His co-host Gregg Wallace was also sacked last week after claims of inappropriate behaviour.

In a statement posted on Instagram, Torode said he had not "heard from anyone at the BBC" or the production company that makes MasterChef but confirmed the specials he filmed for Christmas "will be (his) last".

"I'd hoped that l'd have some say in my exit from a show l've worked on since its relaunch in 2005, but events in (the) last few days seem to have prevented that," he wrote.

On Monday, Torode said an allegation he used racist language was upheld in a report into the behaviour of Wallace. The report found more than half of 83 allegations against Wallace were substantiated.

Torode, 59, insisted he had "absolutely no recollection" of the alleged incident involving him and he "did not believe that it happened," adding "racial language is wholly unacceptable in any environment".

In a statement on Tuesday, a BBC spokesperson said the allegation "involves an extremely offensive racist term being used in the workplace".

The claim was "investigated and substantiated by the independent investigation led by the law firm Lewis Silkin", they added.

"The BBC takes this upheld finding extremely seriously," the spokesperson said.

"We will not tolerate racist language of any kind... we told Banijay UK, the makers of MasterChef, that action must be taken.

"John Torode's contract on MasterChef will not be renewed."

In his statement posted on Instagram, Torode repeated that he had "no recollection" of the alleged incident where he was said to have used racist language.

He said he had "loved every minute working on MasterChef, but it's time to pass the cutlery to someone else".

"I will watch fondly from afar as I now focus on the many other exciting projects that I have been working towards," he added.

"My tummy will be grateful for a rest after 20 years of eating, but what a joy it has been.

"Life is everchanging and ever moving & sometimes personal happiness and fulfilment lay elsewhere."

Australian-born Torode started presenting MasterChef alongside Wallace, 60, in 2005.

A statement from Banijay UK said it "takes this matter incredibly seriously" and Lewis Silkin "substantiated an accusation of highly offensive racist language against John Torode which occurred in 2018".

"This matter has been formally discussed with John Torode by Banijay UK, and whilst we note that John says he does not recall the incident, Lewis Silkin have upheld the very serious complaint," the TV production company added.

"Banijay UK and the BBC are agreed that we will not renew his contract on MasterChef."

Read more from Sky News:
BBC reveals highest-earning stars
Men who cut down Sycamore Gap tree locked up
Couple murdered two-year-old grandson

Earlier, as the BBC released its annual report, its director-general Tim Davie addressed MasterChef's future, saying it can survive as it is "much bigger than individuals".

Speaking to BBC News after Torode was sacked, Mr Davie said a decision is yet to be taken over whether an unseen MasterChef series - filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year - will be aired.

"It's a difficult one because... those amateur chefs gave a lot to take part - it means a lot, it can be an enormous break if you come through the show," he added.

"I want to just reflect on that with the team and make a decision, and we'll communicate that in due course."

Mr Davie refused to say what the "seriously racist term" Torode was alleged to have used but said: "I certainly think we've drawn a line in the sand."

In 2022, Torode was made an MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours, for services to food and charity.

The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families - with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.

The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday - three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.

Politics latest: Minister sorry after 'extraordinary secrecy' concealed data leak

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.

However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn.

In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction.

Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government.

Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.

Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

He said he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the data breach, adding: "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner."

The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 - which can only now be revealed - to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.

Some 6,900 Afghans - comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents - are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.

This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach.

The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported.

How did the data breach happen?

The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.

The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.

A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.

It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list - only that the MoD lost control of the information.

Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.

"It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.

"A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups."

The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted "to pursue potential legal action".

Read more:
British couple held in Afghanistan
ICC prosecutor calls for arrest of Taliban duo

It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list - about 10 to 15% - would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.

A superinjunction - preventing the reporting of the mistake - was imposed in September of that year.

It meant the extraordinary - and costly - plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now.

Sir Keir Starmer's government inherited the scandal.

Why was superinjunction lifted?

An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant.

It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The review said it was "unlikely to substantially change an individual's existing exposure given the volume of data already available".

It also concluded that "it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting" and it is "therefore also unlikely that family members... will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears... in the dataset".

This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted.

Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach.

He added: "Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service.

"We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives."

Latest MoD data breach

While the MoD's data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.

Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.

Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.

In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the "egregious" breach could have been life-threatening.

Adam Carruthers, 32, and Daniel Graham, 39, drove 30 miles through a storm from Cumbria to Northumberland on 27 September 2023 before cutting down the landmark in less than three minutes.

Prosecutors said their "moronic mission" caused more than £620,000 worth of damage to the tree and over £1,000 worth of damage to Hadrian's Wall, where it fell.

They took a wedge as a trophy, which has never been recovered, and seemed to revel in the media coverage, exchanging messages and voice notes about the story going "wild" and "viral".

Footage of the moment the tree was felled was played during the men's trial at Newcastle Crown Court, where they both denied but were found guilty of two counts of criminal damage.

The judge, Mrs Justice Lambert, told them: "You, Adam Carruthers were the person who felled the tree, while you, Daniel Graham, assisted and encouraged him by driving there and back and, not least, by filming the crime on your mobile phone."

The judge said she found the pair jointly culpable, adding that a "major factor" in their motivation was "sheer bravado", telling them she found that felling the tree in the middle of the night during a storm "gave you a sort of thrill".

"You revelled in the coverage, taking evidential pride in what you had done, knowing you were responsible for the crime everyone was talking about," she added.

During their trial, Graham and Carruthers, who were once close friends, gave no explanation for why they targeted the tree, and since their arrests, they have fallen out and have blamed each other.

Tree feller explains why he targeted landmark

But at their sentencing hearing, the court heard both men have now accepted they went on the mission to probation officers preparing pre-sentence reports.

Carruthers's barrister Andrew Gurney revealed his client's explanation as he said people always want to know why he carried out "this mindless act".

"Unfortunately, it's nothing more than drunken stupidity," he said. "He felled that tree and it is something he will regret for the rest of his life. There's no better explanation than that."

The court heard Carruthers claimed he had drunk a bottle of whisky after a tough day and "everything was a blur".

But the judge said felling the tree had "demonstrated skill" and was not the act of "someone significantly impaired by drink".

Christopher Knox, defending Graham, said there was "no question of intoxication" in his client's case.

The court heard Graham said his "good nature had been exploited" and it was Carruthers's "dream" and "his show" which he "just went along with".

He claimed he was "shocked" when he went through with it, describing Carruthers as a "fantasist" who had previously damaged property to mark significant personal events or milestones.

But the judge said his filming of the incident and later revelling in the coverage was "not the behaviour of someone shocked or horrified by what had happened".

Prosecutor Richard Wright KC said Graham's explanation that it was "only when the blade made contact with the tree he realised it was serious" was "fanciful".

"The court can be sure they were sober, prepared and planned to do exactly what they did," he added.

Graham has a previous caution for theft after he cut up a "large quantity of logs using a chainsaw", the court heard.

He also has convictions for violence, including battery and public order offences, which were said to be "relationship-based", while father-of-two Carruthers has no previous cautions or convictions.

Mr Knox said Graham's caravan was targeted in an attack, with windows smashed, and he has received hate mail since the incident.

'A totemic symbol'

The tree, which had stood for more than 100 years in a dip in the landscape, held a place in popular culture and was featured in the 1991 Kevin Costner film Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.

It also formed part of people's personal lives, as the scene of wedding proposals, ashes being scattered and countless photographs.

A 6ft section of the trunk is now on public display at The Sill: National Landscape Discovery Centre, around two miles from where it once stood, while 49 saplings taken from the tree have been conserved by the National Trust.

In a victim impact statement read at their sentencing hearing, National Trust general manager Andrew Poad, said the "iconic tree can never be replaced" but its stump is "showing signs of life".

"While the National Trust has cared for it on behalf of the nation, it belonged to the people," he wrote.

"It was a totemic symbol for many; a destination to visit whilst walking Hadrian's Wall, a place to make memories, take photos in all seasons; but it was also a place of sanctuary - a calming, reflective space that people came to year after year.

"While what was lost cannot be replaced, the stump is showing signs of life, with new shoots emerging at the base - as the decades progress, there is hope that some may grow and establish."

He added: "The overwhelming sense of loss and confusion was felt across the world.

"When it became clear that this was a malicious and deliberate act, the question was why anyone would do this to such a beautiful tree in such a special place, it was beyond comprehension."

'Old school policing'

Detective Inspector Calum Meikle told Sky News that police had to revert to "old school policing" to solve the case.

He said the breakthrough came with a tip-off identifying Graham and Carruthers as being involved, which was confirmed when officers found the felling video.

"The impact that it has had is so far-reaching," he said.

"Living in the local area, having conversations with people… it's sad, very sad that generations to come won't see what we have all seen. It's something that will never be possible to recreate."

Ethan Ives-Griffiths was dangerously dehydrated, severely underweight and had 40 visible bruises or marks when he collapsed with a catastrophic head injury at his grandparents' home in Flintshire, North Wales, on 14 August 2021.

Michael Ives, 47, and Kerry Ives, 46, were convicted of his murder and of cruelty to a child under 16.

Ethan's mother, Shannon Ives, 28, who had been staying with her son at her parents' home, was found guilty of causing or allowing his death and of child cruelty.

During the trial at Mold Crown Court, jurors were shown CCTV from the family home which showed Michael Ives carrying his grandson by the top of his arm and appearing to punch him after putting him into a car seat.

The court heard the youngster had been placed on the child protection register, requiring him to be seen every 10 days.

However, when Shannon Ives last saw her social worker, on 5 August 2021, she spoke to him on the doorstep and told him Ethan was having a nap.

No one answered the door when social worker Michael Cornish went to visit in the days before Ethan's death and a scheduled appointment with a health visitor on 13 August was cancelled.

Shannon Ives was said to have fled domestic violence from her home in Mold in June that year.

Michael Ives told the jury his daughter was "quick-tempered" and would slap Ethan a couple of times a day, but Shannon Ives claimed her parents were "horrible" and abused her as a child.

The court heard Ethan was made to stand with his hands on his head as a punishment when he misbehaved.

CCTV footage from 4 August 2021 showed Michael Ives carrying his grandson by the top of his arm in a way which was described by prosecutor Caroline Rees KC "as though Ethan was just a bag of rubbish to be slung out".

The video, taken from the back garden of the family's four-bedroom home, showed Ethan appearing unsteady on a trampoline, or lying down, while other children bounced.

Michael Ives was seen to point a garden hose at him, placed the toddler's hands on his head, and gestured to another child to punch him.

After watching the video in court, Michael Ives said he felt "ashamed" and admitted being cruel and neglectful but denied mistreating Ethan in other ways.

When Ethan was examined by doctors after his death, he was found to have abdominal injuries likely to have been caused by blows in the days before his collapse.

Other injuries included bruises which were consistent with grip marks on his leg and face.

Experts said Ethan would have died of dehydration within days had he not suffered the head injury, and at the time of his death weighed just 10kg.

Ethan's fatal head injury was said to have been caused by deliberate force or shaking, and occurred at the time, or in the minutes before, he collapsed.

Michael and Kerry Ives, originally from Wolverhampton, were in the living room with Ethan at the time of his collapse while his mother was on the phone upstairs.

The pair told the jury "nothing" had happened to the toddler before he fainted as they watched television.

Kerry Ives said she immediately called Shannon Ives to come downstairs, but the court heard it was 18 minutes before she called emergency services.

Ethan was taken to the Countess of Chester Hospital and later transferred to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, where he died two days later.

The defendants will be sentenced on 3 October.

Mr Justice Griffiths said Michael and Kerry Ives will be given life sentences, while Shannon Ives faces a "substantial prison sentence".

Police Scotland said the three women - aged 31, 34 and 42 - were arrested after a disturbance in the Crewe Road North area of Edinburgh on Tuesday.

The force said a van was driven into an external fence of a business premises, and that its Counter Terrorism Unit was leading the investigation.

It added: "Enquiries are ongoing. We are treating this as targeted, and we do not believe there is any wider threat to the public."

Direct action campaign group Shut Down Leonardo - which said it aims to target aerospace, defence and security company Leonardo's headquarters in Edinburgh - posted a photo of the van.

It shows police on the roof of the vehicle, which has a Palestine flag hanging off the back.

Shut Down Leonardo claims the factory makes components for Israel's F-35 fighter jets.

In a separate post, the group said "we're taking action to shut down Leonardo's weapons factory in Edinburgh" and shared a video of an "action taker" explaining why the site has been targeted.

Read more:
Palestine Action has been proscribed - what does that mean?
John Torode sacked from MasterChef
Doctor among four people killed in Southend Airport plane crash

A Leonardo spokesperson told the PA news agency: "Leonardo UK is subject to UK government export controls and does not supply equipment direct to Israel.

"The right to peaceful protest is an important principle in our society, however, aggressive and violent activity should have no place in protest.

"The intimidation of our people, who work hard to support the security and defence of the UK, is not acceptable.

"Our main customer is the UK Armed Forces. We are proud to manufacture technology that supports our service personnel and helps keep them safe. Their dedication underpins the freedom on which our society is based."

Palestine Action - now proscribed as a terrorist group - had also targeted Leonardo's Edinburgh site, cutting off the electricity supply to the factory in March.