Share This Page:

  

Fiona Bruce removes cross after PC debate

Forums Announcements, News & Media Articles along with current home and international affairs.
SO19
Member
Member
Posts: 3105
Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Fiona Bruce removes cross after PC debate

Post by SO19 »

Fiona Bruce removes cross after PC debate
By SINEAD MCINTYRE Last updated at 21:33pm on 6th October 2006

Image

She is more used to reading the headlines than making them.

So as the row over Fiona Bruce's cross necklace continued, the offending article was conspicuously absent as she presented the 10 o'clock News.

Her decision not to wear it comes as Jack Straw found himself accused of offending Muslims after revealing that he asks women to remove their veils during meetings.

The story led the BBC news agenda on Thursday night when Miss Bruce was presenting for the first time since it was revealed that governors had been agonising over whether her cross necklace might cause offence by suggesting a religious affiliation.

The Corporation is not thought to have received any complaints over the necklace, which the 42-year-old newsreader has worn may times over the years.

Nevertheless it was the subject of intense discussion between politically correct executives who argued that staff on screen should not wear anything hinting at political or religious leaning.

The debate began during a seminar about impartiality last month when hypothetical questions, including whether a female Muslim newsreader should wear the hijab, or headscarf, were considered.

It was brought up by Director of News Helen Boaden and led to some executives saying it should not be allowed.

The BBC insisted that Oxford educated Miss Bruce, a mother of two, had not been banned from wearing the cross.

However it was missing on Thursday when she presented the 10 0'clock News, which led with the highly sensitive Jack Straw story.

He has caused outrage amongst the Muslim community by admitting he asks women to remove their veils because he feels "uncomfortable" talking to someone he cannot see.

Miss Bruce also chose to leave her cross necklace off on Wednesday night when she attended a breast cancer charity dinner.

Last night a spokesman for the BBC said: "We don't have rules on what people can wear so its really up to her own discretion what necklace she chooses".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1773

Original story
BBC bosses in PC row over newsreader's cross
Last updated at 10:04am on 4th October 2006

Image
Newsreader Fiona Bruce, wearing the
cross that sparked the row


Millions of women across Britain wear this small and insignificant piece of jewellery. But yesterday, in yet another example of PC gone mad, a necklace worn by TV newsreader Fiona Bruce sparked a row among BBC bosses.

The piece of jewellery in question was a small cross on a necklace, which the presenter recently wore while presenting the Ten O'Clock News.

She has worn it for some years, in fact, but now some at the BBC want to ban her from wearing the accessory, with a former policy-maker at the organisation describing it as "a potential mistake" that might suggest some kind of religious affiliation.

The BBC was debating whether a female Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf while reading the news when the issue over Ms Bruce's cross was brought up.

The matter was then brought to the attention to the director of BBC News, Helen Boaden who raised the matter in a meeting.

A source who attended the meeting said: "It was argued that BBC staff on screen should not wear anything which hints or directly points to a political or religious leaning and that the cross contravened this and should not be allowed."

Stephen Whittle, a former controller of editorial policy at the BBC said that the fact that Fiona Bruce had worn a cross while reading the news was a mistake.

"A newsreader should not let themselves get in the way of a story by wearing things that make the audience wonder about the newsreader's own position on a story," said Whittle.

It is understood, however, that Ms Bruce has not been asked to remove the necklace, and that the BBC does not have any official guidelines on the wearing of religious symbols.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
[i]‘We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat’ - Queen Victoria, 1899[/i]
SO19
Member
Member
Posts: 3105
Joined: Sun 02 Oct, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Post by SO19 »

This is absolutely rediculous, is this not a Christian country?

The BBC are a bunch of w*nkers.
[i]‘We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat’ - Queen Victoria, 1899[/i]
Rogue Chef
Guest
Guest

Post by Rogue Chef »

Ahoy there!
As an indication of her neutrality when presenting the news, I think she should wear a pearl necklace. I would happily provide one at my own expense.
jay999
Member
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 06 Jul, 2004 10:17 pm
Location: hampshire

Post by jay999 »

I think this is ridiculous, especially when you considered the way Jack Straw has been attacked under similar circumstances. I believe equality has now been taken way out of proportion with average British people being put at a disadvantage with fear of expressing their views for the probability of being accused as a racist.
User avatar
got1
Member
Member
Posts: 1318
Joined: Wed 16 Apr, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: scotland

Post by got1 »

If you dont like our religion, rules , law , PLEASE LEAVE.
jay999
Member
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 06 Jul, 2004 10:17 pm
Location: hampshire

Post by jay999 »

exactly my point mate, we wouldn't be able to go to foreign countries n rant and rave about the way they dress, demand churches to be built etc in the way that we cater for such people in this country.
User avatar
flo
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 1:25 pm
Location: barnstaple

Post by flo »

Ref last, churches are closing down daily due to lack of money but yet mosques/islamic centres etc are springing up everywhere.
Now i am not a racist but i do think that this has been blown up out of all proportion and the media have suddenly shot themself in the foot. Its there style of reporting that has caused this media frenzy.
Friendship is like peeing in your pants,
everyone can see it, but only you can feel the warmth!!
jay999
Member
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 06 Jul, 2004 10:17 pm
Location: hampshire

Post by jay999 »

ditto that I am not a racist however this country cannot afford to continue like this. It seems like it is almost becoming racist to practice your own religion. The St Georges cross is no longer allowed to be displayed as it is racist however in my area i have seen foreign flags being flown in cars etc but i cannot do anything about it for fear of then being labelled a racist. I do not think it is a justified way of going about things
Rogue Chef
Guest
Guest

Post by Rogue Chef »

Ahoy there!
As has become ususal this thread has been dragged off topic and has degenerated into a mire of pointless, irrelevant trivia.

So to get back to the real issue..........................................................................would she get it?
User avatar
flo
Member
Member
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 1:25 pm
Location: barnstaple

Post by flo »

Rogue Chef wrote:
So to get back to the real issue..........................................................................would she get it?
Sorry mate she's not my type! :wink:

Now back on topic.......................
Friendship is like peeing in your pants,
everyone can see it, but only you can feel the warmth!!
jay999
Member
Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 06 Jul, 2004 10:17 pm
Location: hampshire

Post by jay999 »

Nah not my type either however throw beer goggles into the equation and anyones game :drinking:
User avatar
Tab
Member
Member
Posts: 7275
Joined: Wed 16 Apr, 2003 7:09 pm
Location: Southern England
Contact:

Post by Tab »

They insist on the right to wear the veil, so what is wrong about wearing a cross
Alfa
Guest
Guest

Post by Alfa »

There was an incident in the news the other day of a guy here in Liverpool who pulled of the veil off a muslim woman as she stood at the bus stop.

This was undoubtably wrong a she wasn't doing anything to offend anyone she was simply going about her daily life until this tosser decides to "have a laugh" (typically of these people though it's at the expense of someone much weaker than them!).

This was condemed, and rightly so, by everyone who cared to comment on it and it even made the national news.

Now my point is what's the difference between what that idiot did and what the BBC did? Fiona Bruce wasn't preaching christianity in her reports, she wasn't being biased, she was simply going about her daily life until someone decided she shouldn't be allowed to wear her cross and for all intent and purpose stripped her of it and it seems there has been no real condemnation of this.

So once again what's the difference?
Daka
Member
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:19 pm
Location: Hudds

Post by Daka »

Alfa wrote: Now my point is what's the difference between what that idiot did and what the BBC did? Fiona Bruce wasn't preaching christianity in her reports, she wasn't being biased, she was simply going about her daily life until someone decided she shouldn't be allowed to wear her cross and for all intent and purpose stripped her of it and it seems there has been no real condemnation of this.

So once again what's the difference?
Im not 100% but I believe it is in the BBC's charter that those who work for them must be unbiased in every aspect of the job, including political beliefs and relegious beliefs.

That islamic woman, for example, woudl not be allowed to wear the veil if she worked for the BBC, as this would be expressing a relegious view.

It is the same for most big news company's. John Snow said recently he would not employ a woman that insisted on wearing the niqab etc
going grey!
Member
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue 04 Apr, 2006 5:49 am
Location: essex

Post by going grey! »

Will the last person to leave, please switch off the lights :evil:
This is utter b*llocks.
Courage is knowing what not to fear.
Post Reply