provocative way while passing a person who does not consent, could amount to sexual assault within the terms of section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
These statutory protections are for all, and yet often there are additional forces at play which make it very difficult for an individual to rely upon them. This may be because of the established ‘culture’ within a team, or – often – an imbalance of power between the alleged perpetrator and complainant.
Complaining about a colleague may achieve the desired legal outcome, but at the expense of loss of goodwill of colleagues. In particular, ‘institutional misogyny’ is an accusation often made against policing authorities – the very bodies to which women must turn to report sexual assault.
“When you’re a star they let you do it”
Workers within television face particular difficulties. The freelance culture means many workers have little employment security. For TV crew members, a reputation as a ‘trouble causer’ with ‘no sense of humour’ could spell the end of their career. This is particularly so since the imperative is generally to protect the reputation of ‘The Talent’: crew members can easily be replaced whereas presenters may be key to the very essence of the show.
Contestants on MasterChef, MasterChef Professional, and the more junior participants on Celebrity MasterChef are similarly ‘disposable’. And yet, what might each of us put up with in our struggle for a once-in-a-lifetime career-changing opportunity? There is no doubt that some sexually predatory behaviour deliberately draws upon this power imbalance.
Equally clearly, this is not just about MasterChef. It feeds into a wider issue about an increasing global normalisation of attitudes and coercive behaviour often amounting to extreme misogyny. Between 2017-2022, more than 80 women accused Harvey Weinstein of historic sex-related offences in the workplace.
US President-elect Donald Trump routinely insults and belittles women and was found liable for sexual abuse by a New York jury at a civil hearing in 2023. In this now-famous audio clip from 2005, there is a sense of complete entitlement around women:
“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. …Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.”
Power, celebrity and entitlement
Following Trump’s re-election in November 2024, after a campaign often focusing on women’s reproductive rights, many women reported their posts on social media were filled with responses with the phrase “Your body, my choice“.
Meanwhile, misogynist Andrew Tate, awaiting trial in Romania on charges of rape and human trafficking, and also wanted in the UK following allegations of sexual assault, has more than 6.9 million followers on Twitter/‘X’ and is linked by authorities in the UK to the “terrifying” radicalisation of boys online. With such role models, it’s not surprising that 37% of female students in UK mixed-sex secondary schools have been sexually harassed while at school.
There are questions to be answered regarding the current allegations of sexual misconduct from Gregg Wallace, not least of which is why any inappropriate behaviour was not long ago nipped in the bud if, as is now alleged, several contestants – including respected celebrities – had previously complained to managers on set.
And yet, as is clear from the above, this forms part of a multi-faceted problem that will require the combined forces of governments, communities, employers, social media providers, schools, onlookers and – we must hope – personal responsibility. In the end, the battle will only be won when the majority of people prioritise respect for all above power, celebrity and entitlement.
*****
There is an excellent overview of the legal issues and rights relating to sexual harassment or assault on the West Cornwall Women’s Aid website.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
