Fiona Bruce

[Randy]

You do the same thing every time you join, maybe change it up a bit.

And which persona were you previously?

 

[Quicksilvera]

And which persona were you previously?

Alex-the-kid was my previous username but I changed it in celebration of chuba. Not a persona just a change in name.

 

[Jedi boro]

You would only really read out a statement like that if it was from the victim themselves as a first hand account otherwise what purpose is it serving.

 

[1finny]

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.

Its a few years since I did law but I'm pretty sure for defamation to stand up it has to hurt someone's reputation.
I wish SJ luck with trying to prove that.......

Also, of course, his wife discussed 'countless beatings'

As you say tho - once it enough and it shouldn't be defended at all

 

[Jedi boro]

Its a few years since I did law but I'm pretty sure for defamation to stand up it has to hurt someone's reputation.
I wish SJ luck with trying to prove that.......

Also, of course, his wife discussed 'countless beatings'

As you say tho - once it enough and it shouldn't be defended at all

Pretty much

The legal definition is basically

a statement is made that is unfair, untrue and is likely to lower other people's opinion of the defamed person or business.

 

[Millbrook]

Its a few years since I did law but I'm pretty sure for defamation to stand up it has to hurt someone's reputation.
I wish SJ luck with trying to prove that.......

Also, of course, his wife discussed 'countless beatings'

As you say tho - once it enough and it shouldn't be defended at all

Agreed but to be devils advocate I think SJ claimed it was an accident as they were both 'flailing about'.

Also his wife is dead so it there would only be her word for in the book that made the claim.

We know from HIGNFY how careful they are to say allegedly when making various comments.

 

[Laughing]

This board has become so polarised it's unbelievable at times. It has become very unpleasant, even just to read.

 

[SmallTown]

Your first sentence is what the initial response was but your second sentence is doubling down on it when the BBC has said she was not expressing a personal opinion.

Your final sentence is a personal judgement which reveals that is is tainted by your own prejudice.

Ah the semantic warrior!

Just to clarify: The making light of domestic violence was abhorrent. From someone who should know better. The fact she was a Tory defending a Tory shows hers and their lack of morality.

Both this statements can be true. SO yes, making light of domestic violence was abhorrent, but that fact she only made light of it to defend a tory was equally abhorrent.

 

[festa5]

.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.

So a long winded way of saying you agree with me after all then?

 

[SmallTown]

Except I haven't defended her at all. Quote me where I have?

Yup, exactly why I said what you did was sneaky and sly. Look up the word tacit, and you'll understand what you have done. I mean you KNOW what you're doing, and I really dislike that type of behaviour. defending people who do wrong but doing it in a way that can absolve yourself should you get picked up on. It's spineless

 

[Jedi boro]

We know from HIGNFY how careful they are to say allegedly when making various comments.

Btw this Not a legal defence though in fact it means nothing in law to lessen the offence it’s kind of an inside joke.

 

[HolgateCorner]

It’s very likely she would have seen the questions before transmission.
It’s not jazz, and the whole thing must have a sense of structure for technical reasons. They don’t like surprises.
People submit questions. Then the relevant and topical one’s discussed, and chosen among
producer, editor or whatever. At that point they knew it would come up, and what she had to say. Like I posted before she panicked a bit…then busked the end.
I don’t think they turn up with several OB trucks, set up and shout rock n roll..GO!!

Political parties prepare stock answers to difficult questions. I would guess Bruce has quickly brushed up on this question on some low class Tory activist web site and trotted this answer out without thinking enough about what she was saying. Either that or she is just stupid.

 

[Quicksilvera]

Yup, exactly why I said what you did was sneaky and sly. Look up the word tacit, and you'll understand what you have done. I mean you KNOW what you're doing, and I really dislike that type of behaviour. defending people who do wrong but doing it in a way that can absolve yourself should you get picked up on. It's spineless

Correct it’s as cowardly and spineless as they come.

 

[kuepper]

 

[Alexander Supertramp]

I think it’s always important to get Carol Vorderman’s view on these things

 

[kuepper]

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.

 

[kuepper]

I think it’s always important to get Carol Vorderman’s view on these things

Much to my surprise she's done a great job exposing and publicising corruption and injustice in recent times

 

[Ziggy]

Political parties prepare stock answers to difficult questions. I would guess Bruce has quickly brushed up on this question on some low class Tory activist web site and trotted this answer out without thinking enough about what she was saying. Either that or she is just stupid.

Ok, I will go with option B

 

[boroup]

Why do certain people always bring politics into it??? What as politics got to do with it?? Is this now a political forum or a football forum?

 

[Randy]

Yup, exactly why I said what you did was sneaky and sly. Look up the word tacit, and you'll understand what you have done. I mean you KNOW what you're doing, and I really dislike that type of behaviour. defending people who do wrong but doing it in a way that can absolve yourself should you get picked up on. It's spineless

No no. You and Alex are so caught up in your hatred of everything with a hint of Tory in it.

Also 'Alex' it's easy for the likes of you and ST to call people cowardly and spineless from behind a computer screen. You'd know all about that already though don't you? I don't imagine you use that sort of language in the pub do you?