A call for an all-round press boycott of any of Morrissey's future releasesThis is the last time we are going to review Morrissey at Hagley Road to Ladywood. And we're going to mark our farewell with a "non-review". Our argument, in fact, is that Morrissey's recent legal exploit against The Word magazine and the NME will make it impossible from now on to offer a balanced and objective review of his artistic output without fear of receiving a judicial writ issued through the letter box. So if you're here in search of advice about the standard of his latest single All You Need Is Me, please do look elsewhere. We simply haven't got the financial means to take that risk.
First, the background. Still fuming after the NME article saga, Morrissey didn't like David Quantick's review of his Greatest Hits CD as published in the March issue of The Word. Morrissey's lawyers argued that Quantick's article "could have been construed to suggest that Mr Morrissey was a racist, held racist opinions or that (as the child of migrant parents) he was a hypocrite". Hence, the libel action. Probably fearful of a lengthy (and above all, incredibly costly) legal battle, The Word nipped it in the bud with a "sincere apology". Coming next on Judge Judy, NME's separate legal challenge over the infamous Tim Jonze interview discussing Morrissey's views on immigration in Britain.
Now, we have read David Quantick's article and - although no doubt scathing, superharsh and certainly spurred by the journalist's deep dislike of Morrissey - the fact that it ended up the subject of a libel case is simply kafkaesque. If Quantick's one was worth a libel case, then we may as well draw the curtains on any negative critique. Sleep tight, Boy George, Jarvis Cocker, George Michael and other past victims of press butchering and public smear. Scared of potentially ruinous court bills and eggshell-treading exercises, music reviews may even turn out more sycophantic, pointless and artificial than they already are.
For instance, take a look at Morrissey's own 1991 Get Off The Stage. The lyrics go :"You silly old man/You're making a fool of yourself/So get off the stage" as well as "And you think you can rouse us/But the song that you just sang/It sounds exactly like the last one/And the next one/I bet you it will sound/Like this one".
Now, just hypothetically, imagine a reviewer wishing to point out the hypocrisy of Morrissey's own lyrics when placed alongside the singer's lacklustre output of recent years, songs that sound the same, extensive churning out of Greatest Hits and recent tours punctuated by egotistical 10ft-high M O R R I S S E Y letters on stage. Could a journalist express her honest viewpoint? Would publishers let her, knowing that the use of the word "hypocrite", like The Word, may expose their arse to the risk of huge legal damages? As a matter of fact, even a humorous quip hinting that Get Off The Stage itself may carry more than a resemblance to the West Country's finest The Wurzels may be result in Morrissey's lawyers being unleashed on the grounds of slander.
As we're no great lovers of music journalists, the good thing may be the end of headlines based on lazy puns from Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now and other anti-Morrissey cliches. But are barristers really the way forward? Think about it. A reviewer wishing to write that Morrissey may have become a parody of his former self? That would be derogatory. The implication that a riff may be reminiscent of another artist's work? "Construed as deliberate smear", his lawyers may strike back. Branding him "closer to organised prostitution than anything else", as Morrissey himself once described Madonna? Surely there's legal ground for slander there? And of course we are not trying to imply that, by spraying judicial writs left, right and centre (something only a very wealthy person could afford), Moz may have turned into your textbook millionaire bully. No doubt that too would be defamation of character.
As such, and after some serious wrangling, Hagley Road to Ladywood is calling for an all-round press boycott of any of Morrissey's future releases.
No doubt the millionaire rockstar couldn't give a toss about an independent, shitty, skint website run by a bunch of losers, let alone our loss of love for The Man.
But for us, believe us, this is truly a turning point. The lyrics that moulded us as people, the songs that scooped us out of terminal depression, the sleeves that made us dream, the music we were proud to listen to, the times we stuck up for him in the face of ignorant denigrators.
Obviously Morrissey thinks he is doing the right thing and may even ask his faithful lawyer(s) to record a few guitar overdubs.
Here, however, is where we get off.
[Morrissey's "All You Need Is Me" is out next month on 3 different CD formats]
51 comments:
Rubbish. He wasn't complaining about the harshness of the review. He was complaining about the allegation that he was a racist.
well, you'll find that the libel case was about the allegations that he was :
1) A RACIST;
2) A HYPOCRITE
The word HYPOCRITE was integral part of his libel case.
This is really badly researched and thought out - whoever wrote this is a dimwit - clearly Morrissey didn't sue anybody because of a bad review - to claim that is plain stupid - Have you even read the court judgement???? - you appear to have not bothered, instead you have cobbled something together from other press cuttings without even engaging your brain - you are very lazy.
There is a difference between comment/crtique and unfounded allegation. To pretend you don't understand this or notice the differnce(just to make a half baked point) is embarrassing.
Here is the point spelled out for you "Your website is shite and your writers retarded" - This happens to be true and is also comment.
"Your writers hate black people and your website sponsors The BNP" (i also have conclusive proof of this)" - this is allegation - You appear to be saying that it is okay for me to spread this allegation around, no matter the damage it may do to your reputation - so that is what i intend to do. -
either way it is you lot who need to be boycotted - for being rubbish.
Anonymous didn't do his/her homework:
what exactly was the "court judgement"?
There was no court judgement as the record was withdrawn following the defendants' apology.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually no ruling at all...
Talking about "badly researched" and "dimwits", can you, brave anonymous, quote ANY LINE in The Word that actually said "Morrissey hates black people and sponsors The BNP"?
See what a fundamentalist dimwit you are??? If your idol said jump off a cliff, you'd jump...Not that it'd be a bad idea, mate.
If The Word had used those words then Morrissey would have had a reason and 1/2 to sue their arse.
But, as it happens, Moz was sueing them for allegedly suggesting he is a "racist" and a "hypocrite".
How stupid... They will never learn their lesson, will they?
here you go (perhaps technically not a judgement - either way you haven't read it aswell):
The full text of today's Statement in Open Court is as follows:-
John Reid, Solicitor for the Claimant:
"My Lord, in this libel action I represent the Claimant, the singer and musician, Steven Patrick Morrissey, professionally known as Morrissey.
My Friend, Caroline Kean, represents the Defendants, Development Hell and Mark Ellen.
The background to this claim is that the March 2008 edition of Word Magazine included an article by David Quantick concerning the Claimant, Mr Morrissey.
It has been drawn to the Defendants' attention that the closing paragraphs of Mr Quantick's article could have been construed to suggest that Mr Morrissey was a racist, held racist opinions or that (as the child of migrant parents) he was a hypocrite. The article suggested that Mr Morrissey has in the past paid lip service only to anti-racism.
The Defendants never intended the article to have the meanings suggested above and wish to make absolutely clear that they disassociate themselves entirely from any such inferences that might be drawn from the article. The Defendants accept that it would be absurd to accuse Mr Morrissey of being a racist or of espousing racist views. They equally accept that Mr Morrissey is not a hypocrite, in relation in particular to the views he has expressed in the past in relation to British cultural identity.
The Defendants accept that Mr Morrissey is well known as a keen supporter of anti-racist groups and the Defendants wish to make absolutely clear that they never intended the article to suggest that Mr Morrissey was anything other than a sincere supporter of anti-racism initiatives.
The Defendants wish to take this opportunity to apologise to Mr Morrissey for any offence or distress that he may have been caused by the closing paragraphs of the article and are happy to make the position clear."
Caroline Kean, Solicitor for the Defendants:
"My Lord, on behalf of the Defendants, I confirm everything my Friend, the Claimant's solicitor, has said.
The Defendants offer their sincere apologies to the Claimant. They hope that by making this Statement, the matter will be clarified once and for all and the record will have been set straight."
John Reid, Solicitor for the Claimant:
"In the circumstances, My Lord, it only remains for me to ask that the record be withdrawn."
If you had read this you would have realised what you were saying was stupid - It was nothing to do with a bad review
At no point did i suggest the "Word magazine" wrote "Your writers hate black people and your website sponsors The BNP" - clearly I wrote this inorder to make the point that anyone (you, me and even Morrissey) should be able to defend themselves and their reputation against unfounded and damaging allegations (no matter what that allegation is)- you appear to have missed this point completely.
The reason my comment is "Anonymous" is nothing to do with not being "brave" - as you suggest (which is laughable - what are you talking about?)- but because I have no desire to "sign up" - why would I?
It also has nothing to do with "idols" or "cliffs" - its just common sense.
I am not a fundamenalist - bad reviews don't bother me at all (do you know what the word even means?) - calling for a media boycott, now that is extremism.
Am off to enlarge that little picture of you into large posters which I will then put up around birmingham with the words "is a racist and a hypocrite" written on them in red - according to you this is fair comment.
Anonymous,
you really have a lot of time on your hands. Maybe Morrissey should employ you as one of his lackeys, you'd fit in very well, especially judging from recent reports of how he treats his staff...
You really need someone to idolise, some arse to climb out of. I'm afraid independent judgement isn't really part of human nature for some.
You even chose to ignore that you don't have to sign up in order to post non-anonymous comments here.
Can you at least sign your posts???
You're one of those people who, if Morrissey said the sky's purple, would agree to it and then go on to berate those who disagree, in your childish way.
Fact: you copied and pasted Morrissey's solicitor's statement and Defendant's statement. That is NOT a court ruling. That's the solicitors' statements and I believe that's what Stan Moss was trying to say earlier on...!
Have you got the judge's quote???? THAT would be a court ruling, you ignorant person.
Go round Birmingham and put up those posters, you saddo, then moan when you get done for flytipping. Maybe you should spend that time getting your right hand to do more productive stuff, pajero.
As my post said this was actually a "Statement in Open Court" This means the case got to Court - The opening statement contained a full apology from "The Word" which was accepted by Morrissey and the case was, as a result withdrawn - A judges decision was not required as Morrissey had already won - However the status of the statement and aplology isn't really relevant - what is relevant is that YOU hadn't bothered to read it.
My point(that you appear to have side-stepped) is that your article was tosh. - badly researched, ill-informed and lacking in common sense
It appears you got the wrong end of the stick about the whole "Word" article issue and never bothered to check before spouting your drivel and issuing an impotent boycott.
Morrissey is not my idol as you suggest.
I do not automatically agree with everything he says as you suggest.
You have no evidence for this - its all in your limited imagination. Based on the fact that I disagree with your ramblings - Its another example of your lazy writing.
Why are you so keen to know my name? - does it matter? It makes no difference if I sign my name at the bottom or not - your article is still rubbish - Its certainly no indication of bravery.
You suggest I am not capable of "independent judgement" (again a leap of imagination) - you are clearly not capable of anything close to informed judgement.
As for the suggestion that i have too much or alot of time on my hands - I am not signed up as a contributer to a shit internet blog site - you clearly have more time to waste than me.
Of course I am not really going to be putting up posters - I was just illustrating my point - demonstrating how the boot feels on the other foot. - again you side stepped the point I was making.
Nevermind.
Catch me if you can
Saucyjack.
x
I repeat, you dimwit,
THAT IS N O T A COURT RULING. I read it all, I read it in full, but the fact remains:
THAT IS N O T A COUR RULING.
A court ruling is something ELSE.
I may be writing for a shit website (and at least the article made no bones of the fact it's a shit one, there's no pretending otherwise), but you left THREE comments on it in less than a couple of hours. So it can't be that bad, can it???:=P
However, I admit I'm wasting my time. Because you are a fanatic and there's no reasoning here. Not to mention the fact you sign your comments like Jack The Ripper and that is telling...
What's missing from all this heated debate is the bits of the Word article that caused all the commotion. That's what I haven't read. Can anyone enlighten me? I don't believe Morrissey would sue over a bad review (Quantick wouldn't be the first to be so negative - although Morrissey may have got used to getting much better press than in his early days). But a bad review that contains libellous material is a different matter. It's just a shame that we can't decide for ourselves on the basis of the evidence.
Here is a link to scan of the article
http://forums.morrissey-solo.com/showthread.php?t=83955&highlight=word+magazine&page=3
Of course he didn't start procedding due to a bad review - It was the baseless allegations at the end. Apart from anything thing else they simply have no place in an album review at all.
Why "Claude" insist on carping on(in bold?) about the status of the statement i provided is a mystery. (I stated exactly what the statement was some posts ago) - the important point is he didn't bother to read it before writting his own peice. - If he had done he would have realised what rubbish he was talking.
My comments are clear, they are based on sound reasoning and the law rather than Claude's knee jerk "string him up" mentality - yet he repeatly call me a fanatic without addressing the issues I raise.
He does this because I have critized his writting and its all he can do.
The reason i continue to post is because i wanted to put the record straight and because i enjoy watching Claude flonder so hopelessly.
I also am a disillusioned former Morrissey fan. In my experience his fans are amongst the most devious, twisted, aggressive types around. Someone made a point above about their similarity to a religious sect and I suppose it makes perfect sense.
Gemma ghaynes@hotmail.com
Nowhere here did I actually suggest that Morrissey sued over a bad review.
I believe several posts pointed up to the word "hypocrite" -as well as "racist". The point has been made about 126 times but for some the haze in their brain is simply too thick to dispel.
That little obsessive twat (may I say it's getting quite creepy actually) who keeps posting under the guise of "anonymous" didn't really grasp the content of what I -and others- wrote.
More, he keeps rambling on about "a court ruling" without having the slightest grasp of what he's talking about as the case didn't go as far as requiring a court ruling. Morrissey netted the defendants' apology which is the "victory" he wanted, but that is something different.
Sound reasoning? Yeah mate, go stalk someone else. In fact, I've got a suggestion to make, why don't you take the lyrics to There Is A Light That Never Goes Out to letter? ;-)
No one is arguing about court rulings or not court rulings - it isn't important (you are using that as a smoke screen) - No matter what the statement was (It was an open statement in court - as i said some posts ago) the point is you had not read it before writting your piece - As a result it was nonsense.
This was the theme of your article:
"Morrissey's recent legal exploit against The Word magazine and the NME will make it impossible from now on to offer a balanced and objective review of his artistic output without fear of receiving a judicial writ"
This is complete nonsense.
do i need to spell it out further?
only if your review contained unfounded agellations (as the "word" article did) would you need to expect a writ
Your hypothetically example is not relevant after taking the above into account
The "Word" allegation was that he was racist and "that (as the child of migrant parents) he was a hypocrite."
The word "hypocrite" is clearly in context in the statement (had you read it you would have noticed).
Are you really saying its not okay to ask for an apology if a national magazine calls you racist with no proof?
You refuse to answer these points - instead you try and put me down by calling me a fanatic
There are non more fanatical than the disillusioned former Morrissey fans - as you can all see.
Yours truely
Jack
ANONYMOUS, yesterday 7:50 pm: "This is really badly researched and thought out - whoever wrote this is a dimwit - clearly Morrissey didn't sue anybody because of a bad review - to claim that is plain stupid - Have you even read the court judgement????"
STAN MOSS, yesterday 8:08pm
"What exactly was the "court judgement"?
There was no court judgement as the record was withdrawn following the defendants' apology".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually no ruling at all...
ANONYMOUS, today 6:39pm :
"No one is arguing about court rulings or not court rulings - it isn't important (you are using that as a smoke screen".
I don't think - and I suppose I can speak on Claude's behalf as he wrote the article- The Word was racist. Of course we cannot know for sure, so this is speculation, but it must have crossed everyone's mind that the apology was done to avoid a potentially ruinous court case.
And this is it. The subject of taking reviewers to court is virtually new. The area of defamation of character
is a potentially VERY wide one. Morrissey's case may have opened a a can of worms.
By the way anonymous, it's writing, not writting, ehi?
Correction: In my last post a minute ago I meant to say "I don't think the Word actually called Morrissey a racist".
Amazing how many posters agree with Morrissey eh? He was RIGHT to sue you! If you think you can slander the living legend,wrong lol. 1-0 to Mozza! You are an average loudmouth journalist,while his tunes inspired generations. Enough said...
Hi Stan
what a smart arse - well done for spotting my spelling mistake - shame you didn't spot your own mistakes in time -
Again - It was a "Statement in open court" - I mistakenly called it a judgement - (we have discussed the difference.) - At least i'd read it!
Regardless the important fact is Claude failed to even read it during his "research" for his article on the same subject - If he had he would have seen he was talking rubbish.
You say "The subject of taking reviewers to court is virtually new" - The reason being reviews don't normally contain unfounded allegations. - why should they? - There is no "can of worms". - Its simply common sense.
The lesson is don't make unfounded allegations in print that you can't back up in court. - this is not a new lesson.
I can put both your worried minds at rest by assuring you both that you are completely free "to offer a balanced and objective review of his (or anyones) artistic output without fear of receiving a judicial writ"
Now do you understand why the article was shite?
Again you have failed to address my other point.
Are you really saying its not okay to ask for an apology if a national magazine calls you racist (or even implies that you are a racist)and a hypocrite with no proof?
Would you not at least feel it is your right to defend yourself if someone said it of you?
Anonymous finally admitted he "mistakenly called it a court judgement". Hallelujah.
This is the same person who was pontificating about "badly researched articles", "rubbish", and "plain stupid" and worse. It took him a total of 18 (EIGHTEEN) posts, to admit it.
He called the website "shite", me a "dimiwit", and "the writers retarded" (in line let me tell you, with the hate mail we've been getting -seriously- since the link appeared on Morrissey-solo.com) and then he whines that I call him a "fanatic".
This is -I'm afraid- typical of a number (NOT ALL) of Morrissey fans. Blinded by the "shining path". A true religious sect that could give your average religious nutter a run for their money.
Now, on to the points:
1) Of course it's OK to ask for an apology. What is debatable is to sue people. Which is a touch different. Just a bit.
2) The right to defend yourself. Proper STRAW argument on your part. Who the hell is saying you, me, MOrrissey has no right to defend yourself? What the fuck are you talking about?
'Course he should defend himself and perhaps clarify exactly what he meant with his comments to the NME. I am the first one to be sceptical of what the NME wrote, make no mistake. It's one of the laziest magazines that ever graced the earth. But bloody hell Morrissey, why not clear the air instead of sueing?
More, there are people who are still waiting for a clarification of his infamous 1992 Q interview. I don't know if you're too young to remember, but I'm sure you can get hold of it online. He said dubious stuff about hooligans and the fact "blacks and whites will never get along"... I was like you in '92 and I chose not to dig any deeper...Back then, he could have recorded the sound of his vomit, I'd have bought it anyway.
{PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT talking about the shite published by the NME in '92 or '08. I am talking about his Q interview around the time of Your Arsenal, which was truly startling}.
3) I maintain (that's talking about not answering points), I don't think The Word was calling him a racist. Yes, they apologised. We all know why.
4) I may think or not think David Quantick's article was shite. But to go to court over that one was too much. Again, you may be too young to remember, I don't know, but Jarvis Cocker would have had to spend the whole of 95 and 96 in court fending off hints of being a kiddiefiddler and a drug advocate. He chose a cleverer way of fighting it and he came out on top.
No-one's had the decency to write the simplest of facts: it's been years since El Mozzo released a record of any musical relevance. Johnny, come + rescue him!
Ok, first of all.
Get Off The Stage was written in 1990, talking about Mick Jagger.
It doesn't make him a hypocrite.
And the fact that YOU think the song that he just sang sounds exactly like the last one, is your opinion!
And it makes no sense for Morrissey to sue people for so much money because of a bad review.
Seems to me (perhaps I'm reading into our hero's lyrics far too much as I've been known to do) but your article goes a long way toward proving what I understand M O R R I S S E Y 'S forthcoming single to be about, absolutly true. It stands to reason that you do infact need him. If only to write you shitty litte article about.
Many post ago (when i first introduced the statement) i said: "here you go (perhaps technically not a judgement - either way you haven't read it aswell):" - have a look back and you will see.
You insisted on going on and on about it not being a "court rulings" when i had already admitted my mistake and clarified that it was "An open statement in court" - It actually took just 2 posts - you just didn't notice - what a shallow victory.
I stand by my words "badly researched article, and rubbish" as well as describing the writer as "plain stupid, a dimwit and retarded" - you also forgot lazy.
Intersting to note the link on morrissey-solo did not just "appear" as you say but was in fact sent by one "Stan Moss" -
I haven't sent you any hate mail - Morrissey fans are just people - you were one yourself once. - I can't help it if most people agree with me.
Now your replies:
1) "Of course it's OK to ask for an apology. What is debatable is to sue people. Which is a touch different. Just a bit."
- Morrissey accepted the apology and has said he would do the same if the NME offered - that is all he wants - he doesn't want to sue anyone.
2)"Why not clear the air instead of sueing?"
Many many times Morrissey has clarified his position - I could give you quote after quote after quote but you really should do your own research - most recently he released a statement on that very subject (people hear want they want to hear) - His position could not be clearer - he fully supports "rock against racism" for example - there are countless other examples - 2 minutes research will confirm this.
With that in mind how else do you expect him to defend himself against this specific attack? - all he did was ask for an apology - to get it he had to start legal proceedings. - As soon as he got his apology he let the case drop.
I read the Q article when it came out - didn't find it alarming at all. - intresting, provocative, but not alarming - he never used the word "blacks" - that is an irresponsible misquote on your part. (thats the kind of laziness that gets you a writ)
You underestimate me - i dig alot deeper than you could imagine and do not blindly agree with or love eveything Morrissey says or sings - It just suits you to paint me as a fanatic dispite the facts
3)"I don't think The Word was calling him a racist. Yes, they apologised. We all know why."
- You think you know why - chances are they apologised because they knew they were going to lose - that is the logical conclusion.
4) "To go to court over that one was too much."
Funny that you think Jarvis "where are you now?" Cocker had a "cleverer way of fighting and came out on top." - I don't recall seeing any hints that jarvis was a "kiddiefiddler" in print? - Morrissey has tried to rise above the racist rumours for years - back then people like you said "If you are really not a racist why don't you sue?" -
So now answer these questions:
1)did you read the "open statement" before publishing your article? - If not isn't that a bit lazy?
2)Now you realise Morrisey just wanted an apology isn't it fair for him to go to court inorder to get it, if when asked "The Word" initailly refused to aplogoise? - if not how is he suppose to defend himself?
3) Having read the "open statement" are you now prepared to admit your analyisis of the case was some way off - for example Your hypothetically example is not in the slightest relevant.
4)Having read the "open statement" and noted the difference between critisim and allegation are you prepared to now admit that dispite what you said you can still "offer a balanced and objective review of his (or anyones) artistic output without fear of receiving a judicial writ"
5) With this in mind are you prepared to now admit there is no need for a media blackout?
cheers.
Anonymous, mate,
this got futile a long time ago and I have other things to write about and errands to run.
But before I go, just a quote that goes to confirm what a lying, blinkered shithead you are.
Here's what you posted:
ANONYMOUS: "I read the Q article when it came out - didn't find it alarming at all. - intresting, provocative, but not alarming - he never used the word "blacks" - that is an irresponsible misquote on your part. (thats the kind of laziness that gets you a writ)"
----
And here's a direct quote from Morrissey's interview as published on Q Magazine September 1992:
"Q: Do you think people are innately racist?
Morrissey: Yes. I don't want to sound horrible or pessimistic but I don't really think, for instance, black people and white people will ever really get on or like each other. I don't really think they ever will".
-----
So who's the one quoting irresponsibly, you idiot? And you have the guts to go on about "bad researching"!
Anonymous, thank fuck you got into music as people like you generally get into religious fundamentalism or similar. People like you are dangerous.
You said I need to write "shitty little articles" about MOrrissey...
Well, perhaps, but you need to write EIGHT (or more) comment entries on a "shitty website" about the "shitty little articles" that I wrote.
SO I guess on the shit chain you sit even lower than me.
Good luck with your "research"(you love that word, dont you?), you really need it.
Singing about Mick Jagger getting off the stage was long over due! Morrissey was just the first to be clever enough to sing about it! It would only make Morrissey a hypocrite if a.)He looked and sounded as disgusting as M.J. B.)Morrissey came out with gladiola's in his back pocket with the same routine that he had 20 years ago. c.) His songs all sounded the same as the last one-which they don't, as a matter of fact because he does have a different sound, many fans have complained.
Nope, instead MOZ dresses like a man, not a teenage boy, he has charm and wit, he is intelligent and mature, he is strong in his convictions which makes him the opposite from a hypocrite, he doesn't back down when he feels he is right, but has apologized when needed. That is why he has unusually devoted fans because he is someone you can admire for these and many more attributes and because of his voice, looks, and talent for saying things in his songs that we can relate to we just couldn't put it as cleverly as Morrissey.
I like the Stones. I'm sure a Stones fan would tell you that Mick Jagger has charm and wit, he's brilliant and all that jazz. And if they'd heard of that Smiths guy they'd probably remark his voice sounds really flat and dull.
It's like 6th form arguments ---my band is better than yours---
Claude:
You misquoted morrissey as calling them "blacks" - (quite offensive)He actually called them "black people" as you have shown (there is a world of difference)
The first is the language of hate the second is not - didn't you even notice?
Are you not going to address my other points as i did yours? - instead you have to run? - coward.
Jack
Kudos to the Anonymous who wrote about the Stones, well said. (NOT, I repeat NOT the serial-killeresque sad-act Anonymous who's posted about 6000 futile comments)
The difference between Jagger and Morrissey is this. Jagger has no messianic pretences like Moz has. At least he doesn't take himself so ridiculously seriously. Moz pretends he's not commercial and different to everyone else but he's exactly the same as ANY commercial singer or group. He's become everything he used to bitterly berate in his early career. That's rather sad.
I hate the term, but he's a sellout. And not just a sellout, but a hypocritical one at that.
This is addressed to the 'serial-killeresque' Anonymous (post your names. That'll make things easier for all of us)
You're clearly far too young to remember the slating Jarvis got from the tabloids in 1996, hence your inaccurate information.
I quote:
"Funny that you think Jarvis "where are you now?" Cocker had a "cleverer way of fighting and came out on top." - I don't recall seeing any hints that jarvis was a "kiddiefiddler" in print?"
You don't recall seeing it because you're too young. Not that that's your fault, but DO YOUR RESEARCH before you post. If you were old enough in '96 and didn't read it, you're ignorant. Have a look on Google and read about how Jarvis was accused of touching the kids on the stage with Jacko. (By the way Jarvis released a successful solo album in 2006. Pay attention. Cries of 'where are you now' are typical of what the press were saying to Morrissey for ten years til he came back. And you say this article is 'lazy'?)
Finally, to quote you again, 'Jack'..
"Morrissey accepted the apology and has said he would do the same if the NME offered - that is all he wants - he doesn't want to sue anyone."
Hilarious. Morrissey doesn't want to SUE anyone? Read it again. If he didn't want to sue anyone why would he take them to court?
My God, love.
Please do us all a favour. Jog on and post your badly researched, fanatical, futile comments elsewhere.
You're splitting hairs, which is a sign of weakness. I said "blacks and whites" cos I don't carry a book of Morrissey quotes in my pocket. Yet soon after I was able to provide the proper quote from your hero:
Besides, what's that saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" or something...
You clutch at my alleged "misquote" but you don't comment on what Morrissey actually said to Q, which I repeat, was:
"Q: Do you think people are innately racist?
Morrissey: Yes. I don't want to sound horrible or pessimistic but I don't really think, for instance, black people and white people will ever really get on or like each other. I don't really think they ever will". Nice.
Emma -
As i have explained he took them to court because he wanted an apology and couldn't get it any other way - he got it and dropped the case - in the end he didn't sue anyone, it was withdrawn.
Why? Because all he wanted was an apology. - do you follow?
I just thinks its odd to use Jarvis as a good example as to how to handle slander - thats all
I happen to like Jarvis and would be interested to see links to all these accusations, as i can't find any - He was accussed of assault after the Jackon protest (by Jacksons lawyers) but not sexual assault - common assault eg. Some kids received minor injuries in the resulting skuffle - hardly the same as suggestting he "touched the kids" inapropriatley.
All I want is for "Claude" to address my points as i did his.
Your abuse does you no favours.
Jack
It was a clear misquote
There is a big differnce between saying "blacks" and "black people" - Morrissey would never say "blacks"
The first is loaded with hate the second is not. - to pretend there isn't a significant difference is stupid
As for the actual quote I just don't think it is that alarming - sorry - he does not aportion any blame - its just opinion - controversial and provocative opinion? - yes - we are forced to consider the troubled history of race relations - Is it startling and dubious - or even racist? - no - should he be stopped from saying this stuff? - no - has he since clarified his position? - yes - do i agree with the Q quote? - not necessarily -
However this is not about the Q interview in 92 - It isn't even about whether Morrissey is a racist - Its about your article.
Are you going to address my points one by one as i did yours or are you just going to change the subject and aviod them like a coward?
Jack
I didn't wanna get drawn into this but I think the point of Claude's article is that the legal area that can come under the term "defamation" is very broad and difficult to define.
And there are hints that Morrissey's legal actions (by the way Anonymous/Jack The Ripper - look up "to sue" in the dictionary and you'll find out that's what Stephen Patrick Morrissey did) are already reaping the harvest that were sown.
The Word online has banned its readers from leaving any comments on the subject Morrissey. They basically made the topic off-limits. You can draw your own conclusions as to why.
Also, last January, former Beautiful South singer Paul Heaton wrote a page on his MySpace website which was a reposte to Morrissey's quotes from the Tim JOnze interview. Let me tell you he wasn't being sympathetic to Moz. Mysteriously the page vanished within 3 or 4 days. We'll never know, but the spectre of a lawyer's letter is lurking about.
Q's latest review of Morrissey live at the Roundhouse was shockingly tame as well. Anodyne, in fact. With the blandest, most placid, most fleeting mention of his legal case.
I myself as I'm writing this I'm feeling a touch self-conscious about every single key I strike. My own fault, for sure, but everything can practically come under the guise of defamation.
Just to give you an example, my dear anonymous (and it'sjust an example, don't go all straw man on me too), even when you call this website "shitty" and the writers "shitty" that could technically "be construed as defamation". Most lawyers would obviously laugh at it, but I'm sure in front of an incredibly rich client they wouldn't hesitate to pursue the matter.
Dear "Jack",
Why do you insist on typing Claude with quotation marks? Is is some weak attempt at sarcasm, perhaps?
With regards to my so called 'abuse' towards you, some people are simply replying to your excessive use of the word 'shit': Shitty writers, shitty blog, shitty article, shitty shitty shitty, ad nauseum. That's abuse. May I remind you that you are also a guest here, and if this was another website, they would have banned you already, as your IP address is known to the webmasters.
Be a bit less offensive and you will be treated accordingly. You're dealing with adults, trying to debate in an adult way, do us a favour and try and be respectful.
Yet again, you living contradiction, (ABUSE! ABUSE!) I must quote you.
"I happen to like Jarvis..." You like him so much that in the previous post you christened him ''where are you now?''
I may have missed a comma/quote there. Please correct my misquotes in your usual pedantic way if need be.
For some handy information, why don't you check this page out, and don't skip any paragraphs. Don't forget that Jarvis was arrested for what didn't happen, too.
The tabloids at the time were suggesting that Jarvis 'fiddled with' the kids. They may have used other expressions, but that is that they were implying. Unfortunatly I don't carry these articles around with me, and I certainly don't have any copies with me at the moment, but that is what was reported, take it or leave it.
If you really do want to prove a point, why not head to your local library and take a look at the newspaper records. You seem to have more time on your hands than I do judging by the amount of time you spend here. Enjoy yourself, though.
By the way, as for the sueing point (this is getting rather tiresome, is it not?), if you want an apology from somebody, you don't have to take them to court. There are other ways. Morrissey wanted to take The Word to court to have the case made as public as possible and in turn, add further grist to his own mill for the forthcoming NME case.
Who the fuck is Morrissey?
Hi Johnny
I think you need to look up the word "withdraw" - Morrissey's legal action was withdrawn - had he actually sued it would have ended with a judgement.
"I think the point of Claude's article is that the legal area that can come under the term "defamation" is very broad and difficult to define"
I think this is a very generous interpretation - and certainly not a new or interesting debate
As I said before,"only if your review contained unfounded agellations (as the "word" article did) would you need to expect a writ." - am still puzzled as to why an album review should contain allegations?
The rest (Paul heaton - the words website) is idle speculation.
"everything can practically come under the guise of defamation" - This just isn't true - look it up.
Any responsible journalist should be careful and thourghtful in order to aviod stating unfounded allegations about people they can't prove, when preparing to publish - This is not new its common sense - surely its also a good thing.
If the allegations do get publish (even by accident) the "accused" should have the right to an apology - Don't worry johnny if you mistakenly publish unfounded allegations about Morrissey it appears he will happily settle for a apology and let the matter drop - sounds fair to me. - does it not seem fair to you?
I am sure that any court of law in the land would agree you website is shitty - even Claude agreed. - You are correct lawyers would laugh at you.
As for Claude's concerns about Morrissey's Q interview quote I just don't think it is that alarming - sorry - he does not aportion any blame - its just opinion - controversial and provocative opinion? - yes - we are forced to consider the troubled history of race relations - Is it startling and dubious - or even racist? - no - should he be stopped from saying this stuff? - no - has he since clarified his position? - yes - do i agree with the Q quote? - not necessarily -
However this is not about the Q interview in 92 - It isn't even about whether Morrissey is a racist - Its about Claude's article.
Once again are you going to address my points Claude? one by one as i did yours or are you just going to change the subject and aviod them like a coward?
Jack
OK, this really is the last time as I've got to go to work (you may want to consider that, Anonymous).
It's like talking to a lampost. Morrissey sued. Full stop. If one of the two parts then choose apologise or settle out of court, the fact remains one sued in the first place. You are so ignorant, and ignorance and arrogance make for a lethal mix.
Remember, ANonymous, you are a guest here. Like Emma said earlier on. Have more respect. I wouldn't come to your house (read website) and start unleashing insults like you do.
I maintain, you keep calling this site shitty, but I've lost count of how many posts you've left. That's hideous, isnt it? When I think I stumble upon a crap site, I simply don't go back. Whereas according to our webmaster you've tallied hours and hours on Hagley Road to Ladywood.
So what else is there to say?
I said before that I don't think Morrissey is a racist and even if I did I wouldn't fancy a letter from his lawyers.
But I will say is that his 1992 comments were
unwise and ill-informed to say the least.
I've got on perfectly well with "black people" throughout my life and to imply that "white people" and "black people" will not get on is presumptious. In fact, plain stupid and to my knowledge Morrissey didn't disclaim those comments...
Morrissey knows perfectly well how to grab the headlines, that's for sure.
I've said it 670 times. I don't think David Quantick called him a racist. That's my opinion. You don't like it, nevermind.
I also totally agree with Johnny Taronja above. There is a serious risk that from now on whoever wants to review Morrissey will have to thread on eggshells.
Finally, and read this point careful. If you are a public figure and you don't want ill-founded allegation then you should refrain from making comments like those to Q in 1992:
"Q: Do you think people are innately racist?
Yes. I don't want to sound horrible or pessimistic but I don't really think, for instance, black people and white people will ever really get on or like each other. I don't really think they ever will. The French will never like the English. The English will never like the French. That tunnel will collapse.
Q: The song We'll Let You Know seems to sympathise with football hooligans. Is this the case?
Well they have such great taste in footwear (laughs). I understand the level of patriotism, the level of frustration and the level of jubilance. I understand the overall character. I understand their aggression and I understand why it must be released.
Q: Are you suggesting you've had first hand experience of this?
I'm not a football hooligan, if that's the question. You might be surprised by that. But I understand the character. I just do. I've got a computer at home for such things.
Q: Is this not just Morrissey picking up on another controversial theme?
It's hard to believe but no, it isn't. I can't fully explain. When I see reports on the television about hooliganism in Sweden or Denmark on somewhere, I'm actually amused. Is that a horrible thing to say?"
or say, like Morrissey did to the NME that : "Also, with the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears"...
It's not racist, but it's certainly destined to trigger some controversy.
Enormous amounts of typos, apologies, but Ive got to dash!
Anonymous, to put it bluntly:
Just bloody do one.
You think this site is shit, stop coming back. It's not advanced physics.
Also, bringing up the topic of race here is not advised and implying that Claude is a racist, which you have many a time, is simply unacceptable. Especially considering that you think black people and white people will never get on. That's plain shit, and if I was your mother I would be ashamed.
Consider this your last warning.
Hi Emma
All i want is for claude to answer my points - none of which are abusive
I never said anything abusive to you - you can't say the same to me
lets draw a line under it and see if we can all remain respectful from now on shall we?
You said "The tabloids at the time were suggesting that Jarvis 'fiddled with' the kids" - yet there is no mention of this from the link you provided and no other sources? - I can't find any and nor can you it seems.
I do like Javis and I would welcome a strong album from him - in my opinion his 2006 album wasn't it.
You also said if I did some "research" I would find the allegations - I have and can't - it appears neither can you. - can you?
However back to the article and claude's reluctance to address my points - lets not get distracted.
Out of interest Emma are you, like Claude and johnny now really worried that you might accidently make an unfounded allegation and be made to apologise?
Jack
Hi all
I never said or implied that Claude was racist? I am not racist and i don't think Claude is either - hope that clears that up
I did say Claude misquoted morrissey - which he did
As for the Morrissey quotes you provided as you say "It's not racist, but it's certainly destined to trigger some controversy" - I think that is fair comment Claude - regardless of this Morrissey should still be able to defend himself from unfounded slander and allegation - don't you agree? -
You say "If you are a public figure and you don't want ill-founded allegation then you should refrain from making" what you later refer to as statements "destined to trigger some controversy" - is that really what you think? -
I think most reasonable people (and lawyers) would agree - your freedom to make controversial statements (public figure or not)does not limit your right to defend yourself agsinst unfounded slander.
Emma I thourght we agreed not to be abusive? - Please try and keep to that - i have
All i ask is that Claude addresses the following points - non of which are abusive
1)did you read the "open statement" before publishing your article? - If not isn't that a bit lazy?
2)Now you realise Morrisey just wanted an apology isn't it fair for him to go to court inorder to get it, if when asked "The Word" initailly refused to aplogoise? - if not how is he suppose to defend himself?
3) Having read the "open statement" are you now prepared to admit your analyisis of the case was some way off - for example Your hypothetically example is not in the slightest relevant.
4)Having read the "open statement" and noted the difference between critisim and allegation are you prepared to now admit that dispite what you said you can still "offer a balanced and objective review of his (or anyones) artistic output without fear of receiving a judicial writ"
5) With this in mind are you prepared to now admit there is no need for a media boycott?
All i want is answers to these question then i'll happily leave
Jack
By the way - Its not at all relevant but you all seem so interested - I work F/T but am off today with the flu... achoo!
OK. Here goes it (excuse typos):
1) Of course I read the open statements. In fact, I'll tell you more. It was exactly after reading the statements in court that I decided to write my article. I saw it as a subtle, sophisticated form of bullying and as I can't stand ANY type of bullying I decided to write about it.
2) Correct me if I'm wrong but Morrissey didn't issue a statement following Quantick's article. That would have been an idea. Instead he went straight for the jugular.
It is public knowledge instead that Morrissey issued a statement following Tim Jonze's interview, he asked for an apology and then he decided to sue.
On a different note, to be honest, there are dozens of artists who take tons of shit and abuse hurled at them in the press, unfair reviews, ill-informed reviews, cliched reviews, character assassination and -alas- it's the way it is. Court isn't the way to fight it.
Taking the NME to court may be a different matter as (I think) Morrissey claims his quotes were wholly distorted. But, again, that's a different case.
I've noticed it's typical of you to ask for "exact quotes" as if we were all living libraries with a magic wand and nothing else to do. You can argue the toss as much as you want, but as a massive Pulp fan i can tell you Jarvis Cocker was SLAUGHTERED by tabloids on two occasions. 1) The Sorted for E's & Wizz single in which tabloids went on about Pulp's allegedly disgusting drug promotion (forgive me I dont have the exact quotes);
2) The 96 Brit Awards in which he got even ARRESTED for allegedly attacking children and putting their safety at risk.
Jarvis issued several statements and 12 years later he is considered a hero for that ordeal.
3) No, I'm not AT ALL prepared to admit that. The earlier post by Johnny Taronja was very eloquent about it. Easy for you to shun the Paul Heaton example as well as The Word website and Q reviews as 'speculation', but people aren't thick, mate. If I was a magazine owner I wouldn't embark upon a legal case which could cost me up to 600,000 quid. As simple as that. Morrissey can afford that money. Most people can't.
4) No. Again, I agree with Johnny Taronja. Writing about Morrissey makes me feel really tetchy now. Treading on eggshells. The possible extent of defamation is enormous.
5) There is no N E E D for a media boycott if you intend "need" as life or death. But I think it's a valid, albeit radical idea.
What I find unfair is that Morrissey used the media in the past to make some incredibly ignorant statements. Let's start with 2007. Provided that the NME reported it correctly (which I am prepared to admit is open to objection), Morrissey said "if you travel to Germany, it’s still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are". I find that statement ignorant. As a well travelled person, he should know better. Because, to me, unless I'm misinterpreting it (see what I mean, eggshells?) it carries that nasty whiff of "they all want to come here".
Like -I've quoted it ad nauseam-"black people and white people will never get along" which is, frankly, disgusting as well as ill-founded. And he never clarified that one, did he?
Or when, in the same Q interview he spurted out that he finds the English hooligans' deeds abroad amusing. Why doesn't he say that to the 32 victims of the Heysel tragedy and the dozens who got severely injured? I wonder if they found it amusing too. Bad taste or what?
So, you see, when this man then gets all sanctimonious about the press allegedly being unfair to him (and he plays the victim), I'm sorry but it gets on my tits big time. You like exact quotes, don't you, and I believe a judge once called Morrissey "truculent, devious and unreliable" (I haven't got the exact day and time of that, sorry). I'm afraid I can see it now.
I just wish I had been aware of that 10 or 15 years ago. If anything, I'd have saved a lot of money on CDs, gigs and other paraphernalia.
Now, I believe I answered your questions, "Jack". Now I have a couple for you.
1)Do you honestly believe that "black people and white people will never get on or like each other" (quote: Morrissey, Q Magazine, September 1992)?
2) Do you believe that Britain is losing its "identity" because of the constant influx of immigrants and that it is only happenng to Britain and not other European countries?
Oh and I have one more to ask, "Jack".
Given that since your first comment you've been already incredibly offensive :"dimwit", "plain stupid", "your website is shite and your writers retarded", "lazy", "rubbish",
"tosh", "lacking in common sense",
"shitwebsite", "shite", "hopeless",and I've probably left a few out,
what on earth have you been doing here for two days????
I bet you love it really, go on.
By the way
I hope you appreciate the importance of not posting as "anonymous" as "anonymous" messages then pile up and it gets really complex).
Oh And one more, when Morrissey calls Madonna "the closest thing to organised prostitution", how do you call that? Unfounded allegation"? Eh? Then he plays the victim poor little sod...
Hi Claude
I find your answer to my first point very hard to believe - How could you have read the statement and then got it all so wrong? - amazing
I never asked for exact quotes - However sometimes your misquotes can be very misleading. - don't you agree? - I wonder how the black people you got on "perfectly well with" would have responded had you called them "blacks" - something tells me you wouldn't be that rude
We all know about the E's and Whizz single being made into the shape of a wrap - and the Jackson incident at the Brits - hardly likely to sue anyone over those is he?
1)So when and where exactly was Javis slaughtered in print for being a "Kiddiefiddler" as you suggested earlier? - thats all i asked
relying on text from an interview that is under massive dispute is not going to clarify anything - The NME article was terrible (we seem to agree on this) and doesn't bare quoting or comment.
2)Strange how you think its "a different matter" to take the NME to court as Morrissey claims his "quotes were wholly distorted" - Yet when "The Word" completely makes things up it appears to be a bridge to far for you - why?
As for agreeing with "Q 92" i aleady said "not necessarily" - I mean on an indiviual basis black people and white people can get along fine - Historically and on mass however it would appear not - notice Morrissey does not aportion any blame - 1992 - was that the year after the LA riots? - Do the french like the English and the English like the French? - probably not - It does sound pessimistic and quite depressing but there you are.
I find it really funny imagining you all as you paint yourselves, all uptight with fear, too scared to comment (i'm sure its for the best) just in case you accidentally libel Morrisey by mistake - like frightend little children scared of the bigger boys, all tetchy and treading on eggshells as you say - oh dear I do feel for you - Please don't worry, because as I said earlier, if it happens all Morrissey will want is an aplogoy and it'll all be over - what a nasty big bully he must be.
Do you really think "The Word" had any chance of winning, having read the statement? - You think they crumbled to there knees just because they couldn't afford the costs upfront? - you really think that? - You think what they said was fair comment - really? - i'm amazed - read it again slowly -
The fact is, in the end it wouldn't have cost them anything if they'd won - in fact it would have end up being a massive pay day what with all the positive publicity.
Yet they instead apologised - that is a fact - we'll wait and see about the NME.
3)So why didn't Paul Heaton stand by his words? - he has the money - what made him back down? - it just doesn't add up does it?
The Q review was bland because Q is bland - plus they reviewed the gig not the NME row.
Now you raise Morrisey's bad taste - Much of his bad taste I happen to love from "Margaret On The Guillotine" to "Bring me the head of Elton John" - I don't find Heysel funny but TV news footage of pissed up sunburnt brummies throwing plastic chairs in Spain makes me smile everytime - sorry.
He remains a controversial figure and thats very rare in modern pop music - Should Maddona feel reason to sue then that is her right - can't imagine his comment did her any damage or harm - this is very important when talking about defamation - the allegation must do harm if she is to win - I find it incredible that you didn't realise this?
Morrissey has weathered much unfair criticisim over the years (much more than most)- It appears the NME article is the line in the sand - The racist allegation just don't go away they continue to be repeated and are harmful and damaging to his reputation and his career - Surely just because he discusses immigration and national identity in public it doesn't mean he can be publically unfairly labeled a racist with no proof, dispite a mountain of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - Anyway now the courts will decide once and for all.
4)Why not just review the music? - even critise the man if you can reason it out and back it up - just don't imply anything damaging(about anyone) without proof - should be pretty easy in an album review.
I could do it - why can't you?
By the way the quote should be "Devious, truculent and unreliable" - you had it in the wrong order (a bit of advice, never misquote a high court judge, they hate that - wink).
Your friend
jack.
and another thing..... hahaha
"travel to England and you have no idea where you are"
- You are misinterpreting this if you think it means "they all want to come here" as you say - he is actually talking about national identity.
Interestingly current mainstram thinking seems to agree with him. Britishness it appears is now quite meaningless - what does it mean to you i wonder? and are you English, Welsh, Scottish, British? - what did it mean 30 or 40 years ago?
I Do believe that Britain is losing/has lost its "identity" due (in part) to the constant influx of immigrants, amongst other things (such as Americanisation, the politically correct climate, the poor treatment and intergration of the immigrants themselves and the generally shoddy education system) and that this is happening in Britain in a more pronounced way than other European countries? - yes.
Intrestingly when asked to picture a British person, people from abroad often describe a football hooligan. Morrissey himself called them "The last truely british people that you wouldn't want to know" - what a great song that is ("We'll let you know") - he saw it coming a long long time ago.
His interest in the hooligan element has alot to do with britishness, identity and class as well as style rather than just bad taste as you call it.
By daring to openly discuss these matters must i now accept that i can be accused of being (or that people can imply that i am) a racist? - even without proof - and dispite alot of contradictory evidence - that doesn't seem fair does it? - It silences a necessary and healthy debate.
Also for the record to many many people young and old Morrissey continues to write great songs - "I have forgiven Jesus" "Life is a Pigsty" "Christian Dior" to name but 3 I could go on... - They stand up very well in comparison with any of his earlier work -
His loyal fanbase is a testiment to his continuously, provocative, entertaining and moving output - to dismiss them as mainly fanatics comparable to a religious sect is patronising and small minded - They will continue to rise to his defense when he is unfairly attacked - this is almost completely unique in modern pop and or art.
When you first demanded I give my name it was a "bravery" issue for you (strangely) - when it bacame about tracking post I began to signing each one.
As i said i am here mainly due to the flu but also because I want to set the record straight.
- you appear unwilling to admit your mistakes (unlike me) even when they are clearly spelled out to you for the world to see - you would do better to come clean and admit you got it wrong.
Achoo!
Jack
Mate, get on the ball, will you?
I wrote:
"1) The Sorted for E's & Wizz single in which tabloids went on about Pulp's allegedly disgusting drug promotion (forgive me I dont have the exact quotes);
2) The 96 Brit Awards in which he got even ARRESTED for allegedly attacking children and putting their safety at risk.
Jarvis issued several statements and 12 years later he is considered a hero for that ordeal".
You answered:
"We all know about the E's and Whizz single being made into the shape of a wrap - and the Jackson incident at the Brits - hardly likely to sue anyone over those is he?"
How on earth do you think it may be possible to have a 'debate' with a plonker/brick wall like that? I feel drunk after i read your comment entries!
I ask you if the wall is white and you answer the skirting is rectangular and quote a youdelling Morrissey line "reee-ctaaaa-ngu-laaaaar".
The fact that Jarvis Cocker was ripped apart and slandered is a fact. The fact he got arrested doesn't need "exact quote" as I'm not publishing a book about it. It's a bleeding forum/comment section. When people say "Blair got a huge majority in 1997" you don't turn round and go all "quote! How many exactly? Where did you get that fact from? I want source, author, date". When your mum remarks that Asda's getting bloody expensive your auntie doesnt go all "How? Show me the comparative charts! I want the full breakdown!"
D'you wanna know what I think? WHen you were at school you must have been badly told off for not referencing your essays and it must have stayed with you. Then they say the British education system sucks.
As far as the rest is concerned, I've had enough. You need to think with your own head, mate. It's sad that you are a collection of "Morrissey-pensiero". Whatever he says, you recite it back like a machine no matter what, even the vile bad taste quips about football hooligans.
And let me remind you, Mr Quote, Morrissey didn't talk about a couple of pissed up Brummies in the sun. In 1992 the hooligan problem was a million times worse than that - for one thing it was just after the 5-year UEFA-ban on all English teams.
No-one was asking him to shelve his interest in hooliganism, or race relations, etc. But to say "black people and white people will never get along or like each other" is such a sweeping, simplistic, ignorant statement.
Paul Heaton is nowhere near as wealthy as Morrissey. But he knows that a libel action in court is like a major major gamble. If you win - sigh of relief, and perhaps some dosh- if you lose you are fucked. Fucked. Fucked for life. Ruined. Finished. If it's a magazine you take to court, the repercussions are even worse as the company has to make people redundant, go into liquidation, and then preside over mass suicide.
The fact you're totally unaware of that tells me that you are, frankly, very young. It's much easier to live in a world of Morrissey quotes and walk around with his book of aphorisms in tow.
Now, one final word about your usual -ignorant- playing with words. If you isolate the word "blacks" out of context with a specific agenda, is one thing. To say "blacks and whites" is another thing. A very recent Gallup survey, I quote, called "Black-White Relations," affirms that "seven out of ten whites believe that blacks are treated equally in their communities"... There you are.
It's nothing to do with the word itself. It depends on the way you say it. For example, if you say "I f%%%%ng hate black people", or "I f&&&&ng hate blacks", it has exactly the same horrible effect.
I don't know what planet you live on.
But you if you exchew your arguing of the toss, your favourite sport, I will end this comment with the most unfortunate, sweeping quote from your favourite, sanctimonious, woe-betide-me hero, Morrissey:
"Q: Do you think people are innately racist?
Morrissey: Yes. I don't want to sound horrible or pessimistic but I don't really think, for instance, black people and white people will ever really get on or like each other. I don't really think they ever will".
Oh, and I forgot, I bet you think the French like chomping on onions and the Italians play the mandolin and you have an interest in European cultures.
Jack mate,
I want to ask you, actually, what Britishness is? Britain is made up of four Countries. Why don't you go ask a Scottish, Welsh or N.I person what they think it is. Or, even better, an Indian-Ugandan (whose fathers were catapulted over to Africa by the "British Empire" to build railways) who was then forcibly kicked out of Uganda, begged for asylum in England in the 70s and then reminded of the colour of his skin every other day?
Actually, how about asking an Australian Aborigine how British they feel?
Because frankly Jack, to me you come across as the worst kind of little Englander, the same kind of person who thinks, "they all want to come over here" (you know what I'm talking about) much like your idol seems to do.
You need to clarify this before we can continue.
You also come across as a person who's closest contact with European culture was a week in Alicante, judging by your highly ignorant attitude.
Ask any French, Spanish, German, Italian visitor what they thought of their week in Brighton or any other part of England, and they'd say "it was typically English". I know this for a fact as I teach them as part of my job.
The same way any Brit who goes to Germany, Sweden, Italy or Spain, even the most "Anglicised" parts of Spain (another shame of our times), will tell you that they look typically German, Swedish, Italian, or Spanish. But I'm sure if you asked an older German, Swede, Italian or Spaniard I'm sure they will tell you that a lot has changed, that their identity is being quickly lost and in their country more than in any other.
When I lived in Italy, everyone was saying to me how they felt they were being "swamped" by immigrants more than any other country, now I'm in Spain, they're saying exactly the same thing.
See what I mean about ignorance, Jack?
On to another of your classic comments;
"I don't find Heysel funny but TV news footage of pissed up sunburnt brummies throwing plastic chairs in Spain makes me smile everytime -sorry."
Good gracious me. This is a shocking statement, and yet another example of your ignorance. If you think football hooliganism is all about sunburnt people throwing chairs you really need to get out more, or certainly find out more about the topic before you post hideously misinformed and offensive comments like this. I can recommend you some good films or books about it that would (much neededly) open your eyes.
Really, You should know better.
"Should Madonna feel reason to sue then that is her right - can't imagine his comment did her any damage or harm..."
Well, I agree with you. The reason why she laughed off that comment is because she's obviously more of an adult than Morrissey is, and doesn't off run crying and moaning about 'defamation' and 'conspiracy' every time somebody says something about her she doesn't like.
Jack, I already warned you about the blacks and whites comment, which you chose to ignore in your usual blinkered way.
I would like to give an example of an exhibition that was held in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery in 2005-06 called the 'Black History Exhibition', not the 'Black People's History Exhibition'. May I inform you that this was run by Birmingham City Council. Maybe you should take up your argument with them, and tell them about their racist slur, if that's what you think.
You like to think you are worldly-wise, but what you are is brainwashed.
However, you guys really are like a religious sect. I thought Manics fans were bad but you really take the biscuit when it comes to eating up everything your icon says. It goes miles beyond admiring a singer, loving his music, blind love for his lyrics. Yours is tantamount to absorbing every single morsel of shit your idol says, good or bad, and regurgitating it, come what may.
I'm actually a massive Manics fan of many years, but I don't agree with their support of Gordon Brown's Labour, Nicky Wire's stupid comments about Michael Stipe dying from AIDS, admiration of Fidel Castro etc. But the difference between you and me is that I realise that the Manics are humans and can beleive in what they want, and just because I adore thir music, doesn't mean I have to blindly stick up for them, or eat everything that comes out of their mouths like you do with Morrissey.
Very finally,
"When you first demanded I give my name it was a "bravery" issue for you (strangely)..."
Cowards, bravery, you're all cowards, running away... blah blah blah...
Does your father come from an Army background per chance?
As you can see, all of your comments have been published.
We had to moderate them because it was turning quite nasty.
Jack,
you kept asking what Mr Morrissey should do instead of sueing his detractors.
For a start he should stop making ambiguous comments. Controversial is one thing, ambiguous and ugly is another thing.
Let me give you a few clear examples.
- Round the time (1992-1995) he was at pains to portray himself as "a bid of a lad", Moz made those comment abt hooligans.
You choose to play it down as an amusing quip abt sunbunt oiks, other see it as horrendously bad taste and lack of respect to real victims of hooliganism in the real world.
Try n google Lansdowne Road, Dublin, Republic of Ireland vs England 1995. Have a read. See if you, or your God, still find amusing.
Moz makes comment abt black n white people never liking each other, u see it as a neutral and distant remark on race relations (whatever that would be, you didnt explain) others see it as something. Certainly inappropriate. I am white. I like certain black people, I dont get on or dislike others. Exactly like I get on with some whites and not with others. Or I like some Asian people and dislike others. Cos it's got fuckall to do with the colour of their skin.
Moz makes a coment abt brit identity being lost due to constant influx of immigration, you see it as an NME led conspiracy, I see it as something else.
Moz insults Madonna, u find it amusing, ha ha ha, I find it sad.
See how when u make ill informed and ambiguous comments like these they easily spiral out of control? and thats not a matter of misquoting. It's a mater of making ill informed, crap comments in public. Full stop.
Hi Emma and Claude
Firstly Emma I have not said anything abusive to you - again you continue to abuse me dispite my pleas - once more please stop -
Its does your argument no good - nor does the rant about fanatical Morrissey fans - Its just blind prejudice - along with the half-baked nonsense about my schooling and character - which i will rise above - lets stick to the facts shall we.
You suggested Jarvis has been slaughtered in the press many times but never stooped to the level of legal proceedings - this may well be true am not even doubting it - stay with me -
However you gave examples - "The brits" - I agree - he was slaughter for this and came out a hero
The E's and whizz single - I agree he was slaughtered for it -
but he isn't likely to sue over the press coverage of these instances is he? (thats what we're talking about isn't it) - He did after all rush the stage at the Brits and release a single in the form of a powder wrap - Were the printed allegation and backlash that followed unfounded? Imagine the court case "Jarvis sues over drug slurr" "I wasn't promoting drug use" says Jarvis "E's and Whizz was misinterpreted"- or "Jarvis sues Jackson/the press for claiming he injured kids when he rushed the stage" not very likely and not a strong case - after all did rush the stage - there was as a resulting skuffle, children got injured - do you see?
This is different from allegations or implied allegations of racism - Just because Morrisey talks openly and publically about National Identity and Immigration it doesn't open the floodgates for damaging allegations of racism, they are still unfounded - and Emma repeated allegations of racism are very very damaging
However you also claim Jarvis was called a "kiddyfiddler" (truely awful and damaging allegations - and a very good reason to sue in my opinion) in print and still did not take action? - This to me is a surpirse! - i had not heard of this before? - I loved Pulp - saw them in the early days at their famous Glastonbury show - I find this hard to believe - someone actually printed that? - really? and he didn't sue? - this is the point of contention - all i asked for was a link to the allegations (it would certainly illistrate your point better than the other examples - I would surely have to conceed that he did rise above unfounded and damaging allegations) - but you can't find one can you? - instead all you can do is rant at me - which must be embarrassing - everyone else can see i am being reasonable -
All you can give me is a link to the "Brits" story which contained nothing remotely related to a "kiddiefiddler" accusation did it? - you reapeatedly passed this off as relevant because he was accused of assaultting children clearly it wasn't about sexually assaulting children -
So again i'll ask one more time when and where exactly was Jarvis slaughtered in print for being a "Kiddiefiddler" as you suggested earlier? - If you can't find a link (and you said yourself it would be easy to find) - just withdraw that example - Its would be the right thing to do even if it weakens your argument -
to suggest i am being pedantic in asking for a link or a quote when it is central to your argument is not really fair.
Why must i spell this stuff out and talk you through it like i am talking to an infant?
Claude misquoted when he said "blacks" -That is the truth- you say this had no impact in the context it was set - I think it did - I think It distorted the quote - perhaps i am wrong - its a matter of opinion - as you point out "Black History" is not offensive, "History of Blacks" however could be - it is contentious - Am am prepared to conceed that, as it was followed by "whites" - which gives some twisted balance.
nevertheless - it was a lazy misquote - wasn't it? - it took seconds to look it up didn't it? - You published this article attacking Morrissey and should be able to defend your words accurately and clearly you have a responsibility to, if you want to be taken seriously - you are not living up to that responsibility. - You did, after all, call for a nation media boycott - Central to this whole debate is "defamation" and the damage that lazy journalism - misquoting - distortion of quotes, half truths and flat out lies can do - that is why you need to get it right yourself before you start to preach about public figures over reacting. Your inability to do this lets you down at every turn and is probably why you are so frightend -
When you make a mistake just admit it - Don't attack me because i highlight it - it was a misquote wasn't it?
You talk of the damage of losing a libel action - yet appear to miss the damage of actually being libeled - Why so onesided?- Are unfounded allegation not damaging? - shouldn't someone who makes unfounded allegations be made to pay for the damage they cause? - This is why we have a court system - to get to the truth and aportion blame - so we are all protected - are you saying you are against this process completely?
Your argument shifts as it suits you - lets take each one in isolation.
Firstly that "The Word" said or implied nothing damaging and unfounded - do you really still believe this? - even after we both agreed that Morrissey is clearly not a racist?
Lets say "The Word" didn't make unfounded damaging allegations but Morrissey (the evil millionaire prepared to go the distance) took legal action just as a bullying tactic. This is dificult to argue against - I can't win - he is after all a millinoaire (self-made) thats not his fault - It shouldn't prevent him from defending himself. However the whole thing makes no sense - why is he taking legal action if he doesn't think the allegations damaging and unfounded? - lets not forget Morrissey did withdraw the legal action following the apology - Are you saying he did this only because he knew he couldn't win? (a true bully would want damages, not for the money but to finish the other person off for good - an apology woldn't be enough) - that is a pretty big risk to take - Going to court with a losing case - why bother at all if the allegations are not harmful and unfounded? - it makes no sense do you see?
Your really suggesting he went to court simply because he's got the money to - and The Word aplologised simply because they haven't the money to fight it out - So you don't believe in the justice system at all - is that it? You don't believe that the truth will win out in the end - surely if you lose - you deserve all you get - and you should have to pay the damages - don't you agree? - Really the facts of the case show up the big weaknesses in your argument -
And finally the term "defamation" has such a large scope now that anything and everthing can now result it a writ. - not true - the definiton of the legal term has not changed overnight has it?
At no point did I say I agreed with everything Morrissey has ever said - you just want to believe that - it helps you paint me a fanatic and a religious nutcase - it isn't true - I shouldn't have to defend Morrissey quote after quote to make my point - We agree Morrissey isn't a racist. - why then do you keep going over this stuff. - In short "to say black people and white people will never get along or like each other is such a sweeping, simplistic, ignorant statement." - maybe that is true but is the statement racist? - no - and it doesn't mean its now okay to call him a racist or even imply it. - it just doesn't and any court would agree.
Emma: my girlfriend's parents are Indian-Ugandan they were forcibly kicked out of Uganda in the 70's and I am Scottish/English - am not really sure what British means anymore nor does she - thats the point do you see? - I should be able to discuss immigration - national identity and race relation without being accussed of anything - Am not saying immigration is wrong nor is morrissey it is alot more complex than that. I would be interested to know what your students meant by "typically English" -
You say: "When I lived in Italy, everyone was saying to me how they felt they were being "swamped" by immigrants more than any other country, now I'm in Spain, they're saying exactly the same thing." - are all these people are ignorant racist liars Emma? or is it a reality of the modern world? - The fact is British identity and culture was once the strongest most definable now it has almost completely gone - that again is my point.
I said "coward" because Claude repeated ignored the points I had to make - he kept refusing to address them (as he has done again this time) - I had to repeat them all full over and over - as you both changed the subject and got personal - As everyone can see it is you who is "getting nasty" - you have brought up both my father and mother - why? -
just answer the points i make one by one - they are clearly laid out in this post -
Thanks
Jack
Jack,
You have a knack for twisting other people's words, I'll give you that. You also glossed over the football hooliganism topic very skilfully.
This discussion is going to be closed soon. If you really want to continue this debate (which frankly is getting a bit tiresome now) then feel free to send me or Claude an email and we'll continue. You'll find a link on our respective blogs.
If not, we'll agree to disagree, as this really isn't worth our time anymore, and it's a touch futile.
Tarra.
Interesting piece.
See where you're coming from.
You can still review Morrissey's records though. He can't sue you from having an opinion.
Here's one you can start with:
"The latest single isn't very good in my opinion."
Now his new lp has been leaked, I think its time you reviewed. Ah go on. You know you want to.
Post a Comment