Are we really going to slate a woman who for 25 years has campaigned for and supported the women's refuge, a refuge needed by women the likes of SJ wife!!
Maybe her tone wasn't perfect ... another of Johnson victims.
If it had been a one-off, I would say no. It was a stupid thing to say, but taken in context could be excused as thoughtless rather than representative of her feelings. But it's far from the first time FB has been less than impartial on QT. When Mick Lynch was a guest she literally spoke for the (Tory) treasury minister, saying 'I'll say this for you, Rachel, as you are being quiet as a mouse about inflation' or similar.
To have her chairing a discussion about impartiality of sports presenters is incongruous, particularly on the very programme where her own bias as a political presenter has come through.
I think that QT must be difficult to chair. There are too many panellists, and too many questions, so there is no real discussion any more. When Robin Day did it there was time for a much more considered debate and it felt as though the panellists were being called to account. With Dimbleby it became more entertainment than political debate, but it has continues in that vein. Now discussion has to be moved on far too quickly, and there is an obsession with 'balance', which simply means counting the number of appearances from representatives of all of the parties. But this is all the more reason to have a better presenter, not to keep making excuses. I think Emily Maitlis would be much better.