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

And - anyone with a passing nod to Refuge couldn’t have thought what FB said, much less said it

Although FB is stepping down she still intends to be a friend in the background to the charity. I think it is very unfortunate. She was compelled to say what she did, whether she believed it or not, to preserve the BBC’s so called impartiality and now has to pay the price.

GrammyGrammy

DaisyAnne

westendgirl

So she should. Her comment was inexcusable.

Why? What did she say?

She said nothing other than the report. She has been forced to cancel herself by the loonie lefties ( many of whom are on this thread)

So only 'loonie lefties' think violence against women is wrong?

FannyCornforth

But it doesn’t make sense

‘FannyCornforth murdered a person’

‘Friends of FC say that it was ‘a one off’’

Come on!

Just to clarify, as that post was a bit of a mess…

If I was to murder a person; my friends saying that it was a ‘one off’ wouldn’t make me any less of a murderer.

Question Time has been aired since 1979 and is one of the most boring mundane political comment programmes on the planet.
The latest controversy does at least remind us that the programme is on air but I wish it wasn’t. Not to trivialise wife beating however.

Boring is in the eyes ...

If discussing very important issues which affect us all is boring, then so be it. Thank goodness we are all different. Fiona should have never been appointed as she is so partial and it shows.

And no, wife beating should never be trivialised.

This so called bbc impartiality has become ridiculous.

FB did not need to use the language she used I.e. “ friends say”

All she needed to say was “allegedly” . Going further as she did not only sought to diminish the crime, but bordered on victim blaming.

A one off broken nose is never just that, it will include other psychological and physical abuse.

The wife’s testimony in the autobiography evidenced the sort of man Johnson is.

Blossoming

Normally I would roundly condemn anybody normalising or trivialising domestic abuse but I don’t think that’s what Fiona Bruce did. I think she was reading from something she’d been given, possibly by the BBC legal department, as there is no documented proof that the repulsive Stanley Johnson was a regular wife beater.

I do think that whoever wrote that statement to be read out could have worded it far better and pointed out that such violence is unacceptable.

In the meantime Fiona Bruce is vilified and nobody is condemning Stanley Johnson.

I understood that was what happened, although must admit that I didnt watch that episode.

Wasn't it reported that she was repeating what she had been told to do by the legal department, as they obviously knew which questions were coming up? The BBC would be worried about possible legal action.

I don't think she is a particularly good chair of QT but she is possibly a scapegoat for the BBC in this instance.
She could have refused to be their mouthpiece and worded it differently.

What will be the next BBC debacle? 🤔

Fleurpepper no boring isn’t in my eyes - it’s in my ears. I cannot stay awake long enough to listen.

This thread is a bit miserable. Why are people trying to minimise FB's minimising?

A nose was broken. I wasn't there but not only was there at least one witness but not even the perpetrator has denied it - so I believe it is more than likely correct.

I was shocked to hear what she said.
I'm not easily shocked. It was very clumsy at best.

Wasn't it reported that she was repeating what she had been told to do by the legal department, as they obviously knew which questions were coming up?

I never heard this?
Where was it reported please Callistemon21?

NotSpaghetti

This thread is a bit miserable. Why are people trying to minimise FB's minimising?

A nose was broken. I wasn't there but not only was there at least one witness but not even the perpetrator has denied it - so I believe it is more than likely correct.

I was shocked to hear what she said.
I'm not easily shocked. It was very clumsy at best.

I'm not minimising it.

I said my understanding was that she was reading the BBC line on this.
She should have refused to do that but now the BBC has scapegoated her to save themselves.

I haven't read that she was reading the BBC line on this. Callistemon21.

Wondering ehere you spotted this?

Sorry Callistemon21 I wasn't referring to you. It is a general feeling I have picked up on the thread and it surprised me.

She was obviously told to explain the background to the question. But why explain it in that way? Whose idea was it to say it was a one off? I’m going to watch it again with DH (who also didn’t watch it: we both gave up on QT years ago because it was making us so angry. I just get the feeling that Stanley Johnson and his family are part of a London centric social group and I bet Bruce and her husband are part of it. He’s always annoyed me. I’ve never before known a PM have a father whose opinion is asked about everything. Only recently, after that tv guy was badly injured after being knocked off his bike, he was on tv yet again this time saying he was still going to cycle without wearing fluorescent clothing etc.

blossoming~ Bojo's mother 's nose break is on hospital records although she did say she hadn't reported the other incidences of violence fron Stanley .Ahuge number of women dont report DV particularly all those years ago when some women still believed their husbands had the right to hit them or the right to sex

The BBC's statement earlier today reads: "Following comments about an exchange referencing domestic abuse on Question Time, the BBC says Domestic abuse is abhorrent, and we would never wish to suggest otherwise.

"When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing last night.

"She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation."

The possibility of this being stated by a panellist or audience member would have been discussed beforehand and FB would have been advised by the BBC legal team.

She could have refused to say that of course.

I just get the feeling that Stanley Johnson and his family are part of a London centric social group and I bet Bruce and her husband are part of it

That's a pretty serious allegation.

On a lighter note - I just googled ‘Fiona Bruce husband’

And amongst the ‘other people ask’ suggestions, was:

‘Is Fiona Bruce married to
Ken Bruce?’ 🤦‍♀️

….I think she should stand down from QT too - she’s not very good….

Totally agree with this. The number of times she interrupts and won’t let the panel members speak is awful. She needs to let them speak so we know what they want to say. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with what they’re saying, we actually need to hear what they’re saying.

And Antique Roadshow, while we’re at it.
I haven’t watched it since she took over. I’ve never understood her appeal.

Isn't Bruce's OH part of the publicity machine for the Tory party? So not keeping to the party line wont be an option for her,though I get the feeling she's dyed in the wool blue tory,but speaking against them might put her income at risk .
I haven't googled him just something I heard from a friend

ronib

Fleurpepper no boring isn’t in my eyes - it’s in my ears. I cannot stay awake long enough to listen.

We watch it on catch up now, as it is too late indeed.

This is from May 2022
www.jantakareporter.com/entertainment/fiona-bruce-controversial-bbc-question-time-presenter-allegations-of-tory-biases-husband-children-salary/396784/

I believe she had no option but to make the comment she did in the circumstances, to head off a possible defamation case.

Who would the defamation case have been brought against, GSM? The BBC or the panelist who made the statement?

Seemly a true statement if FB countered with saying that 'friends of SJ say it was a one off'.