Fiona Bruce

Millbrook said:
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.
Click to expand...
The criticism is that she was making light of domestic violence. Yes she's a Tory and she was defending a Tory wife beater but that's the point. To understand domestic violence and to make light of it, simply to defend someone is pretty disgusting
 
SmallTown said:
The criticism is that she was making light of domestic violence. Yes she's a Tory and she was defending a Tory wife beater but that's the point. To understand domestic violence and to make light of it, simply to defend someone is pretty disgusting
Click to expand...
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.
 
Millbrook said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if it was the BBC's comment (I never said it wasn't by the way) who in the bbc told Fiona Bruce to make it and why? I'm talking specifically about the "it was a one off" element.

It's also conjecture to say she needed to include the "one off" part of the statement for legal reasons because neither Bruce not the BBC have said as much. So you've jumped to some conclusions yourself there.

I'm not a lawyer but I do have a degree in law and a big part of my job involves applying law so I'm not coming at it from a completely uninformed position when I say I can't see any legal reason to have included that bit. Happy to be corrected if a lawyer explains otherwise.
 
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!!
 
I don't buy this 'she was legally obliged' crap. This would mean the BBC would have to have lawyers watching QT as it happened ready to feed 'legally required' responses to any live question into Bruce's earpiece. Completly unrealistic. More gaslighting from the tory junta.
 
festa5 said:
So if it was the BBC's comment (I never said it wasn't by the way) who in the bbc told Fiona Bruce to make it and why? I'm talking specifically about the "it was a one off" element.

It's also conjecture to say she needed to include the "one off" part of the statement for legal reasons because neither Bruce not the BBC have said as much. So you've jumped to some conclusions yourself there.

I'm not a lawyer but I do have a degree in law and a big part of my job involves applying law so I'm not coming at it from a completely uninformed position when I say I can't see any legal reason to have included that bit. Happy to be corrected if a lawyer explains otherwise.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Millbrook said:
Hence the 'one off' comment because that is known to be a comment made by SJs friends.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense

Known ??? To who’m

Friends who are these not quantifiable un named sources the bbc seeming though fit to use as a counter argument.
 
Jedi boro said:
This makes no sense

Known ??? To who’m

Friends who are these not quantifiable un named sources the bbc seeming though fit to use as a counter argument.
Click to expand...
I can't answer that but SJs wife has been quite clear in alleging that there was repeated violent behaviour.
 
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...
Except I haven't defended her at all. Quote me where I have? Again, nobody will be able to. In fact they will find on this thread and the other one you will find I've supported the decision of Refuge.

My point was extreme vitriol and language aimed at the likes of MP's, celebrities, councillors etc can lead to dangerous, life threatening situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top