BBC edit ANOTHER MasterChef contestant out of scandal-ridden series after axing hosts John Torode and Gregg Wallace - and sparking fan fury
Sarah Shafi and another contestant who wanted to remain anonymous said they did not want to appear in the series given 'recent events', according to The Sun.
Sarah previously said she felt 'pressured' to accept show bosses' offer to cut her from the final edits completely.
This means the show's upcoming season, yet to be aired, will be heavily edited the whole way through so as not to include two competitors.
It follows a report which upheld damning claims against once-beloved host Gregg Wallace, and use of unacceptable language by John Torode.
At the end of last year, Wallace was accused of making sexualised jokes and other inappropriate remarks towards a range of women, with claims dating back as far as 19 years.
Since then, more than 50 people have approached the BBC with fresh claims about the presenter - including allegations he groped a MasterChef worker and pulled his trousers down in front of another.
Wallace denies the claims, but was sacked by BBC bosses in November last year.
The upheld complaint against Torode related to his allegedly using an extremely offensive racist term on the set of MasterChef in 2018.
The beloved cooking competition has since been mired in scandal, with many watchers and even former contestants calling for the series to be axed.
Sarah Shafi, of Leeds, said she felt airing MasterChef would send the wrong message about what happens when women report misconduct by men in positions of power.
The 57-year-old told The Guardian: 'I said: "Axe the show, don't air the show. I'm asking you not to air the show."
'Prominent figures have been abusing their power. What message does that send out to women?'
Sarah revealed she was left 'flabbergasted' after being edited out of the hit cooking competition following a heated conversation where she felt pressured to agree to the cut.
'Women are being silenced,' she said.
Sarah claimed she was 'eyed up and ogled' by Gregg Wallace on the show, while accusing the TV host of making an 'off' comment about his reputation with women.
Unable to remember the exchange verbatim, she told Newsnight: 'I just stood there, I didn't know how to respond to that. And that I just thought, "Where's that come from? Why was he saying that to me?"
'And then later he came a bit closer and made a comment that I was really amazing and I thought, "It's weird, but I'll take it." But I thought, "I just don't like it." I felt it was off.'
MasterChef viewers have been left divided as the controversial 21st series arrived on BBC iPlayer before its TV premiere after the BBC's decision to air the episodes.
The popular show return to television screens earlier this month after a last-minute scramble to re-edit it and limit the appearances of Wallace and Torode.
Both presenters had been axed from hosting future iterations of the long-running cookery contest.
Ahead of its debut on linear television, the first three episodes of MasterChef have been made available to watch immediately on catch up.
However, as fans tuck into the under-fire culinary series, they've been left divided as they flocked to social media to share their thoughts.
One viewer blasted the BBC as 'disgusting' and added that the corporation 'have nothing to be proud of'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Spectator
There's nothing worse than male trouser trouble
First, there was the bizarre tale of the poor unfortunate man who, after dropping his trousers on the District line near Upton Park, was set upon by an outraged gang, beaten and then forcibly expelled from the Tube. And then, just a day or so before, the perpetually beleaguered Gregg Wallace caused a similar degree of opprobrium when he put out a video in which he addressed allegations of bad behaviour involving a lack of trousers. What on earth is going on? On Instagram, Wallace announced, with a touch of the Beowulf poet: 'Would you like the truth about the stories regarding me taking my trousers down, listen! There are no findings in the investigation that I took my trousers down in front of anybody.' He ended his video by repeating, sternly: 'Any claim that the report says differently is not true.' So there we have it. Gregg Wallace may be many things, but he is not a trouser-dropper – unlike the anonymous semi-flasher on the Underground, who definitely was, has now been detained for his own good under the Mental Health Act. A warning, perhaps, to those of us who, now that the weather is becoming disconcertingly warm once again, might fancy a little impromptu chino removal on public transport for our comfort. Yet in truth, the idea of taking down one's trousers is an innate source of English fascination that has been a staple of comedy since Chaucer and Shakespeare, and is likely to remain so until the day we are all wafting round in unisex kimonos. The reason why trousers – more than any other form of attire – are imbued with such comic potential is that the average English gentleman associates them with his dignity. Lose them, and his sang-froid tumbles to the floor along with the fabric. It was no wonder that the Aldwych farces and Carry On films all made considerable weather of their stiff, not-so-buttoned-up characters being compelled to cover their reduced dignity in increasingly absurd circumstances as their breeches sally off into the sunset. I would like to say that the loss of trousers is something that only occurs on stage and in film, but alas, I can testify that it is all too real. In my home city of Oxford, I have seen many cruelly abandoned pairs of formal trews in the street, presumably after a heavily misspent night involving fine wine. Nor is this limited to the young. A friend tells how, after a wild evening on Clapham Common with some newfound friends resulted in his being debagged, he cycled past the scene of the crime the next day to see his once-beloved slacks fluttering mournfully in the wind – the mute observer to whatever unspeakable things had happened in that particular spot. As for the shame's memorialisation in memoir, another friend – a leading light in the entertainment industry – has confessed that, should he ever put finger to keyboard and write his autobiography, it could only be called A Life Without Trousers, so torrid have his exploits in this field been. I would dearly love at this point to confess that I know nothing of such things, but unfortunately I recently had my own narrow brush with infamy. A few months ago, I was strolling along Hampstead Heath with my family when, to our horror, a tree fell just behind us, nearly causing grave hurt, or worse. We scrambled to safety just in time, with no worse injury than a few cuts and bruises – but as I realised that we were largely unharmed, I also realised that the sudden impact on the ground had sent my kecks cascading round my knees. To be found dead and trouserless on Hampstead Heath: now that, I fear, is the end that many of my enemies would wish on me. But I intend to give them the dissatisfaction of continuing to live – with the bottom of my trousers rolled – for many a well-furnished year to come, God willing.
The Sun
8 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fortnum & Mason's beauty advent calendar is here – it's filled with £1,149 worth of luxury products
ADVENT calendar season is approaching faster than you think. The best options sell out at lightning speed every year, and Fortnum & Mason has released its luxurious Advent calendar worth a staggering £1,149. The beauty Advent calendar costs £265, and is filled with premium brands including Jo Malone, Clive Christian and Sol de Janeiro. No one does luxury quite like Fortnum & Mason, and the iconic Advent calendar comes with 26 beauty treats - 23 of which are full-size. Shoppers will find a variety of high-end products behind the doors, including fragrances, candles and make-up. There's plenty inside for skincare fans too, like the Wildsmith Active Super Eye Serum that's worth £100 alone. Beauty fans will also be treated to four fragrances, including a 30ml Gallivant London perfume worth £70. 2 Three 10ml perfumes are inside, Fortnum's 1707 Lilas Eau de Parfum, which costs £235 for a 50ml, a Topaze Eau de Parfum with a Gold Atomiser, and a Clive Christian Town & Country Perfume that would be £400 for a 50ml bottle. Sol de Janeiro's viral Bum Bum Body Cream is included for those looking to add a touch of luxury to their body care routine, along with a 100ml version of Aromatherapy Associates' Revive Body Oil (worth £60). There's also a selection of stunning keepsakes including two Ortigia soaps in tins - which could even be passed on as Christmas gifts. The 26 products are all stored inside the luxe-looking packaging, which opens up to reveal the pull-out draws with gold numbers. Fortnum & Mason's Advent calendar is one of the more expensive on the market, but its sky-high value of £1,149 means shoppers are saving £849 compared to purchasing the items individually. Beauty Advent calendars have started to launch in recent weeks, and we're expecting plenty more drops within the next month. Shoppers have already been taking to TikTok to give a first-look at the 2025 Advents. The Sun Shopping team will also be putting some of the bestsellers to the test, and you can read our thoughts on last year's versions, including our Charlotte Tilbury Advent calendar review. Beauty Advent calendars fly off the virtual shelves every year, so if you have your eye on one, it's worth snapping it up as soon as possible before it sells out. has sold out in previous years. While it's available to shop now, the website states that deliveries won't be made until after 22 September. The collection of premium products will make the ultimate gift for any beauty fan, or as a treat for yourself.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Donor ‘shocked' as national library excludes gender-critical book
Scotland's national librarian is facing mounting pressure to reinstate a gender-critical book which she banned from a major exhibition, after a key donor joined a revolt against the move. Alex Graham, who has given around £300,000 to the library, said he had been 'shocked and angry' to learn that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht had been excluded from an exhibit that he personally supported with a donation of about £20,000. Graham, the creator of the television show Who Do You Think You Are, urged Amina Shah, Scotland's chief librarian and the chief executive of the National Library of Scotland, to reverse her decision. He said that if she did not, he would have to consider whether or not to continue to provide lucrative donations to the library, as he has done for the past 12 years. The critically acclaimed book, a collection of essays by more than 30 women about their role in the feminist campaign against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID law, was set to be included in its Dear Library exhibition, after it was nominated by several members of the public. However, The Times revealed on Wednesday that it was pulled after a backlash by the library's internal LGBT staff network, which claimed it contained 'hate speech' and that displaying it would cause 'severe harm' to workers. They threatened to 'notify LGBT+ partners of the library's endorsement of the book' if management did not cave in. Shah justified the decision by citing the potential impact on 'key stakeholders' and the library's reputation if the gender-critical book was included, but has faced intense opposition after her ban was made public. In a major intervention, Graham called on the library to admit its mistake and reinstate the book to Dear Library, which Shah had publicly thanked him for his role in funding. He said that if it did not, he would have no option but to publicly disassociate himself from the campaign, saying the library had given in to what he claimed was a 'censorious, bullying culture' instead of standing up for ideals of free speech. The book's editors, Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Susan Dalgety, have branded the removal of their work 'cowardly and anti-democratic' and repeated their call for the decision to be reversed. 'I think this was a fundamental mistake and the correct thing for the library to do would be to put up their hands, admit that and reinstate the book,' Graham said. 'Instead, there have been weaselly responses. 'The library is not saying they have taken it out because it contains hate speech, because it does not. They've taken it out because of some ill-conceived notion that someone might be upset by its presence. That's not a good enough reason for me.' Graham added: 'This is not about taking one side or the other on the trans debate. It's about the principles of open debate and free speech, which to the national library should be sacrosanct. 'It isn't too late to redeem the situation. But if there is not a change of heart, I feel I will have no choice but to publicly dissociate myself from the exhibition and the campaign that surrounds it. 'This stupid escapade does not undo the very good work the library does, but it should never have happened. 'I couldn't say definitely that I will not donate any more money if they stick to their guns on this, but it has certainly given me pause for thought. That makes me incredibly sad.' Shah, who last year received a salary of between £105,000 and £110,000 in addition to pension contributions of £41,000, decided to exclude the book with the support of Sir Drummond Bone, the chairman of the National Library of Scotland (NLS). An insider within the cultural sector in Scotland said the decision was symptomatic of a wider trend of managers being seen to cave in to demands of young, activist staff members who have little resilience or tolerance of views different to their own. Graham became a major donor to the NLS as he credited free access to books at Cambuslang public library in his childhood as shaping his life and allowing him to go on to pursue a highly successful career in television. He sold his television company, Wall to Wall, in which he purchased a 33 per cent share for £1 in 1987, for about £25 million two decades later. Although the library receives the bulk of its funding from the Scottish government, private donors such as Graham, who has been repeatedly acknowledged by the library for his philanthropy, are also essential to its work. Graham has been one of the library's major donors over the past decade, funding major projects such as the digitisation of medieval manuscripts. He funds a scholarship at the library which is named in his honour, as is a room at the National Library of Scotland's moving image library at Kelvin Hall, Glasgow. Graham's generosity in supporting the centenary celebrations was singled out for praise by Shah at the launch of the Dear Library exhibition in June. Graham said he was initially impressed with it, before discovering that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, which included a contribution from JK Rowling, had been excluded. 'On the opening night of the exhibition, I thought it was fantastic, because I found at least two books in there that I consider to be among the worst ever written,' Graham said. 'I said to Amina I thought that was great, because the whole point was that while some people are inspired by a book, others will hate it. That's the joy of the society we live in and the freedom that we have. 'There are books that are beyond the pale, but there are very few of them. You need to be very careful before you ban anything. 'This book [The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht] was clearly selected to be included, and frankly the management were then bullied out of that by a staff lobby group. 'They say they've removed this book to protect relationships with stakeholders. But they certainly didn't consult me and if they had, I would have voiced strong opposition. I am angry and disappointed at the decision to remove the book as well as the implication that as a stakeholder, I am somehow supportive of it, which I am not.' Kate Forbes, the deputy first minister, has found herself at the centre of a similar row after staff and performers at Edinburgh's Summerhall arts venue criticised her views on trans rights. Summerhall's bosses said Forbes had been permitted to speak at the venue as 'an oversight' after some of the artists set up a 'safe room' while the 5ft 2in politician was present as they were 'terrified' because of her opinions. A whistleblower who works within the arts sector in Scotland said that activist staff members were becoming increasingly powerful within major publicly funded institutions. 'I have been in so many meetings where it is just taken as a given that everyone there is in lockstep on these issues — that everyone hates JK Rowling and that books like The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht are dangerous and harmful,' a source claimed. 'The internal LGBT networks are given carte blanche and it is very isolating to those of us who do not agree with their extreme views, who are forced to self-censor or face, at best, being socially ostracised at work. 'It sounds ridiculous but those of us who don't agree with them feel like we're in an underground network like the French resistance or something, secretly sending each other supportive messages.' The insider added: 'A major part of the problem across the cultural sector is the infantilisation of younger staff members, who can't cope with any type of conflict or opposition to their views. 'This has now led to the ridiculous situation where people intolerant of ideas and books are not only working in our national library, but are calling the shots. Management are terrified and pander to them every time they have a tantrum.' The NLS has sought to defend its decision not to platform the book at its exhibition by claiming there were only 200 spaces for public display, and it received more than 500 nominations. However, documents released under a freedom of information request show that all books with two or more nominations were initially to be included in the public display, with the Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht obtaining four. Joanna Cherry, the former SNP MP and one of the essayists in the book, accused Shah of attempting to mislead her own staff with a message that claimed the library was not 'banning or censoring' books. Although the library does hold a copy of the book — a legal obligation given its statutory role — its exclusion from the Dear Library exhibition was the direct result of complaints from the LGBT staff network who did not like its contents, the documents show. 'I'm concerned that the librarian seems to be misleading her staff as well as the public and the media about what has occurred here,' Cherry said. 'The issue is not whether the book is available within the library's collections but her decision to withdraw it from an exhibition where it had rightly earned its place because of the prejudiced demands of a small group of her staff.' Cherry added: 'There is an increasing pattern in Scottish society where zealots masquerading as LGBTQ+ activists seek to censor women who want to talk about their rights. 'This book was written by feminists, survivors and lesbians. To remove it from an exhibition is not only an attack on freedom of expression, it is also discriminatory.' Hunter Blackburn said: 'We are very saddened that it has come to this, but we understand why Mr Graham has reached what must have been a very difficult decision for him. 'We will continue to seek for this to be resolved by the library making an unreserved apology, putting the book back in the exhibition where it won its rightful place, and, it becomes increasingly clear, undertaking a root-and-branch review of its internal culture and practices.' A spokeswoman for the NLS said: 'We are engaged in a robust and respectful conversation with Mr Graham about this matter, and we will accept his decision regardless of the outcome. 'It goes without saying we are indebted to Mr Graham for his support to the national library over the years. His assistance has helped us to preserve collections, reach new audiences and give young people's careers that much needed start through our apprenticeship programme.'
