The BBC is mandated to be impartial, so when you say “that’s what impartiality looks like” you are contradicting any statements you make about it not being necessary.
If that constitutes impartiality then it was necessary for Fiona Bruce to say that.
The point is that it clearly isn’t impartial behaviour on her part.
Think we all agree the wife shouldn’t have been beaten and had her nose broke.
Fiona Bruce is an ambassador for Refuge too.
As much as I hate Fiona Bruce’s shitty interventions I’m not seeing much problem here.
I bet most people don’t know the incident in question even happened. If anything, she hits home that he really is a wifebeater and it’s not just some random woman with an axe to grind talking shit. The bit about the friends corroborating is going to cement it in people’s minds and if she was deflecting she could have avoided that and just said it was suggested but not proven.
You don’t think it minimizes domestic abuse?
Illegal migrant stabs a kid because he wasn’t getting enough money or handed a job
Hmmm this was after the 11yr was murdered and stuffed in to a case by Afghan migrants
Oh noo
I think most people upon hearing “he’s a wifebeater on record” would say “huh?”, so giving the audience the full context of exactly what she’s talking about and what’s been said makes sense to me and I’d expect it from a host.
People are really drawing their own conclusions that this is her saying it’s okay because it was once. She literally says I’m not disputing what you’ve said.
Pair of fuckin cunts.
That’s what balance on the BBC does. It makes you say stupid things like “I’m not disputing what you said, but his friends did say that he only did it once”.
But she didn’t mention that the victim was quoted as saying “He hit me many times, over many years.”
That does feel like she was minimizing domestic violence, even if it was unintentional.
Much of what she said was valid context, it’s specifically adding “it was a one off”, it’s a really unnecessary and odd bit of additional context. Once you’ve said it’s a fact that he broke his wife’s nose, it doesn’t seem at all necessary to add that his friends offered mitigation or context about it just being once. Why air his friends’ attempt to qualify him breaking his wife’s nose? Why would she think it’s important that the audience hear his friends’ weak attempts to somewhat defend him?
I’m not saying the answer to those questions is that shes pro Stanley Johnson, Tory or abuse, I’m asking if it’s some warped attempt to “present both sides” or offer balance when there isn’t any that needs adding.
Well we can all have our interpretations, but for me it’s only the friends saying it happened that takes away any kind of deniability that it happened. Friends plural is pretty damning.
Once you include what the friends have said at all I don’t think it’s fair to not say all of what they are meant to have said if your aim is educate your audience to know what this woman knows when she says this thing which I think to a lot of people would be coming out of the blue.
If she’d stopped at “she told a journalist and SJ hasn’t talked about it” then that’s just an another woman accusing a man of a thing with no charges and no evidence so it would most likely have just been brushed off entirely by lots of people imo.
Being an empathetic type, I do wish you the best, it can’t be easy fighting your corner when you support a team that’s relied heavily on foreign immigrants and non-white players to win trophies.
Not reading the whole back and forth, but as an immigrant to the UK myself, I think there is a huge distinction to being a foreign immigrant (not sure what difference it makes what race) vs being an illegal immigrant.
I don’t think any player we had of any race that helped us win trophies was an illegal immigrant, but maybe I am mistaken?
I don’t really agree that there’s any need or obligation to repeat the bit about his friends saying he only did it once, I think you should leave that mitigating kind of comment out entirely, and just go with the rest. I’m sure they had more to say than just “he broke her nose but just once” and their comments were heavily summarised, I doubt that she has repeated all of what they have said about the matter in that clip, and I think that’s fine, should have taken it one step further imo. “Friends of SJ have confirmed that this incident did take place” or something similar is just fine of your aim is simply to corroborate the statement/allegation etc
But I do see where you’re coming from and don’t think it’s unreasonable what you’re saying, just view it differently.
Mental
I’m amazed this government still has its supporters. Bad times.
Man, it looks like your right wing is almost as stupid as our right wing.
People who are angry at this, will still be angry because it’s on iPlayer.
So why cede ground to these neanderthals?
I think Sylvinho was something to do with a dodgy passport