Fiona Bruce

boroboy6872 said:
She should never have read the pre written statement and she should have questioned the content of it.

She didn`t and that is an oversight that will live with her for a good while

She may wear a blue rosette but I doubt she is in favour of domestic abuse
Click to expand...
Of course she's not in favour of domestic abuse. I'm sure she feels quite strongly about it in fact.

But it's about priorities isn't it? She chose to prioritise offering a weak defence to Stanley Johnson's wife beating over not trivialising domestic violence. She probably regrets it in hindsight, but that was her first instinct it seems.

Feels like a particular Tory trait. Party first. Some have morals, plenty know a lot of the stuff they do is wrong. But very few will speak out against the party. It seems they'd rather compromise any morals or values they have before criticising their party. Bit sinister if you ask me, but it's helped win them a lot of elections.
 
Randy said:
How is it whataboutery? I've given you an example of how your dangerous language can lead to serious scenarios. Instead of debating them you resort to calling people Tories.
You know **** all about me, there are plenty of folk on here and who are no longer on here who know plenty about me, including both admins. Upset a few folk during the pandemic too, if you'd been around during that time you'd see I'm probably more anti Tory anything than you are.
Click to expand...
Let's be real Randy, Thomas Mair didn't shoot Jo Cox because someone on a forum called her scum, he spent decades being a literal far right nazi, learning how to make nail bombs and fantasising about murdering someone.

Nor was David Amess, he was stabbed by a terrorist sympathiser over his votes on Syrian air strikes.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
Let's be real Randy, Thomas Mair didn't shoot Jo Cox because someone on a forum called her scum, he spent decades being a literal far right nazi, learning how to make nail bombs and fantasising about murdering someone.

Nor was David Amess, he was stabbed by a terrorist sympathiser over his votes on Syrian air strikes.
Click to expand...
Something made him that way though and something, often one thing triggered the targeting of Jo Cox.

Randy is quite right on this. The language used by Sexpom should not be acceptable in society, regardless of the opposition rhetoric. It doesn't help and creates and stokes the division amongst swing voters.

It doesn't achieve anything of note either, other than make him feel better.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
Let's be real Randy, Thomas Mair didn't shoot Jo Cox because someone on a forum called her scum, he spent decades being a literal far right nazi, learning how to make nail bombs and fantasising about murdering someone.

Nor was David Amess, he was stabbed by a terrorist sympathiser over his votes on Syrian air strikes.
Click to expand...
I haven't said he did. But people like Mair start their extreme ideas from somewhere. I was going to post David Amess as an example too.

My point been that modern day politics to me now seems it's all about insults thrown by both sides of the house. This encourages people to do the same. There's no plan in place, the feeling out amongst the common man and woman on the street is that politics isn't about the people anymore and how it can make their Iives better, it's just about rich kids arguing with one another.

PM's questions on a Wednesday been a prime example of this.
 
Randy said:
I haven't said he did. But people like Mair start their extreme ideas from somewhere. I was going to post David Amess as an example too.

My point been that modern day politics to me now seems it's all about insults thrown by both sides of the house. This encourages people to do the same. There's no plan in place, the feeling out amongst the common man and woman on the street is that politics isn't about the people anymore and how it can make their Iives better, it's just about rich kids arguing with one another.

PM's questions on a Wednesday been a prime example of this.
Click to expand...

For all his flaws Corbyn never did this. Never threw insults, tried to change the discourse to a more grown up debate. I admired him for it, but it didn't work.

The insults and attacks on him were far more effective. The electorate voted for the type of politics they prefer and so that's what we have (whether they realise it or not). ☹️
 
Blf said:
If anyone thought to actually read about this, she was required to read that statement by the BBC. She was not reading her own words and the charity has acknowledged this.
She has helped raise awareness and money for lots of charities but don't let facts interfere with a bit of celeb hounding.
Click to expand...
She is the patron of a DV charity. She should have realised how those words would trigger victims of abuse ( one-off or otherwise). She could have shown some solidarity and refused. They wouldn’t have dared sack her as well
 
steve0 said:
She is the patron of a DV charity. She should have realised how those words would trigger victims of abuse ( one-off or otherwise). She could have shown some solidarity and refused. They wouldn’t have dared sack her as well
Click to expand...
It would have been nice if she'd ad-lib'd at the end of the BBC statement, maybe brought up the the fact SJ has also faced at least two allegations of inappropriate groping at tory party conferences.....

Also lets face it, by reading out the statement, rather than not and it just being a passing comment by a panelist on QT, its drawn a lot more attention to SJ's past behaviour and makes it even less likely he'll end up on the honour list.
 
Now Lineker retains the job interest in him will fade. The Swivel head Tories will go after the licence. Sharp will probably resign, although the government will play the blame game, they can’t keep him there until the next election.
Fiona B. also has another problem, all this exposure will get the dogs running after her.
 
t4tomo said:
It would have been nice if she'd ad-lib'd at the end of the BBC statement, maybe brought up the the fact SJ has also faced at least two allegations of inappropriate groping at tory party conferences.....

Also lets face it, by reading out the statement, rather than not and it just being a passing comment by a panelist on QT, its drawn a lot more attention to SJ's past behaviour and makes it even less likely he'll end up on the honour list.
Click to expand...
This was my point above, I bet SJ wishes Boris had never bothered now! Serves them both right of course.
 
BoroFur said:
Did that legal statement she read out really include "according to his mates it was just the once"?
Click to expand...
She said that she was not disputing the comment that he was a wife beater and then said 'just so everyone knows what this refers to'then went on to say that SJ wife had said he had broken her nose. FB then went on to say that friends of his said it did happen and it was a one off. The woman who made the remark said 'Yes'.
 
Last edited:
I would add that Refuge subsequently said that the words were not FBs but what she was legally obliged to read out.

The BBC issued the following statement;

“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.”
 
Laughing said:
Something made him that way though and something, often one thing triggered the targeting of Jo Cox.

Randy is quite right on this. The language used by Sexpom should not be acceptable in society, regardless of the opposition rhetoric. It doesn't help and creates and stokes the division amongst swing voters.

It doesn't achieve anything of note either, other than make him feel better.
Click to expand...
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?)
 
jam69 said:
Why did she have a pre written statement to read out? How did they know one of the panel would bring his wife beating up ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top