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

libra posted that it is no longer available.

Withdrawn - censorship!!

Callistemon21

Doodledog

Here is the clip. The discussion in this part of the show is about Boris Johnson nominating his father for a knighthood.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0f1DK4UCQ

Your link is the same, Doodledog - private.

Oh. It wasn't when I posted it. How strange.

Search: Question Time 9th March.

She wasn't expressing her own opinion - she was quoting the friends of Stanley Johnson.

Fiona Bruce interrupted the speaker with the words, “I’m not disputing what you’re saying.”

If ‘context’ was needed she only had to say that Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on the allegation that he had broken his wife’s nose.

Unfortunately, video no longer available.

I agree: over-reaction by Refuge.

Doodledog

Here is the clip. The discussion in this part of the show is about Boris Johnson nominating his father for a knighthood.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0f1DK4UCQ

Your link is the same, Doodledog - private.

Apparently it was from instructions from the BBC.

libra10

All that Fiona Bruce was saying was clarifying what Stanley Johnson was believed to have done. It was in context to what was being discussed at the time on QT, and she was certainly not condoning his actions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0f1DK4UCQ

It says "This video is private" libra

I took her comment to imply " oh yes, and we believe that don't we!!!"

Missiseff,if she had publicly expressed any party political views she would not still be a BBC newsreader. Do you have that opinion of her because she’s well educated and well spoken or do you have actual evidence?

If you are agreeing with Fiona Bruce steeping back then your are incredibly ignorant and very silly. She didn’t minimise it- she repeated what was written in the report. That’s it. Stupidity wins again.

It's all been blown out of proportion, she shouldn't have had to stand down at all, she was reading a script.

Good. She needs stepping down frm Question Time too. Blatant Tory.

More explanation here, from Susannah Reid and Ed Balls

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/susanna-reid-defends-fiona-bruce-26466825

Hardly - she was doing what the BBC required of her.

I wonder if they'll fire her from Antiques Roadshow.

The link was posted a few posts up.

She may not have been actively condoning his actions (how could she have done that?) but she was minimising Y A-B's comment that he is a wife-beater by saying that it was only once.

All that Fiona Bruce was saying was clarifying what Stanley Johnson was believed to have done. It was in context to what was being discussed at the time on QT, and she was certainly not condoning his actions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0f1DK4UCQ

There was absolutely no need for her to make the comment she made. The situation is self explanatory and didn't need 'diluting'.

Fiona Bruce has particular knowledge of domestic abuse gleaned from being active in supporting Refuge. She will therefore be more aware than most of how the language public figures use contributes to shaping the discourse and affects survivors of domestic abuse. If the lines were given to her to read out she had the opportunity to decline to read the final sentence as any potential legal challenge was covered by what she had already stated. Having worked in the field of domestic abuse I immediately recognised the inflammatory nature of her words - and I would be extremely surprised if she didn’t, which is why in my earlier post I suggested that perhaps she had a clash of agendas.

I do understand that to some people it may seem to be a storm in a teacup, but it’s precisely because Fiona Bruce has worked with Refuge that she really should have been aware of the impact her words would have. I think she was right to step back from Refuge and that the charity were correct to accept her resignation.

I cannot see what the fuss is about. She was under an obligation to put the allegations in context, for people who had not been aware of the situation. This was presented as an example, of the abuse Johnson’s former wife suffered. She did not say it was a one off - those were comments from Johnson’s cronies.
Bruce could not have said ”Well, yes but it was probably a string of attacks over many years”, because she had no knowledge or information or evidence that was the case. She was stating a simple FACT Johnson’s biographer stated an instance of abuse, and his friends trivialised it. And after all “They would say that, wouldn’t they”

I was a "loony leftie" in the 1980s (Labour Party member in London actively standing up for LGBT rights) and I'm a "loony leftie" now (no longer a Labour Party member or voter but still standing up for LGBT rights and against an increasingly autocratic and erratic government). I wear it as a badge of pride and I don't care what others think about it.

The context of Yasmin Alibai-Brown's remark on Question Time is that whatever other abuses Stanley Johnson may or may not have perpetrated against members of his family, there is no dispute that he hospitalised his wife with a broken nose and that is sufficient to make him a domestic abuser. So there was no need for FB's legal caveat.

I think she was between a rock and a hard place. These days it is so easy to pillory someone, it's the charity that has lost out and the keyboard warriors won again

Agreed