Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stanley Johnson is an absolute cretin on a man. Did Fiona actually downplay DV towards women? Or did she add context as a presenter? You've taken a small part of the exchange and shown that in a quote just as the media have done. Wouldn't it be nice if you provided context?" They were talking about the merits of the honours system and the rumour that Stanley was about to be awarded a knighthood by his son boris! That was the context… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stanley Johnson is an absolute cretin on a man. Did Fiona actually downplay DV towards women? Or did she add context as a presenter? You've taken a small part of the exchange and shown that in a quote just as the media have done. Wouldn't it be nice if you provided context? They were talking about the merits of the honours system and the rumour that Stanley was about to be awarded a knighthood by his son boris! That was the context…" The OP provided no context, just one small part of an exchange. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stanley Johnson is an absolute cretin on a man. Did Fiona actually downplay DV towards women? Or did she add context as a presenter? You've taken a small part of the exchange and shown that in a quote just as the media have done. Wouldn't it be nice if you provided context? They were talking about the merits of the honours system and the rumour that Stanley was about to be awarded a knighthood by his son boris! That was the context… The OP provided no context, just one small part of an exchange." Well since you now know the context… what do you think? Genuine question… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stanley Johnson is an absolute cretin on a man. Did Fiona actually downplay DV towards women? Or did she add context as a presenter? You've taken a small part of the exchange and shown that in a quote just as the media have done. Wouldn't it be nice if you provided context? They were talking about the merits of the honours system and the rumour that Stanley was about to be awarded a knighthood by his son boris! That was the context… The OP provided no context, just one small part of an exchange. Well since you now know the context… what do you think? Genuine question…" I don't feel that she did downplay DV. She added context, and has since apologised if it appeared she was downplaying it. Why is no one talking about Ken Clarke? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Once is once too often. He broke her fucking nose FFS. Scum of a man. Certainly not chivalrous or deserving of becoming a “knight”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh tgat’s ok then
Once is once too often. He broke her fucking nose FFS. Scum of a man. Certainly not chivalrous or deserving of becoming a “knight”. "I have to disagree, context is important in all matters. I agree that Stanley Johnson is scum though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then "Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once. The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case. There really is nothing to see here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh tgat’s ok then
Once is once too often. He broke her fucking nose FFS. Scum of a man. Certainly not chivalrous or deserving of becoming a “knight”.
I have to disagree, context is important in all matters.
I agree that Stanley Johnson is scum though "She knew what she was doing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh tgat’s ok then
Once is once too often. He broke her fucking nose FFS. Scum of a man. Certainly not chivalrous or deserving of becoming a “knight”.
I have to disagree, context is important in all matters.
I agree that Stanley Johnson is scum though
She knew what she was doing "Why are you following me around? You are boring, go be a child elsewhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then
Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once.
The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case.
There really is nothing to see here."The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing….. It’s one time “that we know about “……. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh tgat’s ok then
Once is once too often. He broke her fucking nose FFS. Scum of a man. Certainly not chivalrous or deserving of becoming a “knight”.
I have to disagree, context is important in all matters.
I agree that Stanley Johnson is scum though
She knew what she was doing
Why are you following me around?
You are boring, go be a child elsewhere
"No need for insults | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is no one talking about Ken Clarke?" TBH I don’t think he came out of the exchange of views much better than Bruce did with the interjection… it just that Bruce’s statement was or certainly felt a lot more jarring… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then ""Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once. The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case. There really is nothing to see here." "The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing….." Again, she didn't say that it was "one time only". She said that other people had made that claim. She was speaking as the presenter, and it's part of her job to present the facts in an impartial manner, especially when the matter is controversial, and no one has the facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then
Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once.
The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case.
There really is nothing to see here.
The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing…..
Again, she didn't say that it was "one time only". She said that other people had made that claim. She was speaking as the presenter, and it's part of her job to present the facts in an impartial manner, especially when the matter is controversial, and no one has the facts."Poor judgement in the part of BBC lawyers and the presenter. Any claim of “only did it once” regardless of who makes it, comes across as an attempt at justification. The statement she made (as you say, likely under guidance from BBC lawyers) would have been relevant context without the “only did it once” element. Context is not a substitute for justification. DV is never acceptable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then
Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once.
The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case.
There really is nothing to see here.
The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing…..
Again, she didn't say that it was "one time only". She said that other people had made that claim. She was speaking as the presenter, and it's part of her job to present the facts in an impartial manner, especially when the matter is controversial, and no one has the facts.
Poor judgement in the part of BBC lawyers and the presenter. Any claim of “only did it once” regardless of who makes it, comes across as an attempt at justification. The statement she made (as you say, likely under guidance from BBC lawyers) would have been relevant context without the “only did it once” element.
Context is not a substitute for justification. DV is never acceptable."suspect it's a legal judgement call. That said, highlighting a specific and nasty case, as quoted directly by the victim, makes it real imo. I've not seen QT yet, but i would imagine I would have gone from Johnson the wifebeater (Hovis: that's an emotional term. Who said this and why. Is this true or someone twisting something for politicsl capital?" to "holy shit. That's real. And probably is the tip of the iceberg") So would have taken away any cynicism I have of terms being used for point scoring. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then ""Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once. The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case. There really is nothing to see here." "The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing….." "Again, she didn't say that it was "one time only". She said that other people had made that claim. She was speaking as the presenter, and it's part of her job to present the facts in an impartial manner, especially when the matter is controversial, and no one has the facts." "Poor judgement in the part of BBC lawyers and the presenter. Any claim of “only did it once” regardless of who makes it, comes across as an attempt at justification. The statement she made (as you say, likely under guidance from BBC lawyers) would have been relevant context without the “only did it once” element." I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I agree that any claim of "only did it once" is a pointer towards justification. If Stanley Johnson's friends are all saying "he only did it once", that's an important fact in my opinion, and I would want the BBC to tell me that people were saying that about him. Having said all that, I recently heard a story on an entertainment program about a man who had knocked his wife's teeth out with a cricket bat. It was an accident, and everyone treated the story as amusing. I know personally a man that put his wife in hospital after punching her. She said that he just turned, and it wasn't like him at all. An investigation revealed that he had a brain tumor. Now that it's been removed, he and his wife are as happy as they ever were. My point here is that we don't know what happened to Stanley Johnson's wife, so we shouldn't treat the case as if it were clear cut domestic abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue as I see it was not context but saying Stanley Johnson “only did it once”! Oh that’s ok then
Fiona Bruce didn't say that he's only done it once, she said that Stanley Johnson's friends have said that he only did it once.
The whole paragraph quoted in the OP was pre-prepared text for her to read out when this inevitably came up. She was just giving the audience some context, for those that didn't know what the accusation was. Since there's been no court case, the BBC have to be impartial on this, and present both sides of the case.
There really is nothing to see here.
The problem is that she is also an ambassador for refuge, the women’s charity… and even they admit that DV is rarely a one time only thing…..
Again, she didn't say that it was "one time only". She said that other people had made that claim. She was speaking as the presenter, and it's part of her job to present the facts in an impartial manner, especially when the matter is controversial, and no one has the facts.
Poor judgement in the part of BBC lawyers and the presenter. Any claim of “only did it once” regardless of who makes it, comes across as an attempt at justification. The statement she made (as you say, likely under guidance from BBC lawyers) would have been relevant context without the “only did it once” element.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I agree that any claim of "only did it once" is a pointer towards justification. If Stanley Johnson's friends are all saying "he only did it once", that's an important fact in my opinion, and I would want the BBC to tell me that people were saying that about him.
Having said all that, I recently heard a story on an entertainment program about a man who had knocked his wife's teeth out with a cricket bat. It was an accident, and everyone treated the story as amusing. I know personally a man that put his wife in hospital after punching her. She said that he just turned, and it wasn't like him at all. An investigation revealed that he had a brain tumor. Now that it's been removed, he and his wife are as happy as they ever were.
My point here is that we don't know what happened to Stanley Johnson's wife, so we shouldn't treat the case as if it were clear cut domestic abuse."But we do know that his son has history too and a domestic with Carrie resulted in the police being called. Sorry but I read what you have written and it sounds apologist. If Stanley Johnson had not committed an act of DV against his wife, then his lawyers would be all over this and an explanation on the facts given. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From wiki: Biographer Tom Bower records in an interview with his first wife Charlotte Fawcett that 'he hit me many times, over many years'. On one occasion in the 1970s he allegedly broke her nose, with Fawcett stating: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it. I want the truth to be told." Really doesn't sound like just the one time. So the idea Bruce was simply clarifying doesn't seem to add up." Yet again - Bruce didn't say "it was only the one time", she reported that other people had said that. She clarified that people were saying that, she didn't say, or even imply, that it was the truth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From wiki: Biographer Tom Bower records in an interview with his first wife Charlotte Fawcett that 'he hit me many times, over many years'. On one occasion in the 1970s he allegedly broke her nose, with Fawcett stating: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it. I want the truth to be told." Really doesn't sound like just the one time. So the idea Bruce was simply clarifying doesn't seem to add up. Yet again - Bruce didn't say "it was only the one time", she reported that other people had said that. She clarified that people were saying that, she didn't say, or even imply, that it was the truth." So why didn't Bruce jump in to clarify that Johnson's wife said he beat her many times? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We don't watch Question Time but from the sounds of it Fiona is simply stating where the wife beating 'rumours' come from. It's just common practice so the Johnsons don't try and sue QT for libel. Person A: So and so is a wife beater! Person B: This is the incident that Person A is referring to." Person C (the actual wife who got her nose broken) “Stanley hit me a lot” etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We don't watch Question Time but from the sounds of it Fiona is simply stating where the wife beating 'rumours' come from. It's just common practice so the Johnsons don't try and sue QT for libel. Person A: So and so is a wife beater! Person B: This is the incident that Person A is referring to. Person C (the actual wife who got her nose broken) “Stanley hit me a lot” etc" I think that's the worrying bit. It feels like Bruce jumped in to slant things in favour of Johnson as much as possible. While at the same time not mentioning the wife said there were many beatings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Update: Bruce has now stood down as a Refuge ambassador." Oh dear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems that social media has done for her. She was legally required to say what she did, and yet some people think that she was actually giving her personal opinion." Why did Bruce state friends of Johnson said it was only the once, yet not state the wife said it was many times? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems that social media has done for her. She was legally required to say what she did, and yet some people think that she was actually giving her personal opinion. Why did Bruce state friends of Johnson said it was only the once, yet not state the wife said it was many times?" She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems that social media has done for her. She was legally required to say what she did, and yet some people think that she was actually giving her personal opinion. Why did Bruce state friends of Johnson said it was only the once, yet not state the wife said it was many times? She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist!" We'll never know what was going on in Bruce's head, but her words came across incredibly badly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems that social media has done for her. She was legally required to say what she did, and yet some people think that she was actually giving her personal opinion. Why did Bruce state friends of Johnson said it was only the once, yet not state the wife said it was many times? She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! We'll never know what was going on in Bruce's head, but her words came across incredibly badly. " Indeed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd." As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement." And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years." Is that actually a serious question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question?" Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said?" That's a different question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. " Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity." It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors." I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what?" No one will know the answer to your question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question." O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said?" Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer." You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad." How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it?" It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times." There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses" Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to." Is my opinion a quibble? Or is it my opinion? Do you have a thought on why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to. Is my opinion a quibble? Or is it my opinion? Do you have a thought on why?" Your opinion/quibble/whatever you wanna call it just feels pointless here. Since you're basically saying: we don't know. You can say that about anything another person thinks. It just shuts down any debate & you've completely derailed the thread. If you've got nothing of value to add here, could you leave space for others to comment if they wish? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to. Is my opinion a quibble? Or is it my opinion? Do you have a thought on why? Your opinion/quibble/whatever you wanna call it just feels pointless here. Since you're basically saying: we don't know. You can say that about anything another person thinks. It just shuts down any debate & you've completely derailed the thread. If you've got nothing of value to add here, could you leave space for others to comment if they wish?" We don't know why... You asked a question and that's the answer. You speak about shutting down debate and then ask me to stop Are you serious?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to. Is my opinion a quibble? Or is it my opinion? Do you have a thought on why? Your opinion/quibble/whatever you wanna call it just feels pointless here. Since you're basically saying: we don't know. You can say that about anything another person thinks. It just shuts down any debate & you've completely derailed the thread. If you've got nothing of value to add here, could you leave space for others to comment if they wish? We don't know why... You asked a question and that's the answer. You speak about shutting down debate and then ask me to stop Are you serious? "You're just derailing the thread by saying the same thing. Your answer is: we don't know. OK. You've said so. So there's no need for you to continue this endlessly. Back to the thread, if any1 still cares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me Bruce, as a journalist, was merely giving background to the story. That's her job. The hysterical witch hunt against her is just absurd. As I said already above... She was doing what she was told by the BBC lawyers and the Gallery/Producers...except... As a journalist and news reader with decades of experience AND a representative of a DA charity, you’d think she might challenge what she was being told to say and ask for balance and sound less apologist! To add...listen to the off the cuff way she says “only once”. She made an error of judgement. And why did Bruce speak up on behalf of Johnson, saying it was only once? Yet she didn't speak up on behalf of the battered wife who said he beat her many times over many years. Is that actually a serious question? Yes. Why did Bruce report what Johnson's friends said yet fail to report what Johnson's wife said? That's a different question. Well it's the question I'm asking. It's basically the same question, just trimmed down for clarity. It's really not the same question. Which one are you asking? I can tell you the answer to the second one. No one will know apart from her or her superiors. I said just above. The second one. What do you mean no one will know? No one will know what? No one will know the answer to your question. O...K... So why do you think Bruce reported what Johnson's friends said yet failed to report what the battered wife said? Why would I guess at why she did? The only people who will know are her and possibly her superiors. That's the answer. You can say/guess whatever you want on here. I find it rather telling that nobody has come up with an explanation for what Bruce said that doesn't look pretty bad. How do you propose anyone comes up with an explanation unless they were part of it? It's called thinking & debating. You quibble very oddly on here at times. There is nothing to debate. The only answers you'll get are guesses Still quibbling, I see. We never 100& know anything. But we tend to think & discuss. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to. Is my opinion a quibble? Or is it my opinion? Do you have a thought on why? Your opinion/quibble/whatever you wanna call it just feels pointless here. Since you're basically saying: we don't know. You can say that about anything another person thinks. It just shuts down any debate & you've completely derailed the thread. If you've got nothing of value to add here, could you leave space for others to comment if they wish? We don't know why... You asked a question and that's the answer. You speak about shutting down debate and then ask me to stop Are you serious?
You're just derailing the thread by saying the same thing. Your answer is: we don't know. OK. You've said so. So there's no need for you to continue this endlessly.
Back to the thread, if any1 still cares.
"And now you play the old derailing card. Get a grip. You don't like my answer, that's cool. I have asked you to have a go at answering your own question but rather than try that, you prefer to attack me. Do you have an answer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now?" Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions?" If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. " So you don't think she was under orders to add that 'clarity'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. So you don't think she was under orders to add that 'clarity'?" Possibly. But it wasn't clarity since Bruce didn't mention the wife said he beat her many times over many years. Also, as I said above, there's a pattern from Bruce when it comes to defending Tories on QT. She does it a looooot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. So you don't think she was under orders to add that 'clarity'? Possibly. But it wasn't clarity since Bruce didn't mention the wife said he beat her many times over many years. Also, as I said above, there's a pattern from Bruce when it comes to defending Tories on QT. She does it a looooot. " That's why I'm asking if you think she's under orders, or if she needs to be taken off air because she can't be impartial? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. So you don't think she was under orders to add that 'clarity'? Possibly. But it wasn't clarity since Bruce didn't mention the wife said he beat her many times over many years. Also, as I said above, there's a pattern from Bruce when it comes to defending Tories on QT. She does it a looooot. That's why I'm asking if you think she's under orders, or if she needs to be taken off air because she can't be impartial?" I think Bruce should have been booted ages ago for not being impartial. 1 week when Bruce wasn't availaable, Victoria Derbyshire did the job instead. She was much better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starting a new bit here as the loooooong baack & forth is too much at this point. What am I being asked now? Do you have any thoughts on why Fiona Bruce didn't tell us that his ex wife said it happened on multiple occasions? If I was being charitable, I'd say it was an oversight. But I doubt that since she read out a line that seemed preprepared. To be clear, I do not think Bruce is in favour of wifebeating. But there's a pattern from her, week after week, where she jumps in to slant things in favour of Tories on QT. And the ultimate bosses at the BBC are Tories now. So I think the motivation for her words were: defend the Tory. So you don't think she was under orders to add that 'clarity'? Possibly. But it wasn't clarity since Bruce didn't mention the wife said he beat her many times over many years. Also, as I said above, there's a pattern from Bruce when it comes to defending Tories on QT. She does it a looooot. That's why I'm asking if you think she's under orders, or if she needs to be taken off air because she can't be impartial? I think Bruce should have been booted ages ago for not being impartial. 1 week when Bruce wasn't availaable, Victoria Derbyshire did the job instead. She was much better. " Fair enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additional context: Bruce is an ambassador for Refuge." She is now stepping down from that role because of the QT backlash. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additional context: Bruce is an ambassador for Refuge. She is now stepping down from that role because of the QT backlash. " I mentioned that earlier. But I guess it's been buried in the thread at this point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
