You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
How does she get away with it?
Married to a man with a multi million contract with the Tory Party and constantly shuts down criticism on live TV.
On the latest QT she dismisses the wife beating of Stanley Johnson as "a one off".
She is also an ambassador for Refuge.
Never liked her. Ruins the Antiques Roadshow for me, and she is sh!t at guessing which is good, better, or best.
It’s shill not “shrill”.
And he doesn’t have a “multi-million” contract with the Tory party either.
DCM have government contracts that probably add up to that.
Bruce is very good on Antiques Roadshow. I can't comment on Question Time these days... went from watching every week to not watching at all soon after she started that job and it became unwatchable (not really sure who was responsible, but back then the blatant bias seemed to come more from audience and panel selection than her being the host in my opinion).
And he doesn’t have a “multi-million” contract with the Tory party either.
It is claimed that his company has received £3.9m from the Conservative government to advertise government policies. Are you making a clear distinction between the Conservative Party and the Conservative government?
I expect she’s in a very tricky position but that retort in defence of Stanley Johnson just shows how ridiculous it is. No doubt this BBC thing will run and run and the position she and other journalists are ‘Putin’ will come to a spectacular head.
No idea if she’s a shill - if her husbands company takes advertising money from the government of the day then no big deal. If he donates then big deal.
Regardless of anything, you simply can not defend a wife beater.
She can **** off.
Tory Shrill? How does she get away with it?
If she is then they've been playing the long game - she's been at the BBC for over 30 years. Are you familiar with the term 'dog whistle'?
she’s been at the BBC for over 30 years
So what?
It's been her hosting of QT since 2019 that calls her into question.
I riding buddy of mine once shared a dinner table with her at some business event and was sat next to her. Apparently she came on really friendly towards him until she discovered that the guy on the other side of her was actually his boss. My mate claims that from that point onwards he only saw Fiona Bruce's back for the rest of the evening.
I like her on the Antiques Roadshow but that isn't the first time that I have heard less than complimentary comments about her.
Yep, most murders are one-offs.
And yet the son of the mum whose nose was broken wants to give her atracker a ****ing knighthood.
A very disfunctional family .
No idea if she’s a shill – if her husbands company takes advertising money from the government of the day then no big deal. If he donates then big deal.
I'm sure he'd rather keep the multi million pound contract rather than lose it because, just for instance, the government might not like the way his wife could shine a light on their shitty behaviour, perhaps ?
The QT audience seems so full of far right plants and the panel so full of right wing think tank bots these days. Any guest who alludes to this bias wont get invited back on the show.
You can see that BBC presenters spend a lot of time listening to instructions coming through their earpiece these days, obviously being told to either silence a guest or throw in a disclaimer in support of one government falsehood or whatever.
That's why I'm ambiguous with the Stanley Johnson thing. Did she say what she said because she was being told to do so? She certainly said it with a degree of irony that gave it a bit more emphasis, so it remains unclear to me wether she said it to give Johnson a pass or to hang him out to dry.
Tory shill?.... Yes but probably less right wing than the production company behind the show.
the position she and other journalists are ‘Putin’ will come to a spectacular head.
Nicely done
Has anyone ever heard of a Bruce Fiona, or is it a one way name?
I made my first meme, bad taste?
[img] 
[/img]
Not a fan, but I have always had her marked down as a prime example of North London champagne socialist.
I can't imagine any woman would try and minimise a case of domestic violence, so whilst I didn't see the episode, I can imagine it was said very much with a dose of he "only hit her once" irony in the delivery. As everyone knows that reported acts of domestic violence are just like sightings of rats . . .
irony in the delivery.
She certainly said it with a degree of irony
Not at all. I can't believe people are saying this.
He was called a wife beater and she stopped the dialogue to quantify it.
If you haven't heard it, then it's in this tweet.
https://twitter.com/deirdreheenan/status/1633960525464756225?s=20
Ah, I see - the politically unbiased, not wanting to get sued for something said on air, BBC answer. I stand corrected though my point about the rats is still valid.
You can see that BBC presenters spend a lot of time listening to instructions coming through their earpiece these days, obviously being told to either silence a guest or throw in a disclaimer in support of one government falsehood or whatever.
this is the odd thing for me with all those making an issue of her husband - if he is able to remotely influence her more than the producer talking in her ear it would suggest he is amazing and the producer is crap. After a few shows like that she’d probably be replaced!
her job isn’t to correct the panel every time they say something wrong - that the rest of the panels job! However the producers obviously knew the gov minister would talk shite about refugee numbers and had gone to the effort of having a graph to dispute the numbers and she understood the weaknesses in the “ah but Ukraine” argument.
I didn’t come away with the impression that she had an inherent bias, although I did come away no clearer on Labour’s “solution” to the immigration “issue”.
That’s why I’m ambiguous with the Stanley Johnson thing. Did she say what she said because she was being told to do so? She certainly said it with a degree of irony that gave it a bit more emphasis, so it remains unclear to me wether she said it to give Johnson a pass or to hang him out to dry.
I happened to watch the episode (I gave up on QT a long time ago). I didn’t get the impression she was diminishing the wife beating - when she interjected I thought she was going to do the “allegedly, we don’t have Stanley’s version” type response as some panel members seemed to be surprised it was said - but what she actually did was confirm that it had happened although friends said “only once”. I haven’t rewatched the clip but wonder if many of the outraged people saying she dismissed DV actually saw it either.
"only once”.
I did watch it and Fiona Bruce didn't say "only" once.
This is the transcript :
'I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to.
‘Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist Tom Bower, and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and she had ended up in hospital as a result, Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that.
‘Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off.’
What she was attempting to clarify was that although friends of Stanley Johnson agreed that the incident had happened there was no further alleged incidents.
You might not think that she needed to clarify that but it doesn't suggest that Bruce is condoning Stanley Johnson's behaviour.
You might not think that she needed to clarify that but it doesn’t suggest that Bruce is condoning Stanley Johnson’s behaviour.
If that transcript is correct, and it has no tone or intonation, that seems to be a statement of known facts, which is all she could say.
yet she went straight to hearsay instead of the source :/
In the case of Stanley, his ex-wife, the late artist Charlotte Wahl, kept his abuse secret until four years ago when she told Boris’s biographer, Tom Bower, that their marriage had been “ghastly, terrible”. “I want the truth told,” she said about Stanley’s violence, which was witnessed by Boris. “He hit me many times, over many years.” Early on he resented her seeing her friends “and that’s when he first hit me”. Later, she was deposited in the country, without a car. “To adultery and violence, his family could add deserter.”
or is it OK she was only hospitalised once ?
that seems to be a statement of known facts, which is all she could say.
Why is an anonymous quote from a supposed "friend" a "known fact" and yet the victim going on record as stating that he did it repeatedly isn't worth a mention?
Why is an anonymous quote from a supposed “friend” a “known fact” and yet the victim going on record as stating that he did it repeatedly isn’t worth a mention?
I'm going to take a wild guess at "for fear of libel action"
First bit of fallout - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/13/fiona-bruce-to-step-down-as-refuge-ambassador-over-stanley-johnson-comments
I’m going to take a wild guess at “for fear of libel action”
Hey Siri show me a non sequitur.
I’m going to take a wild guess at “for fear of libel action”
After the "clarification" by Bruce, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown states "But it did happen", so if it was potentially libellous why didn't she intervene again?
There are some quotes around Fiona stepping down as an ambassador for refuge from the people who deal with this issue every day. They need to start sinking in to the minds of the general population.
"We know at Women's Aid that domestic abuse is rarely, if ever, a 'one-off', with the vast majority of abuse being a pattern of behaviour," said chief executive Farah Nazeer.
"Even if abuse is an isolated event, it would have still been domestic abuse, and this should never be minimised."
“Refuge’s position was, and remains, clear – domestic abuse is never a ‘one off’, it is a pattern of behaviour that can manifest in a number of ways, including but not limited to physical abuse. Domestic abuse is never acceptable.
“Over the weekend we have been listening to, and heard, survivors of domestic abuse who have told us how devastating this has been for them. While we know the words were not Fiona’s own and were words she was legally obliged to read out, this does not lessen their impact and we cannot lose sight of that.”
It's not about libel it's more about the BBC's obligations to treat allegations fairly by providing a right of reply to someone accused of wrongdoing, but since Johnson has apparently refused to comment in public, she could have simply stated that fact and left it at that.
https://www.tiktok.com/@celestialpolice/video/7191943596713594117
Alison Hammond showing Fiona Bruce how it should be done!
I'd totally missed this story until I read the response just now that I linked to. Thanks to the previous poster for the link to the original video.
Nobody - absolutely nobody - punches their wife in the face sufficiently hard enough to hospitalise them(*), as a "one-off." That's about as plausible as turning up to A&E with a wine bottle stuck up your arse because you slipped whilst doing the hoovering naked.
(* - or indeed, y'know, punches them at all)
As a representative of a charity with very clear aims, to appear to not fully condemn or challenge the statement
Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off.’
Is shocking, and appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the charity's message, IMHO. That can be challenged without showing political bias.
If you compare the possible fallout of 'ambassador for a domestic abuse charity challenges statement that an assault in a relationship was a one off ' with 'pundit draws parallels with immigration policy and 1930s Germany from his personal account' then there's no denying there are differences, however, personally i find it difficult to understand how any decent human could challenge either move.
Nobody – absolutely nobody – punches their wife in the face sufficiently hard enough to hospitalise them(*), as a “one-off.” That’s about as plausible as turning up to A&E with a wine bottle stuck up your arse because you slipped whilst doing the hoovering naked.
Totally agree, but should that be taken up with Stanley Johnson or his friends that apparently said that it only happened once, or with Fiona Bruce for quoting it?
Seems to me that old Stanley is getting away with it, again, wouldn't it be funny if Fiona's husband is a member of the same Mayfair posh ****s club as Stanley.
Before we go all pitch forks out on Brucey worth a read for balance
Fiona Bruce to step back from Refuge after 'storm' over Stanley Johnson remark on Question Time https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64942726
Is that the same "step back" that Lineker did a couple of days ago?
Totally agree, but should that be taken up with Stanley Johnson or his friends that apparently said that it only happened once, or with Fiona Bruce for quoting it?
Are they mutually exclusive outcomes?
Johnson should be in court.
The footage of Bruce, I think what disturbs me most is the speed and ease at which she leapt in to make that point. One could argue, probably correctly, that she was trying to deflect a potential slander case; but she didn't say that the comment was merely an allegation, rather she confirmed it was true and then made an excuse for it. Because intentionally breaking your wife's nose requires quantifying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nobody – absolutely nobody – punches their wife in the face sufficiently hard enough to hospitalise them(*), as a “one-off.”
How do you know that the nose was broken by a punch?
The story first came out over 2 years ago and the allegation was that "flailing" was involved. Flailing often results in a loss of balance which can lead to injuries
"Friends of the family told the Mail on Sunday that Charlotte had ‘flailed’ at Stanley, who ‘flailed’ back and broke her nose in a ‘one-off’ incident."
I have absolutely no idea what happened during that incident but I do know that it is possible to break your nose without someone punching you in the face.
I also know that the BBC/Fiona Bruce simply used the same words as those who alleged the incident took place used. And that Fiona Bruce did not use the word "only", as was falsely claimed.
The wording used during a live debate might not have been perfect but it is clear that the BBC wanted to establish precisely what had been alleged. Not that they wanted to trivialise domestic violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Johnson_Wahl
Biographer Tom Bower recorded an interview with Johnson Wahl where she said that Stanley Johnson 'hit me many times, over many years'. On one occasion in the 1970s he allegedly broke her nose, with Johnson Wahl stating: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it. I want the truth to be told
That is not someone who deserves a knighthood. I would be ashamed of such behaviour.
As a representative of a charity with very clear aims, to appear to not fully condemn or challenge the statement
Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off.’
Is shocking, and appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the charity’s message, IMHO.
IIRC she was reading it from a card? Its easy to sit here with 20:20 hind sight and say "she should have" ... I know we think her job is just sitting in the middle of a squabble and dead easy but I think you have a bunch of righteous people fighting amongst themselves on the panel, a braying audience, and a producer in your ear saying "OK can you read card about Stanley Johnson" and now we want her to do it, and make meaningful judgement on the content of the card at the same time (of course she may have been part of the meeting that drafted that wording).
The bit that seems strange to me is that - possibly correctly - she stepped in to provide comment that SJ's friends had confirmed this had happened once.
(BBC article) "Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off."
But did not also comment that the victim, a first hand account, has said that "Stanley Johnson ‘hit me many times, over many years’. "
I suppose technically Bruce's wording was therefore correct, ie: breaking her nose was a one-off. But that also seems rather one sided, neglecting to mention 'for balance' that hitting* happened many times.
If as suggested above, this was discussed in an editorial meeting before (fairly predictable that this was going to come up and therefore a 'prepared' comment was made available) seems that editorial meeting has not exactly been balanced in its position. So whether she was just reading it out, or was involved in agreeing the wording of the comment/intervention - still sounds like an unbalanced comment to me in the light of both sides view of it.
* not flailing
‘hit me many times, over many years'
That is one person's allegation against another person. The BBC focused on one allegation which was apparently backed up by other people, and these people claim that it didn't happen many times.
All of this is neither here nor there, it doesn't provide evidence that the BBC and Fiona Bruce were attempting to trivialise domestic violence.
The BBC provides live debates because many people appreciate their value, I don't believe that heavily edited pre-recorded debates would be an improvement. Which is obviously the alternative when half a dozen people are all arguing live at the same time.
How do you know that the nose was broken by a punch?
I thought I'd read it. Maybe I just inferred it? But if it wasn't a punch, does it not strike you as odd wording when it was explained as "a one-off" rather than, say, "an accident"?
(I'm not sure as I'd be running to the Mail as a source of canonical information in either case.)
All of this is neither here nor there, it doesn’t provide evidence that the BBC and Fiona Bruce were attempting to trivialise domestic violence.
Even if true - and I'm unconvinced - then an ambassador for Refuge should perhaps have been a little bit more careful in what they said on national television. No?
“Friends of the family told the Mail on Sunday that Charlotte had ‘flailed’ at Stanley, who ‘flailed’ back and broke her nose in a ‘one-off’ incident.”
This reads as she probably tried to slap him and he punched her hard in the face.
What a great result.
Someone who quietly gives their time to a charity over many years is hounded out from that position by shouty internet people who ignore that she was required to read out what was said by her employer, in order to avoid a potential libel claim.
That is one person’s allegation against another person. The BBC focused on one allegation which was apparently backed up by other people,
Fair comment, although it could have been presented in that way and still been balanced. "X has alleged......; friends of Y have said that it was a one-off"
these people claim that it didn’t happen many times.
I might be dancing on the head of a pin over language - but I'm sorry, I've become attuned to certain sections of politics/media providing ambiguous statements and then saying that it wasn't exactly what was said. AIUI the Newsnight statement was
"Just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson's [ex] wife spoke to a journalist, Tom Bower, and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and that she'd ended up in hospital as a result.
"Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off."
- so what was the one-off they refer to? Because what is actually said in the statement, "that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and that she'd ended up in hospital as a result" is not inconsistent with him repeatedly hitting her, and on one occasion breaking her nose where she'd ended up in hospital.
I mean, neither reflect well, but one is potentially of a loss of control, maybe a flailing arm, etc; the other is of a regular wife-beater. Which she clearly alleges, whether backed up by others or not.
The BBC provides live debates because many people appreciate their value, I don’t believe that heavily edited pre-recorded debates would be an improvement. Which is obviously the alternative when half a dozen people are all arguing live at the same time.
But the thinking is this was some sort of a pre-written card so there was the potential in the editorial meeting to consider both sides and what appropriate balance should have been. They only gave the 'kindest' half.
It would probably been best if the question concerning whether Boris Johnson should have included his father in his Resignation Honours had been deemed too controversial, with potentially legal complications, and therefore not asked.
Or just pre-record all political debates so that lawyers can carefully check all wording used by multiple contributors before it is broadcasted.