Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Fiona Bruce

247 replies

MayThe4th · 12/03/2023 12:46

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…

OP posts:
Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 10:57

She didn't 'say it at the time'. It was reported in 2020 or 2021. I have included the timeline upthread. It was kept hushed up for many years.

Let's not forget that several other women, including a Tory MP have revealed information about Johnson's behaviour towards women. Fiona Bruce also knows this.

Darker · 15/03/2023 10:58

FB could have said that SJs wife had written about the DV she experienced from SJ in her biography and that SJs friends had corroborated that she’d been hospitalised with a broken nose. That’s the context.

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 11:03

She couldn't because it wasn't her biography!

But, otherwise, I agree.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:04

It’s the old line: "If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true

Whilst it's pretty likely to be true, I'm not sure how she could look out the fucking window and find out which is true. It's entirely possible, I find SJ repulsive personally, but from a legal context, there's no actual evidence.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:07

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 10:57

She didn't 'say it at the time'. It was reported in 2020 or 2021. I have included the timeline upthread. It was kept hushed up for many years.

Let's not forget that several other women, including a Tory MP have revealed information about Johnson's behaviour towards women. Fiona Bruce also knows this.

I meant the time she disclosed it, 4 years ago. Shes not here to add to it from her disclosure 4 years ago.

ancientgran · 15/03/2023 11:25

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 08:25

I don't see any men facing any consequences in the slightest for minimising this. Just one woman.

Did any men minimise it?

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:32

Ken Clarke did yes. Interesting opinion piece here from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who was also part of the conversation.

inews.co.uk/opinion/stanley-johnson-question-time-fiona-bruce-2205823?ITO=newsnow

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 11:32

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 10:45

It wasn’t clumsiness which made her give the abuser’s pov with no quote from the victim or their camp. That’s not balance it’s bias. Supporting Refuge is not enough.

How would the victim be able to comment on this, apart from what she actually said at the time, which was that Stanley had broken her nose because of domestic violence?

She can’t because she’s dead, that’s rather the point. For the sake of argument they could have provided a quote from her kids or friends who would have confirmed that it was not a one off. Either quote both sides or neither. Don’t quote the abusive husband when the wife is not alive to give her perspective. Its perfectly possible to provide context as legally required without quoting SJ and his mates.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:34

I know she's dead. Hence not possible to get an opinion from her. That was my point...

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 11:35

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:04

It’s the old line: "If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true

Whilst it's pretty likely to be true, I'm not sure how she could look out the fucking window and find out which is true. It's entirely possible, I find SJ repulsive personally, but from a legal context, there's no actual evidence.

There’s plenty of evidence if you talk to her friends and family.

Depends what you mean by a legal context, you don’t need evidence that would stand up in court in this case - the legal obligation in broadcasting is simply to represent both sides of the argument. Which FB did not.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:43

I don't even like FB very much tbh, her whole show is biased, but I do believe in fairness. It is very much, in the words, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a case of burn the witch. Even by other women. Men must really sitting back and laughing at this spectacle.

Fladdermus · 15/03/2023 11:47

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:34

I know she's dead. Hence not possible to get an opinion from her. That was my point...

She could have used what she said before she died, 'Stanley Johnson hasn't commented, his mates say it did happen, it was a one off. Charlotte said it happened many time over many years.'

Why is it ok to give 'context' by quoting mates of the abuser which minimise the abuse and give no mention at all to the words of the victim?

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:59

She could have, She should have...

Much better to focus on the words of this woman and what she did wrong, rather than the male in the show from which it all started, or in fact the men themselves that do this stuff.

Much much higher standards for women to get their words exactly right. Or burn for it. Whilst the men just carry on as they always did.

Amazing.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 12:00

Anyway I'm bowing out of this one. The fire is piled up and burning too high for my liking.

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 12:01

I believe in fairness too. In the interest of balance you either quote from both sides or find a different way to provide context.

This is not men vs women. It’s the case of a woman who represents a da charity fucking up on da on mainstream TV.

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 12:02

Fladdermus · 15/03/2023 11:47

She could have used what she said before she died, 'Stanley Johnson hasn't commented, his mates say it did happen, it was a one off. Charlotte said it happened many time over many years.'

Why is it ok to give 'context' by quoting mates of the abuser which minimise the abuse and give no mention at all to the words of the victim?

Exactly.

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 12:37

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 11:43

I don't even like FB very much tbh, her whole show is biased, but I do believe in fairness. It is very much, in the words, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a case of burn the witch. Even by other women. Men must really sitting back and laughing at this spectacle.

I think YAB deleted her tweet , didn't she?

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 13:19

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 12:37

I think YAB deleted her tweet , didn't she?

inews.co.uk/opinion/stanley-johnson-question-time-fiona-bruce-2205823?ITO=newsnow

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 13:25

Can't read as it's behind paywall. I can agree and disagree with her at the same time.

I absolutely agree SSJ is a piece of sit who should be nowhere near a knighthood. At the same time , I don't think that gets FB off the hook, just because she is a woman. She was the chair of the programme, her words were pre scripted. As an intelligent and experienced journalist, she slipped up at least.

YAB having called him out over this doesn't mean she has the rights to how people react to FB. Many people have expressed dismay at what FB did, including huge numbers of victims of DV.

The article was written on March 13th, same time as her Tweet. I still think she removed the Tweet.

Tbh, what Women's Aid think holds more sway with me.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 13:35

Main points from YAB. Which I agree with. And her point is apparent even on this thread. I've cut out the bits about the other topics a put the show which were not relevant to this particular part, mainly because copying and pasting it in full will probably result in a deletion.

Twitter, with users naming and shaming her for last week’s show. An overexcited crowd routinely comes for Bruce and denounces her for being a Tory stooge, a terrible Question Time chair and worse.

Another indictment has now been added by the usual suspects and thousands of others: the presenter, they say, minimised the seriousness of domestic violence against women. I unintentionally caused this furore and so feel obliged to correct the misrepresentations and defend Bruce.

Breaking news as I write: Bruce is having to give up the role of ambassador for Refuge, the domestic violence charity. She has been championing the rights of victimised females for over 25 years. She doesn’t deserve this.

The real rogues – men who play down the seriousness of domestic violence – must be sitting back and enjoying the spectacle.....

....When it was my turn, I said that I was less troubled by the Johnsons, who treat the kingdom as their fiefdom, and more by the corrupt honours system, and also pointed out to Clarke that Stanley Johnson was a wifebeater and that “it’s on record”. His late ex-wife was the artist Charlotte Wahl. She told Boris Johnson biographer Tom Bower that Stanley had broken her nose. The elder Johnson has never commented on those allegations. His friends allegedly confirmed it happened but claimed it was a “one off”.

Bruce quickly intervened and repeated their claim. I understood why. She was legally obliged to put out that clarification. I have no regrets about doing what I did and do not harbour any resentment against Bruce, who did what she had to do.

What happened next is dismaying and inexcusable. As Anna Wharton, an Orwell Prize nominee wrote on SubStack: “Suddenly these men, and women, who never talk about society’s most uncomfortable truth of male violence are outraged about domestic violence and have taken to Twitter to demonstrate it… Well done everyone, you have once again burnt the wrong witch – even those among you who claim to be feminists… What you have actually done is demonstrated your innate misogyny – that it’s far easier to police the language of women than hold a man accountable for his crimes.”

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 13:45

Women can and often are part of the problem. FB may not have meant to but she minimised da while representing a da charity. If she had said: I was trying to give balance but the result was clumsy and cack-handed, instead of trying to hide behind the specious “legal obligation” line, she would have come in for much less flack.

It’s not FB or SJ. FB was rightly called out and SJ should fuck off.

Greenpolkadot · 17/09/2023 13:59

Saying it happened 'only' once does not make it acceptable..

New posts on this thread. Refresh page