ON a BBC radio phone-in show callers were debating the rights and wrongs of the decision to air episodes of MasterChef in which disgraced hosts Greg Wallace and John Torode continued to feature. Was this a) the fairest approach for the contestants who had taken part? or b) a slap in the face for the victims?

I was driving to the Borders so I was tuned in for longer than usual. On and on it went.

There was extensive analysis of the way in which Wallace’s and Torode’s contributions had been cut to remove their banter, and whether this had blandified the series to the point of tedium.

Also under scrutiny was the request by one contestant to be edited out. Was this a brave moral stand or a futile gesture? And would she have made the same request if she had gone on to win?

What callers weren’t encouraged to explore were deeper, more fundamental dilemmas, such as the cultural blind spots that allowed Wallace, in particular, to engage in inappropriate behaviour so flagrantly and for so long.

And what the BBC ought to do to address structural power imbalances so contestants and members of staff have the confidence to report such behaviour in the future?

I am not criticising this radio show’s choice of subject per se. MasterChef is a popular brand, and it was clear from the number of people who phoned in that those who watch it have strong opinions they are keen to share. But as someone who doesn’t, the approach felt quite superficial, an empty exercise in handwringing.

There was no sense that what happened on the programme was not a one-off incident involving a couple of mavericks, but part of a continuum of abuse which flourishes in every institution with a hierarchy rendering those at the top untouchable.

We can agonise all we like over whether or not this series of MasterChef, which had been filmed before the decision to axe the hosts was made, should have been shown.

(Image: Gregg Wallace)

Humiliation

PERSONALLY, I feel Wallace and Torode are already........

© Herald Scotland