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…

Yes, the right are always trying to cancel people, as shown with Lineker. The Tories are completely anti free speech unless you agree with them.

I'm looking forward to Labour getting in and reinforcing some of our freedoms the Tories have stripped away.

She didn’t say ‘only once’, she was quoting from his friends’ statement to the press, note expressing a personal opinion.

Everyone knows she was quoting his friends. She interrupted to say it. She didn't need to say the 'only once' bit. It's offensive to people who have suffered DV. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

Would it be ok if she'd chimed in with 'it was only once according to his friends' if the panellist had been discussing a rapist? It was a very poor choice of words for someone with her experience. If she's said something like 'a claim denied by Johnson' that might have resembled presenting both sides. This was unprofessional and of course it implied that 'only once' is somehow less bad than many times or repeatedly.

What she said gave more information about SJ having been confirmed as doing this and his friends minimising rather than an indication that she was minimising.

She did not say Stanley Johnson's friends minimised his actions by....

Women's Aid do not agree with that appraisal.

She couldn't do that because he has never denied it. And never sued...

Wasn’t it a live show where her words were not scripted? She’s only human.

quit going after her.

this whole thing says more about SJ and the company that he holds

At best it was clumsy. In reality she minimised domestic violence.

It’s almost as if she’d been promoted what to say by someone higher up in bbc before the programme, in case the issue was raised.

She is not “unprofessional” either. Do you really all believe she should be punished or cancelled and deleted for one clumsily worded quote. Fo you really believe that her charities should now distance themselves from her? Do you really believe that she believes DV IS “ok if it only happened once” ?

do you all hope that when her name is mentioned that it is now associated as a “dv minimiser”?

How often his friends said it happened is entirely irrelevant.

She could have said his friends had confirmed it. She’d already clarified what the other panellist was referring to, so the “only once” didn’t need to be said. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that she needed to confirm that his friends had said it was only once. Who cares how many times he told his frends (the idea that someone who is capable of breaking their wife’s nose has friends is abhorrent in itself) The instant she confirmed that his friends had said it had only happened once she became the mouthpiece for the minimisation of domestic violence.

These threads always fascinate me. The opinions on here have absolutely no bearing on the vote.

I like that comment from women’s aid.They’re spot on. There is currently a petition to remove her as an ambassador to Refuge. If Refuge have any sense they will do. Because people will A, stop donating, and B, not feel safe going to a charity who have stood by someone who stood up on TV and quoted the fact that someone’s friends said that it was “only once.”

If she’d wanted to be balanced she would also have said that “his ex wife said that it had happened on multiple occasions.” But she didn’t.

@DutchKatje she really didn’t minimise it. She never expressed her opinion once.

Well she won’t be cancelled or punished while the current DG of the bbc is there 🙄

She didn’t need to explicitly say what she did.

Jesus, so many people don't know the actual facts and timeline.

His friends did not 'make a statement to the press'. They are mentioned in a book. In fact what is said in the book is even worse, very victim blaming and I'm relived Fiona did not quote further. the QT team seem, in fact, to have looked this book out in order to prep Fiona Bruce to quote from it should the issue be raised.

Stanley Johnson will not sue. He has never threatened to, and never denied it when it has come up , apart from immediately after the event (in the 1970s when Boris, who witnessed DV, was a teenager)

This all came out in a book, published two or three years ago about Boris Johnson, who witnessed this attack (and others). At the time, the DM used this revelation to make us feel terribly sorry for Boris, as it goes, and to 'excuse' his infidelities and behaviour towards women..

The attack that we definitely know about on Charlotte De Wal left her in hospital; Stanley Johnson said something initially about a car door. De Wal was admitted to a psychiatric unit with trauma.

Well maybe she is human and didn’t realise it would get blown out of proportion.

yeah that’s it, let’s cancel everyone that has ever made a workplace error.

Honestly, I think she messed up. I think she now knows she's messed up. And hopefully she'll learn from that and pick her words a bit more carefully in future. I don't want to see her cancelled or hauled over hot coals any further for this. But I do think it's important for people to talk about it and about the language used when talking about domestic violence.

There is currently a petition to remove her as an ambassador to Refuge. If Refuge have any sense they will do. Because people will A, stop donating, and B, not feel safe going to a charity who have stood by someone who stood up on TV and quoted the fact that someone’s friends said that it was “only once"

If people stop donating because of this then that's a real shame and pretty pathetic in honesty. There are many complex issues around women feeling safe or unsafe in seeking support, I honestly doubt this will be a deciding factor. How is any of this helpful?

There is really no need for petitions. It’s pathetic. No care for peoples mental health. I bet she is mortified. You’ve got to be really thick if you think she meant anything by the words that came out her mouth.

Fiona Bruce is not stupid, she knew that to say it 'only happened once' would cause a furore. I think she has been rather clever.

In light of the Gary Lineker issue, I actually read through the actual text of the BBC guidelines. Fiona Bruce was doing what she is required to do, under the circumstances.

‘When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing last night’

I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if she was given that statement, written by someone else, and told ‘if this allegation arises, this is what you have to say’. And I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s not allowed to say that and that the BBC probably wouldn’t own up, in her defence. Especially in light of the Gary Lineker issue. Would be ironic if Gary is in trouble for not following the BBC guidelines and Fiona is in trouble for sticking to them.

But, yes, a man beats his wife to the extent she ends up in hospital, another man decides to give him an honour, but it’s a woman who used ill thought out words, hers or someone’s else’s, that is being castigated and told to resign.

I thought it was his first wife who had her nose broken? She can hardly comment as she's dead.

‘When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing last night’

SJ didn't reply, what was the organisation that did reply?

I read it as if the allegation is made about a person they can reply, if an allegation is made about an organisation the organisation can reply. I don't read it as your mates get to give an opinion.

Its not a political matter.. DV can be in all households... left right or centre.

Personally, as she repeated what his friends had said, i don't see the issue, would be better criticising Bojo for nominating his father for an honour.

As an Ambassador for Refuge she should be well informed about this issue and completely on top of it. The question was not a surprise… she would have seen it in advance. No excuses. She should go.

Yes, another fact which seems to have passed a fair few posters by...