In July’s Reputation Report, our Reputation Management specialists share their analysis on what lessons can be taken from this month’s biggest news stories. We look at Gregg Wallace’s response to the Lewis Silkin report, the catastrophic data leak from within the MoD as well as how Arsenal have handled the arrest of their former midfielder Thomas Partey.
Reviewing Gregg Wallace’s response to the ongoing Masterchef scandal:
Tim Jotischky, Divisional Managing Director, Reputation
Gregg Wallace had a long and successful broadcasting career, but he may end up best remembered for being unable to wear underpants because of his autism – a claim advanced on his behalf by unnamed “friends” to explain away allegations he exposed himself to colleagues.
Wallace came out fighting ahead of the publication of the Lewis Silkin report, commissioned by Masterchef producers, Banijay UK, which substantiated 43 of 83 allegations of inappropriate behaviour. He condemned “trial by media, fuelled by rumour and clickbait,” claiming “none of the serious allegations against me were upheld”.
Getting on the front foot and trying to control the narrative can be an effective strategy but it is risky and only works if it is well executed. Wallace previously tried to explain away the complaints as coming from a few middle-class women of a certain age, but the volume and range of complaints spanning 19 years made that defence untenable.
His second line of defence that a late autism diagnosis meant his behaviour could be misconstrued simply caused offence amongst others with autism, particularly when embellished with anatomical details. Either Wallace was poorly advised, or he didn’t listen to the advice.
He said he was taking legal advice, but it is hard to see him winning compensation for wrongful dismissal. His co-presenter John Torode may have a stronger case. His contract was not renewed after the report upheld an allegation that he had used racist language. But it’s not clear what due process was followed, given Torode denied making the remark and claimed the report had not even stated the date or year when he was alleged to have made it.
It is clear, however, that the BBC did not want to be drawn into another extended saga playing out in public. They closed down the issue regardless of the legal consequences in contrast to – and perhaps because of – their handling of the Huw Edwards case.
Analysing how the MoD responded to a catastrophic data breach:
Fredrik Jonsson, Associate Director, Reputation
The Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) handling of the disastrous Afghanistan data breach represents a textbook example of reputational self-destruction through secrecy and delay.
In the cold light of day, the facts are damning. Nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals’ personal information was mistakenly exposed by a British official in February 2022. The leaked spreadsheet contained the names, contact details and some family information of Afghan nationals potentially at risk of harm from the Taliban.
To make matters worse the breach wasn’t discovered until August 2023. Although there were understandable security concerns, nd rather than opt for transparency, the government’s initial instinct was to cover up the leak by asking the courts for a super injunction – to hiding the scandal from public scrutiny while secretly relocating 7,000 Afghans at a cost of £850m.
Beyond The fact that successive governments were involved in this cover-up, first the Conservatives and now Labour, is particularly galling. Current Defence Secretary John Healey’s apology rang hollow as it arrived only after a court forced transparency.
Arguably though, the real reputational damage centres on the MoD. With trust in military data handling now shattered. The MoD’s instinct for secrecy over accountability has transformed a serious operational failure into a constitutional crisis about government transparency. Demonstrating firsthand the dangers of prioritising institutional reputation rather than protecting the Afghan nationals who served alongside British forces.
With Barings Law now representing victims pursuing compensation claims, the fiscal cost could be equally as damaging as the reputational one.
Arsenal’s handling of the investigation in to Thomas Partey:
Robin Brant, Associate Director, Reputation
Imagine a Venn diagram, siting on Mikel Arteta’s desk, for the past three years. The circles are Due process, Corporate Reputation and Performance on the pitch. At the centre of the triple overlap is Thomas Partey. Or Thomas as we know him; that’s what is on the back of his shirt, which Arsenal fans like me have been watching at the Emirates, while the police investigation continued. (That’s the disclosure done.)
Which is the most important circle? Arsenal seems to have decided that it was the first, followed by the third. Then the gossip in the stands and the occasional away fan chants were replaced with formal charges; of rape and sexual assault, involving three women, allegedly between 2021 and 2022. Partey denies the charges. He says he is looking forward to the opportunity to ‘finally clear his name’.
But it was hard to ignore the timing, with the appearance of choreography. His contract expired just four days before he was charged. This is a club that stuck by its player, but at what reputational cost?
He remains innocent until proven guilty. But there wasn’t just a belief in due process, there was effusive support for Partey at times, over his performance on the pitch. Maybe the over-riding imperative for Arteta and others in the club leadership was performance on the pitch. Last season was a particularly bad injury hit one. They are in the business of winning of course, or at least trying to. Other clubs have dealt with similar recent cases in a very different way. Manchester United suspended a player immediately. But an in-form Partey and a belief in due process appear to have been the driving factors behind the decision to keep him, to play him and to praise him right up until the moment that Venn diagram was forced off the desk.