Greg Wallace's autism excuse for sexually inappropriate behaviour

I have not been following the Gregg Wallace case and to be honest I do not want to. There is war all over the world, children are suffering, people are being bombed and starved in countless countries and yet the front page of every paper is (from what I understand) whether a man made inappropriate jokes on a TV show.

What I will say, and this is NOT a comment on the Gregg Wallace situation as I do not know the facts and he sounds like quite an unpleasant person, is that autistic people, especially men, can find it hard to know what jokes and comments are appropriate, especially sexual ones and can often be accused of inappropriate behaviour as a result, especially if they are mirroring what they have observed from other men and are trying to be "one of the lads".  It took me years to understand what context different jokes could be said in and I found it a very hard social norm to learn. 

As autistic people we often struggle to interpret other people's reactions to things so we may also be unaware when we have hurt or offended someone as well, or misinterpret their reactions so that we believe they are actually enjoying the behaviour and finding it amusing. It truly is a minefield. 

As I said none of this is a comment on Gregg Wallace, I have no idea what he has or hasn't done, it is merely observations based on some of the other conversations in this thread

A very interesting and balanced post, thank you bunny

Here are some extracts from the findings of the Lewis Silkin report, as reported by various news outlets yesterday. I've organised them under some headings of my own, for context / structure:

How relevant has his autism been found to be?

Karen Baxter, a partner and head of investigations at Lewis Silkin, said that his autism diagnosis was “highly relevant in the context of the findings made, particularly regarding his use of humour as a ‘masking’ technique and his difficulty in reading social cues”.

Is he seeking to use his autism as an excuse?

Baxter added: “Mr Wallace accepts that his diagnosis may help to explain some of his actions, but he does not wish to hide behind it.”

How was his behaviour described?

The report found that Wallace “was consistently described as energetic, humorous, and generally able to put contestants at ease” – but that some of these interactions and comments “made within earshot of contestants or colleagues sometimes resulted in offence and/or left people feeling uncomfortable”.

Did he change his behaviour once he was advised that there was an issue? (Yes, he did).

“Following a 2017 complaint, the BBC formally warned Wallace that his behaviour had to change. He responded by removing himself from social settings and seeking advice from colleagues to avoid further problems.”

“the BBC intervened in response to a complaint in 2017, following which Mr Wallace was warned of the need to change his behaviour.” The report said that “Mr Wallace took steps to heed that warning”.”

What happened after that?

The “vast majority (94 per cent)” of the 83 allegations were linked to behaviour that allegedly happened between 2005 and 2018. Only one was substantiated after that time period.

How many complaints were actually made when the issues occurred?

"the investigation heard 83 allegations against Gregg Wallace from 41 complainants" and "45 of the 83 allegations against Mr Wallace were substantiated".

“While 19 people said they raised concerns about Wallace, the investigation found evidence of 11 formal or informal complaints about his behaviour on MasterChef between 2005 and 2024.

Of the 11 identified complaints, eight were recognised as such at the time. The other three were treated as comments, so no action was taken.”

"In earlier years, specifically prior to 2016 where the vast majority of these issues arose, it is clear that escalation procedures were not as robust as they should have been, and awareness of policies and procedures were lacking particularly amongst freelance staff."

What has the NAS said about the situation?

A National Autistic Society spokesperson said: “Every autistic person is different, just like every non-autistic person is different, so it is important not to generalise or make judgements based on the actions, words or behaviour of any one individual.”

Martin said:

That Wallace's victims have given evidence of their very negative reactions to his behaviour, really quashes 'having autism' as an excuse.

That’s far from necessarily true.

Martin said:

a typical autist

Seeking to draw comparisons between any given autistic person and a “typical” autistic person is fundamentally flawed, because there’s no such thing. As the fairly well-known quote (by Dr Shore, autistic professor of special education) seeks to make clear, “If you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism”.

Martin said:

I would like to see if he has a clinical diagnosis and that it predates the controversy. Otherwise, I think it is just a smokescreen for a guilty and deeply unpleasant man.

Autism diagnoses aren’t handed out just because people ask for them. 

And it’s a lifelong condition, so whether or not his diagnosis predates the issues (which it doesn’t) is irrelevant.

Before Mr Wallace was diagnosed, his son was diagnosed with autism and global development delay. It’s far from uncommon for parents to be diagnosed with autism after their children. As you know, evidence suggests that autism is genetic.

A source has also been reported as saying:

“Gregg is guilty of bad jokes and rough humour. But so many people on the show talked openly about suspecting that he had autism for years before he got his diagnosis”.

Mogavero is not a medical professional, she is a criminal justice academic. Leaving that aside, to claim inappropriate sexual behaviour is explained by autism does not say that autism causes people to behave in that way and that they don’t know what they are doing is wrong. ‘Explanation’ is not the same as 'cause’. 

If someone says inappropriate sexual behaviour is ‘explained by an autism trait’, it doesn’t mean that it was the trait and nothing else that caused the behaviour. 

People can claim all sorts of things when they are convicted in court, eg,”I was angry about X so I killed her” or “I left my 6 year old child alone for a week because I was exhausted and needed a foreign holiday”.  People use explanations for all sorts of things, but it doesn’t absolve them from responsibility. 

I read the article and I'm pleased to see the BBC highlighting this.

Sorry, I meant to clarify that most Autistic people in his situation who can work, be on TV etc. would be able to and even if he doesn't understand, he could get help to address his behaviours.

Obviously there will be Autistic people with severe behavioural issues, but they don't tend to work on TV or be able to 'mask'. Of course, again, that's not everyone in that situation.

I make no apology, it's disgusting his behaviour and he is using Autism as an excuse in my view.

My understanding is he has not broken any law or been charged with anything. He also claims he has been cleared of the more serious claims.

I am not sure the full details, the context and scenarios, have been released for all the claims. The media reports may not be reliable.

Also if there's some compensation going people will complain and exaggerate. I am not saying that is the case, but claims should be substantiated.

I don't have the full facts, so I can't judge what did or did not happen or what someones motives or misunderstandings might have been.

Jet said:

all I know is that an Autistic person would be mortified if they had done something inappropriate

Please read the research link that Bunny has posted below - your statement does not reflect all autists ar all.

You and I probably feel this way but there are enough with behavioral issues that have problems in understanding this and feeling the way you do.

It is for this minority that I am standing up for - but I really don't think Greg is in this group.

I don't know whether he is Autistic or not, all I know is that an Autistic person would be mortified if they had done something inappropriate and would take ownership and try hard to not let it happen again compared to his pathetic and self-centred 'apology' which isn't really an apology. Banjay and the BBC should have intervened much earlier too when multiple issues were reported to them.

ArchaeC said:

I was pleased that the BBC reported this statement by Emily Banks.

The article fails to mention that, between them, the four people whose critical opinions are quoted in it - including Emily Banks - don’t hold any medical qualifications or have any professional medical experience, let alone any that focuses on autism.

ArchaeC said:

“To be clear: being autistic is never an excuse for misconduct. It doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't tell the difference between right and wrong.”

I wonder if they have paid any attention to the research

Bunny said:

"Research suggests that autistic individuals may be overrepresented among those who engage in sexually inappropriate behaviors. Several studies have indicated that autistic people may exhibit various offending behaviors, including sexual offending behaviors, which are associated with traits of autism.

Bunny said:

"Mogavero and Mogavero (2016) identified a variety of studies suggesting that, rather than being due to any malice, a large portion of the deviant or sexual offending behaviour which is carried out by individuals with ASD is very often explained by their ASD symptoms."

I still think Greg is using the diagnosis as an excuse as he has plenty of people around him who will tell him he is acting inappropriately and it does sound like it has been covered up by his handlers.

However this does a disservice to those autists who do struggle with behavioural issues and the way this situation sounds like it could read to them being tarred with the same brush as Greg.

I know plenty of autists with behavioral issues that could get them into trouble (I meet them through the mentoring progam I have) and I take care to explain why this is a problem and how they can get help to either rethink their ideas or learn to hide them.

The same goes for behaviours - one girl had a habit of wanting to touch the biceps of guys (the ones who looked like they worked out) when they had sleevless t-shirts on. I had to explain why it was unacceptable socially unless you knew the person and they were aware of your autism, but even then I had to explain why it was dangerous - down to explaining why it opened her up to a risk of rape.

Most entertainment companies have a habit of covering up for stars inappropriate behavior probably because it comes with the huge egos of these "stars". The cult of celebrity and the need to maintain these cash cows for the entertainment companies is probably the driver.

Will it ever change? Probably not. They will just get better at covering it up. They don't want to loose their goose that lays the golden egg after all. 

The bottom line is that Wallace is responsible for his bad behaviour.

Yes, such dreadful behaviour should have been picked up Banijay, and now it is looking like it could be complicit in Wallace’s actions by it turning a blind eye.

I think the Wallace case can be turned into an opportunity to show that autism is not an excuse for bad behaviour. I am glad the BBC and others have given this story prominence. A high profile story like this could work in our favour in the end.

I was pleased that the BBC reported this statement by Emily Banks. 

“To be clear: being autistic is never an excuse for misconduct. It doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't tell the difference between right and wrong.”

I’ve just read the latest article from the BBC, it seems his ploy hasn’t worked.

Gregg Wallace faces backlash over autism defence www.bbc.com/.../cx24lxl85wyo

The production company Banijay are the ones who should of picked it up, the BBC, like so many others uses programes made by outside companies, little is made inhouse anymore. Most of the women he exposed himself too were young self employed junior team members, they felt unable to complain or had their complaints dismissed because they feared getting a reputation as trouble makers and not working again.

This sort of power imbalance is why so many people like Wallace get away with atrocious behaviour for so long, the younger you are the less able you feel to complain and possibly lose your career, thsts why its older women, more established in thier careers who do complain, then that opens the door for the others who've previously felt powerless.

He's made his money even though his career is potentially over - so you do wonder why he can't just accept it - rather than seemingly say it's now his new discovered "Autism".

Why it's gone on for so long and covered up by everyone on the production teams.  I mean I'm pretty sure if I dropped my kegs in the office - it wouldn't take 50 times before something was said. Good old BEEB

TheCatWoman said:

It always seems to be bullies who when called out and challenged claim that it's all a witch hunt

I find this ironic as the very term stems from the persecution of innocent women. Now is seems to be used mostly by guilty males from how you describe it.

I wonder when the change in use happened. I thought it was from before Trump.

Completely agree with you there. 

It always seems to be bullies who when called out and challenged claim that it's all a witch hunt, it just goes to show what is often said about bullies, they can dish it out but they can't take it.