Connect with us

Published

1 year ago

on

It will surprise no one to learn that William Barr, who made it clear when Donald Trump picked him to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general that he favored strict and uniform application of federal pot prohibition, and John Walters, who ran the Office of National Drug Control Policy during George W. Bush’s administration, think “legalizing recreational marijuana” has been “nothing short of a disaster.” Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward already has ably rebutted their recentFree Press piece making that case. I’d like to add a few points about their approach to the subject, which combines valid concerns with strawman arguments, cherry picking, illogical inferences, reliance on dubious estimates, and tendentious interpretations of contested research.

Barr and Walters complain that marijuana legalization has “created the false perception that the drug is ‘safe.'” They think refuting that false perception is enough to justify a return to prohibition. Because “marijuana is dangerous,” they say, “legalizing it was a mistake.” But the question is not whether marijuana is “safe”; it is whether marijuana’s hazards justify the use of force to stop people from consuming it. Barr and Walters fail to seriously grapple with that question even in utilitarian terms, and they completely ignore moral objections to criminalizing conduct that violates no one’s rights.

It easy enough to show that marijuana, like every other drug, has risks as well as benefits. But that banal observation is not enough to clinch the case for prohibition even if, like Barr and Walters, you ignore the claim that adults have a right to weigh those risks and benefits for themselves.

Alcohol, after all, is assuredly not “safe.” By several important measures, it is substantially more dangerous than cannabis. A lethal dose of alcohol is roughly 10 times the effective dose. Given the dearth of fatal reactions to cannabis among humans, that ratio is difficult to calculate for marijuana. But based on research with laboratory animals, it is more than 1,000 to 1. Alcohol abuse results in potentially lethal organ damage of a kind that is not seen even in the heaviest cannabis consumers. Alcohol is more strongly associated with violence than cannabis, and it has a much more striking impact on driving ability.

Alcohol is nevertheless a legal drug, which reflects a judgment that the costs of prohibiting it outweigh the benefits. It is not clear whether Barr and Walters disagree with that judgment, since they do not mention alcohol at all. In fact, they seem keen to avoid any interdrug comparisons that might undermine the premise that marijuana should be banned because it is especially dangerous.

Barr and Walters warn that “THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, produces a high by altering brain chemistry and interfering with the nervous system’s normal functioning.” The same could be said of any psychoactive substance. That description tells us nothing about marijuana’s relative hazards.

Back in 1988, Francis Young, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief administrative law judge, deemed such comparisons relevant in assessing how marijuana should be classified under the Controlled Substances Act. “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man,” he observed. “There are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.”

By contrast, it was well-established that both over-the-counter and prescription drugs could kill people when consumed in large doses. For aspirin, Young noted, the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose was about 20 to 1, while the ratio for many prescription drugs, such as Valium, was 10 to 1 or even lower. With marijuana, he said, that ratio “is impossible to quantify because it is so high.”

Barr and Walters would have us believe that Young’s assessment is outdated because today’s “hyperpotent marijuana” is radically different from the drug that had been studied at the time. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently echoed Young’s basic point.

Explaining its rationale for rescheduling marijuana, HHS noted that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse,” such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), benzodiazepines like Valium and Xanax (Schedule IV), and alcohol (unscheduled). Although “abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of harmful consequences, including substance use disorder,” it said, they are “less common and less harmful” than the negative consequences associated with other drugs. It concluded that “the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others.”

This does not mean increased potency poses no challenges. As anyone who was accustomed to smoking an entire joint or bowlful of crappy pot in college could testify, the high-THC strains and concentrates available in state-licensed pot stores require more caution. For occasional consumers, a few puffs is generally enough. But in a legal market, consumers can make that adjustment based on readily available information as well as personal experience. It is not different in kind from the dosing decisions that millions of Americans make when they consume alcoholic beverages that vary widely in potency.

Instead of considering the typical behavior of cannabis consumers, as HHS did, Barr and Walters focus on problem users. “It’s conservatively estimated that one in three people who use marijuana become addicted,” they aver, linking to a page of information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “One study estimated that approximately 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have marijuana use disorder,” the CDC says.

The CDC is referring to a 2015JAMA Psychiatry study based on data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The researchers compared survey results from 20122013 to survey results from 20012002. Inconveniently for Walters and Barr, who argue that legalization has led to an explosion in problematic use, the analysis found that “the prevalence of marijuana use disorder among marijuana users decreased significantly” during that period, from 35.6 percent to 30.6 percent. Although the first state-licensed recreational dispensaries did not open until 2014, 17 states and the District of Columbia had legalized medical use by 2013, and some of those laws (such as California’s) were permissive enough that pretty much anyone could obtain the requisite doctor’s recommendation.

Barr and Walters equate the survey-based definition of “marijuana use disorder” with addiction. But the former term encompasses a wide range of problematic behavior, including “abuse” as well as “dependence.”

The JAMA Psychiatry study defined “abuse” as meeting one or more of four criteria: 1) “recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home”; 2) “recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous”; 3) “recurrent substance-related legal problems”; and 4) “continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.”

These are all problems, but they are problems of different kinds, and they do not necessarily signify addiction as that term is generally understood. If someone swam, drove, or hiked a mountain trail while high a couple of times, for example, that could be enough to qualify for the “abuse” label under the second criterion.

The study defined “dependence” as meeting three or more of six criteria: 1) tolerance, 2) taking the substance “in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended,” 3) “a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use,” 4) spending “a great deal of time” on “activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects,” 5) forgoing or reducing “important social, occupational, or recreational activities&helli;because of substance use,” and 6) continuing use “despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.”

Now we are getting closer to the conventional understanding of addiction. But equating any three of these criteria with addiction is still questionable. If a regular marijuana user found that he needed a larger dose to achieve the same effect, sometimes went one toke over the line, and decided to get high instead of going out with friends, for example, he could be deemed “dependent” under this test. More generally, critics of applying psychiatric diagnoses based on survey responses have noted that such data may result in overestimates because they neglect “clinical significance.”

Despite these limitations, Barr and Walters conflate dependence/addiction with a much broader category of marijuana-related problems, and they deem the resulting estimate “conservative.” That one-in-three past-year estimate is much higher than the lifetime dependence risk that a 1994 study calculated based on the National Comorbidity Survey: 9 percent for cannabis, compared to 32 percent for tobacco, 23 percent for heroin, 17 percent for cocaine, and 15 percent for alcohol. It is also at odds with a detailed 2010 analysis inThe Lancet, which found that the dependence risks for marijuana and alcohol were similar while rating the overall harm attributable to alcohol more than three times as high.

I have just devoted half a dozen paragraphs to one dubious claim out of many in the Barr and Walters piece. As Mangu-Ward notes, they also gloss over the vigorous debate about the nature of the connection between marijuana and psychosis, ignore countervailing evidence regarding the alleged impact of marijuana on IQ, and erroneously equate any level of THC in a driver’s blood with impairment.

Barr and Walters cite the persistence of black-market marijuana in states such as California as evidence that legalization cannot work when it is actually evidence that high taxes and burdensome regulations make it hard for licensed businesses to compete with unauthorized dealers. They likewise blame burglaries and robberies of dispensaries on legalization when the actual problem is the barriers to financial services created by continued federal prohibition, which force those businesses to rely heavily on cash.

Barr and Walters note that marijuana smoke contains “many of the same toxic and carcinogenic chemicals” as tobacco smoke, falsely implying that it is equally carcinogenic. In addition to differences in the composition of marijuana and tobacco smoke, the dose has to be considered: Given typical patterns of use (say, an occasional joint vs. a pack a day), cigarette smokers are exposed to much higher amounts of toxins and carcinogens than marijuana smokers. And Barr and Walters do not even acknowledge smoke-free alternatives such as vaping and edibles.

Barr and Walters cite increases in “marijuana-related ER visits” without considering how legalization might affect people’s willingness to seek treatment or to identify themselves as cannabis consumers. They mention increases in “adolescent cannabis abuse” during “the past two decades” without acknowledging the lack of evidence that legalization has increased underage consumption.

Taking a stab at cost-benefit analysis, Barr and Walters cite a laughably bad Centennial Institute analysis that supposedly showed “every dollar of cannabis-related tax revenue [in Colorado] has been offset by $4.50 in costs due to marijuana-related traffic fatalities, hospital care, and lost productivity.” In assessing the costs of marijuana use, such as health care expenses stemming from “physical inactivity” and lost productivity related to dropping out of high school, that report conflated correlation with causation. It counted tax revenue as the only benefit of legalization, ignoring the expansion of liberty and the boost in consumer satisfaction as well as the criminal justice and law enforcement benefits. Most egregiously, the study did not even attempt to measure how legalization had affected the negative outcomes it tallied.

Barr and Walters likewise see only costs from legalization, which they systematically exaggerate. “Greater marijuana use has contributed to the steady erosion of the civic responsibility, self-discipline, and sobriety required of citizens to sustain our system of limited government and broad personal liberty,” they write. “A doped-up country is a nation in decline.”

As Barr and Walters see it, “broad personal liberty” requires the state to dictate which psychoactive substances people may consume, asserting the authority to control their brains by controlling the drugs they use. That is a counterintuitive view, to put it mildly. Barr and Walters never even broach an issue that is central to this debate: When and why is it moral to deploy the threat and use of violence against peaceful individuals because you disapprove of how they get high?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Sports

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

Published

41 mins ago

on

July 15, 2025

By

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

  • Bill ConnellyJul 15, 2025, 07:00 AM ET

    Close

      Bill Connelly is a writer for ESPN. He covers college football, soccer and tennis. He has been at ESPN since 2019.

Back in May, ESPN’s team of college football reporters voted on the sport’s best coaches for 2025. The results were about as you would expect: Start with the three active guys who have most recently won national titles (Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney), move on to guys with recent top-five finishes or national title game appearances (Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian, Oregon’s Dan Lanning, Alabama’s Kalen DeBoer, Penn State’s James Franklin), then squeeze in a couple of long-term overachievers at the end (Utah’s Kyle Whittingham, Iowa State’s Matt Campbell).

The rankings made plenty of sense, but I couldn’t help but notice that the top eight coaches on the list all work for some of the richest, most well-supported programs in the country. There are some epic pressures associated with leading these programs — just ask Day — but there are also major advantages. It might only take a good head coach to do great things in those jobs, while at programs with smaller alumni bases or lesser historic track records, it might take a great coach to do merely good things. They’re such different jobs that it’s almost impossible to even know how to compare the performance of, say, Matt Campbell to Steve Sarkisian. Could Campbell have led Texas to back-to-back CFP semifinals? Could Sark have brought ISU its first two AP top-15 finishes?

The May rankings made me want to see if there were a way to apply stats to the conversation. If you think about it, we’re basically measuring two things when we’re gauging coach performance: overall quality and quality relative to the expectations of the job. I thought it would be fun to come up with a blend of those two things and see what the results told us.

Performance versus expectation

Gauging overall performance is easy enough. You could simply look at win percentage, and it would tell you quite a bit. From 2015 to 2024, the active coaches with the best FBS win percentages (minimum 30 games) were Day (.870), Lanning (.854), Swinney (.850) and Smart (.847). All ranked high in the May rankings. I tend to want to get fancy and use my SP+ ratings whenever possible, and they tell a similar tale. Looking at average SP+ ratings for the past decade, the top active coaches are Day (30.4), Smart (27.0), Lanning (22.3), Swinney (21.9), Franklin (20.3) and Freeman (19.0). They’re all in the May top 10 too.

Again, though, all of those coaches are employed by college football royalty. (Granted, Swinney gets bonus points for helping Clemson turn into college football royalty, but still.) Isn’t it more impressive to win 11 regular-season games at Indiana, as Curt Cignetti did in 2024, than to go 10-4 like Swinney did? Isn’t it probably harder to finish 12th in SP+ at SMU, as Rhett Lashlee did in 2024, than to finish fifth like Franklin did?

I’ve begun to incorporate teams’ performance against long-term averages into my preseason SP+ projections, and it seems we could use a very similar concept to evaluate coach performances. For each year someone is a head coach, we could compare his team’s SP+ rating for that season to the school’s average from the 20 previous years. (If the school is newer to FBS and doesn’t have a 20-year average, we can use whatever average exists to date. And for a program’s first FBS season, we can simply compare the team’s SP+ rating to the overall average for first-year programs.)

By this method, the 10 best single-season coaching performances of the past 20 years include Art Briles at Baylor in 2013-14, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford in 2010, Mark Mangino at Kansas in 2007, Bobby Petrino at Louisville in 2006, Greg Schiano at Rutgers in 2006 and Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina in 2020 — legendary seasons of overachievement — plus perhaps lesser-remembered performances such as Gary Andersen at Utah State in 2012, Matt Wells at Utah State in 2018 and Brian Kelly at Cincinnati in 2007.

As far as single-season overachievement goes, that’s a pretty good list. And if we look at a longer-term sample — coaches who have led FBS programs for at least nine of the past 20 years — here are the 15 best performance versus baseline averages.

(Note: I’m looking only at performances within the past 20 years, so Nick Saban’s work at LSU (2000-04) or Michigan State (1995-99), for instance, isn’t included. I also went with nine years instead of 10 so Smart’s current nine-year run at Georgia could be included in the sample.)

Best performance vs. historic baseline averages for the past 20 years (min. nine seasons):

1. Chris Petersen, Boise State (2006-13) and Washington (2014-19): +12.8 points above historic baseline

2. Art Briles, Houston (2005-07) and Baylor (2008-15): +12.8

3. Gary Pinkel, Missouri (2005-15): +12.5

4. Nick Saban, Alabama (2007-23): +10.7

5. Jeff Monken, Army (2014-24): +10.3

6. Willie Fritz, Georgia Southern (2014-15), Tulane (2016-23) and Houston (2024): +10.0

7. Lance Leipold, Buffalo (2015-20) and Kansas (2021-24): +9.5

8. Bobby Petrino, Louisville (2005-06), Arkansas (2008-11), Western Kentucky (2013) and Louisville (2014-18): +9.5

9. Gary Patterson, TCU (2005-21): +8.6

10. Jim Harbaugh, Stanford (2007-10) and Michigan (2015-23): +8.5

11. Blake Anderson, Arkansas State (2014-20) and Utah State (2021-23): +8.5

12. Steve Spurrier, South Carolina (2005-15): +8.2

13. Greg Schiano, Rutgers (2005-11 and 2020-24): +7.8

14. Jeff Brohm, Western Kentucky (2014-16), Purdue (2017-22) and Louisville (2023-24): +7.7

15. David Cutcliffe, Duke (2008-21): +7.7

If we are looking for pure overachievement and aren’t in the mood to reward coaches for winning at schools that always win, this is again a pretty good list. Petersen was spectacular at both Boise State and Washington, while Briles, Pinkel, Monken and Patterson all won big at schools that hadn’t won big in quite a while. (Monken, in fact, is still winning big.) Blake Anderson’s presence surprised me, but most of the names here are extremely well regarded. And Saban’s presence at No. 4, despite coaching at one of the bluest of blue-blood programs, is a pretty good indicator of just how special his reign at Alabama was.

Still, looking only at performance against expectations obviously sells coaches like Saban and Smart short. Saban is probably the best head coach in the sport’s history but ranks only fourth on the above list. Meanwhile, Smart has overachieved by only 6.0 points above the historic baseline in his nine seasons at Georgia thanks to the high bar predecessor Mark Richt set. But he has also won two national titles, overcoming Georgia’s history of falling just short and at least briefly surpassing Saban as well. If our goal is to measure coaching prowess, we need to account for raw quality too.

The best coaches of the past 20 years

If we combine raw SP+ averages with this performance versus baseline average, we can come up with a pretty decent overall coach rating. We can debate the weights involved, but here’s what an overall rating looks like if we use 60% performance versus baseline and 40% SP+ average:

I always like to say that numbers make great starting points for a conversation, and this is a pretty good starting point. Anyone reading this would probably tweak this list to suit their own preferences, and while it probably isn’t surprising that Pinkel is in the top 20, seeing him fourth, ahead of Meyer, Harbaugh and others, is a bit jarring. (I promise that this Mizzou alum didn’t put his finger on the scales.) Regardless, this is a fun mix of guys who won big at big schools and guys who won pretty big at pretty big schools. That was the goal of the exercise.

Maybe the most confusing coach in this top 20 is Dabo Swinney. Clemson had enjoyed just one AP top-five finish in its history before he took over 16 years ago, and he has led the Tigers to 2 national titles, 6 top-five finishes and 7 CFP appearances. And while they haven’t had a true, title-caliber team in a few years, they’ve still won two of the past three ACC crowns. How is he only 10th?

The main culprit for Swinney’s lower-than-expected ranking is his recent performance — it has been inferior to both national title standards and his standards. Since we’re using a team’s performance against 20-year averages, a lot of this rating is basically comparing Swinney to himself, and he hasn’t quite measured up of late.

From 2012 to 2020, Swinney’s average rating was an incredible 17.0, which would have ranked second to only Saban on the list above. But his average over the past four seasons is only 3.6.

Part of what made Saban so impressive was how long he managed to clear the bar he himself was setting in Tuscaloosa. Per SP+, his best team was his 14th — the 2020 team that won his sixth and final title at Bama. While Swinney was basically matching Saban’s standard 12 years into their respective tenures, Saban continued at a particularly high level for at least three more years while Swinney fell off the pace.

Comparing Saban, Swinney and Smart year by year, we see that Smart was hitting Saban-esque levels seven seasons into his tenure, but his rating has fallen off each of the past two seasons. Even Saban slipped starting in Year 15, even though he still had nearly the best program in the sport for a couple more years.

The best coaches of 2025

Six of the top seven coaches on the list above are either retired or coaching in the NFL now, so let’s focus our gaze specifically on the guys who will be leading college teams out onto the field in 2025. Using the same 20-year sample as above — which cuts off the tenure of Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz but includes everything else — here’s how the current crop of FBS head coaches has performed at the FBS level. We’ll break this into two samples: the guys who have coached for at least four years in this sample and the guys who have coached between one and three years.

Our May top 10 list featured eight guys who have been head coaches for at least four years; all eight are represented on this list, including four of the top five. (Sarkisian has averaged a 13.8 rating over the past two seasons, which is a top-five level, but his overall run as head coach at Washington, USC and Texas has featured a number of ups and downs.)

Maybe the name that jumps out the most above is Josh Heupel. I think anyone would consider him a very good coach (he’s 37-15 overall), but he doesn’t exactly draw any “best in the game?” hype. He benefited from a positive situation at UCF, where he inherited a rising program from Scott Frost in 2019 and produced big ratings in his first couple of years on the job. But his average rating at Tennessee has been a solid 14.0 as well; the Volunteers had been up and down for years, but he has produced four top-20 SP+ ratings in a row and two top-10s in the past three years. He might not be getting the credit he deserves for that.

All in all, I enjoy this list. We’ve got mostly predictable names at the top, we’ve got some oldies but (mostly) goodies spread throughout, and we’ve got room for up-and-comers like Jeff Traylor too. This 60-40 approach probably doesn’t give enough respect to the Chris Creightons of the world — the Eastern Michigan coach has overachieved against EMU’s baseline by 7.2 points per season, which is a fantastic average, but at such a hard job, his Eagles have still averaged only a minus-14.4 SP+ rating during his tenure. Still, this is a mostly solid approach.

Now let’s talk about some small-sample all-stars.

Four of the top six of this list coached in the College Football Playoff last season, and while the guys ranked fifth and sixth made our May top 10 list, the guys who won big at SMU and Indiana, not Oregon and Notre Dame, take priority here. I was honestly floored that Curt Cignetti didn’t make our top 10 list; he led James Madison to one of the best FBS debuts ever, going 19-4 in 2022-23, then he moved to Bloomington and led Indiana — INDIANA! — to 11 wins in his first season there.

On this list, however, Rhett Lashlee tops even Cignetti. I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about the job he has done at SMU. He, too, inherited a rising program, as Sonny Dykes had done some of the nitty-gritty work in getting the Mustangs back on their feet (with help from an offensive coordinator named Rhett Lashlee). SMU hadn’t produced a top-50 ranking since 1985 before Dykes did so for three straight seasons (2019-21). But after holding steady in his first year replacing Dykes, Lashlee’s program has ignited: 12-2 and 24th in SP+ in 2023, then 11-3 and 12th in 2024. Looking specifically at the 2021-24 range, as the game has undergone so much change, Lashlee’s 16.8 average rating ranks second overall, behind only Smart (18.0) and ahead of Kiffin (15.1), Cignetti (15.0), Odom (15.0), Heupel (14.0) and Day (13.9).

Along with quite a few others here, Lashlee made my 2024 list of 30 coaches who would define the next decade; he’d definitely still be on the list — along with new additions like GJ Kinne and perhaps Fran Brown — if I remade that list today.

Continue Reading

UK

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses ‘could happen again’

Published

41 mins ago

on

July 15, 2025

By

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses 'could happen again'

An inquiry into the case of a hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses has concluded that “offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again”.

It found that “current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking”.

The first phase of the inquiry found Fuller, 70, was able to offend for 15 years in mortuaries without being suspected or caught due to “serious failings” at the hospitals where he worked.

Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity.

What were Fuller’s crimes?

Fuller was given a whole-life prison term in December 2021 for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, in 1987.

During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of at least 101 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020.

His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year “unnoticed and unchecked” and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours.

‘Inadequate management, governance and processes’

Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan Michael, chair of the inquiry, said: “This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively.

“Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long.”

He said that these “weaknesses” are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from “across the country”.

“I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. – I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation.”

Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to “protect the security and dignity of people after death”.

After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the “security and dignity of the deceased”.

On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as “ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking”.

David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, “unnoticed and unchecked”.

It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen.

His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry – be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England – is that it could easily have happened elsewhere.

The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again.

Continue Reading

UK

MasterChef is ‘bigger than individuals’ and ‘can survive’, BBC says

Published

41 mins ago

on

July 15, 2025

By

MasterChef is 'bigger than individuals' and 'can survive', BBC says

BBC director-general Tim Davie has said MasterChef can survive its current scandal as it is “much bigger than individuals” – but the corporation must “make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show”.

On Monday, it was revealed an independent review into “inappropriate behaviour” by MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace had upheld more than half of the allegations against him.

A few hours later, Wallace’s former MasterChef co-presenter, John Torode, said an allegation he used “racial language” was upheld in the report as part of a review.

After the report was published, Wallace, 60, said he was “deeply sorry” for causing any distress, and never set out to “harm or humiliate”.

Torode, 59, said he had “no recollection of the incident” and said he “did not believe that it happened,” and said he was “shocked and saddened by the allegation”.

Mr Davie said the BBC’s leadership team would not “tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values,” while BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledged there were still pockets within the broadcaster where “powerful individuals” can still “make life for their colleagues unbearable”.

They said several BBC staff members had been dismissed in the last three months, following an independent review into workplace culture.

More on Bbc

Related Topics:

Wallace, who was sacked from MasterChef last week, is not included in that count as he was not directly contracted by the corporation, but employed by independent production company Banijay.

The corporation has yet to decide if the unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired or not.

BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA
Image:
BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA

News of the findings in the Gregg Wallace report came just hours before the BBC was deemed to have breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official.

Media watchdog Ofcom subsequently launched its own investigation into the programme.

While the 2024-25 annual report showed a small rise in trust overall for the corporation, Mr Davie acknowledged it had been a year which saw the reputation of the BBC damaged by “serious failings” in the making of the documentary.

The BBC boss acknowledged: “It was important that the BBC took full responsibility for those failings and apologised for them,” and later in response to a question, called the documentary – Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone – “the most challenging editorial issue I’ve had to deal with”.

He went on: “The importance of fair balance reporting, the need for high-quality homegrown programming in the face of massive pressure, I think has never, ever been greater. And I believe my leadership and the team I’ve assembled can really help the BBC thrive in that environment and very competitive environment.”

BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA
Image:
BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA

BBC boss has chair’s ‘full support’

Despite a series of failings in recent months – including livestreaming the controversial Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury last month – Mr Davie insisted he can “lead” the organisation in the right direction.

When asked if he would resign, he replied: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“We will make mistakes, but I think as a leadership and myself, I’ve been very clear, and I think we have been decisive.”

He said the organisation was setting a “global standard” for media.

Mr Shah, reiterated his support for Mr Davie.

“Tim Davie and his team, and Tim in particular, has shown very strong leadership throughout all this period and he has my full support.”

The report also revealed its top earners, which saw former Match Of The Day host Gary Lineker top the chart once again.

Meanwhile, Australian children’s cartoon Bluey proved a boon for the broadcaster, and was the most watched show in the US across all genres – with 55 billion minutes viewed.

The top 10 shows watched over Christmas 2024 were also all from the BBC.

Recent annual reviews have been overshadowed by the Huw Edwards scandal and allegations of a toxic environment around flagship show Strictly Come Dancing.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Trending