[Politics] Fiona Bruce. Please let this be the end.

[nickjhs]

Fiona Bruce used hearsay ‘his friends say it was a one off’

The guest on QT used a documented fact, and it is also documented that Charlotte Wahl, said it happened many times, resulting in her breakdown and time in a psychiatric hospital.

That’s the context.

To put it another way, if I got caught shoplifting today, I would rightly be called a thief, even if I pleaded it was a one off.

So a quick search and all I can find is a book by Tom Bower, do you have any links documenting her making these claims. And as to labelling someone a Thief for a one off shop lift is a tad extreme. You would be guilty of theft but I don't think the label thief is appropriate as again it strongly suggests a repeated pattern of behaviour. Is someone who has a few puffs on a joint a drug user, I think not.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So a quick search and all I can find is a book by Tom Bower, do you have any links documenting her making these claims. And as to labelling someone a Thief for a one off shop lift is a tad extreme. You would be guilty of theft but I don't think the label thief is appropriate as again it strongly suggests a repeated pattern of behaviour. Is someone who has a few puffs on a joint a drug user, I think not.

Yes the book by Tom Bower, which Stanley Johnson has never denied, and Boris Johnson has confirmed that he saw his mother being hit time after time.

As I said Bruce jumped in, interrupting, with ‘his friends say…’. That is hearsay.

As the debate was about the nepotism of Johnson offering his own father a knighthood, why did Bruce need to say anything?

 

[Randy McNob]

And you have evidence that there is a pattern of domestic abuse or are you just making assumptions to fit a narrative you like

I sort of agree with you, perhaps Bruce's contextualisation was a bit clumsy, however, if it was an accident or Stanley had a red mist moment which he later regretted or was maybe out of character, that would have been put out there immediately, but it hasn't, it's been trivialised, normalised as balance or counter argument against his character.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The victim has stated that it was part of a sustained pattern of behaviour.

Stanley Johnson's Lawers (that is who the euphemistic "friends' refers to) claim it was a one off.

Impartiality would be providing all this as context.

It is not what Bruce did.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[herecomesaregular]

Ok after watching that clip and at the risk of being slammed I would like to comment on what I perceive to be Bruce's motive. Johnson is described as a wife beater, which brings with it the connotation of someone who repeatedly and systematically abuses their partner, Bruce is pointing out that Yes he did hit her, yes his wife has claimed that her nose was broken and that those who know the couple have stated that this incident was not part of a continuous form of behaviour. I get what she is trying to do, put the situation into context, but I also acknowledge that it does seem like she is defending the behavior which I don't think she is. As egregious as breaking your partners nose in a moment of anger is, I feel, and clearly so does Bruce that this act of violence falls into a different category than what is generally perceived as 'wife beater"

A man breaks a woman's nose by hitting her and that is your opinion. Shame on you.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Rumours of her and Lineker swapping roles …problem solved

 

[keaton]

Ok after watching that clip and at the risk of being slammed I would like to comment on what I perceive to be Bruce's motive. Johnson is described as a wife beater, which brings with it the connotation of someone who repeatedly and systematically abuses their partner, Bruce is pointing out that Yes he did hit her, yes his wife has claimed that her nose was broken and that those who know the couple have stated that this incident was not part of a continuous form of behaviour. I get what she is trying to do, put the situation into context, but I also acknowledge that it does seem like she is defending the behavior which I don't think she is. As egregious as breaking your partners nose in a moment of anger is, I feel, and clearly so does Bruce that this act of violence falls into a different category than what is generally perceived as 'wife beater"

How many times would someone have to kill before it's ok to call them murderer?

 

[marlowe]

And you have evidence that there is a pattern of domestic abuse or are you just making assumptions to fit a narrative you like

No I haven't, which is why I used the word "necessarily" in my sentence.

Try reading what I wrote then get back to me when you have worked out what I am saying....Now where have I read that sentence before .

As for there being a pattern of domestic abuse, maybe there didn't need to be as perhaps the trauma and fear of that "one off" incident was sufficient to keep Mrs J "in line" after that.

However, it was in fact alleged by the former Mrs J that SJ hit her "many times, over many years", so it is not my own narrative at all, as you imply, but rather that of the broken nosed victim.

 

[nickjhs]

A man breaks a woman's nose by hitting her and that is your opinion. Shame on you.

Wow. At no time have I even slightly excused the action. Rather the description. If I hit a bloke smaller and weaker than me am I a man beater. Or have I acted like a prick and need to make some sort of restitution. If I continue doing this then cowardly violent bully comes to mind, but probably not as a one off.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Fiona Bruce 'stepping back' from Refuge now

Fiona Bruce to step back from Refuge after 'storm' over Stanley Johnson remark on Question Time

It follows a "social media storm" over a remark the Question Time host made about Stanley Johnson.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Jim in the West]

Ok after watching that clip and at the risk of being slammed I would like to comment on what I perceive to be Bruce's motive. Johnson is described as a wife beater, which brings with it the connotation of someone who repeatedly and systematically abuses their partner, Bruce is pointing out that Yes he did hit her, yes his wife has claimed that her nose was broken and that those who know the couple have stated that this incident was not part of a continuous form of behaviour. I get what she is trying to do, put the situation into context, but I also acknowledge that it does seem like she is defending the behavior which I don't think she is. As egregious as breaking your partners nose in a moment of anger is, I feel, and clearly so does Bruce that this act of violence falls into a different category than what is generally perceived as 'wife beater"

I think there are multiple problems with what Bruce did. She appeared to excuse the domestic violence as a "one'off". She seemed eager to leap to the defence of Stanley Johnson. She didn't seem willing to consider the victim. She's a Refuge Ambassador (or was - no longer, after this).

Then, the BBC tried to defend her - in a very clumsy way by stressing the right of reply of the individual (what right of reply does he have? - he's effectively admitted continual domestic abuse by not challenging reports. And what about the victim - doesn't she have the right to have HER side aired, rather than the views of some mates of Stanley Johnson??). I'm certain that Fiona Bruce would have known this question was coming up. She could have prepared a comment that did NOT trivialise domestic abuse. But somehow she didn't.

Then Refuge themselves tried to defend her! Which was obviously not going to work. Bruce's position at Refuge was untenable.

It just remains to be seen whether the BBC will do anything. They are in a tricky position, and almost certainly don't want to upset the Daily Mail again....

 

[The Clamp]

Rather amusing seeing the furore a football pundit caused but this seems to have largely slipped under the radar.

 

[Hugo Rune]

I have sympathy with Bruce. She must be under a huge amount of pressure to be impartial by her Tory bosses.

Her first reaction to the wife beating fact is ‘I’m not disputing what you are saying’, she then says ‘Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that’ which is again, factual and textbook. That is where she should have left it.

But, she then goes way too far by quoting some sort of conjecture and 2nd/3rd/4th hand evidence. That’s a mistake and because of the subject matter, it sounds really bad.

I support Bruce and believe the ‘give all Tory criticism context’ culture currently at the BBC influenced her error. It’s really sad she has had to leave her charity but that’s an area mistakes just can’t happen.

As for Stanley Johnson, if we could charge him for treason for bringing into the world the parasite who sold our Country out for his own personal ambition, we should. Nasty little man.

 

[nickjhs]

How many times would someone have to kill before it's ok to call them murderer?

Great point, was it murder, was it manslaughter was it justifiable self defence? If you are found guilty of murder then the convention is that you are a murderer, if you murder more than one person you are described as a mass murderer, child abuse also has the same distinction, commit one act and you are a child abusing sex offender. Getting into a fight does not carry this level of condemnation. Now I do not know the circumstances of the broken nose incident, was it as Tm Bowers claims part of a sustained history of spousal abuse or as Johnson's friends have said a one off. I have to wonder if this was a same sex relationship (where the disparity in strength abiltity to fight and defend etc. where equivalent to Johnson and his wife) and this incident happened as described by the friends would there be such an outrage? Sure the attacker should be charged with assault resulting in grievous bodily harm but does a one of "red mist " incident equate to spousal/domestic abuse, personally I don't think so, its f***ed up and if I were the victim I would be out the door but to me domestic abuse confers the continual and systematic abuse of a spouse. And this is what I read into Bruce's comment.

 

[nickjhs]

he's effectively admitted continual domestic abuse by not challenging reports.

Really? Someone makes what are essentially unsubstantiated claims, the target of these claims decides to ignore them and this means they are guilty by default. Are you serious?

 

[herecomesaregular]

Great point, was it murder, was it manslaughter was it justifiable self defence? If you are found guilty of murder then the convention is that you are a murderer, if you murder more than one person you are described as a mass murderer, child abuse also has the same distinction, commit one act and you are a child abusing sex offender. Getting into a fight does not carry this level of condemnation. Now I do not know the circumstances of the broken nose incident, was it as Tm Bowers claims part of a sustained history of spousal abuse or as Johnson's friends have said a one off. I have to wonder if this was a same sex relationship (where the disparity in strength abiltity to fight and defend etc. where equivalent to Johnson and his wife) and this incident happened as described by the friends would there be such an outrage? Sure the attacker should be charged with assault resulting in grievous bodily harm but does a one of "red mist " incident equate to spousal/domestic abuse, personally I don't think so, its f***ed up and if I were the victim I would be out the door but to me domestic abuse confers the continual and systematic abuse of a spouse. And this is what I read into Bruce's comment.

Yes! He broke her nose! You are a bloke still, it seems, trying to minimise it. I'm glad that FB has had to stand down from her position with Refuge, totally inappropriate for her to continue, however sad she is about it.

 

[The Clamp]

Domestic violence is VERY rarely a "one off". And even if it were, it's still not okay. "I only broke her nose once". Not a great defense.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Great point, was it murder, was it manslaughter was it justifiable self defence? If you are found guilty of murder then the convention is that you are a murderer, if you murder more than one person you are described as a mass murderer, child abuse also has the same distinction, commit one act and you are a child abusing sex offender. Getting into a fight does not carry this level of condemnation. Now I do not know the circumstances of the broken nose incident, was it as Tm Bowers claims part of a sustained history of spousal abuse or as Johnson's friends have said a one off. I have to wonder if this was a same sex relationship (where the disparity in strength abiltity to fight and defend etc. where equivalent to Johnson and his wife) and this incident happened as described by the friends would there be such an outrage? Sure the attacker should be charged with assault resulting in grievous bodily harm but does a one of "red mist " incident equate to spousal/domestic abuse, personally I don't think so, its f***ed up and if I were the victim I would be out the door but to me domestic abuse confers the continual and systematic abuse of a spouse. And this is what I read into Bruce's comment.

The lady in question had a breakdown, ended up in a psychiatric hospital and divorced him.
There was also coercion with her not being allowed to see her friends or to have a car.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Fiona Bruce is an ambassador for Refuge. She should know better that it is never a one off. Anybody who has had any experience of DV will not excuse it as a one off.
It is GBH not just a slap. Two women die every week at the hands of their spouse or partner.

Sorry to quote myself, but Jess Philips read out the names of every woman who has been killed by a man,in the last 12 months, in the House of Commons, today. The video clip is 9 minutes long.

Edited as a typo said 22 months which should be 12 months,

 

[Albion my Albion]

How many people getting their knickers in a twist over Lineker are equally outraged that the moderator of the BBC's primary political show is married to someone who has been paid to advertise for the Tories?

It still gets my "knickers in a twist" over the fact that the wife of a US Supreme Court Justice was part of an attempt to physically overthrow the power of the electoral college in the US Capitol and that justice refused to recuse himself from a case involving that January 6th attack on the US government. The wife was directly involved in messaging high political officials and still believes the incredible false claim that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.