Fiona Bruce

[Ziggy]

A very current thread this one.

Because according to the new BBC guidelines Gary Lineker is allowed to break
Tim Davies’ nose, just the once

(copyright, daughter)

 

[SuperStu]

If anyone thought to actually read about this, she was required to read that statement by the BBC.

Ah the 'just following orders' defence. Good choice by her to go with that this week when references to certain periods of history have been banned.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

If she was required to read a statement saying "his friends said it was a one off" then that raises even more worrying questions doesn't it? As per my previous post I can't see how that particular part of her statement (and it's the bit that's particularly controversial) addresses any legal risk.

I mean if that is the case then it sounds pretty much like a BBC mandated defence of a high profile figure very closely linked to the Tory party. You could argue a politically motivated statement. But that can't be right given the extraordinary lengths the BBC goes to to remain impartial. Surely

"I need to point out for legal reasons he was never charged with that offence" would have been clearer, avoided any controversy and sufficed to mitigate any legal risk wouldn't it?

Even then, “he was never convicted of any criminal offence” isn’t really what it seems when it comes to people such as Stanley Johnson. I mean, as I heard Jonathan Meades say recently, Rupert Murdoch and Piers Morgan have no criminal convictions between them either.

 

[hewielewie]

I saw this on Twitter

'Look- Ok Adolph Hitler did invade Poland but according to his friends he only did it once'

 

[The_Lizards_Jumpers]

Are you a fan of Antiques Roadshow ?

I am, but in spite of her rather than because of her.

 

[John67]

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.

 

[Archiestephens_elbow]

Ah the 'just following orders' defence. Good choice by her to go with that this week when references to certain periods of history have been banned.

That was what the Nazis said

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

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.

She wasn't reading anyone's words, she was interrupting an answer in order to insert that clarification, and she was using her own words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635279682349453313

 

[BoroMart]

Typical Tory apology. "It's not my fault but I'm sorry if anyone was offended"

I'm not buying the legally obliged defence one bit. She might be obliged to point out he was never charged with it. Can't see how she could possibly be "legally obliged" to say his friends said it was a one off (as if that makes it ok anyway). She must think people are stupid.

Can't possibly accept responsibility for anything can they?

She claims it was common, not a one off. The only one off part was that it was 'only' once that her nose was broken. Of course 'friends' wouldn't have been around most of hte time the violence happened.

 

[SuperStu]

That was what the Nazis said

Don't say that! You'll upset the director general of the BBC and he's only just calmed down!

 

[Laughing]

Making the wider audience aware of a panelists comment is fine and adds context to that comment.

It is quite difficult to excuse the qualifier that it was only once. I don't for a minute think that anyone, outside of abusers, will think that excuses Johnson. I would be very surprised if Bruce thinks it excuses his actions.

 

[kuepper]

Surely as a professional journalist and especially someone who's the the figurehead of a domestic abuse charity she would have reared up if the QT producer (or whoever it was ) had told her she had to state what she did

 

[BoroMart]

Making the wider audience aware of a panelists comment is fine and adds context to that comment.

It is quite difficult to excuse the qualifier that it was only once. I don't for a minute think that anyone, outside of abusers, will think that excuses Johnson. I would be very surprised if Bruce thinks it excuses his actions.

she stated as fact that it was only once, that isn't a proven fact, she shouldn't have used that as an excuse, or even stated it as the opinion of friends. It was an irrelevant, bias and contested view.

 

[Laughing]

she stated as fact that it was only once, that isn't a proven fact, she shouldn't have used that as an excuse, or even stated it as the opinion of friends. It was an irrelevant, bias and contested view.

That wasn't really my point though mart. Everyone who is decent won't care whether it was once or often. The damage was done.

 

[Quicksilvera]

She wasn't reading anyone's words, she was interrupting an answer in order to insert that clarification, and she was using her own words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635279682349453313

this makes me so angry. How she causally says “it was a one off”

 

[kuepper]

if she was told to say it we should be told who told her to say it, and they should be subject to a challenging interview

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

if she was told to say it we should be told who told her to say it, and they should be subject to a challenging interview

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'

 

[dooderooni]

The "one off" clarification is completely unnecessary unless you were intent in trying to minimise the issue.
She had indeed said that despite Johnson not responding to the allegation, friends had confirmed it had happened. That should have been enough to cover any legal requirements regarding any comeback from Johnson himself.
I am sure that Bruce has done some great work for Refuge, but that one extra comment, to me at least, shows that despite all that work she felt obliged to defend Johnson just a little bit. We'll never know if she'd have said the same thing had it been the father of a Labour MP that was abusing his wife, but now she's said it then Refuge are right to distance themselves from her.

 

[Millbrook]

You should be aware that the BBC could be liable as the publisher of a defamatory statement.

The woman who made the initial statement used the plural, Bruce said she was not disputing what she said, and SJ had not commented on it but friends said it happened once.

In my mind she was explaining the context of the original remark probably for legal reasons and not in defence of SJ.

Other interpretations may depend on what you want to construe from it.

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

The "one off" clarification is completely unnecessary unless you were intent in trying to minimise the issue.
She had indeed said that despite Johnson not responding to the allegation, friends had confirmed it had happened. That should have been enough to cover any legal requirements regarding any comeback from Johnson himself.
I am sure that Bruce has done some great work for Refuge, but that one extra comment, to me at least, shows that despite all that work she felt obliged to defend Johnson just a little bit. We'll never know if she'd have said the same thing had it been the father of a Labour MP that was abusing his wife, but now she's said it then Refuge are right to distance themselves from her.

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.