Fiona Bruce

As John Oliver once explained 'whataboutism', imagine if a lawyer tried to defend his client and lessen his crimes by saying this:

"Yes my client murdered those people, but what about Jeffrey Dahmer, what about Al Capone, what about the guy from the Silence of the Lambs?"

No need for Bruce's "one off".
 
Yep even a prepped statement was garbage and unfit for broadcast, and she was too dumb to see that. Shows how out of touch and biased the BBC have become.

Antiques Road Show is her safe level if she cannot show impartiality. And she can't because her husband is a Tory activist, working for and donating to the party.

If you were to ask Boris and Stan, they would probably agree that she asked for it- what.
 
Their presenters are so petrified of being held responsible for any anti-government/Conservative party content that their thinking has become muddled. How anyone can think that 'well he only did it once' is a legitimate defense is ridiculous, but they used it in their desperation to counter Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's point that he was 'a wife beater'. Sad state of affairs.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
Can you imagine some BBC lawyer saying to her before the show. 'just remember Fiona, if anyone mentions Stanley Johnson, you are legally obliged to say that you heard on the grapevine that he only broke her nose the once' 😃
Click to expand...
Well if you watch the 1st 2 minutes of the show, Stanley Johnson knighthood is down as one of the topics for discussion, i.e. The BBC knew the topic would be discussed and was possible someone would bring up the wife beater allegations. And therefore yes its almost certain a lawyer did tell her exactly what to say if someone brought up those wife beating allegations.

Charlotte Wahl never made a complaint at the time, it was only mentioned much much later to a journalist who was doing a biographer of SJ. Therefore to avoid being sued, BBC lawyer probably thought it wise to clarify what was in the public domain, which was that it had been alleged and there was a qualified acknowledgment from SJ's friend that it had happened but as a one off, not a regular occurrence as CW had alleged.

The statement FB was made to say was very clumsily put together, but its a bit harsh blaming her for it, she almost certainly didn't draft the words.
 
Think what Gary Lineker was almost silenced for and compare to what this Tory groupie has said, she should be the one who is silenced.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
Yep. That 'one off' slip is incredibly revealing of either her real thoughts on domestic violence or her deep seated true blue tribal loyalty.

Neither show her in anything but an incredibly negative light.
Click to expand...
I think it's the latter. We've seen from these Tories they will leap to another Tories defence before they even consider what they are defending. AGreed it still make her look bad
 
SmallTown said:
I think it's the latter. We've seen from these Tories they will leap to another Tories defence before they even consider what they are defending. AGreed it still make her look bad
Click to expand...
Spot on, it’s a huge problem when the tories will blindly defend anything to keep their friends heads above the parapet. Stanley Johnson is a wife beating ******.
 
t4tomo said:
Well if you watch the 1st 2 minutes of the show, Stanley Johnson knighthood is down as one of the topics for discussion, i.e. The BBC knew the topic would be discussed and was possible someone would bring up the wife beater allegations. And therefore yes its almost certain a lawyer did tell her exactly what to say if someone brought up those wife beating allegations.

Charlotte Wahl never made a complaint at the time, it was only mentioned much much later to a journalist who was doing a biographer of SJ. Therefore to avoid being sued, BBC lawyer probably thought it wise to clarify what was in the public domain, which was that it had been alleged and there was a qualified acknowledgment from SJ's friend that it had happened but as a one off, not a regular occurrence as CW had alleged.

The statement FB was made to say was very clumsily put together, but its a bit harsh blaming her for it, she almost certainly didn't draft the words.
Click to expand...
Good point it was pretty obvious that she had been "pre-loaded" with that reply it was too pat.

What it does show is the desperation of the people involved to bend to the wishes of the Tory Party in so much as they anticipated and schooled the presenter in exactly what to say should the issue be brought up. That the "rebuttal" was scarcely credible is only partially Bruce's fault. That she did not question it or think to amend it despite her campaigning for women who have been victims of domestic violence is very much down to her.
 
John67 said:
Blf, she raised so much awareness of the issue that hardly anyone knew about her amazing work to help refugees lol. Note that she gave up the unpaid work and stays in her lucrative role of ruining QT bu allowing RWNJ's to spout though. Can you imagine if a man had said what she said? If it was a prepared statement, she should have to say who wrote it and who these friends are, otherwise it looks like she is acting like the arbiter of what is wrong and what isn't.
Click to expand...
Well maybe that says more about what you know is going on around the subject of domestic abuse in the UK . I and thousands of others regularly donate to Refuge and have been to several fund raising events where Fiona Bruce attended giving her own time. Others doing this include Sir Patrick Stewart ,Dame Helen Mirren and many others. Their work is amazing so I don't see the need for the lol unless it comes after discussing your awareness.
 
Blf said:
Well maybe that says more about what you know is going on around the subject of domestic abuse in the UK . I and thousands of others regularly donate to Refuge and have been to several fund raising events where Fiona Bruce attended giving her own time. Others doing this include Sir Patrick Stewart ,Dame Helen Mirren and many others. Their work is amazing so I don't see the need for the lol unless it comes after discussing your awareness.
Click to expand...
You can’t defend what she has said.
 
When the Domestic Abuse survivors are concerned at the language used by the celebrity face of their Charity then she was right to step down.

She can continue to donate and support but she can not be the face of the Charity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top