Fiona Bruce

Sexpom said:
What isn’t acceptable about it? We need to call it out when we see it don’t we? It doesn’t make me feel better whatsoever, if anything I’m just as angry by what she said and her actions in defending the Tory Pooh Pooh heads (is that better laughing?)
Click to expand...
It's for you to decide the language you are happy to use, not me. You might argue that what Randy and I did was "calling out when we see" language used like you did.

This isn't the same as agreeing with the comments used by Buce. That doesn't give you freedom to say what you want in any language you please.
 
Malaguena said:
I think the issue is the addition of the completely unnecessary "and it happened just the once" - that's the bit that isn't necessary to provide context to the statement made by the panelist
Click to expand...
The actual comment was 'friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off'.

I'm not being pedantic but the phrase you used with the word 'just' is worse than what was actually said.

I see where you are coming from and it's certainly the element that has provoked the out cry. However that's what lawyers do - if you are going to use remarks from others you use the full remark so you cannot be accused of misrepresenting them.

Could have been handled much better.
 
Millbrook said:
It was known that the topic of SJ and a knighthood would be raised. I assume this lead them to predict that his violence towards his wife could come up so a statement was prepared in advance.

Without knowing what exactly would be said the BBC prepared a factually correct statement to explain the context presumably to avoid a defamation claim.
Click to expand...
Which wasn't factually correct
 
Millbrook said:
The actual comment was 'friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off'.

I'm not being pedantic but the phrase you used with the word 'just' is worse than what was actually said.

I see where you are coming from and it's certainly the element that has provoked the out cry. However that's what lawyers do - if you are going to use remarks from others you use the full remark so you cannot be accused of misrepresenting them.

Could have been handled much better.
Click to expand...
Friends have said it happened regularly, not a one off
 
Sexpom said:
Getting some comeuppance reference her Stanley Johnson comments on domestic abuse. She’s had to step down from her refuge charity role.

She’s scum.
Click to expand...
Sexpom said:
Getting some comeuppance reference her Stanley Johnson comments on domestic abuse. She’s had to step down from her refuge charity role.

She’s scum.
Click to expand...
How can anybody on a public forum get away with calling someone scum??? Absolutely disgusting.
 
Randy said:
Exactly.

But some of the language used towards her is also dangerous. We've seen attacks on sitting MP's and celebrities in the past, stoked from online and social language.
Click to expand...
More victim shaming. People can't use bad language against the person who defends domestic violence? You've got this one @rse about face mate. It's her language that is dangerous
 
Millbrook said:
The actual comment was 'friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one off'.

I'm not being pedantic but the phrase you used with the word 'just' is worse than what was actually said.

I see where you are coming from and it's certainly the element that has provoked the out cry. However that's what lawyers do - if you are going to use remarks from others you use the full remark so you cannot be accused of misrepresenting them.

Could have been handled much better.
Click to expand...
As has already said by myself and others it seems highly unlikely lawyers would have included that part. It's hearsay and not even attributed to a particular source. "Friends" could mean anyone. It has no evidential value whatsoever and as pointed out, other "friends" have said it was a regular occurrence.

I just don't see any lawyer advising that part of the statement needed to be included. So the question is, who decided that bit needed to be included then and why?
 
So she's now saying her comments, which she said she had been legally obliged to make, had been “mischaracterised” on social media. So she wasn't told by someone else to say what she did it was her own attempt as chair of QT to balance the argument and she made a hash of it. Can someone explain how her comments have been mischaracterised?
 
jam69 said:
Friends have said it happened regularly, not a one off
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of that and I'm not seeking to defend SJ in any way.

I see festa5 has made the same claim so clearly you both have evidence I'm not party to.

festa5 also said;

'I just don't see any lawyer advising that part of the statement needed to be included. So the question is, who decided that bit needed to be included then and why?'

Just conjecture on his part as the BBC have said it was their comment and FBs was not expressing a personal opinion about the situation.

To answer kuepper you can see from the posts on this board that her comments have been interpreted as minimising the actions of SJ
because it was 'only' a one off.
 
kuepper said:
So she's now saying her comments, which she said she had been legally obliged to make, had been “mischaracterised” on social media. So she wasn't told by someone else to say what she did it was her own attempt as chair of QT to balance the argument and she made a hash of it. Can someone explain how her comments have been mischaracterised?
Click to expand...
Because she's a Tory. The rest of us can say abhorrent things and beg for forgiveness if we realise we were wrong. People like here have to state they aren't wrong. Regardless of anything else. Zero accountability for her own actions. It's a very Tory trait
 
SmallTown said:
More victim shaming. People can't use bad language against the person who defends domestic violence? You've got this one @rse about face mate. It's her language that is dangerous
Click to expand...
Except I haven't judging by the likes from others.
And I also haven't defended her before that one is thrown in there.
 
Randy said:
Except I haven't judging by the likes from others.
And I also haven't defended her before that one is thrown in there.
Click to expand...
It's a classic whataboutery tactic though isn't it? Someone says something offensive, someone else gets angry over that thing and you decide to attack the people getting angry.

And yes, it's very very sneaky and sly of you too. Because whilst you can sit here and honestly say "Oh I haven't defended her" tacitly you absolutely have. By trying to go after the people being offended by the actions, not going after the person causing the offence in the first place.
 
SmallTown said:
Because she's a Tory. The rest of us can say abhorrent things and beg for forgiveness if we realise we were wrong. People like here have to state they aren't wrong. Regardless of anything else. Zero accountability for her own actions. It's a very Tory trait
Click to expand...
SmallTown said:
It's a classic whataboutery tactic though isn't it? Someone says something offensive, someone else gets angry over that thing and you decide to attack the people getting angry.

And yes, it's very very sneaky and sly of you too. Because whilst you can sit here and honestly say "Oh I haven't defended her" tacitly you absolutely have. By trying to go after the people being offended by the actions, not going after the person causing the offence in the first place.
Click to expand...
The fact is that much of the criticism is because she is seen to be a Tory so the explanations from her and the BBC are discounted for that reason as you so clearly show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top