Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

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

110 replies

Peterbear · 13/03/2023 18:10

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?

OP posts:

Rosula · 14/03/2023 09:38

Nagado · 13/03/2023 18:22

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.

If she wanted to give a balanced comment, she should have said that his wife said he hit her several times.

Rosula · 14/03/2023 09:46

Houseplantjungle · 13/03/2023 19:23

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.

The problem is that she was somewhat selective in who she chose to quote. And, quoting or not, the use of the words "one-off" will always come across as dismissive. If someone says, for instance, "Yes, I broke the speed limit, but it was a one-off", the intention obviously is to minimise what they have done. The same applies to the words used about what Stanley Johnson did.

Untitledsquatboulder · 14/03/2023 09:49

lenaperkins · 13/03/2023 19:58

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

Bullshit. Stanley Johnson isn't going to sue anyone for saying he hit his wife because he did.

MayThe4th · 14/03/2023 10:10

And then there is what that “just once” shows her as. I now sincerely doubt that she was ever such a supporter of dv survivors as she claimed to be. She’s only ever made one comment to defend and minimise domestic violence, how many more times has she thought what she was prepared to say this one time.

If she was genuinely a supporter of DV survivors there is no way she would have made that comment. She is a senior journalist. She knows the score. She knows what that comment would have looked like, and there absolutely are ways she could have got round having to make it.

Plenty of people would have defended her right not to minimise domestic violence. The bbc was already under the microscope over the GL comments, refusing to quote one sentence wouldn’t even have figured.

Blossomtoes · 14/03/2023 10:38

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

Same. No wonder men keep getting away with this shit.

Dumpruntime · 14/03/2023 12:23

Contextualising it is fine, but it’s the one off comment that’s the issue. If she had said “and I’ve to point out Stanley claims it was a one off but his wife is not here to confirm “ fine. But the dismissive “and it was a one off” even the way she said it, was really minimising horrendous abuse, the man hospitalised his wife by punching her in the face and breaking her nose .

the only one off Bruce knew was he didn’t break it twice. She’s no idea if he was habitually abusing her. And no lawyer would have asked her to make that claim.

she overstepped her role to minimise violence to women

lenaperkins · 15/03/2023 12:49

Bullshit. Stanley Johnson isn't going to sue anyone for saying he hit his wife because he did.

You may well be right. But legally he COULD have. Some editors take risks. The famous precedent for this is The Mail's front-page about Stephen Lawrence. They took a risk. It was calculated. But as presenter that wasn't in that position of power.

Honestly, the ignorance of the law here is just gobsmacking.

I get Fiona Bruce is unpopular because she is assumed to be partisan.

But the punishment meted out for her for doing her job is so much worse than all the domestic abusers out there.

Roussette · 15/03/2023 12:53

But the punishment meted out for her for doing her job is so much worse than all the domestic abusers out there

She wasn't sacked? She just distanced herself from Refuge. Nothing else. She still does QT, BBC News and Antiques Roadshow.

LolaSmiles · 15/03/2023 13:49

But the punishment meted out for her for doing her job is so much worse than all the domestic abusers out there.
She's stepped down from a role at a domestic violence charity after publicly minimising domestic abuse.

Minimising domestic abuse isn't her job.

Excusing abusers isn't her job.

She could have said "SJ has declined to comment on his wife/ex wife's statement" or "SJ has been offered the right to reply and said..."
But she didn't. She chose to minimise it.

Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abusers are low, and it's no wonder when we've got public figures excusing it because what's one broken nose, it's a one off.

DashboardConfessional · 15/03/2023 19:53

The rest of the paragraph from the article I linked - which is the source of the "friends" quote - says:

"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’."

No sign of that as "right to reply".

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread