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?

The fact he did it at all is disgusting and unacceptable. There's no excuse.

There's no reason to tell anyone "it was a one off" unless you are trying to somehow justify it.

Disgusting. She should go. So should he.

Good grief. She always always cuts off panelists who are more on the left before they've finished their sentences, yet lets the likes of Jenrick and others go on and on.

It is very very obvious.

I’ve seen the clip of her saying it, but there doesn’t seem to have been any reaction from the audience, or indeed Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who just took up where she’d left off. Did anyone say anything about it after that, during the show?

😂😂😂 “BBC is so far to the left…” - didn’t realise it was April Fool’s Day already

She is stepping down as a patron of Refuge (DV charity) after saying Stanley Johnson 'only hit his wife once' on QuestionTime

You have even put it in quotes - but this is not what she said.

The words were poorly chosen. I don't know enough about her as a presenter to know how representative that is of how she usually performs, whether it's clumsy broadcasting or lack of impartiality.

However, listening to the repeated inaccuracies about what she actually said is very frustrating.

I also agree with a pp who said that while she said the words, she was acting on production guidelines and it most certainly shouldn't be only her that is being blamed.

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.

The right to reply would have been decided by the team. Of course it's nonsensical as how would SJ's friends have a clue what happened behind closed doors?

Everyone may think that Fiona had ' no need' to quote 'friends', but ultimately it wouldn't have been her call.

I really hope the wife-beating Stanley doesn't get his fucking knighthood btw, but the fact FB is held up to these nonsensical standards for being a journalist is nauseating. And Yasmin Alibhai-Brown agrees with me.

inews.co.uk/opinion/stanley-johnson-question-time-fiona-bruce-2205823?fbclid=IwAR3hhnGXJ8YgpY_07nm97c9LSlYYMS-0DezNzP4Y_AfgjqGWenHhM_lGGss

Of course as well as the allegations of wife-beating and being a really shit father and husband, rancid old Stanley is also accused of being a groper.

As if he wasn’t skin-crawling enough.

lenaperkins where FB let herself down is on agreeing to deliver that message. As an ambassador of Refuge and as an adult with autonomy she was more than well equipped to challenge the inclusion of the final sentence. "The right to reply" isn't something decided by a team, it's a legal right and that hasnt been enacted here. The contextualisation was in part to remove the likelihood of SJ exercising that right and avoid defamation claims. The content of the statement is something that the BBC production& legal team and FB are all accountable for - its not uncommon for broadcasters to seek clarification or suggest edits to statements.

That the BBC and SJ seem to escape the same level of scrutiny is depressing but this is a case where more than one team or person is at fault.

Just a personal view so please don’t flame me!

Am so conflicted about this. Her words really upset me (if you’ve experienced DA it’s never a one off, and I think the majority of abusers are quite skilled in inflicting pain and fear without leaving a mark - think throttling, maximum fear, ‘I can’t breathe properly’, but minimum marks. ‘Allegedly’ Stanley broke her nose (I don’t want to get sued!) so who knows what other abuse this woman could be enduring.

As an ambassador for Refuge FB would have (or should have) understood the pattern of domestic abuse. That marks only happen when the abuser can’t even be arsed to disguise it or hide it any more.

As the chair of Question Time she would have known that this question may come up (it was topical) and should have researched more into what exactly Charlotte said to Tom Bower. She said it happened many times and that Boris witnessed it. First time ever I’ve felt sympathy for Boris Johnson.

I do think that, as a journo, she immediately tried to seek a balance (Stanley has never been on trial for DA) but Question Time is not actually quite live and they could have made her response a lot less clumsy.

Completely agree with Anna Wharton.

You do realise that she was quoting what his friends said and not giving her own personal opinion on how bad his wife had it? She wasn’t excusing him or trying to suggest that what he did was ok because it only happened once. What’s disgusting is that he did it and his friends have attempted to minimise it.

And, to be perfectly honest, how many people would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if she’d just said that he’d never made any comment on the allegations? How many more people now totally accept his former wife’s claims simply because if even his friends aren’t denying it, then he must have been violent on at least one occasion. And we all know dv is never just a one off. By adding that last sentence she’s shown exactly what sort of people he and his friends are.

This.

I think she’s wholly in the wrong and should be ashamed. Not as she read out legal context, but that she said “but it was a one off”

she doesn’t know that. It’s mitigating it. And downplaying it. She wasn’t asked to say it was a one-off.

so yes, she should fucking go.

You do realise that she was quoting what his friends said and not giving her own personal opinion on how bad his wife had it? She wasn’t excusing him or trying to suggest that what he did was ok because it only happened once.

You do not talk of 'one off' in a statement about DV. Why didn't she quote his wife then? As opposed to 'friends'.

Exactly this. I’m not a fan of Fiona Bruce but it is obvious that the lines were fed to her by producers, there’s no way she would randomly have such precise quotes to hand. Why is she being penalised and the producer (whose words she is speaking) is getting off Scot free, and the man who was the perpetrator (Stanley Johnson), is not only getting off Scot free, but also being considered for a knighthood?

Because like it or not, she is the face of QT.

As we can see from the Lineker debacle. The BBC considered him speaking out of turn because he is the face of MOTD. (despite him not saying anything on air and expressing an opinion on his personal twitter)

But it wasn't a one off . And as an ambassador for refuge I'd expect her not to parrot the abuser's defence.

She wasn’t trying to be impartial or balanced, and she wasn’t a bit clumsy.

She was literally saying what she legally had to say. They weren’t her words. It’s called a right of reply.

There is no intent to be ascribed to it.

The consequent social media storm is ridiculous. Absolutely stupid that she’s been made to stand down.

She handled it badly.

She could have balanced it up in a better way. If she’d said he’d never been convicted, friends of his said it happened once, his wife said it happened multiple times, then she’d have given all sides an airing.

She didn’t. She came across as minimising because she handled it badly.

I agree with this^. Everything before the word “friends” was ok.

Agree and this incident really highlights it.
Its time for a new genuinely impartial journalist to chair QT.

Yes because hosting a political programme and a sports programme demand the same level of impartiality.

She shouldn't be involved with DV charities if she defends DV. It's disgusting to minimise it when so many women will experience it in their life.

Sorry accidentally posted too early. I agree with the following post of @EggyBreads
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.

the last sentence quoting friends was absolutely unnecessary. It was not a fact. Fiona overdid her contribution and her words clearly came across as minimising of the incident like one-off was ok and not too bad.
And I don’t like her apology, I don’t think she genuinely has got what happened and somehow I’m not surprised, it’s just this vibe from her.
I hasn’t commented anything about Stanley Johnson because the question was about Fiona Bruce. My opinion about him is lower than the lowest.

And how many people will now think it’s all an overreaction because it was just once.
She’s a journalist. She was an ambassador for a domestic abuse charity. She absolutelyknew what she was saying and the message it sends. Upset my arse. She fucking knew she was a mouthpiece for the minimisation of domestic violence, so let’s not pretend that she was shocked that people were upset. If she actually knew or cared anything about the survivors of domestic violence she would absolutely have known how that comment came across.

Honestly I can’t believe the number of posters here who are bending over backwards to defend a dv apologist.

It’s interesting though because I had a similar thread but from the other side, and while the same FB defenders were out in force on the thread, the vote told a vastly different tale, and only 13% thought I was unreasonable to think she was in the wrong.

Would be interesting to see the vote from the other perspective, but I suspect OP deliberately didn’t enable voting for that reason.