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

libra posted that it is no longer available.

Withdrawn - censorship!!

Callistemon21

libra posted that it is no longer available.

Withdrawn - censorship!!

Yes, I saw that when I clicked it. Who gets to censor YouTube? The BBC?

Would she have spoken so dismissively if she had ever been on the receiving end of punches and beatings????? I think not!

I am not sure how to interpret that parlorgames.
All I know is a man punches a woman in the face and no consequences, in fact he is celebrated on a range of TV stations. A woman speaks and gets it badly wrong and well 'burn the witch'. Its interesting to watch.

Here Here Galaxy!!!!

Galaxy

I am not sure how to interpret that parlorgames.
All I know is a man punches a woman in the face and no consequences, in fact he is celebrated on a range of TV stations. A woman speaks and gets it badly wrong and well 'burn the witch'. Its interesting to watch.

I know that Yasmin A-B has used the 'burn the witch' phrase, but I don't think it's fair. It seems to me to be silencing women who want to speak out about the minimising of domestic violence.

I agree that SJ should have faced consequences - of course he should. But that is not a reason why a presenter of either sex should get away with dismissing the incident. Two wrongs don't make a right, and arguably, the fact that others (including women) minimise DV (and VAWAG in general) perpetuates an atmosphere in which it can flourish.

But surely 25 years of supporting a womans refuge for domestic abuse suffers must indicate that FB wouldn't deliberately minimise the act and consequences of domestic abuse, I find the lack of support for her 1 mistake breathtaking and the social media hate posts appalling.

I think gogglebox celebrity this morning have all been minimising what he did, every day, all the time. That's a conscious decision of minimising, (made not in heat of momemt) and possibly more dangerous, to create an image of the domestic abuser as a cuddly grandad figure. I think that it's absolutely fine for people to raise concerns about what she said, I think it's also fine to highlight the hypocrisy in the outcry whilst nothing happens to him or the people who gave him an unending platform.

I think it's fine to talk about the minimising which is inherent in 'just the once' and I understand Refuge's position, but I will be interested to see how this impacts the rest of her career.

It appears some of the media want her head on a plate!
And Stanley?

I watched him on celebrity and didnt boycott so I take my share of the minimising. I have spent a lot of time calling him names and blaming him for the character of Boris Johnson whose childhood was not to be envied.

I certainly don't want her head on a plate. I think it was a daft thing to say, but it can't be easy hosting a live show. The reason I think she should stand down from QT is because it is not the first time she has been very partial (the Mick Lynch episode was particularly egregious, so sticks in my mind, but there have been others) and before she made the comment about Johnson I was already rolling my eyes at her chairing a debate about Lineker's comments on Twitter when she has used the BBC to push her own views.

FB is personable and pleasant, and should, IMO, continue to host things like the Antiques Roadshow. A more controlled presenter should take over QT (it's time for a change anyway), and I would suggest Emily Maitlis, who I think is a miss to the BBC.

Oh I agree entirely doodle, I am afraid I dont think I have ever seen someone so unsuited to a particular show.

After supporting a charity for decades one might be forgiven for learning not to do it ever again. No charity support. No money for charity, no time, no effort. Stuff them all. Then stuff everyone who is judging the person one way or another for doing her job. If you never engaged with another human by choice one could be forgiven for it. People are disgusting.

That’s a shocking attitude. Aren’t you the same poster who said junior doctors know no more than us and Google?

Bridie22

It appears some of the media want her head on a plate!
And Stanley?

Well - that is very telling isn't it!!

The woman who makes a mistake on air is villified and bullied, the man gets a knighthood.

Can no-one see the irony in that?

Doodledog

I certainly don't want her head on a plate. I think it was a daft thing to say, but it can't be easy hosting a live show. The reason I think she should stand down from QT is because it is not the first time she has been very partial (the Mick Lynch episode was particularly egregious, so sticks in my mind, but there have been others) and before she made the comment about Johnson I was already rolling my eyes at her chairing a debate about Lineker's comments on Twitter when she has used the BBC to push her own views.

FB is personable and pleasant, and should, IMO, continue to host things like the Antiques Roadshow. A more controlled presenter should take over QT (it's time for a change anyway), and I would suggest Emily Maitlis, who I think is a miss to the BBC.

Sensible post

I agree. She is fine on the Antiques Road Show and other entertainment programmes, but then who would be good n QT?

Dimbleby could be very annoying too.
Yes, Emily Maitlis might be a good choice.

I dont think he will get his knighthood now if that's any comfort.
I find the whole format of QT difficult, not enough time to discuss complex issues.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s a shocking attitude. Aren’t you the same poster who said junior doctors know no more than us and Google?

As you tend to follow my posts and challenge them, I think you know the answer to that. Stalker. This thread is this thread. Stop whatever it is you are trying to achieve here.

I’m certainly not stalking you. I have no interest in you, nor in following you, but when you post such nastiness people remember the name.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m certainly not stalking you. I have no interest in you, nor in following you, but when you post such nastiness people remember the name.

we certainly do. I am still reeling from the unwarranted attack when we were discussing whether we were happy to be helped. However, I chose not to report it as I prefer such behaviour to be there for all to see.

Back to the thread; I am still wondering why social media including GN is discussing Fiona Bruce's comments and suitability for QT, when what should be at the forefront is the repellent behaviour of Johnson senior and whether he appears in any further TV programmes.

I doubt that her intention was to minimise the violence involved. I suspect that she was reading out something that had been handed to her by the BBC lawyers in order to avoid a possible case for defamation. Unfortunately, her attempt to clarify was left far too open to misinterpretation, and has been seen by some as trivialisation of Stanley Sr.'s physical abuse of his wife. Although I understand her reasoning, I feel that it's a shame that she is stepping down after giving so many years of support to a worthy cause. Based on that long term support, and on her awareness of the problem, does anyone really think she would purposefully minimise domestic violence? I think not. More an unfortunate choice of wording.

Emily Maitlis would be brilliant- which is why the Conservative led BBC will never ever appoint her. FB's husband is a well known Tory supporter and donor, and FB was chosen for being biased!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

GrammyGrammy

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m certainly not stalking you. I have no interest in you, nor in following you, but when you post such nastiness people remember the name.

Right, second warning...trying to smear me...you have been warned.

GrammyGrammy, What exactly are you threatening Germanshepherdsmum with.
‘You have been warned’. - don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone post anything quite so nasty or unnecessary