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.

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.

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.

People can think both. I'm not sure anyone has suggested otherwise?

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.

The argument is that she was told what to say by BBC producers. Accepting that premise, it is one thing to be fed a line, quite another to use it; she had the choice to take a principled stand and refuse to parrot words that she, because of her work with Refuge, must have known were inappropriate. She needed only to have used the word “alleged” and omit the line about the assault being a “one off”; surely not beyond the capabilities of an experienced broadcaster. If her job is likely to ‘force’ her to minimise the actions of an abuser then that, in my view, makes her unsuitable for the role of patron of a domestic abuse charity.

It does also beg the question about what else she is ‘forced’ to say by the programme’s producers and whether they are impartial in their approach to feeding her lines.

FB referred to one incident whereas Charlotte talked about physical and emotional abuse through her marriage.

Doodledog

Why can't people think that SJ is a lowlife toad and also that FB said the wrong thing on QT? Why is disagreeing with FB being equated with support for SJ? Don't shout at me if I'm being stupid - I just don't understand it.

People can think both. I'm not sure anyone has suggested otherwise?

I personally think that FB did not say the wrong thing as such, I think it has been misinterpreted and I do not think she deserves the villification she has received on social media.

From an I-news article:

What did Fiona Bruce say about Stanley Johnson?

On Thursday’s Question Time, author and i columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said Stanley Johnson’s alleged history of violence was “on record” and called him a “wife beater”. Ms Bruce interrupted, telling Ms Alibhai-Brown and the audience: “I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist, Tom Bower, and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and that she’d ended up in hospital as a result.“Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off

That was a legalised statement she was required to make to ensure the correct context to the discussion. It was not her own opinion. She has made clear that her required comments have been "mischaracterised"!

At the same time my opinion of SJ rather matches your description Dooodledog

Why can't people think that SJ is a lowlife toad and also that FB said the wrong thing on QT? Why is disagreeing with FB being equated with support for SJ? Don't shout at me if I'm being stupid - I just don't understand it.

NotSpaghetti

Madgran - given there is no dispute that he broke her nose Stanley's response re elbow (as you put it) doesn't negate having done it.

Maybe she should have said "he maintained it was accidental" if you follow that line of reasoning.

I didn't say it negated it! Ofcourse it doesn't! FB was not suggesting it negated it either!

Allsorts

I can’t see for the life of me what she did wrong. Rather have Fiona on side than Stan, I find him very objectionable.

This isn't the option though is it?
We are not asked to "take sides" here.

Madgran - given there is no dispute that he broke her nose Stanley's response re elbow (as you put it) doesn't negate having done it.

Maybe she should have said "he maintained it was accidental" if you follow that line of reasoning.

Grantanow

FB did not express her own opinion. She quoted what had been said about SJ to set the discussion in context. The attacks on her are a totally unnecessary hue and cry by virtue signallers.

Yes exactly!

I dont always agree with JB but she is extraordinarily experienced in the field of domestic abuse, and in putting women in the centre of discussion. Look I dont want people saying things like just the once, it is minimising, but I am not sure that what has happened has made anything better for women who are victims of domestic abuse.

FB did not express her own opinion. She quoted what had been said about SJ to set the discussion in context. The attacks on her are a totally unnecessary hue and cry by virtue signallers.

Any man that uses his fists is the one in the wrong. There are a few women that do, the men don’t fight back, not because they are cowards but because they have more strength than most women, could inflict more damage and were bought up to know it is something you never do.

I can’t see for the life of me what she did wrong. Rather have Fiona on side than Stan, I find him very objectionable.

Mad gran is correct and Julie Bindel is always wise. So many people jumping to conclusions without reading around or listening properly- so concerning

I agree with everything you say re SJ. Not so much re FB in the context of this particular incident specifically, but so be it.

I agree that SJ should face consequences of his actions, and have said so. What I don't agree with is that by criticising FB people are excusing him - I just can't see the logic in that at all. And more than one person has said that FB would be in breach of her contract if she hadn't said what she did. I don't agree with that either - as your post shows, mention of the DV could have been cut, and anyway, nobody knows what is in FB's contract. As licence payers, people on social media arguably have a vested interest in the partiality or otherwise of TV presenters - after all, this is what the Gary Lineker hoo haa was all about. We have no control over what the father of an ex PM has done in his private life though. If we did, I'm sure that many people would be shouting about it.

As I see it, two wrongs don't make a right. SJ was very definitely in the wrong for all sorts of things. He went abroad to his holiday home during Covid when the rules were against it. He refused to abide by other rules, too. His treatment of his wife was dreadful, and from what his children have said he was awful to them, too. I would have no issue with his being banned from any media coverage ever again.

None of that make FB's comments acceptable, and given her previous biased remarks on QT, I think she should resign and stick to uncontroversial programmes which she is much better at presenting. Whether she should step back from Refuge is a matter for them. They will know the damage (or otherwise) caused by her remarks and should have the final say.

Doodledog I haven't seen the specifics of the contracts I'm afraid.

But I am not sure the specifics of the contracts are specifically relevant in the case of FB and her statement on QT. She has been very clear about her reasons for her comments, that she was not expressing a personal opinion. As chair, she was ensuring that the discussion on QT was within the context of what is in the public domain on the subject under discussion ie Stanley Johnson hitting his wife.

Below I have copied an extract from a Julie Bindel article in the Spectator ...interesting ...

"I (Julie Bindel) am genuinely impartial when it comes to Bruce and have no cause to defend her. But I do have skin in the game when it comes to violence against women. That’s why I think it is wrong that she has now had to stand down as an ambassador for the domestic abuse charity Refuge, after responding to allegations made about Stanley Johnson on Question Time. When I heard the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on Question Time raise the issue of Stanley Johnson being a ‘wife beater’ I was pleasantly surprised that it had made the cut at all (QT is pre-recorded). Fiona Bruce’s subsequent caveat that the assault was, according to Johnson’s friends, ‘a one off’ was likely pre-scripted (Bruce also said that she was ‘not disputing’ what Alibhai-Brown had stated). After all, Alibhai-Brown’s comments are a mere ‘allegation’ having not been tried and tested in a court of law – like most cases of domestic abuse, unfortunately – and could be subject to a complaint of defamation. Many media outlets would have edited Alibhai-Brown’s comments out entirely. Soon though the keyboard warriors swooped on Bruce, to say that she shouldn’t have ‘defended’ Stanley Johnson, especially because she is the ambassador of the domestic abuse charity Refuge. The fact that Bruce had been in that role for a quarter of a century – and clearly cares for domestic abuse victims – didn’t seem to register with her critics. This not to say that Stanley Johnson’s friend’s defence stands up. I am never happy with the phase ‘one off’ when it comes to domestic violence because it never is. In my 40-odd years of campaigning to end it, I have yet to hear of an isolated incident of domestic abuse. It is more often a pattern of behaviour. Stanley Johnson, not Bruce, is the villain here, along with the entire criminal justice system. Who is the one person who has faced consequences for a man breaking a woman’s nose? Bruce. The stray bullet has hit her square in the head, whilst Ken Clarke, who presented Stanley Johnson as a good chap worthy of a knighthood, remains squeaky clean.

There is a lot of sense is those comments!

Madgran77

25Avalon

Precisely because she was being professional she did not voice her own opinion. This would have been wrong and in breach of her contract with the BBC.

Exactly!

Where are people getting hold of the contracts signed by BBC employees, please? It would be much easier to know the nuances of what I think if I could see them too, so a link would be great. Is FB's contract different from GL's for instance, as he is a freelance sports presenter and she heads a political debate programme?

Smileless2012

Well said Madgran.

Thankyou Smileless !!

Well said Madgran.

MayBee70

But QT isn’t totally scripted so she must use her initiative most of the time. And, if she was told to elaborate on the Stanley Johnson nose breaking accusation she would have been able to say the it trivialised the matter. And, if she wasn’t told to say it and did it off her own initiative that’s even worse.

It's not about elaborating. It's about a "legalised context" and the facts as they stand ...as in the accusation by his ex wife, the comments reported by friends and Stanley's response re elbow. None of this is her opinion. It is ensuring that the conversation on QT is within the context of what is in the public domain. None of that is to do with her own opinion. Nor is it trivialising DV as her own opinion ..although I'd say his friends certainly were with their reported "just the once" comments. NOT Fiona Bruce's "just the once" comment which she has never made as her own opinion!!

25Avalon

Precisely because she was being professional she did not voice her own opinion. This would have been wrong and in breach of her contract with the BBC.

Exactly!