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?

If only she had been able to kick a ball.

From Anna Wharton's blig:

"From my years of experience, I imagine this is how the pre-production meeting went with lawyers:

Producer: “Yasmin wants to bring up the domestic abuse allegations against Stanley Johnson.”

Lawyer: “Fine, has he been convicted of anything? Accepted a caution?”

Producer: “No.”

Lawyer: “Oh, has he ever been on public record making a comment about it?”

Producer: “No, but his friends have admitted it happened but said it was a one off and he didn’t contest that.”

Lawyer: “Fine, Yasmin can say it then, but just get Fiona read that out so we’re covered legally.”

Cannot understand how anyone can defend this. FB quoted 'his friends'. What friends? How would they know? Such a weird line to take. Why not quote the actual woman and what she said about the man who beat her - and how often he did it? I feel a bit sorry for FB as being in the eye of the storm must be awful but surely surely as a Refuge ambassador she must have understood that the 'he only did it once' line was appalling.

I just feel that another amazing women is vilanised and another arse of a bloke gets away Scott free.

I find our media coverage so bloody childish and quick to dismantle some (I.e women) but not others (I.e men)....

The BBC didn’t take any action against her? They suspended Gary L for a lot less.

Yes she should have stepped down from the charity.

Because she was legally obliged to do it?

Saying "He hasn't commented on the allegations," would have sufficed quite nicely. As opposed to adding selective hearsay.

👆 This in spades...

When journalists say "friends of Mr Johnson said..." it is usually code for "Mr Johnson said, off the record..." Meaning here that he has tried to minimise it while not opening up his account to be questioned. Listen to what his poor wife said.

Saying "He hasn't commented on the allegations," would have sufficed quite nicely. As opposed to adding selective hearsay.
Agreed.

No it was an indefensible statement even if she had nothing to do with Refuge. The fact she does just makes it even worse. She also defends the tories at every opportunity which is super annoying. I think she should step down from Question Time as well. There are far better people out there that could host it.

Interesting that she didn't add the rest of the "quote" that his wife "flailed" at him first. Filter neatly switched on just in time!

When is Stanley getting his knighthood ? I want to go and boo him as he goes in and out of Buckingham Palace

That sounds like a reasonable thing to say under the circumstances.

Yes. I think that would be a good thing to do. What would be better is that he doesn't get it at all.

this

"Saying "He hasn't commented on the allegations," would have sufficed quite nicely. As opposed to adding selective hearsay."

Absolutely.

Waaa waaaa waaaa waaaaa waaaa waaaaa - that’s what many posters hear even when others clearly explain the legal reasons FB had to say what she said - and that’s so that they can then spout bollox condemning another woman just to make them feel like a good little soldier pretending to fight a cause when in fact they are just eejits.

I disagree with you @Peterbear

Her statement today said “Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson”
As an ambassador for Refuge, she should have known the words she used were minimising DV and because she obviously didn’t know that she’s really not fit to be an ambassador.
Also using “his friends have said” is just unbelievable. Why do his friends need to be quoted? If Stanley Johnson won’t comment they should just say “he refuses to comment”

The fact this controversy has happened will mean more people know Stanley Johnson is a wife beater and I’m very pleased about that.

Fiona Bruce didn't need to say it was rumoured to be a one off because of BBC guidelines on right of reply. Ultimately those guidelines simply ensure that the subject of claims of wrongdoing is given a fair opportunity to respond to them.

Had a legal advisor wanted to ensure the BBC was covered under UK defamation laws then all FB needed to comment was that SJ had not commented on the claims, nor had he been convicted of any such crime.

It should have been kept factual. There was no need to quote the "friends" comment at all.

She didn't have to say 'his friends have accepted it happened but said it's 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.

So why was the 'only once' comment added? If the fact that the wife says there were other times was irrelevant then the face that his friends say it only happened once was equally irrelevant. Should ah E just stopped after saying that the friends said it [that incident] did happen.

She is right wing and doesn't even try to hide it. She's the opposite of impartial and she's utterly ruined question time. Her comment about it being just the once is inexcusable.

“.. she was clearly trying to be impartial /balanced here - which she is week after week ..”

you must watch a different version of QT to me then, she’s not impartial at all! So much a Tory mouthpiece it’s totally embarrassing. She should be taken off, she’s insufferable.

I can't watch her due to the talking like she's having an orgasm thing. But in general the BBC is so far to the left it's unreal, no balance to be seen in the news, most discussion programmes so I'm surprised to hear people say fb is right wing.

Though one thing that I think should be given more thought, this was either fed to her at the time or a statement given to her in advance. Whilst FB chose to deliver that message, the decision to include how SJ's friends choose to characterise his domestic abuse was made higher up the pole.

Indeed.

Perhaps she could have said "His wife said it happened repeatedly and her parents confronted him about it, but according to the Daily Mail Stanley told his friends that it only happened once"? If we want some "balance".