Fiona Bruce

[MayThe4th]

If Fiona Bruce had just clarified what was being referred to when talking about Stanley Johnson being guilty of domestic violence that would have been understandable. But to then go on to say that it had only happened once? Did that really need saying?

we all know domestic violence doesn’t start with a broken nose…

even if it was once (and i agree statistics tell us it’s highly unlikely) i don’t see that matters. I steal once, i’m still a thief aren't I?

You won't get much traction at the moment, I suggyou diary this for next week.

Between RSE CSA, Gary, banking and IT collapse people are distracted and this is worthy of going over when people have heads pace.

She had to be factual rather than air her personal views apparently. But she should never have said 'only'. That's what minimised it

She was reading the response his 'friends' (i.e. him) had given to the papers- which was that he'd only been caught breaking his wife's nose once; so it's all fine, these things happen, we all punch our spouse a bit to hard on occasion.

Now, I would argue there is still a problem that the researchers thought his ridiculous statement needed to be included for 'balance' but I don't think that is Bruce's fault.

A man beats his wife but you start a thread criticising a woman?????

She didn't say it was only once, she said SJ hadn't commented himself but that friends of his had said it was only once. That speaks volumes about him and his mates imo. Fiona Bruce expressed no personal opinion. She is the chair of QT and provided context for the panellist's comment.

Fiona Bruce was just repeating what SJ's friends had said. She did not share her own opinion, as she doesnt on other issues raised during QT.

This constant picking at what people have said is draining. I guess the point is to make people step back from public life if they are not explicitly left wing.

And viewers who are not left wing the drift off from BBC and Channel 4 news as a result. It may well lead to the demise of the BBC at this rate.

She didn't need to quote the friends she could have just said SJ has not commented. This is a continuation of the fantasy that broadcasters have about what it means to be balanced.

As has been stated above Fiona Bruce is a news & current affairs employee of the BBC & contractually banned from replying to these sorts of attacks and making any sort of personal comment about Johnson.
However “Refuge” the charity that fights for the rights of female victims of Domestic Violence has stated that “Fiona has been a proactive ambassador for them for over 25 years”.

In fact rather than taking my word for any of this - here is a copy of their statement taken directly from the “Refuge” site…..

“Following the broadcast of BBC Question Time last night, concerns have been raised about an exchange involving the host Fiona Bruce, who is a long standing Refuge supporter and Ambassador, with a significant history of standing against domestic abuse and violence against women and girls.
Refuge’s position is clear – domestic abuse is never a ‘one off’, it is a pattern of behaviour that can manifest in a number of ways, including physical abuse. Domestic abuse is never acceptable.
We have spoken to Fiona today, and she is appalled that any of her words have been understood as her minimising domestic violence. We know she is deeply upset that this has been triggering for survivors.
Like the host of any BBC programme, when serious on-air allegations are made about someone, Fiona is obliged to put forward a right of reply from that person or their representatives, and that was what happened last night. These are not in any way Fiona’s own views about the situation.
Refuge has a long history of working with Fiona, who has been an active supporter of ours for some 25 years, and continually uses her profile to campaign publicly against domestic abuse, and to advocate for survivors.
Fiona is deeply sorry that last night’s programme has distressed survivors of domestic abuse. Refuge stands by her and all survivors today.
We continue to be appreciative of all the work Fiona does on behalf of Refuge and recognise the immense contribution she has made to our work to end domestic abuse and challenge violence against women and girls.”

It’s so sad that this kind on ‘wokeness’is tying to ‘cancel’ a woman who has supported women for 25 years.

I accept she was quoting SJs friends but why did she have to say anything at all?Why did she even have to comment? SJ was responsible for putting his wife in hospital there was no need for anything to be said in his defense. If the audience member had spoken about a convicted thief or murderer would she be obliged to read out a quote from their friends explaining it happened once?
I like her in arts programmes but she is a terrible chair on Question Time

I'm not trying to cancel anyone, but what FB said on QT sounded pretty . It was the use of the word 'once', the rest of it was fine.

She sounded like she was defending to me. Why did she have to say 'it was a one off'. Why has she got a prepared quote from his 'friends'?
Both sides-ing domestic violence isn't a good look.
She's awful on QT.

She didn’t have to say anything about what BJ’s friends said.

If she’d just said “just to clarify, what’s being referred to here is the fact that SJ broke his wife’s nose” nobody would have batted an eyelid. The fact she said the rest makes her look like a DV apologist.

And if this is the face of refuge then God help all the victims of dv out there.

But it’s interesting isn’t it? GL criticises the government and is removed from broadcasting, Fb defends the abusive parent of an ex PM and we shouldn’t say anything?

And she’s a journalist. She absolutely knows what reaction that statement was going to cause. There’s no way she didn’t know.

And I don’t care whether she’s supported refuge for the past 25 years. If refuge have any sense they’ll get rid of her. The last thing a dv charity needs is a public dv apologist.

But surely no one can really believe that someone, anyone, not least Fiona Bruce, host of Question Time, could really have meant that a man breaking his wife's nose only once was acceptable? Surely saying that it happened only once was meant to be taken with irony?
I am astounded that anyone could think otherwise!

Thank you for raising this. I kept trying to raise it on the BBC thread but the level of interest was low.

What she said and did was appalling; the BBC's defence of her is appalling; Refuge supporting her even more alarming.

What does politics have to do with minimising domestic violence?

Why are Stanley Johnson's friends authorities on events? What about his wife?

For the posters above, the backlash Refuge has had form its own donors and form other DV charities may make them rethink their statement.

Where are you drifting to that it's OK to minimise DV?

Have you seen it? There was absolutely nothing ironic about it. It sounded as though she was trying to shut the subject down and move on as quickly as possibly.
Why would you mention a man breaking his wife's nose ironically

There was literally no need to even quote the fucking appalling friend of SJ saying it “only” happened once. She could have just mentioned SJ admitted he did indeed break his wife’s nose and left it at that. That would have been impartial, what she actually said did not sound all that impartial imo.

I have seen the clip and nothing about it can be interpreted as condoning or minimising domestic violence.

And we all know that a broken nose is what happens after a prolonged period of abuse. That’s not where it starts.

The rest, the abuse, be that emotional or physical which led up to that has been minimised.

Did she leave him after he broke her nose?

Nothing - seriously?!

Wow.

The statement from Refuge acknowledges that FB knows she upset women who have been victims of male violence.