Fiona Bruce

[SmallTown]

Nope, I think EV's are crap, hence my ev position. On other contentious issues, it's the line you take. I play the post not the man, despite what you may think.

It certainly doesn't feel like it.

 

[Laughing]

It certainly doesn't feel like it.

I accept that. It's often because of the manner and wording of your posts.

 

[SmallTown]

Well, touché!

 

[Soutra]

From the Guardian report on the matter;

The BBC referred queries to a statement issued last week, in which it said: “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 … She was not expressing any personal opinion about the situation.”

I also have a law degree and took the totality of the BBC statement along with the fact that a publisher of a defamatory statement can be held liable. The panel member said he was a 'wife beater' not he had 'beaten his wife'. The first is plural the second could be singular.

It is conjecture that they knew the topic of a knighthood for SJ was going to be raised and his violence towards his wife would be mentioned. FB needed to explain the context of the claim, on reflection I don't know whether a statement was prepared or whether FB prepared an answer based on what was in the public domain at the time.


Hence the 'one off' comment because that is known to be a comment made by SJs friends.

Others have claimed there has been repeated behaviour which I am unaware of. I actually think it was an unnecessary part of the statement because I doubt a court would find an argument that 'I have been defamed by being called a wife beater when I only hit her once and broke her nose' to have any merit as a claim.

I didn't see QT, but I have read some commentary about this. I did practise as a lawyer (as an advocate in Scotland, but I have some knowledge of English law on this). I'm dismayed by what's happened, not because I like Fiona Bruce, but because she's unwittingly covered up the real issue, which is domestic abuse.

First, as you say the BBC could be held liable if someone is defamed or libelled on a BBC show, not just Yasmin Alibhai Brown.

Second, it seems that Stanley Johnson's punching of his wife, and breaking her nose is pretty widely known; it's in the public domain. It may even have been tested in court.

Third, it has been alleged that Johnson regularly beat his wife, but this has not been admitted (as far as I know). It is not in the public domain, as yet. It has not been tested in court. Some of Johnson's friends claim the broken nose was an isolated incident, maybe as a defence I don't know.

So Fiona Bruce was in a tricky situation. OK to admit the broken nose incident, but other incidents mentioned were potentially libellous. She had to point that the claim of further abuse was contested to avoid the BBC libelling Johnson and whilst she didn't do it particularly well, she was neither giving her own opinion nor trivialising domestic violence.

Whatever ones opinion of her, Fiona Bruce was a representative of Refuge for 20 years, so active in supporting women suffering domestic abuse. She's been demonised for what she said, and it is deflecting attention away from all the men who abuse women.

 

[Millbrook]

Whatever ones opinion of her, Fiona Bruce was a representative of Refuge for 20 years, so active in supporting women suffering domestic abuse. She's been demonised for what she said, and it is deflecting attention away from all the men who abuse women.

I agree with your analysis and the quoted section above is the real shame.

The real idiots at large and on this board who can't see this should hang their miserable heads in shame.

 

[Muttley]

and it is deflecting attention away from all the men who abuse women.

I agree with you up to your final point.

I would say that it has brought the issue up for discussion. Yes, there has been too much focus on what FB said. But, it has probably meant that the odious Stanley Johnson can forget about that coveted knighthood, it has dragged his misdemeanours into the glaring light of public disfavour and must surely shift positively the focus onto the wider issue of Domestic Abuse and the victims?

 

[Laughing]

I agree with you up to your final point.

I would say that it has brought the issue up for discussion. Yes, there has been too much focus on what FB said. But, it has probably meant that the odious Stanley Johnson can forget about that coveted knighthood, it has dragged his misdemeanours into the glaring light of public disfavour and must surely shift positively the focus onto the wider issue of Domestic Abuse and the victims?

I think I agree mutley. Any discussion is better than it being hidden behind closed doors.

 

[Millbrook]

Fair point Muttley

 

[Soutra]

the odious Stanley Johnson can forget about that coveted knighthood, it has dragged his misdemeanours into the glaring light of public disfavour and must surely shift positively the focus onto the wider issue of Domestic Abuse and the victims?

Oh I hope so.

 

[kuepper]

 

[atypical_boro]

I didn't see QT, but I have read some commentary about this. I did practise as a lawyer (as an advocate in Scotland, but I have some knowledge of English law on this). I'm dismayed by what's happened, not because I like Fiona Bruce, but because she's unwittingly covered up the real issue, which is domestic abuse.

First, as you say the BBC could be held liable if someone is defamed or libelled on a BBC show, not just Yasmin Alibhai Brown.

Second, it seems that Stanley Johnson's punching of his wife, and breaking her nose is pretty widely known; it's in the public domain. It may even have been tested in court.

Third, it has been alleged that Johnson regularly beat his wife, but this has not been admitted (as far as I know). It is not in the public domain, as yet. It has not been tested in court. Some of Johnson's friends claim the broken nose was an isolated incident, maybe as a defence I don't know.

So Fiona Bruce was in a tricky situation. OK to admit the broken nose incident, but other incidents mentioned were potentially libellous. She had to point that the claim of further abuse was contested to avoid the BBC libelling Johnson and whilst she didn't do it particularly well, she was neither giving her own opinion nor trivialising domestic violence.

Whatever ones opinion of her, Fiona Bruce was a representative of Refuge for 20 years, so active in supporting women suffering domestic abuse. She's been demonised for what she said, and it is deflecting attention away from all the men who abuse women.

Great summary.