[Oboogie]

TBF she was in a very difficult situation. If she didn't "clarify" the comments on Stanley Johnson, she could have left the programme open to legal action by the old fucker. Possibly taken off air.

That said, she could have done so without downplaying it quite as much.

I see there are calls for the BBC to sack Bruce, I'm really not sure on what grounds they could as her defence would simply need to play the clip from Question Time which plainly shows that Fiona Bruce was quoting Charlotte Wahl's friends. The friends confirmed that Charlotte Wahl was assaulted but, at odds with Wahl's allegation of multiple attacks, they said it only happened once. These were the friend's words, they were not Bruce's.

[Andy McDandy]

I imagine she once said something nasty about Jeremy. Or Diane. Or both. Or wasn't sufficiently fawning. It's usually something like that.

[The Weeping Angel]

Pretty good article on the whole Fiona Bruce situation here.

https://annawharton.substack.com/p/your ... itch-again

And lo behold, it is the woman’s fault again. Not only have people been rounding on Fiona Bruce, but the domestic abuse charity, Refuge, for whom she is an ambassador, who had the audacity to point out that Fiona Bruce was legally obliged to read out a right of reply and have refused to throw another woman to the wolves to pay for the crimes of a man.

I have spent my life in newspaper legal departments, and the fact is, despite what social media would have you believe, you can’t just say what you like about people. Because if you do, and you can’t back it up it’s called defamation and slander. You might think that newspapers make up allegations against people every day of the week, but believe me, as someone who has spent a career negotiating for hours with newspaper lawyers, that is not how it works.

You will not believe the number of famous men who we know are abusers, we just don’t have enough evidence to stand up in a court of law to tell the British public about them. Would you like Stanley Johnson to have been another one of them? It seems Twitter would. Because the alternative to cancelling Fiona Bruce now, would have been cancelling Yasmin’s ability to speak freely.

That was your choice.

From my years of experience, I imagine this is how the pre-production meeting went with lawyers:

[Oboogie]

I imagine she once said something nasty about Jeremy. Or Diane. Or both. Or wasn't sufficiently fawning. It's usually something like that.

I'm only surprised that I've yet to see anyone claim she's Jewish as they did with Kuenssberg. Give it time.

[kreuzberger]

Oh, perleeeze. Mailwatch running to the defence of Missus fucking Sharrocks?

Her of the bright blue sneer who treats you licence fee payers to her hand-chop dismissal of anything that doesn't stink of the direct sewer between Millbank and Tufton Street? Her who pulled up a hair's breadth short of "we don't know the context and whether she deserved it"?

Head. Wobble. Give.

[Oboogie]

Pretty good article on the whole Fiona Bruce situation here.

https://annawharton.substack.com/p/your ... itch-again

And lo behold, it is the woman’s fault again. Not only have people been rounding on Fiona Bruce, but the domestic abuse charity, Refuge, for whom she is an ambassador, who had the audacity to point out that Fiona Bruce was legally obliged to read out a right of reply and have refused to throw another woman to the wolves to pay for the crimes of a man.

I have spent my life in newspaper legal departments, and the fact is, despite what social media would have you believe, you can’t just say what you like about people. Because if you do, and you can’t back it up it’s called defamation and slander. You might think that newspapers make up allegations against people every day of the week, but believe me, as someone who has spent a career negotiating for hours with newspaper lawyers, that is not how it works.

You will not believe the number of famous men who we know are abusers, we just don’t have enough evidence to stand up in a court of law to tell the British public about them. Would you like Stanley Johnson to have been another one of them? It seems Twitter would. Because the alternative to cancelling Fiona Bruce now, would have been cancelling Yasmin’s ability to speak freely.

That was your choice.

From my years of experience, I imagine this is how the pre-production meeting went with lawyers:

Yes, that is good. Crucially it focusses on what Bruce actually said, rather than what people imagine she meant. There are parallels with the Lineker case here, Bruce no more excused domestic abuse than Lineker called the Tories Nazis or accused them of implementing a Holocaust.

[kreuzberger]

Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist, Tom Bower, and she said 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.

Note that "she", "Johnson's wife" doesn't even get a name check in that story. "Spoke to a journalist" also deliberately plays down the recollection of Charlotte Wahl.

Moreover, "one off" is absolutely superfluous both in law, and deed, and to the experience of being in the A&E when you are waiting for the treatment of a busted beak. That is pivotal to where the diminution of the violence lies.

Someone told Bruce to add that editorialisation? I seriously doubt it.

[satnav]

Fiona Bruce has often been criticised for letting Tories waffle on for ages whilst cutting off Labour panellists at the earliest opportunity. There have also been pictures of her scowling when a Labour or Lib Dem spokesperson takes a Tory minister to task. The problem is that we only see an edited version of what actually happened on the show so the producer could well have taken out large chunks of the actual show giving a slightly distorted version of what actually happened when the show was recorded.

If Fiona Bruce had taken a leaf out of Ian Hislop's book and used the word allegedly when putting forward Stanley's right of reply she might have avoided this controversy.

[Oboogie]

If Fiona Bruce had taken a leaf out of Ian Hislop's book and used the word allegedly when putting forward Stanley's right of reply she might have avoided this controversy.

But she wasn't alleging anything. She was reporting what friends of the Johnson's were reported to have said ie that Johnson did once assault his wife. That they made that statement isn't contested. Whether their statement was wholly or partly true or not is another matter, Johnson was never charged so their evidence has never been interrogated. Bruce didn't offer an opinion, she stated facts.

[Andy McDandy]

Meanwhile, the narrative has shifted to "aaaaah, but who are the REAL bullies?". So fucking predictable.

"Is it us, with our harmless efforts to ruin people's careers over an opinion expressed, or is it the LINEKER, in his SUIT AND TIE, with his self-deprecating "jokes" and widespread professional and public support?"

"No, Rich. It's you."

[Youngian]

[Bones McCoy]

If Fiona Bruce had taken a leaf out of Ian Hislop's book and used the word allegedly when putting forward Stanley's right of reply she might have avoided this controversy.

But she wasn't alleging anything. She was reporting what friends of the Johnson's were reported to have said ie that Johnson did once assault his wife. That they made that statement isn't contested. Whether their statement was wholly or partly true or not is another matter, Johnson was never charged so their evidence has never been interrogated. Bruce didn't offer an opinion, she stated facts.

Whether the nation should be treated to the opinions of Stanley Johnson's mates on a national TV progremme is questionable.

QT has had a conservative leaning presenter for as long as I can remember.
Robin Day, David Dimbleby both embodied the old school tie broadcast establishment type.

The job isn't easy, requiring a sharp mind and ability think fast as the debate unfolds.
This isn't helped by a modern tendency toward less polite modes of debate (Interruption and "noises off").

I'm inclined to think that Fiona Bruce lacks the sharpness, and in depth political knowledge to effectively manage the debate.

[Oboogie]

"Whether the nation should be treated to the opinions of Stanley Johnson's mates on a national TV programme is questionable."
The question was about whether Stanley Johnson's alleged abuse of his ex-wife should preclude him from being given a knighthood.
Without the friends testimony, the only evidence that the abuse happened is the ex-wife's allegation which had already been quoted by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
Whether you believe any of them is up to you, but it's difficult to see how the question can be discussed without hearing what the allegation is.

QT has had a conservative leaning presenter for as long as I can remember.
Robin Day, David Dimbleby both embodied the old school tie broadcast establishment type.

The job isn't easy, requiring a sharp mind and ability think fast as the debate unfolds.
This isn't helped by a modern tendency toward less polite modes of debate (Interruption and "noises off").

I'm inclined to think that Fiona Bruce lacks the sharpness, and in depth political knowledge to effectively manage the debate.

Agreed. Fiona Bruce is hopelessly out of her depth, she should be replaced for incompetence. Not for quoting people supporting Stanley Johnson's ex-wife's allegations of domestic abuse.

[Bones McCoy]

I could have simply stated that QT demands a "big beast" and we got the "Nice antiques lady", but that's a grossly sexist characterisation of the problem.

It's an irony, given the recent Lineker episode, but I think Andrew Neil might have been an ideal presenter.
I'm not at all keen on his politics, but whenever I've seen him moderating discussions he's removed the blue tinted glasses.
He's also good at shutting down obvious bullshitters - a sorely needed skill when facing today's media savvy politicians.

There's an awful lot wrong with Neil, which would rule him out.
Unfortunately QT has structural failures which run beyond the host.
Panel and audience selection, picking the questions and allocating time to different subjects.

[Oboogie]

I agree about Andrew Neil. He's good at his job and, although his politics are abhorrent, I cannot think of one occasion when I've detected any sign of bias when conducting political interviews.

[kreuzberger]

+1 on that too.

I had hoped that Bruce would have grown in to the role, but clearly not.

She is of the class which gave us, for example, Anna Foster. Christ, she was awful on Five Lice and shovelled out to interviewing about period pain and the next brand of tights.

Then she turned up as the ME correspondent, and was on site when Beirut went up with that dock-side explosion. Her reporting from southern Turkey (with a random cabby as her stringer/fixer/interpreter) has been matchless.

I am not suggesting that she should take over QT, far from it, but I am eager to heap praise on her old-skool Simpsonian reporting.

[Youngian]

Suspect Bruce clinched the QT job as she is so anodyne. In an era when you need a robust host who is not afraid to put their foot down with panellists and lowlife audience members. Victoria Derbyshire isn’t.

[Samanfur]

Nothing to see here:

BBC came under No 10 pressure to avoid using ‘lockdown’ in early pandemic, leak shows

BBC editors asked their journalists to avoid using the word “lockdown” in reporting at the start of the pandemic and to be more critical of Labour after pressure from Downing Street, leaked email and WhatsApp messages show.

Emails and messages were shown to the Guardian amid concern among some BBC insiders that the corporation has been too cowed by the government in recent years.

One email shows a senior editor informing correspondents that Downing Street was requesting them not to use the word “lockdown” in relation to the shutdown ordered by Boris Johnson on 23 March 2020 – the day the first lockdown was announced.

The email, sent to correspondents at just after 6pm on the day lockdown was announced, was labelled: IMPORTANT ADVISORY – language re broadcast. “Hi all – D st are asking if we can avoid the word ‘lockdown’. I’m told the message will be that they want to keep pushing people to stay at home but they are not talking about enforcement at the moment,” it said.

Reporters argued unsuccessfully against the advice and thus the website and broadcasts on that day spoke about “curbs” and “restrictions” on daily life, while other outlets, such as rival broadcaster Sky, were referring to “lockdown”.

[Oboogie]

Suspect Bruce clinched the QT job as she is so anodyne. In an era when you need a robust host who is not afraid to put their foot down with panellists and lowlife audience members. Victoria Derbyshire isn’t.

I do remember that the BBC, under attack for misogyny, was under a lot of pressure to appoint a female chair. Which narrowed the field. Samira Ahmed, Victoria Derbyshire, Emily Maitlis, Nick Robinson, and Kirsty Wark also auditioned. It would have been a waste of Maitlis, Robinson and Wark as some of the Beeb's best political interviewers to neuter them in that way. Of the other three Bruce was probably the best known - remember it was Dimbleby's big shoes which needed to be filled. I can see why Fiona Bruce seemed like the right call at the time.

[Bones McCoy]

Suspect Bruce clinched the QT job as she is so anodyne. In an era when you need a robust host who is not afraid to put their foot down with panellists and lowlife audience members. Victoria Derbyshire isn’t.

I do remember that the BBC, under attack for misogyny, was under a lot of pressure to appoint a female chair. Which narrowed the field. Samira Ahmed, Victoria Derbyshire, Emily Maitlis, Nick Robinson, and Kirsty Wark also auditioned. It would have been a waste of Maitlis, Robinson and Wark as some of the Beeb's best political interviewers to neuter them in that way. Of the other three Bruce was probably the best known - remember it was Dimbleby's big shoes which needed to be filled. I can see why Fiona Bruce seemed like the right call at the time.

I agree with this.
QT has been on a downward glide pattern for several years.
The choices of guests and audience arming its credibility as a flagship political debate.
This places it in the "below the pay grade" category for a lot of top broadcasters.

I suspect any figure like Andrew Neil would have swerved it for similar reasons.