Fiona Bruce (4 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

So the charity she's stepped down from also acknowledges the words she said were words she was legally obliged to read out.

Fiona Bruce to step down as Refuge ambassador over Stanley Johnson comments

Question Time presenter faces claims she made light of domestic violence on last Thursday’s show

www.theguardian.com

It seems very wrong if she then can't be an advocate, having been put in that position, although maybe they should have got someone else to present that week, then?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

So the charity she's stepped down from also acknowledges the words she said were words she was legally obliged to read out.

Fiona Bruce to step down as Refuge ambassador over Stanley Johnson comments

Question Time presenter faces claims she made light of domestic violence on last Thursday’s show

www.theguardian.com

It seems very wrong if she then can't be an advocate, having been put in that position, although maybe they should have got someone else to present that week, then?

Ahh. That famous BBC impartiality again. Can’t state Stanley Johnson is a wife beater without someone else having to read out a pre-prepared statement saying one of his friends said it was only once.

 

[vow]

Ahh. That famous BBC impartiality again. Can’t state Stanley Johnson is a wife beater without someone else having to read out a pre-prepared statement saying one of his friends said it was only once.

Being clever, perhaps Fiona could have mentioned he likes a can of Stella now and then!?

 

[clint van damme]

Ahh. That famous BBC impartiality again. Can’t state Stanley Johnson is a wife beater without someone else having to read out a pre-prepared statement saying one of his friends said it was only once.

Think she was legally bound to say something in his absence but what she said went further than these types of statements usually do.
The statement from Refuge was quite damning of her I thought.

 

[David O'Day]

Think she was legally bound to say something in his absence but what she said went further than these types of statements usually do.
The statement from Refuge was quite damning of her I thought.

it was the one off bit that was the issue

she could just said johnson has never commented on this but friends of his say it happened

it does notmatter how many times it may or may not have happened

 

[CCFCSteve]

Think she was legally bound to say something in his absence but what she said went further than these types of statements usually do.
The statement from Refuge was quite damning of her I thought.

I’d imagine they’ve had to put out that statement due to people contacting them. Probably many of whom hadn’t watched QT but seen on Twitter that Bruce was condoning/downplaying domestic violence…which she wasn’t. If they hadn’t Twitter would’ve probably have turned on the charity as well ! Their original comments were in the article I attached I posted Saturday

Fiona Bruce ‘appalled and sorry’ after backlash over Stanley Johnson discussion

The presenter faced a social media backlash after intervening when father of former prime minister Boris Johnson was described as a ‘wife-beater’

www.independent.co.uk

It’s a sad state of affairs that someone who had represented a charity for 25 years has been forced to step down .
Twitters got its way though, probably to the detriment of the actual charity itself

 

[clint van damme]

I’d imagine they’ve had to put out that statement due to people contacting them. Probably many of whom hadn’t watched QT but seen on Twitter that Bruce was condoning/downplaying domestic violence…which she wasn’t. If they hadn’t Twitter would’ve probably have turned on the charity as well ! Their original comments were in the article I attached I posted Saturday

Fiona Bruce ‘appalled and sorry’ after backlash over Stanley Johnson discussion

The presenter faced a social media backlash after intervening when father of former prime minister Boris Johnson was described as a ‘wife-beater’

www.independent.co.uk

It’s a sad state of affairs that someone who had represented a charity for 25 years has been forced to step down .
Twitters got its way though, probably to the detriment of the actual charity itself

You'd think someone who'd represented a domestic violence charity for 25 years would have known how bad that statement sounded.

I don't knowvif it was preprepared or spontaneous, if its the latter then it was very unfortunate for her.

 

[David O'Day]

I’d imagine they’ve had to put out that statement due to people contacting them. Probably many of whom hadn’t watched QT but seen on Twitter that Bruce was condoning/downplaying domestic violence…which she wasn’t. If they hadn’t Twitter would’ve probably have turned on the charity as well ! Their original comments were in the article I attached I posted Saturday

Fiona Bruce ‘appalled and sorry’ after backlash over Stanley Johnson discussion

The presenter faced a social media backlash after intervening when father of former prime minister Boris Johnson was described as a ‘wife-beater’

www.independent.co.uk

It’s a sad state of affairs that someone who had represented a charity for 25 years has been forced to step down .
Twitters got its way though, probably to the detriment of the actual charity itself

lot's of people who were unhappy actually work with the victims of dv

what would they know

 

[Deleted member 9744]

I’d imagine they’ve had to put out that statement due to people contacting them. Probably many of whom hadn’t watched QT but seen on Twitter that Bruce was condoning/downplaying domestic violence…which she wasn’t. If they hadn’t Twitter would’ve probably have turned on the charity as well ! Their original comments were in the article I attached I posted Saturday

Fiona Bruce ‘appalled and sorry’ after backlash over Stanley Johnson discussion

The presenter faced a social media backlash after intervening when father of former prime minister Boris Johnson was described as a ‘wife-beater’

www.independent.co.uk

It’s a sad state of affairs that someone who had represented a charity for 25 years has been forced to step down .
Twitters got its way though, probably to the detriment of the actual charity itself

I can't see how she could represent a domestic violence charity after what she said. She would carry no credibility. She might have had to say something but not what she said, which the charity has rightly found to be unacceptable.

I don't like her excuses either. She should have just admitted she got it wrong, apologised and then resigned. That the line that it was only once was inappropriate in relation to domestic violence. Once is too much and as the charity has said virtually all perpetrators do not just do it once.

 

[CCFCSteve]

lot's of people who were unhappy actually work with the victims of dv

what would they know

My point was were they unhappy at her for what happened or what Twitter said happened.

Anyway, it’s done, she’s gone

 

[Deleted member 5849]

My point was were they unhappy with what happened or what Twitter said happened.

Anyway, it’s done, she’s gone

They did acknowledge she was legally obliged to clarify.

 

[clint van damme]

My point was were they unhappy with what happened or what Twitter said happened.

Anyway, it’s done, she’s gone

To be fair I saw someone tweet straight after that she worked with victims of domestic violence nd she could take Bruce to visit the graves of women who'd only been attacked once, which was quite sobering.

 

[skybluetony176]

The thing that gets me is the imbalance. Firstly, I’m not sure what Stanley Johnson’s friends opinion has to do with anything at all. Secondly, once was once too many. Thirdly his wife said the beatings were repeatedly over a long period of time. Fourthly, then there’s the repeated allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

The point I’m making is given everything much more could have been said so I’m not sure why the BBC felt there needed to be a counter statement for balance. Then there’s the small issue that, as we’ve discovered over the last few days, guests on QT aren’t covered by the BBC impartiality rules. Which is right, otherwise the format wouldn’t work.

So the obvious question is do they have statements prepared for every potential question from the audience and every possible answer from the panel? Or was this a one off?

 

[clint van damme]

The thing that gets me is the imbalance. Firstly, I’m not sure what Stanley Johnson’s friends opinion has to do with anything at all. Secondly, once was once too many. Thirdly his wife said the beatings were repeatedly over a long period of time. Fourthly, then there’s the repeated allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

The point I’m making is given everything much more could have been said so I’m not sure why the BBC felt there needed to be a counter statement for balance. Then there’s the small issue that, as we’ve discovered over the last few days, guests on QT are covered by the BBC impartiality rules. Which is right, otherwise the format wouldn’t work.

So the obvious question is do they have statements prepared for every potential question from the audience and every possible answer from the panel? Or was this a one off?

I think legally there has to be a counter comment but it's normally very curt, he's not here to counter that allegation etc.
What Bruce saidwass quite lengthy compared to normal, that's what I find strange

 

[David O'Day]

My point was were they unhappy at her for what happened or what Twitter said happened.

Anyway, it’s done, she’s gone

For what happened as people can read.

The issue as many people have told you and the statement indicates is the "It was just once" part which was not needed legally.

Her reaction to the issue was the problem, acknowledge the bad wording and the fact that how many times a man breaks his wifes nose is not really the point just the fact he did it.

 

[David O'Day]

I think legally there has to be a counter comment but it's normally very curt, he's not here to counter that allegation etc.
What Bruce saidwass quite lengthy compared to normal, that's what I find strange

it was basically a defence rather than a legal clarification

 

[David O'Day]

Also the "One off" part was wrong as it only gives his side. His wife claimed it happened many times.

 

[CCFCSteve]

To be fair I saw someone tweet straight after that she worked with victims of domestic violence nd she could take Bruce to visit the graves of women who'd only been attacked once, which was quite sobering.

But that’s my point Clint, she’s taken it as Bruce said those words. Did she know Bruce was an ambassador for Refuge for 25 years and campaigned against domestic violence, I doubt it

It’s like if a person tweeted that Linekar should visit a concentration camp for comparing government migrant policy to the Nazis. Which would be wrong because he didn’t, he said the language ! Having said that he is probably more likely to think that l government policy is like the Nazis than Bruce is to condone domestic violence. One of them actually apologised and clarified their comments immediately. One didn’t. Twitters gone into a meltdown supporting one and tried get the other sacked.

Worlds gone mad. But it depends on which side of the fence you sit I guess, hence the Liddle article yesterday.

 

[David O'Day]

But that’s my point Clint, she’s taken it as Bruce said those words. Did she know Bruce was an ambassador for Refuge for 25 years and campaigned against domestic violence, I doubt it

It’s like if a person tweeted that Linekar should visit a concentration camp for comparing government migrant policy to the Nazis. Which would be wrong because he didn’t, he said the language ! Having said that he is probably more likely to think that l government policy is like the Nazis than Bruce is to condone domestic violence. One of them actually apologised and clarified their comments immediately. One didn’t. Twitters gone into a meltdown supporting one and tried get the other sacked.

Worlds gone mad. But it depends on which side of the fence you sit I guess, hence the Liddle article yesterday.

She did say those words

They were not legally needed so there was not need to say them.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Also the "One off" part was wrong as it only gives his side. His wife claimed it happened many times.

Read the independent article. Also the one off was her commenting friends of Johnson’s, not her own. She was responding to someone calling him a wife beater, suggesting it’s regular - which it sounds like it was - but he’s not there to suggest otherwise so she had to provide that balance which she did by quoting friends of Johnson. It was a clumsy attempt to do a presenters job but remember it’s also recorded live

I’ll end it there otherwise before you know it it will be ‘Steve condones domestic violence’

 

[clint van damme]

But that’s my point Clint, she’s taken it as Bruce said those words. Did she know Bruce was an ambassador for Refuge for 25 years and campaigned against domestic violence, I doubt it

It’s like if a person tweeted that Linekar should visit a concentration camp for comparing government migrant policy to the Nazis. Which would be wrong because he didn’t, he said the language ! Having said that he is probably more likely to think that l government policy is like the Nazis than Bruce is to condone domestic violence. One of them actually apologised and clarified their comments immediately. One didn’t. Twitters gone into a meltdown supporting one and tried get the other sacked.

Worlds gone mad. But it depends on which side of the fence you sit I guess, hence the Liddle article yesterday.

I don't think this is quite what Liddle was on about though.
Yes, a reaction on Twitter, but the comment was made of the BBCs flagship political show and went beyond what was needed, ( inexplicably so).

We'll probably never know whether Bruce offered to step down as the statement said or whether she was forced to but I do believe there's genuine remorse on her part which isn't always the case in these situations.

 

[SBT]

My point was were they unhappy at her for what happened or what Twitter said happened.

Anyway, it’s done, she’s gone

Her job as an ambassador for Refuge was to promote the charity’s causes. If her clumsy job of moderating a panel undermines her ability to do that in the eyes of enough people (on Twitter or anywhere else), then it doesn’t make sense for her to continue in the role.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Her job as an ambassador for Refuge was to promote the charity’s causes. If her clumsy job of moderating a panel undermines her ability to do that in the eyes of enough people (on Twitter or anywhere else), then it doesn’t make sense for her to continue in the role.

Fair, which goes back to why didn't they get a different presenter in if she was legally obliged to offer a counter like that?

 

[CCFCSteve]

I don't think this is quite what Liddle was on about though.

Liddle was talking about people in their own social media echo chambers all having the same views on the same subjects. I was just saying worlds gone mad but depends on which side of fence you sit, because if you’re in the Linekar was hard done by/Bruce should get sacked camp then you probably don’t think the worlds gone mad.

*you in general, not you personally

 

[clint van damme]

Liddle was talking about people in their own social media echo chambers all having the same views on the same subjects. I was just saying worlds gone mad but depends on which side of fence you sit, because if you’re in the Linekar was hard done by/Bruce should get sacked camp then you probably don’t think the worlds gone mad.

*you in general, not you personally

Well it's slightly different because what happened to Bruce is between her and refuge.
Linekers situation is with the BBC.
And I've said repeatedly, I have no issue with Lineker been stood down for what he said, my issue is that numerous others haven't.

Even going back to the Bruce debate, and I didn't see this so it's 2nd hand Info, but the day after Dorries was allowed to slate Sue Grey on the BBC and the presenter said nothing!

I do think there might be a tightening upon how consistently the rules are apllied after this which I think will be best for everyone.

 

[SBT]

Fair, which goes back to why didn't they get a different presenter in if she was legally obliged to offer a counter like that?

There was nothing stopping her from delivering that health warning from Stanley Johnson’s lawyers in a way that wouldn’t make it sound like a casual dismissal of the issue. It’s a serious issue and it required more concentration on her part than she afforded it - she’s paid a heavy price for it but that’s why it’s a tough gig.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The thing that gets me is the imbalance. Firstly, I’m not sure what Stanley Johnson’s friends opinion has to do with anything at all. Secondly, once was once too many. Thirdly his wife said the beatings were repeatedly over a long period of time. Fourthly, then there’s the repeated allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

The point I’m making is given everything much more could have been said so I’m not sure why the BBC felt there needed to be a counter statement for balance. Then there’s the small issue that, as we’ve discovered over the last few days, guests on QT aren’t covered by the BBC impartiality rules. Which is right, otherwise the format wouldn’t work.

So the obvious question is do they have statements prepared for every potential question from the audience and every possible answer from the panel? Or was this a one off?

Like father like son

 

[Macca1987]

And he wants to give him a peerage

 

[Nick]

Like with anything, there should be consistency so it's the same rules regardless of which side of politics it is.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

It appeared to me that Alibhai-Brown's original statement of him being a wife-beater (in response to Ken Clarke saying he was a thoroughly decent chap) was an impromptu remark, so the rebuttal was either communicated to Fiona Bruce "live" by the editorial team, or Stanley Johnson's friends' comments were known to her. If it was the latter, she is definitely at fault. If the FORMER, the Editor should come out and say "we told her live that she had to say that, so it is our fault not hers". I doubt that was the case, so SHE overstepped the mark in defending him, and deserves to pay the price.
YHB was an independent panellist and it should not, in my view, be the BBC's job (via Bruce or otherwise) to provide a rebuttal of what she said.
I think what should have been said was that Johnson was not there to defend himself or refute YHB's allegations.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So the charity she's stepped down from also acknowledges the words she said were words she was legally obliged to read out.

Fiona Bruce to step down as Refuge ambassador over Stanley Johnson comments

Question Time presenter faces claims she made light of domestic violence on last Thursday’s show

www.theguardian.com

It seems very wrong if she then can't be an advocate, having been put in that position, although maybe they should have got someone else to present that week, then?

Legally obliged to? Under what law?

 

[fernandopartridge]

You'd think someone who'd represented a domestic violence charity for 25 years would have known how bad that statement sounded.

I don't knowvif it was preprepared or spontaneous, if its the latter then it was very unfortunate for her.

In the same way that Johnson senior wasn't there to refute the claim, neither was any victim there to counter any claim about it being a one off

 

[skybluetony176]

Legally obliged to? Under what law?

Wife beaters are a minority so it must be some wokey lefty lawyer law that protects minorities.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Legally obliged to? Under what law?

The Johnson’s will sue anything law. Vile family.

 

[Nick]

What did she say?