Page 9 | Fiona Bruce

MayThe4th · 2023-03-12T12:46:17+00:00

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…

Unsure33 · 13/03/2023 19:47

Darker · 13/03/2023 18:48

There is no reason whatsoever for bringing SJ's friends opinions into it. This is BBCQT, not the village shop.

well then logically you could say it should never have been bought up in the first place ?

is it all not gossip and hearsay without a conviction ?

I am not defending him at all , but if you are going to stick to facts you can’t say he is a wife beater .

if you are of the opinion the “ evidence “ is enough then you have to allow all comments surely ? One or the other , you can’t pick and choose .

Untitledsquatboulder · 13/03/2023 19:47

UnagiForLife · 13/03/2023 19:09

I can’t recall. To me it seems she needed to quote the friends because Stanley himself hasn’t denied or confirmed it happened but his friends have.

Show quote history

Surely it would be more accurate to quote his ex wife? I think the BBC has muddled up "balanced news coverage " with being a court of law.

Fladdermus · 13/03/2023 19:50

UnagiForLife · 13/03/2023 16:54

I’m obviously missing something. Just watched it and she said “friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off” is that the part everyone is going bonkers about? She was saying what his friends have said, for balance, not what she thinks happened and at no point did she mention the word only.

Did she say what his victim said? No. Did she say what his victim's friends said? No. So where was the balance? Balance would have been 'friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off. Charlotte said it happened many times over many years.'

Yellowdays · 13/03/2023 22:56

For reference, at 48 minutes-

Mirabai · 14/03/2023 00:22

Fladdermus · 13/03/2023 19:50

Did she say what his victim said? No. Did she say what his victim's friends said? No. So where was the balance? Balance would have been 'friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off. Charlotte said it happened many times over many years.'

Show quote history

This.

Why quote SJ’s friends not her friends?

olympicsrock · 14/03/2023 00:52

FB is an absolute witch. I saw first hand an interview that she did with a friend of mine which was cut and edited to make him look like a liar and incompetent .

Just a truly horrible individual.

UnagiForLife · 14/03/2023 07:30

@Fladdermus I take your point and agree with you on reflection it wasn’t showing balance.

Darker · 14/03/2023 13:42

FBs statement:

Mirabai · 14/03/2023 14:47

FB didn’t legally contextualise the question with balanced quotes from both sides - that was her mistake.

Darker · 14/03/2023 14:50

And what legal weight does the testimony of these anonymous ‘friends’ have? It’s just bollocks.

Hoppinggreen · 14/03/2023 14:53

She should have just said that those were allegations and not legally proven. It would have been enough.
The issue for me was why did she feel that as a BBC member of staff (presumably) she had to defend Boris Johnson’s father?

Mirabai · 14/03/2023 15:01

Exactly. Really no need to defend him particularly over the voiceless (dead) wife. Just put it in context.

JocelynBurnell · 14/03/2023 23:03

Darker · 14/03/2023 14:50

And what legal weight does the testimony of these anonymous ‘friends’ have? It’s just bollocks.

None. It really is bullshit.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 07:41

Fiona Bruce faces the consequences for a man breaking a woman’s nose. What consequences does Stanley actually face for this.

Piggywaspushed · 15/03/2023 08:01

But one of the reasons men like him face no consequences is the minimisation of men's actions through testimony from friends, from colleagues and from using phrases like 'one off'.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 08:25

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

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 08:27

It was the woman who minimised it though, so that’s not any particular man’s fault.

Darker · 15/03/2023 08:53

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 07:41

Fiona Bruce faces the consequences for a man breaking a woman’s nose. What consequences does Stanley actually face for this.

If Fiona and her ilk were doing their job properly it would stop men like SJ being considered for knighthoods.

Far too many men in power who are there because a blind eye is turned to behaviour like bullying and sexual abuse.

Darker · 15/03/2023 09:00

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 08:27

It was the woman who minimised it though, so that’s not any particular man’s fault.

FB is facing no consequences except the loss of her voluntary role as Ambassador at a DV charity that quite frankly could do without this shit.

FB could redeem herself by not making ridiculous excuses citing her legal responsibilities and maybe doing some actual work around powerful men who abuse women (and men) being protected.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 10:25

Well, I've just watched the whole thing from begining to end, and I've concluded that there's lots of reasons why I don't like FB, she is biased, she does talk over people and shuts down opinions she doesn't agree with, in particular the right wing opinions, strangely, as I thought she was supposed to be pro Tory. But, that one particular comment, in the context of the conversation she was having, was, imo, trying to genuinely give some context to the situation. Which is surprising bearing in mind how bad the whole show was.

sydneysunset · 15/03/2023 10:31

I find FB a bit irritating at times but I feel sorry for her. Her record of support for Refuge speaks for itself. It can be so easy to phrase something in a clumsy or unfortunate way that misrepresents what you really want to say - happens to me all the time in discussions with my teens (who love to seize upon these sorts of mistakes!)

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 10:36

Darker · 15/03/2023 09:00

FB is facing no consequences except the loss of her voluntary role as Ambassador at a DV charity that quite frankly could do without this shit.

FB could redeem herself by not making ridiculous excuses citing her legal responsibilities and maybe doing some actual work around powerful men who abuse women (and men) being protected.

Show quote history

She is legally obliged to provide context - she just didn’t do correctly. Which, with her role at a da charity is a fairly sizeable mistake.

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."

Mirabai · 15/03/2023 10:38

sydneysunset · 15/03/2023 10:31

I find FB a bit irritating at times but I feel sorry for her. Her record of support for Refuge speaks for itself. It can be so easy to phrase something in a clumsy or unfortunate way that misrepresents what you really want to say - happens to me all the time in discussions with my teens (who love to seize upon these sorts of mistakes!)

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.

Dayvi · 15/03/2023 10:43

sydneysunset · 15/03/2023 10:31

I find FB a bit irritating at times but I feel sorry for her. Her record of support for Refuge speaks for itself. It can be so easy to phrase something in a clumsy or unfortunate way that misrepresents what you really want to say - happens to me all the time in discussions with my teens (who love to seize upon these sorts of mistakes!)

Yes I agree with this. Interesting that they were talking about potential cancellation in the context of Gary Lineker and concluding that that was wrong, even if they didn't agree with his comments, whilst not knowing that in the next few minutes it would be FB in the firing line.

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?