Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier Boy
I understand her obligation to explain the "unencumbered" facts legally, but there was more info given than needed. Maybe someone was in here ear - I don't know - but consider this part;
Ms Bruce then said: “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.
All of that part is fine to be said for context, and would have been ample, there's no need to say more than that. But there was one more part:
"Friends of his have said it did happen, but it was a one-off."
THIS is the part that's unecessary and minimising. It doesn't matter - at all - if it was "a one off" or not. It's a terrible thing to say about a domestic violence issue. Again I dunno if it came from her own thinking or someone in her ear and her just parrotting without thinking.
|
but he could have broken her nose by accident?
Or do we actually know he hit her specifically with intent?