Fiona Bruce ‘to step back’ from her role at Refuge

Smileless2012

I don't agree that she minimalised this grannyactivist. She didn't say 'only broke her nose', she simply presented the facts which are SJ's wife told a reporter what had happened, that she was hospitalised as a result, SJ has not commented publicly and friends of his have said it happened but was a one off.

It's SJ's friends who minimalised this, not FB.

I agree Smileless.

But it is implicit in the idea that 'nobody is complaining about SJ because he is a man, but they are willing to complain about FB (burn the witch) because she is a woman'. I don't see the two things as related other than that one led to the other

Yes I see what you mean Doodledog. I have read the comments re SJ as commentary on the wider context of differing approaches to men and women when situations arise. I'm not sure if this IS an example of that although there is some irony in our society systems potentially giving a knighthood to SJ whilst villifying FB for this issue. As you say though, judgement on the two incidents or the behaviour of the two separate people are not specifically related.

I think they are because I think it's part of the misogyny which contributes in it's own way to domestic violence against women. Yes you can of course say both are wrong but the point is that not many people are doing that. There hasnt actually been that much publicity around Stanley Johnsons violence certainly not compared to the flurry of publicity with regard to FB s words. Many people who couldnt care less about domestic violence are lining up to slate FB.
I have worked with many families that have experienced domestic violence and have always been really clear on my position, but there is something about all this that makes me uncomfortable.

It's really unfortunate that Fiona Bruce has resigned from the charity , which she has served for such a long time .

Anyone who has suffered domestic abuse knows that it's never a one off attack and usually suffers a constant onslaught of
mental and verbal abuse undermining their self belief and leaving them with post traumatic stress disorder .

An estimated one on four women in the UK has endured domestic abuse .

Stanley Johnson doesn't deserve a knighthood and should be prosecuted for the abuse which he inflicted on his poor wife .

Stanley Johnson and a lot of other men !

But come on Fiona -just apologise profusely and continue with this essential work .

Let's forgive her .

I know that Camilla feels strongly about the subject - does she support any charities against domestic abuse ?

Iam64

A number of us have made similar comments grannyactivist but it seems we are still expected to accept the FB had no choice in her comments. Her role at Refuge should have, as you say, ensured she ‘should have used the word alleged and omitted the line about the assault being a one off’ . Anyone with a passing knowledge of domestic abuse would know it’s reality.

I think THIS is the point.
Thanks for saying it (again!) Iam

Galaxy I think they are because I think it's part of the misogyny which contributes in it's own way to domestic violence against women.

I agree Galaxy and you have expressed better what I meant above about the wider context of differing approaches to men and women (in society)

For me, whether or not FB had a choice about making the comment is neither here nor there as I see nothing wrong in what she said and I think it's a great shame that she felt the need to resign from the charity she served so well and for so long.

Smileless2012

For me, whether or not FB had a choice about making the comment is neither here nor there as I see nothing wrong in what she said and I think it's a great shame that she felt the need to resign from the charity she served so well and for so long.

I agree Smileless. She was not expressing an opinion of her own she was ensuring correct context to a discussion. Possibly she could have changed the wording slightly but I honestly can't believe the villification she has endured on social media etc because of her specific words that were NOT her own opinion. Resigning from the charity also links to the social media furore and the mischaracterisation of her words as that was distracting from the key message of the charity. How can one statement that was not an expression of her own opinion, nullify 20 years of working with and supporting a Domestic Violence Charity?

Galaxy

I think they are because I think it's part of the misogyny which contributes in it's own way to domestic violence against women. Yes you can of course say both are wrong but the point is that not many people are doing that. There hasnt actually been that much publicity around Stanley Johnsons violence certainly not compared to the flurry of publicity with regard to FB s words. Many people who couldnt care less about domestic violence are lining up to slate FB.
I have worked with many families that have experienced domestic violence and have always been really clear on my position, but there is something about all this that makes me uncomfortable.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. To me, it is whataboutery being used to silence women who speak up about DV being minimised.

Galaxy, Who are these people who couldn’t care less about domestic violence who are lining up to slate FB?

I’m not ‘slating’ FB. It bothers me that Stanley Johnson continues in public life, seemingly unchallenged by say the Mail, Sun or telegraph. It’s no surprise though is it.
Johnson was an emotionally and physically abusive husband. There are a lot of them about

It’s because I care so much about domestic abuse that I have continued to comment on this thread. My opinion is informed by forty plus years of working in the field of domestic abuse, both paid and voluntary work. I (and I assume Fiona Bruce has too) have first hand knowledge, experience and training of how language is used to minimise the experience of abused women. Iam also has professional experience of working in this field, so it’s no coincidence that she and I share the same understanding about the language Fiona Bruce used.

I’ll say it again. Fiona Bruce had only to say that SJ was alleged to have broken his wife’s nose and need not have said one more word in order to have fulfilled any legal obligation for the BBC. She did not need to repeat the excuse given by SJ’s friends that the assault was a ‘one off’. To do so was unnecessary, but she made the decision to say it anyway.

She offered her resignation almost immediately and I applaud her for it. She knew that what she had said was inappropriate. The charity, Refuge, accepted her resignation; again, that was in acknowledgement that what she had said was inappropriate. Charities do not lightly give up sponsors and ambassadors, they didn’t in any way ‘throw her to the wolves’, they simply had to accept that her words caused harm to the discourse on domestic abuse and act accordingly; their first duty is to their client base, many of whom were deeply upset.

Very unfair that Fiona Bruce is now being cast as the villain of the piece when it is in fact Stanley Johnson. She was obliged to say what she did as otherwise the BBC could be accused of libel or slander or whatever it is by Stanley Johnson. I think she does a good job of chairing Question Time and personally have never noticed her being biased against any particular political party. She is an intelligent woman and having supported Refuge for so many years is well aware of the fact that there is no such thing as “only once”.It is refreshing to see her chairing Question Time as this has always been a male role and David Dimbleby was a hard act to follow and after the Gary Linekar fiasco it was good to see her calmly back in the chair on Thursday.

I wasnt talking about on here Iam64, I was talking about in society as a whole. The issue has been on every social media site, on every current events show etc, Johnsons domestic abuse has never received this level of scrutiny.

I listened to Tom Bower’s book again yesterday.

Charlotte is quoted as saying that Stanley ‘hit (her) all of the time’, and that ‘he hit me, and hit me

Stanley also made Charlotte go to live with his parents (totally against her will) when he went to work in France, where he was serially unfaithful to her.

He also conducted an affair with one of the nannies (the ones who had to work naked).

Charlotte had a nervous breakdown as a direct result of Stanley’s abuse and she was hospitalised for eight months, taking her away from her young children.

It’s a wholly grubby business, to say the least

grannyactivist I'm another with experience working with domestic abuse survivors - not as long as you but I wholeheartedly agree. Well said.

And no, we are not ignoring the terrible treatment by Stanley Johnson - even if the media are.

As I have said working with domestic violence has been part of my work for 40 years, still is, no one is not showing an understanding of the language. I know what it means.
Yes Fanny it was a catastrophic family situation, if Johnson had been any other class for example there would without doubt have been professional involvement for the children. Perhaps it was a little to do with the time that the situation wasnt 'picked up' but mostly I would say class.

There was quite a bit about Stanley Johnson in the media in 2020. I remember this article re the Tom Bower book:

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/13/boris-johnson-the-gambler-by-tom-bower-review-the-defining-secret

Thanks for the link NotSpaghetti. I read it at the time but it’s well worth reminding ourselves about the extent of Stanley Johnson’s abuse of his wife and her subsequent hospitalisation after a breakdown. Imagine those naked nannies responsible for the children.
Children under 3 are said to have difficulty separating an attack on their mother from one on themselves. These children grew up in an abusive household.

Oh absolutely, it is fairly clear that Boris Johnsons character is a result of his early experiences, which is quite a difficult thing to get your head around.

It is quite amazing though, as people have said, that Stanley Johnson’s abuse is not more widely discussed in the media. I expect the discussion is all "behind the scenes".
It's all there in plain sight - and documented and witnessed should people choose to discuss it.

I don’t think it’s amazing considering our mainly right wing press.

The media can’t discuss it for the very reason that Fiona Bruce had to make the statement which this thread is all about.

I'm obviously not being clear.

I think we ought to be discussing it (as others have said) in the light of the proposed knighthood. I understand we have a right-wing press Farzanah but he has never denied the nose incident Germanshepherdsmum and think more should be out there.

Channel 4 is not a particularly right wing broadcaster, they employed him on gogglebox quite happily.

I think Yasmin A-B's comment might have seen off his chances of a knighthood, tbh. And more so given the furore over FB. It would be making a bit of a statement to employ him now.

He must be getting on a bit though, so maybe he's not bothered if he's not asked to rough it in the jungle or flirt with young women on the telly - he'll have padded out his pension nicely as it is.