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.
