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?

She’s quoting his friends. What’s she supposed to do? Make stuff up they didn’t say?

And don’t you think it paints him and his circle in an even worse light?

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"

This in bucket loads! All she needed to say was that he'd refused to comment on it. There was no need for the rest of what she said.

If she wanted to be balanced she could have completely omitted the "friends have said it did happen, it was a one off". Saying "one off" absolutely is minimising an alleged assault and didnt add balance. Its ridiculous to think that commenting on the frequency of DV could be considered balanced reporting.

Refuge quite rightly commented to that effect.

I'm not sure why she needed to clarify anything. As far as I understand he has admitted the act himself so what was there anything she needed to clarify for legal purposes. She should just have said nothing. Whatever her reasoning, it came across as minimising domestic violence.

Sorry, I see he's never confirmed it himself, but as PP have said she could just have referred to the incident as reported by family friends.

Interesting article.....he really is an utter knob- but surely we should all be massively up in arms about him potentially getting a knighthood- that makes me so much more angry than FB saying something stupid/clumsy/that she doesn't actually think or believe?? I just feel as though the anger and outrage is pointed at the wrong person. I find our media coverage so bloody childish and quick to dismantle some (I.e women) but not others (I.e men)....

She did come across as minimising it and I’m glad she stepped down.

I think she was trying to show this hasn’t been proven and the man in question wasn’t there to defend himself. If she hadn’t said anything there is a risk that this just becomes fact when the fact hasn’t been “proven” in a court of law.
of course DV is wrong and she absolutely believes that. Her comments were clumsy but not malicious

but surely we should all be massively up in arms about him potentially getting a knighthood

We are
At least I am. And I'm not letting that drop anywhere

You know what the source of the "family friends" who said it was a one-off is?

This article.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8802035/amp/Boris-Johnsons-mother-tells-TOM-BOWER-familys-deepest-secret.html

"Last night, family friends confirmed the story to this newspaper, but insisted that the incident had been a one-off.

The friends said it happened in the 1970s when Charlotte was suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and had ‘flailed’ at Stanley, who broke her nose when ‘flailing back’.

It is appalling.

Good- I'm absolutely astounded that this could even be considered.

Yes this is my point exactly.

I distinctly heard her accurately explaining/ quoting what someone else has said. She has clearly been doing lots to support vulnerable women. She’s been misconstrued and unfairly treated.

Well, she's quoting what the Daily Mail says unnamed family friends said. Isn't it odd how that particular soundbite has stuck with her? Almost like she was reminded of it recently.

She deals with words. That’s her job. She wasn’t being clumsy, I’d say she knew exactly what she was doing protecting old Johnson’s reputation prior to his knighthood, or whatever it is his son wants to bestow on him.

She is not a “brilliant woman” in anyway whatsoever. She is not neutral or fair and minimises the arguments that she (or more accurately her husband) don’t like being vocalised.

Have to laugh that she and Laura K get away week after week with their partisan views and Gary Linekar gets thrown to the wolves

Sooner she is off QT and a more balanced facilitator comes on board, hopefully ahead of the next election ramping up, the better

The BBC must in fact be pretty neutral politically as I used to work for them and my experience was that they're a bunch of lefties. Yet others think they're Tories.

Whatever FB's party political views might be, her comment was very ill advised. Nobody else can know what went on in the Johnson household. She talked herself out of that patronage and has only herself to blame for it.

They can both be wrong.

No she hasn’t. She shouldn’t have said it. I too winced when I heard her say it.

She’s not brilliant. She’s made QT completely unwatchable. She was out of order in what she said and if she hadn’t walked they’d have had no choice but to chuck her. She’s a disgrace.

You’re taking a hilariously ridiculous line about her being penalised cos misogyny, she’s the misogynist in this scenario defending a revolting domestic abuser. Come off it.

It's comments like hers that result in the actions of men like him being minimised...what she said, quote or not, is part of the problem.

I don't see how someone who minimises domestic violence can remain involved with domestic violence charities.

My thoughts exactly👏👏

She was doing her job as a journalist. It's called right to reply and had she not done it, she would have left QT open to being sued by Stanley Johnson. The ignorance of law on here is quite eye-opening.

annawharton.substack.com/p/youre-burning-the-wrong-witch-again

I think it says plenty that until her appallingly clumsy remarks on DV, I had no idea that Bruce was an ambassador for Refuge. So it's not just QT that shows up her incompetence.

She'd damaged her own reputation, and unfortunately that of Refuge.