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…

There is ALWAYS one!

Tbh, I was urged to start a thread about this on the BBC thread and this is why I didn't. It's stomach churning to hear people excusing this.

The criticism, really is of the BBC.

The point is the panellist was not really allowed to continue with her comments on SJ because she was shut down. As a PP said , the BBC feels the need to 'both sides' everything, including DV.

I'm still a bit unsure what point she was attempting to make?

The panellist said along the lines of 'Stanley Johnson is a wife beater, he broke his wife's nose'. I could understand if the interjection was 'allegedly', or 'I have to mention that he is not here to defend himself', that kind of thing... but his friend said he did it once, it was a one off

WTF?

Refuge need to distance themselves from her as soon as possible

They really do.

By continuing to support her they are undermining their own position.

“This constant picking at what people have said is draining.”

I agree with this 100%. Why is this happening nowadays? It was the same as lady Susan Hussey asking the lady at the palace where her people were from. It will stop people from communicating at all if we all have to think through and plan ahead what to say.

” I guess the point is to make people step back from public life if they are not explicitly left wing.”

Yes it does feel as though there is a bigger agenda at play.

It was obvious that FB had to provide balance and is neutral in this. She was relaying a response to an allegation which should be provided. Those of us with half a brain and semi decent comprehension skills will work out that a. FB , like us would not agree with the fact this is a one off and b. SJ is an arrogant abusive prat and his friends are sympathisers. This is not the fault of FB.

You do not quote someone's friends when trying to provide balance!

How is that so hard to grasp? What about her voice?

But if that was the only balance they could provide it speaks for itself doesn’t it?

The chair of the panel of BBC QT is a highly skilled, qualified and experienced professional, hosting a flagship programme. She is not Lady Susan Hussey off the cuff at an event. Fiona Bruce should know better.

Jesus wept.

Go away and Google.

What kind of absolute twat puts the father he saw beat his mother (this has been used as a defence for some of his personality flaws) forward for a knighthood?

It was obvious that FB had to provide balance and is neutral in this. She was relaying a response to an allegation which should be provided. Those of us with half a brain and semi decent comprehension skills will work out that a. FB , like us would not agree with the fact this is a one off and b. SJ is an arrogant abusive prat and his friends are sympathisers. This is not the fault of FB. no. all she had to do was to clarify what was being referred to. SJ’s friends had no place in this discussion. None.

I'm struggling to quantify how right wing you must actually be, to suffer from the delusion that the BBC spreads a left wing narrative.

“Jesus wept.

Go away and Google.”

?

She agreed to read it. And she's a Refuge Ambassador.

The woman who actually used the word ‘wife bearer’ has tweeted this and I whole heartedly agree with her.

People have a lunch mob on Fiona Bruce because she put a comment into context. Not an elected member who is seemingly mates with a wife beater.

Those Curtis is IG Bruce take a long hard look at yourselves.

*criticising not Curtis

Can I just point out this is what FB said. Her job as a BBC panellist is to provide context and neutrality. Can someone please point out exactly what she said that was wrong? And what you think she should have said instead?

I didn’t know SJ was a domestic abuser. If I’d been watching that I’d have thought “hold up what did she just say did I hear that right” so Bruce was absolutely right to give context.

Have you seen the replies to her?

Disagreeing with what FB did isn't excusing Clarke. But his function on the programme was entirely different.

Internalised misogyny is strong in this thread

She could have left it at the penultimate sentence.

Because that’s her job. Literally. And SJ wasn’t convicted so it’s even more important to give context in that the speaker hand just pulled that from the air but from an account of his ex wife

The people who criticised the BBC and FB for both siding DV are the same people who do not want SJ's DV to be silenced or minimised and the same people who find the idea of him being awarded a knighthood abhorrent.

She could have left the last sentence off, yes. However SJ’s friends confirmed it happened, which is highly relevant. Once that is acknowledged, the entire reply has to be broadcast to ensure impartiality. Otherwise it is cherry picking.