| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 10:27 - Mar 13 with 6204 views | bluelagos |
Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it...
|  |
| |  |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:28 - Mar 13 with 908 views | BlueBadger |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:42 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
Sorry but that just doesn't cut it - she wasn't obliged to say exactly those words (the last part of which are clearly directly from Johnsons' friends who are defending him, not even from SJ himself).
All she had to do was “the job of BBC presenters .. ensure that the context of those allegations — and any right of reply from the person or organisation — is given to the audience in a neutral manner". So she could have finished her interjection on her words "Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that".
Either she was defending a high-profile tory, or she was unable to think on her feet sufficiently well to chair a BBC flagship political TV programme. Whichever (or both), she's not good enough to be its chairperson.
Awful also to see Ken Clarke shaking his head 7 secs. into the clip, as if to refute the factual correctness of what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said - I'd previously thought him at least semi-decent (for a Tory). |
Iain Banks. Sweetcorn. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:11 - Mar 13 with 841 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:05 - Mar 13 by DJR |
Sorry, I am not trying to be an apologist for domestic violence, but it did struck me that what she said had been rehearsed, perhaps because the programme anticipated that Stanley Johnson's history on that front might arise: his possible knighthood was, after all in the news.
And I do sense that some of the reaction to what she said was a consequence of what had happened to Gary Lineker and a feeling that others such as her got away with bias because they are Tories. That was certainly the way I felt when the matter emerged.
But I am happy to accept in full what you say. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 18:06]
|
The only alternative to it being her choice to say exactly what she did, would be that the BBC instructed her to say exactly what she did.
Whichever of them it was, to say live on air that a man "only" hit his wife once is outrageous, and in her role as Ambassador to that charity, Bruce should have known that in cases of DV, it's never a "one-off". If she didn't know that, then she was worse than useless in the role & should have resigned from it anyway.
If it was strictly the BBC directing her to use those precise words, then that's a shocking manifestation of them breaching their own guidelines. Would they or Bruce have read out those words of SJ's apologist for DV friends if, eg, it had been a Labour MP that had hit their wives? Why on earth would anyone use the words of 'friends', not family, & take them as valid, when the perpetrator of the crime had himself chosen to refrain from comment?
The whole thing absolutely stinks, & I hope this is the catalyst that results in QT now being pulled altogether as a show, it's become totally corrupt & has gone well past its shelf life. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:16 - Mar 13 with 824 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:55 - Mar 13 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can't be certain, but I think Clarke is shaking his head in "No thank you" kind of way at Bruce, who, I speculate, non-verbally offered him the opportunity to respond under instruction in her earpiece from the Director (hence why the camera cuts to him and then off him so quickly) and when he doesn't come in, Bruce interjects.
It doesn't look like he is shaking his head at the speaker, to me, but I could be wrong. |
I'll have another look later 👠| |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:18 - Mar 13 with 815 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 18:24 - Mar 13 by factual_blue |
I would say that almost certainly the QT producer was screaming into Fiona's earpiece the words the lawyers required to be broadcast. |
I very much doubt that there's a requirement to state what the friends of a criminal think, when the criminal himself has chosen to refrain from comment. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 19:19]
| |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:33 - Mar 13 with 793 views | bluelagos |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:18 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
I very much doubt that there's a requirement to state what the friends of a criminal think, when the criminal himself has chosen to refrain from comment. [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 19:19]
|
At the time I thought she was reading a prepared statement that had been written by the BBC lawyers...
Sadly it came across as her minimising the issue of domestic violence which given her role for the charity seems unlikely to be her intent.
Can see the charity would be unhappy and same with campaigners against DV. My only thought was they should have been more upset with the lawyers rather than with her (assuming it was as I think - her reading a prepared text)
But can see why she has stood down, less so her blaming it on social media rather than accepting the way it came across was very much minimising the issues imho.
If nothing else, it makes the appointment of SJ to the lord's look even more inappropriate and unlikely. I was unaware of his dark side and it seems impossible for him to be knighted now. | |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:37 - Mar 13 with 784 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:11 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
The only alternative to it being her choice to say exactly what she did, would be that the BBC instructed her to say exactly what she did.
Whichever of them it was, to say live on air that a man "only" hit his wife once is outrageous, and in her role as Ambassador to that charity, Bruce should have known that in cases of DV, it's never a "one-off". If she didn't know that, then she was worse than useless in the role & should have resigned from it anyway.
If it was strictly the BBC directing her to use those precise words, then that's a shocking manifestation of them breaching their own guidelines. Would they or Bruce have read out those words of SJ's apologist for DV friends if, eg, it had been a Labour MP that had hit their wives? Why on earth would anyone use the words of 'friends', not family, & take them as valid, when the perpetrator of the crime had himself chosen to refrain from comment?
The whole thing absolutely stinks, & I hope this is the catalyst that results in QT now being pulled altogether as a show, it's become totally corrupt & has gone well past its shelf life. |
I don't think Question Time should be axed. Instead, it should be properly held accountable to have a truly impartial presenter. I think increasing political engagement is good. There have been some very good clips from Question Time where MPs have been challenged despite the presenter's own clear bias. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:42 - Mar 13 with 775 views | MattinLondon |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:11 - Mar 13 by Ryorry |
The only alternative to it being her choice to say exactly what she did, would be that the BBC instructed her to say exactly what she did.
Whichever of them it was, to say live on air that a man "only" hit his wife once is outrageous, and in her role as Ambassador to that charity, Bruce should have known that in cases of DV, it's never a "one-off". If she didn't know that, then she was worse than useless in the role & should have resigned from it anyway.
If it was strictly the BBC directing her to use those precise words, then that's a shocking manifestation of them breaching their own guidelines. Would they or Bruce have read out those words of SJ's apologist for DV friends if, eg, it had been a Labour MP that had hit their wives? Why on earth would anyone use the words of 'friends', not family, & take them as valid, when the perpetrator of the crime had himself chosen to refrain from comment?
The whole thing absolutely stinks, & I hope this is the catalyst that results in QT now being pulled altogether as a show, it's become totally corrupt & has gone well past its shelf life. |
I don’t think that it should be asked but definitely revamped. In my opinion it’s a has too much PMQs about it. People trading insults and shouting the loudest to get their point across. All a bit bit unnecessary at times. |  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:46 - Mar 13 with 761 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:37 - Mar 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I don't think Question Time should be axed. Instead, it should be properly held accountable to have a truly impartial presenter. I think increasing political engagement is good. There have been some very good clips from Question Time where MPs have been challenged despite the presenter's own clear bias. |
Not saying there shouldn't be such an alternative show set up as you say with an indie chair, but QT as it is is hopelessly, inherently (and seemingly institutionally) biased.
The audience is made up in numbers of people strictly in the ratio of the previous GE results & seats in the HoC, which is absolutely ridiculous considering we have fptp not PR; and that there've been sea changes in public opinion over the past 4 years of Tory administration. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 21:29 - Mar 13 with 687 views | StokieBlue |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 10:40 - Mar 13 by meekreech |
Should be sacked for breaking the terms of his contract. Has shown arrogance beyond belief in using his privileged position to take advantage of his popularity to make himself look above the rules governing other broadcasters. |
What are you so scared about that you don't want people to be allowed to express their opinions?
SB [Post edited 13 Mar 2023 21:44]
|  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 08:11 - Mar 14 with 569 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 19:33 - Mar 13 by bluelagos |
At the time I thought she was reading a prepared statement that had been written by the BBC lawyers...
Sadly it came across as her minimising the issue of domestic violence which given her role for the charity seems unlikely to be her intent.
Can see the charity would be unhappy and same with campaigners against DV. My only thought was they should have been more upset with the lawyers rather than with her (assuming it was as I think - her reading a prepared text)
But can see why she has stood down, less so her blaming it on social media rather than accepting the way it came across was very much minimising the issues imho.
If nothing else, it makes the appointment of SJ to the lord's look even more inappropriate and unlikely. I was unaware of his dark side and it seems impossible for him to be knighted now. |
Fiona Bruce has been completely screwed over by the BBC.
Anyone who has any knowledge of Stanley Johnson will know that he was a car crash of a husband and father who often disappeared and left them without any money.
Fiona Bruce has been a campaigner against domestic abuse for a quarter of a century alongside her ambassadorship with Refuge.
She was plainly (100%) either given a prepared response on a matter that would almost definitely be raised or she was instructed exactly what to say in her earpiece.
There is a massive social media driven problem of people jumping to there own conclusions and revelling in the fact that someone they don’t like could get into a spot of bother. |  |
| |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 08:27 - Mar 14 with 538 views | DJR |
Post removed as posted on the wrong thread. [Post edited 14 Mar 2023 8:30]
|  | | |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 13:50 - Mar 14 with 453 views | Ryorry |
| Lineker 1 Braverman 0 on 17:55 - Mar 13 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I can't be certain, but I think Clarke is shaking his head in "No thank you" kind of way at Bruce, who, I speculate, non-verbally offered him the opportunity to respond under instruction in her earpiece from the Director (hence why the camera cuts to him and then off him so quickly) and when he doesn't come in, Bruce interjects.
It doesn't look like he is shaking his head at the speaker, to me, but I could be wrong. |
Afternoon Arnie - looked again 3 times, & on reflection I think it's impossible to say, as the camera cuts away to focus exclusively on KC - you can't see who his look is directed at, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion!
Generally speaking re Bruce vs. the lawyers or producer - if it was an earpiece or script that she was instructed to follow to the letter, including every last precise word, then particularly given her role in that charity, she should have either refused & appropriately amended it on the spot in light of her knowledge; or resigned straight after the show & explained why. Reading it out in its entirety, if she was instructed to do that, just makes her look like a coward or an apologist, & sadly she has form as a tory apologist. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
