Macaulay famously wrote : “We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.” And the latest spectacle is the inquisition into the conduct of TV Chef Greg Wallace.
The Gregg Wallace story is again raising questions around appropriate behaviour in the workplace with some claiming that British society has a major issue with misogyny. However, I believe it is more of an issue in the entertainment and arts industry than it is elsewhere, here’s why.
Now, as an HR professional over the last 30 odd years, in a variety of industries, the question of when ‘banter’ ceases to be ‘banter’ is one that those in our trade are frequently asked to adjudicate on. A careful balance has to be struck between ‘banter’, which is an essential part of human interaction and is often used to quickly establish trust through gently prodding boundaries, especially in industries where that lack of trust can end in injury or death; and actual inappropriate behaviour.
No one wants to work in an environment where everyone is constantly treading on eggshells and where HR micro manages interactions between adults as if they were toddlers. We’ve seen plenty examples of HR over reach here, up here in the North East, for example, Newcastle University’s HR team recently released a list of verboten words, one of which was “pet”. The subsequent debate split into two clear camps: middle class and professional types who saw the word as inappropriate and patronising and everyone else, who understood that such words (love, hen, darling, dearie, sweetheart) are actually an intrinsic part of the language of regions and are not used in a sexualised way, rather as a polite and kind way of addressing another. Hence they are used by all sexes to all sexes and from all ages to all ages. I doubt that the garage attendant in her seventies who sold me a tank of diesel the other day was trying to get me into bed when she called me “Pet” several times during our interaction. Ironically, had the University HR department actually done any research into the use of such words, rather than jumping on an increasingly intolerant orthodoxy, they would have understood why such words are not what they are implying and they are seeking offence where none exists. Don’t take my word for it, linguists have studied this and here’s an article with many long and complex words to support my point!.
Why are HR teams doing this? Well, we have recent evidence from several Employment Tribunals where employers have been fined for essentially not policing the speech and interactions between employees. These are often ‘he said- she said’ cases and the employer is often caught out by not having followed a bullying and harassment policy. We also know that Labour are planning to make employers responsible for protecting their employees from being offended by third parties. So someone walks into a pub and asks the female employee working behind the bar:
“Pint of mild, please love.”
Female employee takes offence, reports the customer to the manager and unless the manager acts: seeks an apology or kicks the customer out, the employer may be liable for having breached employment law.
If Ms. Rayner gets her way that will be law. Yet again, a censorious elite class seeking to micromanage the behaviour of a general public it appears to demonstrate nothing but contempt for. In the meantime I would urge employers of all sizes to ensure you have your policies up to date and also ensure you train those policies into your company.
I cannot stress how important it is for HR professionals and others to push back on this over reach. If only because it will be impossible to police, will create huge resentment in workplaces, will tear up team and workplace cohesion and will cost companies millions whilst not actually improving workplaces for anyone, quite the contrary.
There’s of course a big dollop of classism at work here as well, there is an attitude amongst some of my colleagues in HR, that workers cannot be trusted to behave and need to be micromanaged in this way. You come slap up against this in industries like manufacturing or construction. On a shop floor, good natured banter is an important part of a positive workplace with a cohesive team. As already discussed above, banter is an important tool in feeling out another person’s boundaries and building trust. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to intervene when a young, junior HR manager has overheard something that was not what it seemed and therefore thinks they have to act when in fact what they overheard was normal, mutually given banter between workmates.
So when is banter not banter, when does it cross the line? For banter to be banter there needs to be an equal power dynamic or at least, an existing level of trust between the individuals. Wallace has misunderstood or misread this. Wallace is a wholesale green grocer by trade, he has grown up in an industry where being an extrovert is an essential part of standing out from the crowd and of business success. Don’t believe me? Visit any wholesale vegetable, fish or meat market anywhere in the country. These are fast paced environments, inherently working class where there is little time for sensibilities. It was this cheeky chappy barrow boy persona that gained Gregg Wallace his success but it was his inability to read a room which undermined it. Because what is perfectly acceptable and part of the job between equals in a marketplace, may not be acceptable in other environments.
The problem here is that the targets of Wallace’s banter (and I am not talking about the ‘slebs’ who have joined in the pile on with their own complaints) appear to have been young female production staff most of whom are not on permanent employment contracts and are therefore dependent on the largesse, ‘not being difficult’ and positive experience of those around them especially the ‘stars’. This dynamic is a particular issue in the arts and entertainment sector because of the insecurity of employment and because very often the employers are quite small production companies without strong cultures and without boundaries being set by management. Time and time again we see those who are not tuned into the sensitivity of such an environment falling foul of its rules. So into this stomps Gregg, ‘alright darlin’’ ‘nudge nudge wink wink.. Know what I mean’? All of which likely gives rise to cackles from his peers in the market but makes young female production staff, with no guarantee of employment, nervous.
You can understand why they feel this way. Those production companies are often small businesses, and they usually have to bend over backwards to indulge the stars of the shows, pandering to their every need and requirement. If a star barks at a temporary member of staff or upsets them, who is the production company going to support? The star, around whom the entire production is based and on which everyone depends for employment, or the worker? As smaller businesses the production company typically has no HR professional skilled in understanding how to manage this sort of issue and most importantly, how to prevent it. The client (often the BBC) demands the show with the star and this pressure adds to the requirement to ignore bad behaviour and drop the worker rather than the star.
When I have encountered the arts and entertainment sector, the atmosphere that always bubbles under the surface is one of fear. This is an industry where a faux pas which would be protected by employment law in other industries can cost you your entire career. A worker who ‘upsets’ a star finds themselves ostracised by agencies and bookers. Fear is the dominant emotion within the sector. Fear of losing your current assignment and your career.
Ever wonder why Graham Linehan was so viciously cancelled by so many of his closest friends in the sector? It is precisely because the norms which tend to manage workplaces in other sectors don’t exist in this sector. Fear of losing your career infects everyone at all levels, they know how quickly the sector can turn on you and if you have a taint of it then expect to be cancelled and your friends will drop you by necessity. Yes it is cowardice but they also have mortgages and kids.
And of course here is the rank hypocrisy of the sector, that a sector which claims to be so ‘inclusive’ it enforces Stonewall’s most radical gender politics as gospel and cancels and destroys the careers of heretics, despite those heretics’ views being protected under the Equality Act 2010. Is also the sector which tiptoes around primadonna stars who behave appallingly on set. A sector which is so quick to condemn Wallace for misogyny is also the sector which unreservedly attacks gender critical women as TERFS and viciously cancels their male supporters like Linehan.
The reality is that as sanity slowly returns to the British workplaces, entertainment, arts and the creative sector are being left behind, spiralling in an industry where fear, denouncement and witch hunts are increasingly the norm. So why are they being left behind? I’ve already touched on the small business nature of many of these employers, and also the star being the product. However, it’s also simply because there is a perception that those who are free lancers have no protections under employment law or the Equality Act 2010, when in fact they do. Now there is always the De Jure versus the De Facto and in this scenario, the De Facto is that no one needs a reason not to book you next time, they just don’t book you. Until the sector actually addresses this imbalance, this will continue to be a problem, the sector will continue to be dominated by insecure, terrified workers and management quite happy to indulge stars until the pressure grows on them to drop them. Who on earth would want to work in such an industry? Especially in 2024 where in order to secure employment you also need to overtly demonstrate how you adhere to what’s expected of you, which is why the sectors are so much more focused on ‘woke’ stuff than other sectors.
Major reform will be needed to the industry to restore some sanity but first and foremost would be to include agencies in the sector under the Conduct of Employment Agency Regulations 2000. This law makes it unlawful for employment agencies to charge their candidates for placing them in employment. But the law exempts agents working in the creative arts and sport. If this sector was included then the worker, especially those in production and other jobs, would become protected as agency employees. Therefore, the production company would be answerable to the agency for the conduct towards one of their employees. Until this or something like it happens, then I cannot see any way this can be repaired.Lastly, I have noticed how much bandwagon jumping is going on over the Wallace case. On social media and especially on linkedin Everyone with an axe to grind is emerging from the digital ether to use it as an excuse to attack ‘toxic masculinity’ in the workplace and claim that everywhere from the Inns of Court to the local supermarket are rife with unreconstructed males misbehaving with female colleagues. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes there will always be exceptions but it is now very rare to encounter such behaviour as the norm. There is no ‘structural misogyny’ in our country and those incidents we see in the entertainment sector are down to the employment structure of the sector failing to protect its workers and essentially failing to provide them with the same protection as any other sector.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If end of life care was available at high level to all who need it then the bill should be unnecessary but sadly the care is pretty variable, certainly doesn’t achieve pain free deaths and is thus necessary. I have experience of people in this situation. I will not justify my view as it should be a personal decision but I would welcome the opportunity if I ever face this.
The medical professions have been extra-judicially killing people for a very long time. I watched this happen in an hospice to a terminally ill patient. It is done by sedation and denial of water. Death takes a day or so. Nothing I could do about it. Metastatic cancer spreading to the brain.
Quite the ethical dilemma similar to the abortion debate in rape and incest cases.
When I first read the protections proposed, my fears about this Bill were assuaged, but on reflection, it seemed to me that these are there to ram the Bill through Parliament and would quickly disappear. This was certainly the case with abortion where the current availability is nothing like the original proposers planned.
A very complicated and sad topic, but as long as the person who wants to shorten their life is of sound mind when the decision is made and no one is forced to perform anything against their will i.e. no doctor is forced to perform the act and the patient is not coerced, it is frankly no one else’s business. Why should someone be trapped in a life of Hell, when they don’t want to be anymore, yet have no means to do it themselves, just to please other people that they don’t know. They will obviously have discussed it with the ones that they love, the decision won’t have been taken likely – probably over the course many months or years and it doesn’t belittle their life. It is their life.
Just as you can opt out of organ donation and you can sign DNRs, why can’t we have a decision on our medical records, that is updated quite frequently, saying when and whether we would want to be assisted. Yes, I know it is open to abuse, but there are ways to make it harder to do that e.g. the form must be signed in person and by hand and witnessed and counter signed by 2 or 3 other people, chosen by the patient, all of whom are consulted when/if the time arrives, to check that they did indeed sign it.
There needs to be a way of allowing this, while protecting the vulnerable from coercion or decisions being taken without the knowledge of the patient or family members, as was the case with DNRs during the alleged ‘pandemic’.
I find this topic is similar to the abortion topic in that certain people have a very overly simplistic, black and white, rigid view on both, usually without ever having any firsthand experience in these particular areas. Well I’ve firsthand experience in both, having worked on a women’s ward ( gynae and breast surgery ) and also in the community with people suffering from MS, MND and those who became quadriplegic due to spinal chord injury. I won’t turn this into an essay but all I’ll say is if people could only reserve judgement until they’ve walked a mile in other people’s shoes, so to speak, then I’m very confident they’d take a different view of things.
So I quite agree, and frankly, people should be treat with dignity and their wishes ( as long as of sound mind ) should be respected. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis because what’s manageable for one person may be intolerable for another with the exact same condition. People are so sanctimonious and quick to judge but I say to hell with them, it’s none of their damn business. And I agree with your last paragraph because the trouble is, this euthanasia/assisted suicide topic has undoubtedly been abused in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands. An ethical minefield.
And what is the guarantee that the suicide topic won’t be abused here?
What percentage of abortions are really carried out for compelling medical reasons? A few percent?
(Asking as a father of a totally unplanned but very happy 27 year old young man.)
To be clear, both abortion and euthanasia should come with strict criteria. The problem is those strict criteria seem to go out the window. For instance, abortion should have a cut off point, such as 12 weeks. It certainly should not be left until the foetus is viable. No female does not know she’s possibly pregnant and should perform a test at the 3 month mark. Anything after that, especially when the foetus is more advanced, should only be performed if serious abnormalities have been detected and it’s advised by the doctor or wished by the parents. Bringing a baby into the world which is profoundly disabled, will have a shortened lifespan with a very poor quality of life, is not for everybody. This is where these “pro-lifers” have a very cut and dried, unrealistic and naive view, in my opinion.
As for euthanasia, what has already been mentioned above. If somebody’s of sound mind then their wishes should be recorded so everything’s done lawfully, like a living will with the relevant professionals present, no spouse should be getting arrested for manslaughter if they are asked to end the suffering of their partner ( who would do it themselves if they possibly could ) and people should have the option of dying with dignity. I’m afraid opioids will only get you so far, in terms of alleviating physical pain. As anyone who’s cared for people with terminal cancer will attest to.
“Bringing a baby into the world which is profoundly disabled, will have a shortened lifespan with a very poor quality of life, is not for everybody.”
OK, fair enough. But let’s go back to my original question: and what percentage of pregnancies meet those criteria?
Why are you expecting me to have that information? Can’t you research the answer for yourself?
I’m not trying to be provocative. I asked because you told us that you had firsthand experience, having worked on a women’s ward. So I was interested to know your opinion.
Have I researched the answer? Yes. I was told that in only about 1 to 2% of cases are pregnancies terminated for reasons of abnormalities, etc. The rest is for convenience.
Ah so you asked me a question you already knew the answer to. Was that supposed to be some “Gotcha” moment?
I’ve already made my views on both subjects as clear as I possibly can so I’m not sure what good labouring the point would do. It just irks me when self-righteous people sit casting judgement on others without knowing the personal circumstances or reasons of the individual concerned, and that applies to both of the aforementioned topics.
Certainly not.
The statistics I heard might have come from a biased source and I was genuinely interested in your personal opinion.
I absolutely did not mean it as a “gotcha” moment. I respect your views.
No worries. It’s 15+ years since I worked in that field so I couldn’t possibly recall that specific info, to be honest. But I do feel strongly the time limit should be lowered significantly from what it currently stands at. Babies have the possibility of surviving if born prematurely at 23 or 24 weeks and the vast majority of females will get signs and take a test very early on, especially if their period is late. And even without regular periods there are, of course, other physiological signs your body gives to let you know you’ve conceived, so my sympathies can only extend so far, then it’s a case of taking personal responsibility. This very subject will be even more pertinent in a few years when my daughter reaches 16yrs, which I’d rather not think about for now.
I’m not sure it is fair enough. Isn’t a short, poor quality of life, better than no life at all? You could argue, and it’s an argument I would lean towards, that life begins at conception. Whatever the difficulties, impracticalities and morals associated with bringing up a severely disabled child, the fact remains that the potential for any life at all is being eliminated when a foetus / embryo is aborted at any stage of pregnancy. It is preventing a process from unfolding that would, absent a proactive procedural intervention, naturally lead to a new-born infant.
I’m not sure whether or not I’m in favour of assisted suicide specifically, but one thing that a patient should be allowed is the consenting withdrawal of treatment, if desired. This is a passive allowing of the natural ending of life, and it is also consenting. Abortion on the other hand is neither: The foetus has no say in whether he/she gets a shot at life. And the process is also proactive, and requires a specific termination procedure, therefore is morally a different ballgame entirely.
In principle, I would like the option of an assisted death. However, the article makes it clear that any safeguards put in place, can be dismantled with ease. This is problematical. The choice appears to be either a blanket ban on assisted death, or acceptance that a limited criteria for assisted death, will inevitable expand into a far wider set of criteria.
Unless the proposed legislation includes indefeasible rights that are incapable of being made void by a future parliament.
Let’s have no illusions.
The state would really like to kill you once you’re old and frail.
It would save a lot of money.
Just keep that in mind for a minute and ask yourself where this is all going.
There will be cast iron safeguards. Oh yes, like with the Covid jabs. Safe and effective.
The End of Life “care” PATHWAYS NG163 correspond with the mortality spike in April 2020. It was also a useful tool for the BBC to publish 24/7 fear porn that kept up compliance.
No question.
Assisted dying wouldn’t even be a point of discussion if the young heavily outnumbered the old that needed caring for.
But in a world soon to come where it’s the other way around and the old massively outnumber the young, for many if not most there will two options: assisted dying or dying in neglect.
That is until they produce nurse robots.
In the not too distant future when you go to your GP with some long term problem (and, let’s face it, who is completely healthy at retirement age?), he will look at your notes and say, “hmm, yes, I see, what is your end of life plan?” rather than try to make you feel better.
I can see both sides. Five Live a lady made the point that when terminally ill, you have gone pretty much full circle into the state of being a baby again regarding needing assistance in doing almost everything. No self respecting person should have to, or want to go through that humiliation. But at the same time, after 2020 it gives those that were paying attention (people on here) a darker perspective where the slippery slope argument holds weight. Canada is a prime example — a woman askes for a stairlift, and they offer to bump her off instead.
It depends on who you regard as the basic unit of society, individuals or the ‘collective’.
…even if it means that many people are obliged to live in great pain so that ‘the State’ may have clean hands?
Yes, the slippery slope is a risk, but not stepping out also carries a great risk too.
It is a convenient myth (convenient for the proponents of euthanasia) that euthanasia (in its various forms and incarnations) is painless and dignified.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that it is either.
But there is plenty of evidence to show that it is neither.
Euthanasia does not provide the painless, peaceful death which its advocates claim it to be. There is no perfect way for the government to kill people. As Samuel Beckett said: “Even death is unreliable.”
The above text was taken by Vernon Coleman from a book written by Jack King. Vernon Coleman has written several articles on the matter in The Exposé (e.g. https://expose-news.com/2024/10/31/euthanasia-is-not-painless-peaceful-and-dignified/, https://expose-news.com/2024/11/01/i-have-written-to-my-mp/), pointing out that nobody knows how a person feels when given a fatal medicine, that many people do not react as expected and some have even survived for days afterwards. There was apparently one case where a doctor ultimately used a pillow to suffocate a person who did not die as expected.
I believe euthanasia is also a matter espoused by countries with publicly funded health care systems. If you are fortunate enough to live in a country where you are required to have a private health insurance, doctors do their utmost to keep you alive simply because the longer you live, the more money they will earn from you. If, on the other hand, you have an NHS-type system …
This woman has no idea what it must be like to be living a life of hopelessness.
Google Dr Elizabeth Evans and you find that “her strong Christian faith” is what motivates her. She is seeking to impose her religious views on others, whilst professing to support medical freedom – what a hypocrite.
It is a complete myth that palliative care can make every medical condition bearable, and for the cases where it cannot, the sufferers should have the freedom to request a hastening of their death.
I agree with this article, however, no sensible person believes that the state has their best interests at heart. The opposite is true. Similarly, it is now obvious that the medical profession has also been corrupted. Dark times lie ahead.
As a veterinary surgeon I have performed euthanasia many times. It is a peaceful process.
However, I am completely opposed to this bill. The danger of coercion or people agreeing to euthanasia because they are being made to feel a burden is real. Just look at the Covid years and you have a prime example of what could happen.
Death is part of life and we should be providing good, compassionate care, not going down this slippery slope of euthanasia.
Look at what is happening now. People desiring bodily autonomy who are suffering appallingly and think death is preferable are basically being told to get on with it. That’s not a compassionate approach. We need to deal with the reality that “good compassionate care” is simply not available or realistic for many and may never be, given the state of our economy. Covid authoritarianism was despicable. Telling chronically suffering people that they have no right to exercise the right to die is also despicable state overreach.
I hear you. I am worried about the reasons behind choosing to die. And the reasons can be manipulated. So it is not straightforward in quite a few cases.
Maybe we should also look at medical interventions. Do we interfere too much? Keeping people alive without good quality of life?
I remember a lecture by a human transfusion expert. The 80 year old patient in that case developed a heart condition which needed surgery and the expert was asked by the cardiology team if the patient could survive the surgery. He rightly called the whole team together to discuss if it was really in the best interest of that patient to proceed with surgery.
So many angles to this debate.
Respect for your views
I think if the law changes it should follow careful deliberation and informed debate and hopefully good considered legislation will follow. Whatever the concerns, it simply cannot be right that a blanket refusal to allow autonomous adults their right to chose bodily autonomy continues. Was the 80 year old you mention included in the discussion? I hope so!
Ironic that the Medical Freedom Alliance advocates for informed consent and bodily autonomy. Palliative Care is a fluffy and cosy term which belies the reality behind what is possible when caring for the dying. I’ve nursed people who’ve died with dignity, relatives around the bed and relatively pain free courtesy of a morphine pump or similar. I’ve also nursed people unfortunate enough to have a long lingering slide into loss of consciousness with no hope of recovery. As death is inevitable, there’s no feeding tube and no IV fluids. Tissues inevitably break down, even with good nursing care. Basically they slowly rot to death, a process which can take a surprising number of days. An alternative scenario might be long term lung disease, where every task is accompanied by a feeling of desperate suffocation, knowing that tomorrow and all the days after will present you with the same frightening exhausting miserable existence. If a lucid adult feels that is the point where death would be a welcome relief, then it should be their right to to say so, and to expect assistance from a caring – not censorious – professional.