Gregg Wallace breaks silence ahead of BBC report: what does his statement actually mean?
Gregg Wallace has broken his silence just days before an official report is expected to be released into his behaviour while working on MasterChef. The allegations (which began surfacing last year) include claims of inappropriate comments and language on set, with investigations led by both BBC News and The Telegraph. Wallace was removed from the show in November 2024 and has now issued a five-slide Instagram statement describing the process as an “incredible injustice”.
When the story first broke, I was interviewed across several media outlets in December 2024, though not all chose to use my commentary. To be honest, I think it’s because I didn’t rush to condemn him. Having worked in crisis PR for years, I’ve seen enough to know that it’s not always what it seems. I’ve supported clients through accusations that turned out to be completely false, so I’ve learnt to be cautious. Until facts are confirmed, speculation doesn’t help anyone.
Now that Wallace has spoken, there’s plenty to unpack. So here’s a breakdown of what he’s actually said, how this plays out behind the scenes, and what it might mean next, both for his reputation and the BBC’s.
Why he’s spoken now, and what he’s trying to do
The timing isn’t accidental. Wallace says he has seen the Banijay report, the internal investigation conducted by legal firm Lewis Silkin, and is trying to get ahead of the headlines before it’s released. It’s a common PR move: frame the narrative before the media does it for you.
In his words, the report has cleared him of the “serious allegations”, but he acknowledges that “some of my humour and language, at times, was inappropriate.” He repeatedly calls the process an injustice and refers to “baseless” gossip and a media trial. Crucially, by posting before the BBC or Banijay release anything official, he’s preparing his supporters for what’s to come, and discrediting it in advance.
That’s smart. But it’s also risky. Pre-empting a broadcaster’s official statement like this may alienate people who expect a more traditional, apologetic route. It positions him firmly as a man under attack, not someone backing down.
Has he actually been found guilty of anything?
This is where the language gets blurry. Wallace states that he’s been cleared of the “serious allegations,” but also admits to inappropriate humour and acknowledges that not all of his behaviour was acceptable.
That seems to match what’s been unofficially reported: that the investigation didn’t find evidence of criminal or violent misconduct, but did substantiate concerns about inappropriate language and comments. In the absence of the full report (which won’t be made public) we’re left only with these summaries, and his own version of events.
There’s also the risk here, reputationally, of appearing to play down what has been found. He contrasts his behaviour with what he describes as “serious wrongdoing”, and refers to himself as someone who is being punished simply for being “a real person with warmth, character, rough edges and all.” That framing might resonate with people who are tired of what they see as excessive political correctness, but it could also alienate others. Particularly if someone reading this has experienced or witnessed inappropriate comments in a workplace, it may feel as though their experiences are being brushed aside or minimised, even if that wasn’t his intention. Of course, we don’t know what was actually said, but when the report findings aren’t public, controlling the narrative like this can be a gamble.
Why accuse the BBC? And what does that achieve?
Wallace doesn’t hold back. He says the BBC “peddled baseless and sensationalised gossip” (Slide 2) and that he was “tried by the media and hung out to dry well before the facts were established.” He adds: “I will not be cancelled for convenience.”
This language positions him not just as someone defending himself, but as someone who believes the BBC is protecting others at his expense. That’s a serious claim, and one we’re unlikely to see clarified in any public response. But again, it makes sense strategically. The BBC is not particularly well trusted by some parts of the British public right now. So by painting himself as the scapegoat, Wallace taps into the wider narrative of institutional blame and public scepticism.
It’s worth noting that when public figures are fired by legacy broadcasters like the BBC or ITV, a certain demographic of fans tend to instinctively side with the individual. Whether it’s down to political alignment, fatigue around cancel culture, or simply not trusting mainstream networks anymore, many will assume the person was unfairly targeted, especially when the BBC’s recent scandals are still fresh in people’s minds.
How does he know what’s coming?
This is something I was asked about privately, and it’s an important point. How can Wallace claim that more “baseless” allegations are about to be aired if they haven’t been published yet?
There are a few likely explanations:
He’s seen the Banijay report and knows what BBC News may focus on.
He may have been contacted for right of reply before the BBC publishes or airs anything.
He’s likely reviewed how similar situations have played out for others and is anticipating the framing.
By doing this now, he creates a shield: if something critical is published in the coming days, he can point to this post and say he warned us. It’s not just defensive, it’s narrative insurance. It also gives him a chance to frame any further stories as part of a smear campaign, rather than standalone claims.
Fan reactions… and the anti-BBC effect
Within minutes of posting, Wallace’s comments were flooded with messages of support. A quick glance shows how many of his followers believe he’s being unfairly pushed out. Many comments frame the BBC as the villain, accusing it of being “too woke,” “corrupt,” or “afraid of real people.” A few explicitly thank him for not apologising too much, and for “standing his ground.”
This is worth paying attention to. Whether or not you believe his version of events, Wallace clearly has a base of loyal supporters, and they feel alienated by how legacy broadcasters handle these kinds of controversies.
For those fans, this statement wasn’t just about MasterChef. It was about someone they like being punished for something they don’t see as offensive. That distinction matters. Especially in the court of public opinion, where perception is often more powerful than detail.
Where does he go from here?
This is where things get trickier. Wallace’s career at the BBC appears to be over. His MasterChef contract was renewed on a series-by-series basis, and it’s been widely reported that he won’t be returning.
So where can he go next?
There is, increasingly, a media space for public figures who have fallen out with the BBC or other traditional networks. Platforms like YouTube, podcasts, or even GB News attract audiences who feel culturally and politically alienated, and who are often sympathetic to those who’ve been “cancelled” by the mainstream.
If Wallace wants to pivot in that direction, there is a path. But it would mean engaging with a very different type of platform and tone, one built less on polished broadcast professionalism and more on outspoken, personality-led storytelling. That would be a huge shift from MasterChef, and from his previous branding as the cheeky greengrocer with mass family appeal.
Whether or not he can, or wants to, reinvent himself in that space remains to be seen. But there is precedent. Others have done it successfully. The question is whether he’s willing to make that move, and whether audiences will follow.
Final thoughts
I said back in December, when the first headlines hit, that none of us outside the situation really knew what had happened. I still believe that. The legal report won’t be released in full, and while Wallace’s statement is striking, it is just one side of the story. But as a crisis PR, I understand why he’s speaking now, and I understand the tactics behind it.
He’s controlling his own platform, shaping the narrative before someone else does, and appealing directly to the people most likely to support him. It’s not the safest approach reputationally, but in a space already packed with headlines, it may be the only power he has left.
What happens next will depend less on what’s true and more on what people want to believe, about Gregg Wallace, the BBC, and the state of modern media.