Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[glasgowspur]

Not me the other night most definitely, to be baited in to the discussion with yourself alongside the one who shouldn't even be allowed access to the internet, I'd clearly had enough already! 6 beers 1 bottle of jim beam and half a bottle of port but who's counting?

If I went out with either of you I'd probably end up fighting both of you but thanks for the offer.

At least the gammons have been roasted by means of the BBC's backtracking.

You're malicious representation of Linekar's tweet and the gaslighting approach of making it out like you were joking whilst just essentially posting inaccurate views were what I considered "despicable" btw.

A simple "i'm washing my hair" would have saved us both a lot time.

 

[Rorschach]

I genuinely think it was a mistake as she was trying to be "impartial" and unfortunately ended up appearing to condone domestic violence. She has apologised and accepted the mistake.

Not the same imho as people who say something stupid and inflammatory then double down on it.

I don't think this at all. She knew exactly what she was doing at the time and it was not a display of impartiality. She was attempting to minimize the charge, despite her subsequent protestations to the contrary. Her 'apology' is couched in the language of victim blaming - "I'm sorry you feel this way". Just my opinion of course.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

No she relayed the facts as known to her, the only once comment was her quoting his friends and contextualising a comment that was made on the show. It wasn't her personal opinion.

Another twitter storm and people miss quoting and raising a storm over nothing...

Thus is the modern world

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

I genuinely think it was a mistake as she was trying to be "impartial" and unfortunately ended up appearing to condone domestic violence. She has apologised and accepted the mistake.

Not the same imho as people who say something stupid and inflammatory then double down on it.

Thanks for the info. I’m sure she didn’t intend to condone domestic violence. I’m equally sure if my employer instructed me to use that statement (not a fact, just from his friends) as balance I would be refusing but maybe on the spot with a producer in her earpiece she didn’t have time to think through what she was saying. But as an ambassador for Refuge she should have known better.
Anyway if anything positive comes out of it it will be that Stanley Johnson doesn’t get his knighthood.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don't think at all. She knew exactly what she was doing at the time and it was not a display of impartiality. She was attempting to minimize the charge, despite her subsequent protestations to the contrary. Her 'apology' is couched in the language of victim blaming - "I'm sorry you feel this way". Just my opinion of course.

By saying she is not disputing the allegation? Sorry thats rubbish, I have watched the show every week for years and I have lost count of the number of times that she has had to read impartiality and legal based statements when discussing a subject that have been used to cover the BBCs back. Im yet to see a statement which she also victim blames about domestic abuse, I have seen ones in which you says that she was not given a personal view and the statement was not a reflection of her view on it, happy to be proven wrong of course but again. If the statement "im sorry you feel this way" was even used, I am yet to see it, be intersted if it was used and if it was used in the context of domestic abuse or people believing her comments were personal views, which are two totally different things

 

[Grays_1890]

I genuinely think it was a mistake as she was trying to be "impartial" and unfortunately ended up appearing to condone domestic violence. She has apologised and accepted the mistake.

Not the same imho as people who say something stupid and inflammatory then double down on it.

It was clear she was reading a statement out and not having a view, suppose its another danger of hosting a factual based news show on the BBC. If people choose to read thing she reads:

‘I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s 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 but it was a one-off.’

So despite saying she is not disputing the allegation (which seems to have been freely ignored) she reads out the current legal position of the allegations and provides a quote from friends....

Social media for you, uproar without actually reading the contents. I mean she can read a factual statement like that and most people know that like those of use that are also sane that no one condones domestic abuse and you don't have to go round doing so every day of the week to prove it and also have to hear others like Bruce do the same. Its all abit weak for me

 

[Glenda's Legs]

It was clear she was reading a statement out and not having a view, suppose its another danger of hosting a factual based news show on the BBC. If people choose to read thing she reads:

‘I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s 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 but it was a one-off.’

So despite saying she is not disputing the allegation (which seems to have been freely ignored) she reads out the current legal position of the allegations and provides a quote from friends....

Social media for you, uproar without actually reading the contents. I mean she can read a factual statement like that and most people know that like those of use that are also sane that no one condones domestic abuse and you don't have to go round doing so every day of the week to prove it and also have to hear others like Bruce do the same. Its all abit weak for me

And yet she wasn’t asked to read out the quote from Johnson’s ex wife that he hit her many times over many years. Now that may be the fault of the BBC but Bruce should have known better and I’d expect her to question having to spout that defence. I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt of having a producer in her earpiece and she didn’t have time to think about it but if that wasn’t the case then there is no excuse for what she agreed to say in my opinion.

 

[Grays_1890]

And yet she wasn’t asked to read out the quote from Johnson’s ex wife that he hit her many times over many years. Now that may be the fault of the BBC but Bruce should have known better and I’d expect her to question having to spout that defence. I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt of having a producer in her earpiece and she didn’t have time to think about it but if that wasn’t the case then there is no excuse for what she agreed to say in my opinion.

Thats not her job though, that allegation has been made already its out there, she does not need to mention it, she even says she does not doubt it, its out as a mater of public fact. She is there to moderate a TV show not act as judge juror and executioner for an allegations. In fact she adds context to the comments made on the show which sheds light on the incidents and gives people who maybe had not heard the story a chance to find out about it.

She did the same when there was anti Semitic allegations and sexual abuse allegations in the HOP, you have to be pretty weak minded to believe she therefore is victim blaming or standing with the accused and not the accuser.

She is not there to be a campaigner for every single cause that is mentioned on the show, they would be 4hrs long if people expected a monologue from her on every view. If people can't make up their own minds on allegations that are freely out there and in the public domain thats a mark on them, not Fiona Bruce, its certainly not a reason for people to have their work threatened

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Thats not her job though, that allegation has been made already its out there, she does not need to mention it, she even says she does not doubt it, its out as a mater of public fact. She is there to moderate a TV show not act as judge juror and executioner for an allegations.

She did the same when there was anti Semitic allegations and sexual abuse allegations in the HOP, you have to be pretty weak minded to believe she therefore is victim blaming or standing with those being accused.

I can assure you I am not weak minded. It’s not a case of whether she is personally standing with those accused but she parroted a despicable defence of the allegation. That might have been what her employer told her to say but I would have expected differently of her and with her having said that I can’t see how she can keep her ambassador role for Refuge.

 

[Rorschach]

By saying she is not disputing the allegation? Sorry thats rubbish, I have watched the show every week for years and I have lost count of the number of times that she has had to read impartiality and legal based statements when discussing a subject that have been used to cover the BBCs back. Im yet to see a statement which she also victim blames about domestic abuse, I have seen ones in which you says that she was not given a personal view and the statement was not a reflection of her view on it, happy to be proven wrong of course but again. If the statement "im sorry you feel this way" was even used, I am yet to see it, be intersted if it was used and if it was used in the context of domestic abuse or people believing her comments were personal views, which are two totally different things

If it was pre-prepared as a legal deflection then why not include the counter-allegation that it was not a once-off? Maybe the fault at the time was not hers but her producers, but I daresay it was just her usual reflex. And to me the apology shows little contrition. "But I can apologise for the very real impact that I can see it has had" is a variation of the domestic violence victim-blaming language. The uproar it is causing is justified.

 

[Rorschach]

Thats not her job though, that allegation has been made already its out there, she does not need to mention it, she even says she does not doubt it, its out as a mater of public fact. She is there to moderate a TV show not act as judge juror and executioner for an allegations. In fact she adds context to the comments made on the show which sheds light on the incidents and gives people who maybe had not heard the story a chance to find out about it.

She did the same when there was anti Semitic allegations and sexual abuse allegations in the HOP, you have to be pretty weak minded to believe she therefore is victim blaming or standing with the accused and not the accuser.

She is not there to be a campaigner for every single cause that is mentioned on the show, they would be 4hrs long if people expected a monologue from her on every view. If people can't make up their own minds on allegations that are freely out there and in the public domain thats a mark on them, not Fiona Bruce, its certainly not a reason for people to have their work threatened

Weak minded? That's your comment? FFS.

 

[Grays_1890]

Weak minded? That's your comment? FFS.

Yeh, people that read a statement and take it as her version of the events yeh and think her subsequent comments are victim blaming,, I say thats weak minded yeah, I think it is. People are purposely focusing in on some specifics and purposely ignoring others to hammer her. Lets not try and conflate that with what I believe about domestic abuse here before you start because I am talking about specific facts relating to what Fiona Bruce said and peoples interpretation of that, not domestic abuse or Stanley fcuking Johnson

 

[Grays_1890]

I can assure you I am not weak minded. It’s not a case of whether she is personally standing with those accused but she parroted a despicable defence of the allegation. That might have been what her employer told her to say but I would have expected differently of her and with her having said that I can’t see how she can keep her ambassador role for Refuge.

So when Bissouma was accused of sexual abuse and the statements were read out to say it was an allegation and he denied it all when the subject was reported, was that parroting because those stories on SSN or any outlet where deciding not to go into the alleged victims story deeper every time it was reported? You think female reporters should have navigated the law of the land to give their own views and go off piste and say "allegations from the women include...." Come on now

If people and public need Fiona Bruce to moderate their own personal views on whats abhorrent and not in the world then we have a real problem with society

Its certainly not her job to ascertain Johnsons guilt and then give a personal view beyond the fact, what she believes in private you and I don't know, I would hope she believes, like I do that he is guilty and an absolute scummer, but I don't need to know that for me to believe it.

 

[Grays_1890]

If it was pre-prepared as a legal deflection then why not include the counter-allegation that it was not a once-off? Maybe the fault at the time was not hers but her producers, but I daresay it was just her usual reflex. And to me the apology shows little contrition. "But I can apologise for the very real impact that I can see it has had" is a variation of the domestic violence victim-blaming language. The uproar it is causing is justified.

For her comments not domestic abuse....huge difference there

The irony of a female being bullied into apologies by a baying public is also not lost on me given the original subject matter, but there we go. There is also a level of hypocrisy to say you don't believe a womans statement and you don't think her apology is not enough. Not exactly joined up thinking if we are considering the overarching subject of respect for women, whats the point in saying we want to listen and believe women who talk about domestic violence when we are not prepared to listen to one that says her comments have been taken out of context or believe her apology?

Anyway

 

[Glenda's Legs]

So when Bissouma was accused of sexual abuse and the statements were read out to say it was an allegation and he denied it all when the subject was reported, was that parroting because those stories on SSN or any outlet where deciding not to go into the alleged victims story deeper every time it was reported? You think female reporters should have navigated the law of the land to give their own views and go off piste and say "allegations from the women include...." Come on now

If people and public need Fiona Bruce to moderate their own personal views on whats abhorrent and not in the world then we have a real problem with society

Its certainly not her job to ascertain Johnsons guilt and then give a personal view beyond the fact, what she believes in private you and I don't know, I would hope she believes, like I do that he is guilty and an absolute scummer, but I don't need to know that for me to believe it.

My point is that words matter. I don’t believe it to be her personal opinion (or I certainly hope not) but she is in a position of visibility, she is an ambassador for a charity that supports women (and possibly men) who have been subjected to domestic violence and yet she trundles out an awful ‘defence’ of the allegation. She should know better and she should have refused to say it. No better time to do that than right now as well.
I don’t think she should be hung drawn and quartered for it but I don’t think what she said is compatible with representing a domestic abuse charity.

 

[Grays_1890]

My point is that words matter. I don’t believe it to be her personal opinion (or I certainly hope not) but she is in a position of visibility, she is an ambassador for a charity that supports women (and possibly men) who have been subjected to domestic violence and yet she trundles out an awful ‘defence’ of the allegation. She should know better and she should have refused to say it. No better time to do that than right now as well.
I don’t think she should be hung drawn and quartered for it but I don’t think what she said is compatible with representing a domestic abuse charity.

I would also expect a domestic abuse charity to understand that women shouldn't be forced into apologising for a mistake at work...kinds of flies in the face of it all IMO.

At worse, she made a mistake (I don't believe she did but we have debated that) I don't like the culture of not accepting people's apologies and for them to lose work or opportunities for it.

Not a healthy society future for me that

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

See the racists are on strike today. Made my drive in to work easy this morning.


*They are racists for asking for money, just like working class when they are concerned about strains on money.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The OBR forecasts that taxes, as a share of GDP, will hit 37.7% in 2027-28. The highest level since world war II
!

UK is a bit of a mess. Brexit affect? Covid? Shyte wasteful government who've taken their eye off the ball? All of the above, no doubt.

 

[Grays_1890]

The OBR forecasts that taxes, as a share of GDP, will hit 37.7% in 2027-28. The highest level since world war II
!

UK is a bit of a mess. Brexit affect? Covid? Shyte wasteful government who've taken their eye off the ball? All of the above, no doubt.

All the above, the world seems a mess also across the board. Banks going under, recessions forecast, food insecurity, proverty getting out of hand, Russian war....China looming....all in all a great time to be alive

 

[Gutter Boy]

All the above, the world seems a mess also across the board. Banks going under, recessions forecast, food insecurity, proverty getting out of hand, Russian war....China looming....all in all a great time to be alive

It's all about perception and perspective:

More people in the world now die of obesity than starvation.

Less people die or are injured by violence than at any point in human history.


Yes, neo-liberalism is disintegrating/in it's death throws, but I think the post-capitalist future could be really good once we manage the transition.

 

[Grays_1890]

It's all about perception and perspective:

More people in the world now die of obesity than starvation.

Less people die or are injured by violence than at any point in human history.


Yes, neo-liberalism is disintegrating/in it's death throws, but I think the post-capitalist future could be really good once we manage the transition.

Does that not just highlight that we have two glaring issues with food poverty and obesity? Not sure one cancels the other out...

And I would have that since we don't live in the times of Attila the Hun that we are a little less violent in society but let's not pretend that it's not a problem when you consider the modern world and time of supposed civilisation we live in.



Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk