MasterChef presenter John Torode says he was accused of racism in Gregg Wallace report
The report, commissioned by MasterChef production company Banijay and led by law firm Lewis Silkin, found 45 out of 83 allegations against Wallace were substantiated, alongside two standalone allegations made against other people, including one for using racist language.
In a post on Instagram, Torode confirmed he was the person alleged to have used racist language but said he had 'no recollection of the incident' and was 'shocked and saddened' by the allegation.
His statement said: 'Following publication of the Executive Summary of the investigation into Gregg Wallace while working on MasterChef, I am aware of speculation that I am one of the two other individuals against whom an allegation has been upheld.
'For the sake of transparency, I confirm that I am the individual who is alleged to have used racial language on one occasion. The allegation is that I did so sometime in 2018 or 2019, in a social situation, and that the person I was speaking with did not believe that it was intended in a malicious way and that I apologised immediately afterwards.
'I have absolutely no recollection of any of this, and I do not believe that it happened. However, I want to be clear that I've always had the view that any racial language is wholly unacceptable in any environment. I'm shocked and saddened by the allegation as I would never wish to cause anyone any offence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour giving under-18s right to vote is profoundly wrong and the reason is really simple
WHEN polling day dawns at the next general election, some 1.6million new voters will have been added to the electoral rolls. Hundreds of thousands of bright-eyed 16 and 17-year-olds will be entitled to cast a vote for their local MP for the very first time, thanks to Labour plans announced yesterday. 3 3 Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner says it will finally 'give the young a stake in our country's future'. While she's right to say those teenagers will have a say in our democracy, she is absolutely, profoundly and maddeningly wrong to think that they should. Why? Because voting is something that adults get to do, and 16 and 17-year-olds are not adults, they're children. It's really that simple. The Deputy PM claimed in a newspaper article that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote because they can serve in the Armed Forces. This is not actually true. Under-18s may join the military, but they can't actually serve while under-age. Indeed, we don't trust 16 and 17-year-olds to do very much at all. They can't legally buy alcohol, or a packet of cigarettes or even a vape. If we can't trust them with a pint of lager, why on Earth would we trust them with a pencil in a polling booth? We don't trust under-18s to be able to watch violent movies at the cinema or pornography on their laptops. The Online Safety Act bans under-18s from being able to look at explicit material on porn sites, while 16 and 17-year-olds can't even be held fully accountable for any criminal offences they commit, no matter how serious. Reform would sweep through Labour's Red Wall at election, shock poll reveals as 68% think Britain is broken Yes, a 17-year-old can legally drive a car but, judging by the accident statistics, they're far more likely to kill themselves and others than any other drivers on the road. And allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote would be an even bigger car crash. Angela Rayner claims that many 16-year-olds are responsible beyond their years, working hard and paying tax, just as she was as a young mum at that age. Apart from the 16 and 17-year-olds, of course, who are allowed to leave school at 16 but are still required by law to be in education or training until the age of 18. Ruthless and cynical Ah, but what about all the young people who work and pay tax before the age of 18? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Well, that's pretty much every child who has ever saved up their pocket money to buy a new toy, because they pay 20 per cent VAT just like their parents. Are we seriously saying seven-year-olds buying Barbie dolls or Lego should also get the vote? Of course not! Let's be honest, Labour's bid to lower the voting age has nothing to do with a starry-eyed faith in the wisdom of youth or an ardent desire to broaden our democratic processes. It's all about a ruthless and cynical bid to stay in power. After winning his loveless landslide last year, with less than 34 per cent of the vote, and his government plummeting in the polls, Sir Keir Starmer has given up all hope of winning the support of British adults. Now he's having to resort to winning over their kids with some blatant election gerrymandering. When cynical politicians say they want 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, what they really mean is that they want 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for them. The PM knows that younger voters are more likely to support left-wing parties, so why not lower the voting age to benefit the Labour party? After all, why wouldn't children want to vote Labour after years of being indoctrinated by their teachers into green propaganda, trans ideology, welfare dependency and victimhood, pro-immigration and anti-Trump views, and a hard-left take on Britain's history as a white supremacist colonial power responsible for every wrong in the world? But Sir Keir Starmer may find that extending votes to young teens could come back to bite him in the backside, as many younger voters choose instead to turn to the more radical Greens or even Jeremy Corbyn's new hard-left party instead of backing the Labour government. They are just as likely to prefer Reform UK as the anti-Establishment party, following many young voters who are flocking to right-wing parties across Europe. Labour may end up ruing the day they lowered the voting age to 16, but we will all have to live with the consequences of this cynical political tactic. Giving children the vote proves beyond all doubt that, when it comes to British politics, the grown-ups are no longer in charge. ED MILIBAND, Secretary of State for Climate Hysteria, took a break from proclaiming 'The End Of The World is Nigh' to make the case for Net Zero this week. After delivering an address to the Commons on climate change, he said 'our British way of life is under threat' from it – and told Tory and Reform MPs they were 'unpatriotic' for wanting to abandon Net Zero targets. That's quite a claim. But maybe not as extreme as that of Dale Vince, Labour donor and green energy millionaire, who wants 'climate denial' to be a crime. I'd have thought the REAL threat to the 'British way of life' would be jailing those who wisely object to spending £1trillion of taxpayers' money on targets that will make our country poorer and energy more expensive, while importing Chinese-made solar panels and turbines. I guess the climate zealots prefer heatwave hysteria to cold hard facts. WE'LL PAY FOR DATA SCANDAL THE Afghan data leak and the Tory Government's cover-up using a court super-injunction is a scandal from start to finish. It could cost us dearly, paying for the fallout from the accidental email leaking a database of almost 19,000 Afghans and their families claiming to be at risk from the Taliban after British forces left. An accidental email which we were not told about for two years. Yet it seems that everyone else – including the Taliban – DID know! Meanwhile, ambulance-chasing lawyers have already lined up a thousand Afghans to sue the Government for putting their lives at risk. You'd think that those Afghans might be a tad grateful to have been brought to safety in the UK in clandestine flights rather than left to rot under the Taliban, but apparently not. Instead, they will be bringing a class action suit that could cost up to £1billion in compensation. MPs are launching their own investigations, while newspapers are now finally free to hold ministers to account. But whenever the Government makes a mistake, it is always the long-suffering taxpayer who has to pick up the bill.
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Police chiefs under pressure to ban on-duty officers from joining Pride marches following High Court ruling
Police in Scotland should be banned from taking part in Pride marches while on duty following a landmark High Court ruling, rank-and-file officers said last night. They face being prevented from joining in the parades after the court ruled on Wednesday that one of Britain's largest forces breached impartiality by marching at an LGBT + event. A judicial review was brought by a gender-critical campaigner who argued that Northumbria Police broke the professional oath sworn by police officers to act 'with impartiality'. Officers had a stall at last year's Pride parade in Newcastle, marched under the Progress flag promoting transgender ideology and painted a police van in trans colours, while Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine was pictured at the event. Last night Police Scotland came under pressure to ban staff participation in the events, as the High Court ruling was heralded as the 'end of woke policing'. Scottish Tory community safety spokesman Sharon Dowey said: 'The public expect the primary role of police officers to be fighting crime and upholding community safety, so this ruling is a potential landmark moment. 'At a time of low officer numbers and savage cuts to the police budgets on the SNP's watch, attending parades is not what Scots expect to be a priority. 'It is common sense that public safety should always be the top priority for the force.' A Pride march is set to take place in Glasgow tomorrow (SAT). Police Scotland was asked if any officers are likely to participate this year. In his ruling at the High Court in Leeds, Mr Justice Linden said Northumbria Police might be seen by the public to be 'taking sides' in the women's rights debate. Linzi Smith, 34, the claimant in the judicial review, has said she will take further legal action against the force if Northumbria goes ahead with plans to allow off-duty officers to wear T-shirts identifying themselves as such at this year's event. The force declined to comment on whether it would change its position and said it was working through the judge's ruling. Last night David Kennedy, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, representing rank-and-file officers, said he backed the court ruling. He said: 'The problem is where do you draw the line? If an officer is a member of the Orange Order and wants to take part in an Orange walk while in police uniform, for example, would you allow that – how would that go down? 'Police have to do their job in an apolitical way - without fear or favour. 'The lines had become blurred but this judgment clarifies the situation.' Mr Kennedy said he believed officers in civilian clothes on their time off should be allowed to participate, for example by carrying flags or banners, but they should not wear uniform. Writing in today's Mail, Dave Marshall, a former Grampian Police constable and an ex-Chief Superintendent at the College of Policing and the British Transport Police, said: 'The end of woke policing may be at hand thanks to a landmark High Court judgment which means that police participation in LGBT+ Pride events is unlawful. 'As a senior police officer, I had been banging that drum for many years. 'My professional view had always been that taking part in Pride parades - in the same way that participating in any kind of activist cause whether it be animal rights, Scottish Independence, or Black Lives Matters - simply does not square with the concept of an impartial police service.' In July last year, the Mail revealed that police officers in Scotland were paid to take part in Pride parades despite the force cutting back on fighting crime. Uniformed officers were urged to represent the overstretched force at LGBT+ events in exchange for either pay or a day off in lieu. Around 25 uniformed officers took part in the march through Glasgow, wearing special LGBT rainbow epaulettes, and flanked by a marked car and van draped in Pride flags. The group, which included some senior officers, would have accrued around £5,000 in wage costs. At the time of the Pride march in Glasgow last summer, Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton said Pride officers' participation was 'considered by line managers to ensure there is no impact on operational policing'. Last year, Chief Constable Jo Farrell issued a formal apology for 'recent and historical injustices' suffered by 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex' people. Writing on LinkedIn, former Police Scotland superintendent Martin Gallagher said: 'Diversity is not, nor can it be, an end unto itself. 'This approach for the last 20 years has created this mess. 'One of the core purposes of the police is to prevent and detect crime. 'This is what diversity should be supporting, not replacing, as has sadly been the case in recent years and has led perversely to a breakdown of trust with some communities over perceived favouritism of others, as Wednesday's judgement indicates.' It is understood Police Scotland is reviewing the High Court judgment.
The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Only those with a top IQ can name these 10 Premier League teams in this emoji quiz – how many can you figure out?
ONLY people with a top IQ can figure out these 10 Premier League clubs based on emojis. The puzzles have been put together using emojis as each of the syllables of the club's name. The head-scratching codes have been created by the ticket comparison site, SeatPeak. The ten teams range from recent Premier League champions to newly promoted clubs. SeatPick ceo Gilad Ziberman said: "To celebrate World Emoji Day, we've created this super fun game you can share with your friends. "With the 2025/26 Premier League season fast approaching, see if you can spot which teams are hiding behind the clues." The brain teasers can help enhance people's short-term and long-term memory. This is done as it requires people to remember and manipulate information with their brains. Still struggling? Scroll down for the answers - but no cheating! The tip is to keep it simple and just say what you see. Brain teasers can also help improve cognitive stimulation, mental agility, stress reduction and boosting concentration. They're great for the health side of the brain as well as they help to delay the onset of cognitive decline which is associated with ageing. Chelsea hunting Morgan Rogers as Garnacho and £100m Jackson wanted by Villa | Transfers Exposed
