The revelations and accusations against Greg Wallace continuee unabated. It is following the usual trajectory of these things. The accusations were first made by another person of some standing, then lots of others came out the woodwork to affirm the same has happened to them, it seems increasingly likely fear and the ever-present threat of losing ones livlihood meant few reported matters until someone with less chance of it meaning they are quietly ushered out of their job put their head above the parapet. As the accusations continued to roll in, Walace was first taken off air and then the programmes he fronts.

Wallace responded by putting out some defiant, and not a little ill-advised videos. To make matters worse, he referred to his accusers as ‘middle class women of a certain age’. Even if one didn’t think this utterly dismissive – and make no mistake, in the eyes of most onlookers it is simply further evidence that the accusations are credible – it also fails to in any way address the claims being made. It doesn’t address the claims to argue that these accusations are incredible because of the source from which they emanate. Aside from being logically incoherent, the underlying ageism and misogyny oughtn’t to be overlooked (giving further ammunition to the case for the prosecution) and – on top of all that – happens to also be untrue. It seems a number of younger women, who are of an entirely different age and stage, have expressed some of the concerns. It’s not looking good.

I don’t have a great deal to say about that. The accusations – and the subsequent, now infamous, response – are pretty well documented. In fact, if I have anything to say at all, it is simply to note that the story – given a host of other fairly seismic things going on in the world of which we might want to be kept abreast – has been given far more media attention that it deserves. I’m not saying it is a total and ccomplete irrelevance of no interest to anyone, I’m just not convinced we’ve needed weeks of near wall-to-wall coverage.

The reason for me mentioning this at all is because of a tangentially related comment from Lisa Nandy, the culture sectrary. The Guardian report:

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, is thought to be considering imposing new standards on the creative industry, with stronger legal powers for a new independent body.

Nandy said she was prepared to challenge the sector if the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA) did not receive appropriate support after her meeting with them on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for her department said: “The culture secretary had a constructive conversation with attendees and hopes this will be the start of an ongoing dialogue on how the government can support CIISA as it looks to implement its new behaviour standards across the industry.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, if the accusations against Wallace are true – and both the number now coming out and the evidence in the public domain as it stands suggest they probably are – it is almost inevitable that his employer(s), or those who air his programmes, are going to respond in only the way those who are concerned at all about reputation management will ever respond. Thus it has already begun and I suspect few will be shedding any tears for Mr Wallace. If the accusations have crossed the boundary into the criminal (I am not aware if they have done or not), further consequences may be on the way and he will only have himself to blame for them.

But I am always wary of this sort of knee-jerk political intervention from Lisa Nandy in response to a specific case. If the matter is criminal, then let it go to the police. If the creative industries in which Wallace worked have failed in their duty of care to their employees in any way that is criminal, then this too should be a police matter. If there is no question of criminality based on existing laws, the matter is surely one for the organisations themselves to determine. That is, if he ‘fell short of the standards expected by [insert organisation here]’ and those things have been contractually spelt out, then they have every right to remove him. It is almost impossible to imagine they wouldn’t. Indeed, they have. I can’t see anybody in the creative sector working with him any time soon. I’m just not convinced the answer is to grant legal powers to a quango to enforce some newly contrived professional standards.

This all feels a bit like the politicians syllogism:

• Something must be done
• This is something
• We must, therefore, do this

In this case, it feels even more like we must be seen to do something, and this is something, so let’s do this. When, in truth, I’m not convinced they need to be seen to do anything at all. The behaviour in question seems to have been universally condemned and everybody who worked with the man appear to have cut ties. What threat would a professional standards body carry – if the matter is not a criminal one – beyond essentially disbarring somebody from serving in the industry; which is the very thing that appears to have happened? All of which is to ask, what does this achieve that has not already happened under the system as it is currently constituted? Or, to put it another way, what is the point?

If the matter is deemed so serious that a change in law is being suggested, a professional standard body is not the mechanism or the means to accomplish it. That would require parliamentary time and the subsequent implementation of it by the police and the courts. If the matter is not deemed so serious as to require criminal prosecution, all a professional standards body could do is bar a person from serving in the industry any longer – which has pretty much already befallen Greg Wallace. All of which is to say, what will such a meeting with CIISA achieve other than making it appear like the government is taking this very seriously and doing something about it despite that something ultimately achieving nothing beyond what has already happened and making zero practical difference to anything?

If there is a lesson here for the church, it seems to me that being seen to do something and meaningfully doing anything are two different things. Doing something to be seen to do what is right without actually doing anything of any substance at all is to offer illusory justice. It is, if you like, the very definition of a virtue signal. We are simply showing we hold the right view and feigning taking matters seriously without meaningfully doing anything at all. We must also be careful that in attempting to be seen to do the right thing – without changing the outcome of the thing we are supposed to be addressing – we may find a host of unintended consequences that, in our quest to only be seen to do justice, lead to actual injustice elsewhere without having changed a thing in the matter at hand.