Question Time

BrianW said:
Any man who breaks his wife's nose is filth.
Once or twenty times makes no difference.
Should be put in a sack and drowned in the canal.
Click to expand...

Lowest of the fucking low - yet still the Beeb platform him for his mad views - have you seen the one about population control? Reckons UK should have no more than 10 -15m people and that the " black people brown people and yellow people" are allowed to breed too much

 
bluethrunthru said:
Lowest of the fucking low - yet still the Beeb platform him for his mad views - have you seen the one about population control? Reckons UK should have no more than 10 -15m people and that the " black people brown people and yellow people" are allowed to breed too much

Click to expand...


Imagine being such a pathetic embarrassment of a husband, father and everything else besides self-publicist and still thinking himself a member of the master race.
 
domalino said:
When she said “it was a one off” she was actually not just making an excuse for Stanley Johnson, she was lying - or at least spreading false information - because Charlotte Johnson has explicitly said he hit her “many times”.
Click to expand...
Nah. She said his friends agreed he'd done it "but only once" - so even his friends say he beat his wife. For "balance" you have to give both sides of the argument - and both sides admit he beat his wife.

If it came across as her making an excuse, that's unfortunate, but it wasn't false information. I actually took it at the time as her being BBC impartial to someone not able to defend himself, but critical of him, and of friends who would justify his occasional bit of domestic abuse (aka breaking his wife's nose).

I suppose she could have added, "But they would say that, wouldn't they?"

I'd still drop her as presenter for other reasons (including lack of impartiality in a right wing biased programme).
 
domalino said:
When she said “it was a one off” she was actually not just making an excuse for Stanley Johnson, she was lying - or at least spreading false information - because Charlotte Johnson has explicitly said he hit her “many times”.
Click to expand...
No change there, Tories will be Tories. The lying twats.
 
Vic said:
Nah. She said his friends agreed he'd done it "but only once" - so even his friends say he beat his wife. For "balance" you have to give both sides of the argument - and both sides admit he beat his wife.

If it came across as her making an excuse, that's unfortunate, but it wasn't false information. I actually took it at the time as her being BBC impartial to someone not able to defend himself, but critical of him, and of friends who would justify his occasional bit of domestic abuse (aka breaking his wife's nose).

I suppose she could have added, "But they would say that, wouldn't they?"

I'd still drop her as presenter for other reasons (including lack of impartiality in a right wing biased programme).
Click to expand...

That was how I took it too - S Johnson hasn't admitted it or been tried for it (as far as I know).

There was no denial that it had happened. She stated what was known.
 
I see she has had to step back from her charity work with Refuge, who she has supported for 25 years, because of the social media pile on. She has also clarified that she was obliged to say what she said to provide balance. Her words have been misquoted and twisted.
This social media world is dangerous.
 
Mraitch said:
I see she has had to step back from her charity work with Refuge, who she has supported for 25 years, because of the social media pile on. She has also clarified that she was obliged to say what she said to provide balance. Her words have been misquoted and twisted.
This social media world is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with social media , she should have known better than to be leant on to say what she did , bbc pandering to tories again, sick to death of the fucking bbc
 
Mraitch said:
I see she has had to step back from her charity work with Refuge, who she has supported for 25 years, because of the social media pile on. She has also clarified that she was obliged to say what she said to provide balance. Her words have been misquoted and twisted.
This social media world is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Two points to raise there

1/ if thats the truth why not say that the
2/ if thats the truth why have refuge asked her to step down?

This is what she actually said - and the obvious reason Johnson himself hasn't said as such is that presumably lying does come to him quite as easily as it does his son

 
I have seen it repeatedly.
My interpretation was, and remains, that Yasmin stated it was on public record.
Fiona’s clarification was that Johnson’s wife has made the claim and to Tom Bower, that Johnson had never commented on it, but friends of his had confirmed that it had happened but only once.
Fiona is stating facts, and what she states show that in all likelihood it did happen.
I think that the term it being on public record he is a wife beater was perhaps the contentious point.
Fiona’s statement supports the view he was likely a wife beater and in no way trivialises the actions. She did not suggest it only being once was in some way excusable.

I think, as frequently happens, a statement is misunderstood, then massively misrepresented.

She has voluntarily stepped down from a charity that she has supported for 25 years due to the adverse noise that it has generated. I think that is very sad.
 
Mraitch said:
I see she has had to step back from her charity work with Refuge, who she has supported for 25 years, because of the social media pile on. She has also clarified that she was obliged to say what she said to provide balance. Her words have been misquoted and twisted.
This social media world is dangerous.
Click to expand...
It was the way she stepped in. All she had to say was 'Stanley isnt here to defend himself' she didn't have to do it for him.
 
Gaudion M said:
It was the way she stepped in. All she had to say was 'Stanley isnt here to defend himself' she didn't have to do it for him.
Click to expand...
But her stepping in highlighted that in all likelihood, he did hit her. It strengthened the case rather than weakened it and was stating facts.
 
Mraitch said:
But her stepping in highlighted that in all likelihood, he did hit her. It strengthened the case rather than weakened it and was stating facts.
Click to expand...
It was his friends who she quoted as just the once, that is his frends being told by him it was once, not facts, she shouldnt have gone there
 
kaz7 said:
It was his friends who she quoted as just the once, that is his frends being told by him it was once, not facts, she shouldnt have gone there
Click to expand...
In the statement she said

His wife told Tom Bower he beat her
Johnson has never publicly commented on it
Friends said it did happen, but only once.

All are statements of fact on what had been said Or not said in Johnson’s case.

If she just stated the first two points it would be husband’s word against wife.
By adding the third point it increases the likelihood that it did happen at least once.

Nobody outside the Johnsons can state as a fact that it did or didn’t happen, or how many times, as it has never been tested legally.

I really believe Fiona’s statements have been misunderstood.
 
If Fiona Bruce has been an ambassador for and working with Refuge then she hasn't listened to a word anybody has said in her presence - she must have known there is no such thing as a one off
 
bluethrunthru said:
If Fiona Bruce has been an ambassador for and working with Refuge then she hasn't listened to a word anybody has said in her presence - she must have known there is no such thing as a one off
Click to expand...
She was quoting others.
Her statement increased the likelihood that Johnson was a wife beater, not diminish it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top