To think that Fiona Bruce is not the wrong doer here?

[Peterbear]

She is stepping down as a patron of Refuge (DV charity) after saying Stanley Johnson 'only hit his wife once' on QuestionTime.IMO It was rather a clumsy thing to say - but she clearly wasn't meaning that it was ok- apply a bit of context and she was clearly trying to be impartial /balanced here - which she is week after week even though she must feel like banging her head off the bloody table!
I just feel that another amazing women is vilanised and another arse of a bloke gets away Scott free. Anyone else?

Hitting anyone male or female is wrong in my book. But the Johnsons are hardly good role models for anyone.

Well if she were neutral all the time it would be less bad.

but she bends over backwards to defend the tories, give them more airtime and interrupt left-leaning guests.

So I think her comments were part of a pattern and pretty poor.

Well yes and no. Its not her crime but I cant help but wonder why she chose that particular piece of information to share, when she could have just said something similar (his friends dismissed it, or his friends recognised it happened) or not said anything at all.

Yes it was clumsy. I think we need to stop punishing people for making mistakes with their language like this, but in order to feel more comfortable about it I would have preferred that she explained why she said it. Im aware she was mortified if it had been misconstrued but thats not the same thing (unless Ive missed it)

She merrily quoted his friends, who said it yes it happened, it was a one off. Why didn’t she quote his wife who said “ he hit me many times, over many years”. That would have been balanced.

I agree with you, but she didn’t actually say he only hit his wife once. She said "Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off." All she’s done is tried to give a balanced account, which is what the BBC are supposed to do.

"Clearly"? It's not "clear" that she was trying to be impartial at all. Why would she say that at all, in any context?

""Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

How the hell would these "friends" know? Were they lodgers?

Would we be ok if she was talking about Saatchi grabbing Nigella by the throat during lunch, and she said "The staff say it did happen but it was a one-off"?

Other DV charities, women's aid being one, had real issue with her choice of language. Refuge has said that her statement goes against their knowledge of DV. They felt that she minimised DV. There was no way that she could remain an ambassador, she minimised a woman's nose being broken and chose to ignore what else would have been going on. She fucked up and showed that she'd throw the vulnerable under the bus to defend abuse as long as the perpetrator was a Tory. How many women have suffered over the centuries because their abuser had a higher status? She's figuratively smacked them in the face.

Should a DV incident be reported in a balanced way? We wouldn't allow it for racism. No-one can confidently say that it was a one off. It's a shocking thing for someone who wants to be highly and publicly involved in a DV charity.

I saw the program in question and yes it did come across as minimising it. Why on earth are Stanley Johnson's friends being cited as it being a 'one off'?. It was very awkwardly handled.

To be balanced she should then have quoted what his wife has said about it.

As an ambassador of that kind of charity she should have been very very clear as to what has been said and by who, and should not have left it as 'it,was only once' even if quoting his friends.

I agree that it came across as minimising.

It's not either/or.

Same here, I winced when she said it.

From Refuge itself,
"These words minimised the seriousness of domestic abuse and this has been retraumatising for survivors"
"Survivors of domestic abuse are, and will always be, Refuge’s priority. Our focus must remain on them"

She should step down from BBCQT on the grounds of being incapable of fairly chairing debate. She’s as Tory as the BBC board and her bias on QT is blatant. Antiques Roadshow is within her capabilities, QT isn’t.

I’d find it very hard to argue she’s impartial or balanced generally to be honest, plenty of stats and analysis to suggest she very much isn’t.

I think she has done the right thing here, it may well be that case that she didn’t expect her words to have the effect they did, but she messed up and has, to some degree, taken the fall for it. Wish more public figures (politicians mainly) took responsibility in the same way.

The BBC has questions to answer as to why comments from Johnson’s friends were seen as relevant/essential and not the words of the victim herself.

Hmmm I hear you. I absolutely do not think DV should be minimized- and I don't think she was minimizing things. I think she said something very clumsily but , like I said another brilliant woman (mostly we're all human) demonized whilst noone talks about the hideous nature of Stanley getting away with it. Just feels the balance is all wrong in favour of men,again.

I think that if you’re representing the BBC and you’re repeating allegations that haven’t been heard in Court and which the alleged perpetrator hasn’t commented on, then yes, you do need to be fairly balanced about it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending him. I think he’s odious and I fully believe his former wife. But Fiona Bruce knew she had to word things in a particular way. I think she did the best she could by stating that his friends had admitted that particular incident had happened. And if his friends have admitted it happened as a ‘one off’ then that’s pretty much tantamount to saying ‘yes, our friend is an abuser’.

Oh,you see I think she's good at giving people airtime when she clearly doesn't agree with them I.e I.e Tories.

Why do you think she's brilliant?

She is brilliant on Antiques Roadshow. Not on QT.

And we all know DV is never a 'one off'. It's a pattern of behaviour.

Here ...
In the case of Stanley, his ex-wife, the late artist Charlotte Wahl, kept his abuse secret until four years ago when she told Boris’s biographer, Tom Bower, that their marriage had been “ghastly, terrible”. “I want the truth told,” she said about Stanley’s violence, which was witnessed by Boris. “He hit me many times, over many years.” Early on he resented her seeing her friends “and that’s when he first hit me”. Later, she was deposited in the country, without a car. “To adultery and violence, his family could add deserter.”

Nope, she should step down. There was probably other abuse alongside the physical as it rarely comes alone.

Absolutely this
And if she wants to be an apologist for the long time violent, abusive, gaslighting bully of Stanley over his breaking his wife's face and nose, then she shouldn't be facing a domestic violence charity.

Bear in mind also the Tory cuts to services supporting women at risk and the stress their policies put struggling single mothers under.

She's a hypocrite

No!!!

She said "but". BUT. BUT it was a one-off. This is exactly the same as "However, in his defence, they said it was a one-off".

They were only talking about the one particular incident in which her nose was broken. Her comment was only in relation to that, not the other times.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/12/wife-of-sir-stanley-couldnt-tolerate-his-abuse-neither-should-rest-of-us