Greg Wallace's autism excuse for sexually inappropriate behaviour

He's a horrible person and the fact he's trying to use autism as an excuse for his vile behaviour is terrible I really hope people don't believe that autism is why he's done such horrible things!

Even if he is autistic it still isn't an excuse for what he's done. I hate when people hide behind a diagnosis to excuse despicable acts.

I don’t know the person, he does have a son who is autistic and has high support needs, obviously this does make it more likely that a parent can be autistic. This still doesn’t forgive the alleged behaviour Greg Wallace.
Sometimes parents have asked for advice on this forum for help with children or adolescents who say won’t keep clothes on, this is a sensory issue not sexual.

A female tv personality who was diagnosed with autism a few years ago, now doesn’t work in tv, I believe she does podcasts. From what she has spoken about, there are quite a few people in the tv industry who are are loved by the viewers, these personalities are  often actually horrible people off camera. 
Unfortunately younger people working in the tv and film industry are not believed when they do complain, they are actually believed but the asset the company owns will be protected.

Im glad so many people are coming forward now and being taken seriously. How long did the owner of Harrods get away with it until the evidence became insurmountable against him. Unfortunately he did get away with it by dying. 
The media seem to hone in on any bad situation an autistic person is allegedly involved in, it makes the world see autistic people as creepy or untrustworthy when this isn’t true.

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that the term ‘autism’ is saying a different thing from ‘autistic traits’. 

Iain said:

What I see happening here is you are seeing (metaphorically) an old woman in a black, pointy hat and shouting "witch, burn the witch".

The term ‘witch hunt’ has been around for a long time, but my weariness of it stems from Trump using it when he is criticised. He often uses it multiple times in one sentence. I have noticed politicians here are beginning to overuse it, to deflect from criticisms.

I agree

While sexually inappropriate behaviour could be the result of autistic people misreading social cues or being unaware of unwritten social codes of behaviour, the vast majority, on being given an unmistakably negative reaction to their behaviour, would stop. That Wallace's victims have given evidence of their very negative reactions to his behaviour, really quashes 'having autism' as an excuse. Wallace was repeatedly using sexual exposure and sexual assault as a power play and ego boost to  humiliate and shock his victims. This sounds more like the behaviour of a sociopath with narcissistic tendencies than a typical autist. 

Wallace comes across as a supremely confident and glib individual, I have met not a single autistic person that comes anywhere close to being confident and glib. Horribly insecure and monosyllabic is more the mark.

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.

It is up to us as individuals to make our own decisions based on the facts we know. For all we know autism could be a factor in how Greg has behaved, additional there could be other many factors. Realistically we are probably never going to know as Greg is going to be the only person who knows. We only know about what is reported in the media and since the media's main existence is to make money and sell stories the media will focus in on the parts of a story which would cause most controversy and interest. In this case of Greg's story it is autism. 

I would not get too hung up on it if I was you. To mist of us Greg is insignificant and give it a day or two and most people will have forgotten about him and his antics.

ArchaeC said:

My understanding (or misunderstanding!) is that ‘autism’ is a different from ‘autistic traits’

I believe the simplified version of the definition is that if you have enough autistic traits at a severe enough level then you can be diagnosed as autistic.

An analogy is having enough measles symptoms (fever, spots etc) then doctor will probably say you have measles. You don't have to have every symptom but enough of the main ones is the threshold. It isn't a perfect analogy but it makes the point.

I'm not equating a condition and a disease, just using a simple analogy to show how symptoms / traits add up to a disease / condition in medical terms.

It is entirely possible to have a number of autistic traits but not reach the threshold of a diagnosis. This is because the diagnosis (or label if you like) is used to define you as disabled in this context.

An autism diagnosis is a disabled diagnosis in essence, but there are loads of other people lower on the spectrum of autism who share our traits too, and some are shared with neurotypical people too which leads to the misconception that "we are all a bit autistic".

Confusing isn't it?

ArchaeC said:

the sheer number of women who have come forward with their account, had given some sort of credibility to the common factor of the report that has led to Wallace’s sacking.

I agree that it sounds from what we are told that he is most likely guilty and trying to use his diagnosis as a get-out card.

There is a small possibility that his claim is genuine however and I think he should be tried with an appropriate group of legal and medical specialists to assess the situation rationally.

The press love a sensationalistic story so they will have a field day here and no doubt cast shadow on all autists over this as a consequence and this is what I am concerned about.

If he is found guilty then throw the book at him.

Iain said:

there is a lot of backlash on what can be a legitimate autistic trait here.

i didn’t argue against your sentence above. My understanding (or misunderstanding!) is that ‘autism’ is a different from ‘autistic traits’. If they are the same thing, then I am sorry I am wrong.

Iain said:

I clearly pointed out it is a possible autistic trait

‘Possible autistic trait’ doesn’t seem to be saying that there is definite evidence that autism causes sexually inappropriate behaviour.  I know terminology around autism is used differently by different people, so please explain if you mean autism and autistic traits are the same thing.

I agree with you that it is not for us to judge and I don’t have expertise on autism. I had believed that the many news sources that have covered this story, and the sheer number of women who have come forward with their account, had given some sort of credibility to the common factor of the report that has led to Wallace’s sacking. The Wallace story has lead to a discussion about the bigger issue of perceptions of inappropriate sexual behaviour, sexual assault and autism. 

Within the last two months, two people I know have made throw away comments about people using autism as an excuse. On one of the occasions, a local had just been charged for a criminal offence and my acquaintance said “I suppose he’ll say he is autistic”. Comments like these need challenged and I believe it is in the interests of autistic people to use the Wallace story to continue a conversation on a topic that won’t go away.

ArchaeC said:

I don’t see evidence that autism itself causes people to behave in a sexually inappropriate manner

Note the highlighting of the word CAN in my post - I clearly pointed out it is a possible autistic trait - Bunny has clearly laid out the background as to why if you cared to read her post.

What I see happening here is you are seeing (metaphorically) an old woman in a black, pointy hat and shouting "witch, burn the witch".

It is not for us to judge his guilt or innocence as we lack the expertise of even the full facts.

I agree that there the victims deserve some sort of justice, but it is also not for us to give it to them - the correct procedures are being followed and I'm sure he will be hung out to dry if he is in fact guilty without mitigating factors.

Allowing mob rule (as seems to be happening here) is the thin end of the wedge for us to be punished for any transgression stemming from our autism. 

I am tired of people using ‘witch hunt’ as a defence. I’ve noticed it can be used when there is no valid defence.

I don’t see evidence that autism itself causes people to behave in a sexually inappropriate manner, and an association of autism with sexual offending is not a cause. Causes can include learning difficulties and mental illness, then there will always be those who don’t respect others and use abuse of power to get away with sexually inappropriate behaviour.

For too long, many women, especially those of us who are older, have had to put up with some men’s inappropriate sexual behaviour and sexual assaults. It is tiresome having to constantly defend ourselves.

I imagine plenty of people get on the bandwagon of feminism/cancel culture/me too, as well as autism, but that only serves to detract from the reality that there has been a massive problem of bad behaviours in the past and that the bad behaviours are continuing to be a problem. 

Would Wallace have got as far in his career as he has if he has such high autistc needs that he feels exposing himself and being sexually inappropriate is OK and if his needs are so high, then why has it only become apparent now?

I don't believe that feminism, cancel culture or Me Too, or his being a white male has anything to do with why he's been publically called out and sacked. When has exposing oneself, groping and sexually explicit comments ever been OK? Some men might have got away with it in the past and some probably still do, but now women fineally have the rights and legal protection to stop this I say again when has t ever been appropriate?

When I was about 17 I had some drunk bloke come up and walk behind me holding my buttock, this was at around 2:30pm on a main road, his mates were laughing and cat calling and they continued to do so when I punched him on the nose and made it bleed. I've also been in professional situation as well as private ones where I've been groped, had unpleasant sexual commentary and been shown body parts I really didn't want to see.

Men like that have no excuse, autistic or not, funny how Wallace only did this with women he was alone with, if he's really so disinhibited why wasn't he doing it public?

He's still claiming that he's the subject of some kind of witch hunt by the BBC, last night Newsnights Victoria Derbyshire asked him publically, if he was watching to come on the programe tonight for a right of reply, somehow I don't think he will although if he did it would be interesting.

Bunny said:

In respect of cases like this one, I don't agree with rejecting autism as a potential explanation. Nor do I agree that he is necessarily using his autism inappropriately, as an excuse.

I agree with Bunny here - there is a lot of backlash on what can be a legitimate autistic trait here. We of all people should be willing to offer the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise otherwise we stand to have many other traits dismissed if they are seen as socially inconvenient.

My gut feel is that Gregg is a scumbag and that he is making an excuse, but is this because this is what society has conditioned me to think? Has the me too / femanism / cancel culture approach made me hyperfocus on the fact that because he is white, successful and has a mental condition that he must be guilty?

I say we let the courts do their thing and allow due process to take place before we cast the first stone.

This isn't the first time that some here have reacted strongly in objecting to the idea that autism might be the cause of certain behaviours, in others, that they find repulsive, or that they object to and/or disagree with - or that they otherwise have no wish to be associated with (however indirectly) by virtue of sharing an autism diagnosis with those people.

In respect of cases like this one, I don't agree with rejecting autism as a potential explanation. Nor do I agree that he is necessarily using his autism inappropriately, as an excuse.

I do believe that there are potentially valid grounds for autism being behind any proven, negative behaviour. However, I also don't believe that we're in any position to make any judgements or reach any conclusions. 

By way of explanation, I'll share these snippets from some related research:

"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. Traits of ASD that may contribute to the vulnerability of exhibiting sexual offending behaviors include an impaired theory of mind, repetitive and stereotyped behavioral patterns, and persistent preoccupation with sexual themes"

From: A systematic review of sexual health, knowledge, and behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorder (April 2025)

"There is evidence that SOs [sexual offences] are the most frequent type of offense by people with ASD"

From: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and sexual offending: A systematic review

"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."

From: University of Gothenburg - Sexual Offending Behaviours: Urgent Need for ‘Autism Sensitive Risk Assessment Guide’

"That the deficits in social understanding typical of autism can be just as severe for those who are also highly intelligent may be evidenced in a number of ways: the consensus of the scientific community expressed in the DSM, clinical experience, the personal experience of “high functioning” autistic persons, and survey data."

From: Autism Society - Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association > Defending Autistic People: Sex Offenses

I used to like Gregg Wallace and was a major fan of Masterchef.

It is despicable and a crime to use the excuse he has to try and wriggle out of this, could or would that even if true excuse his behaviour and the severity of what he has done? I think not.

I would like to hope that his latest attempt of being autistic and being used as the excuse is very carefully picked apart and communicated properly to the many people that follow this. 

I agree with others it could be hugely damaging to our community. 

I expect Greg Wallace is frantically grasping at anything he thinks will excuse his appalling behaviour. 

Autistic and non-autistic people behave impeccably, abominably, and everywhere in between, but using autism as an excuse for such odious behaviour is defaming the character of every autistic person on this forum and in the rest of the world. If I could take legal action, I would. 

I believe there are autistic people that do not have the social awareness to know that exposing yourself is inappropriate (not in a sexual way, just not understanding other people wouldn't want to see) and do things that are very impulsive. But this is people that have very high support needs. I would not put Greg Wallace in this category at all and completely agree that he is using it as an excuse. And I agree that this isn't ok and I don't like that it puts autism in a negative light.... Again.

It’s not okay, it just makes neurotypical people understand autistic people even less. I’m a male of similar age and have never committed such behaviour.

I completely agree with you there. Having autism is no excuse for any inappropriate behaviour what so ever! These people just want to use autism as an excuse to say they are different and to go easy on them. It’s like they are abusing the definition of autism and making the likes of us who really are generally autistic, or suspect to have autism, look the bad guys. Like I wouldn’t even dream of doing anything offensive and say I’m autistic give me credit because it’s not the case. I remember last year there was a murder of children in Southport and the murderer said he had autism! That’s no reason to behave like that and same with Greg! We defo need to stand up to these people and the media, they just like to exaggerate anyway 

I agree, I think he's trying to make an excuse for appalling behaviour. 

I think that some people who are sociopathic pretend to be autistic to excuse their behaviour, and I think that they may be mis-diagnosed as autistic due to showing little empathy, if the assessor is not experienced or knowledgeable enough to understand the difference between the two conditions. (I don't have actual evidence of this, it's just my own thoughts about it.)