He is not Vegan. He wants to be, but always said it was to diffuclt in the US. Pretty sure Rome wont be that easy either.

Journalists? R'soles.

iwould agree with this, but iwould also add that it is not Morrissey's responsibility to be responsible in this matter so long as he is not participating in any criminal behaviour himself. you could argue that, asa rockstar, it is his unofficial responsibility to be relativly irresponsible.

idid however find the comments to be less than flattering and more than a touch distasteful, but thats Our Moz.

How many times have we seen Morrissey's picture taken whilst wearing LEATHER Doc Martin boots!!! Hypocritical rantings of someone with too much money and time on their hands if you ask me,ask me,ask me. P.S.- I do adore his music though

These silly newspaper articles are just the kind of free publicity that'll make ROTT huge.

As i said on the message board, we all know that it was Morrissey that made these statements, but to people who don't know the whole Moz/Julia association, it could just be the rantings of some obsessed fan, making up interviews in the hope of fooling the public. You'd have thought they'd need harder evidence than an internet fan-zine before they started printing news items like these.

I really hope he doesn't believe that. If you think that all animals should have rights, then why should the rights of human animals be taken so lightly? Just because we don't all do research on animals/eat animals does NOT mean that we don't indirectly benefit from such things. How many of us have taken medications tested on animals? I'm willing to bet that the majority of us do... so should we also be a target for these organizations?

I love Morrissey so much, I just wish he could stop viewing this issue as being so black and white...

People who go to work everyday and experiment on animals don't deserve violence, but they should accept it as a possible occupational hazard, the same way that a police officer or soldier does. All three are "helping" the rest of society, yes?

If they were real scientists and not just following lab protocol, they'd find other ways to achieve their goals.

Good for Morrissey being black and white about things. That's him.

It's no wonder society is in such a mess, and the political class are taking such liberties, when "broadsheet" newspapers like the Times have such low standards of journalistic integrity.

If they can't even get their facts accurate about his vegetarianism, how can they be trusted with more complex issues?

The average journalist sits on his arse all day, getting wires from AP or Reuters, and repackaging the bare bones into something resembling a tabloid story or a "broadsheet" story. It's a mess, really.

The same people still tell us Morrissey is a celibate miser. They also tell us Blair is an idealistic old leftie. They also make excuses for Blair and Bush's lies in hoodwinking their supposed masters - the people - into a war on false grounds; simultaneously justifying their appalling lies, and making a mockery of our supposed "democratisation" of the middle east. If the government lie to the people, and the press accept those lies, what sort of democracy do we actually have? It's like Saddam's Iraq, only our human rights abuses are abroad.

broken

has even been called into question by New Scientist. There are computer programmes that predict human reactions to drugs more accurately. That's all testing does; it predicts. For instance, last week some research was published to show that there is no single gene, nor even a group of genes that code for mental illness, so there'll be no new drugs ... years of gene research, hundreds of millions of pounds, thousands of animals cut up for their genetic material, to tell us what? That genes vary between individuals as well as species ... well, stone me, I learnt that in year 7 science.
Also, if they wanted to find an animal whose organs and skin were most genetically similar to humans, they'd be testing on pigs ... but pigs are too expensive to keep and breed. That's how much these companies care about humans. It was supposedly 'safe' to put Roaccutane on the market, but loads people have suffered severe mental illness, or committed suicide because of that drug. A mouse isn't going to tell you it's depressed is it.
Animal testing is centuries old research; we don't put toads in our mouths or boil donkey balls to cure colds, so why cut up a rodent to tell us how a human being will react. It's lunacy.
And if the moral high ground won't let us do stem cell research (because a fertilised gamete has feelings apparently) why are they still letting scientists cut open the heads of live monkeys? An intelligent animal is higher up on the ethical scale than a multiplying cell, surely.
In the end, it all comes down to big business and money.

With regards to the Times article, I'll put here what I said on the discussion boards; Morrissey's comment has been blown out of all proportion. He said, "I support" and "I understand why". Those comments were a matter of opinion, not a rallying cry to fans to empty their bank accounts into the pockets of some nutty left wing group. Unfortunately, Labour have decreed that now, the police can do you for 'thought crime'.

Dear Mr Orwell,
You were right.

this serves as the perfect example of how nowadays it's somehow socially unacceptable to hold your own opinion about something. what's the issue here? if it's ok for people to support the troops, how is what morrissey said a terrible belief to hold? surely it's his right to choose his own belief on this matter? it's incredible. the media and the politicians want everyone to view the world in black and white, good and evil, and if you don't hold the exact conformist opinion then there's an issue. why? why should morrissey not hold his own opinion? he has the right to be 'wrong'.

i think morrissey showing confidence in his views is something which should be applauded in an age where views are usually homogenous and derived entirely from the newspaper and news channels...who all conveniently churn out the same news agencies reports. is it any surprise that rupert murdoch's paper prints an article criticising morrissey? (and on a sidenote, i wish murdoch hadn't bought myspace.)

if more musicians and people with a voice had the balls to speak out on their views and felt passionate about injustice then perhaps people wouldn't be so blissfully ignorant.

Morrissey uses the same justification for violence against people who harm animals that he deliberately turns his back on when it comes to the US and the UK pre-empting the Middle East.

"You can't reason with these people, and since the only thing they understand is violence, then that's the language you have to speak."

(The quote was something like that...)

How would Morrissey respond if someone said to him, "Mozz...I totally agree with you in regards to the unfortunate reality that unless violent tactics are used, then animals will become more, and more in trouble. That's exactly how I feel about what the US and the UK are doing militarily in the Middle East. It's unfortunate, but there are no other options to get real results that will make the world and the region safer."

I'm sure he'd respond with a typical:

"No, what the US and UK are doing is based on a lie. What the animal rights activists are doing is based on a truism."

Oh, I see...the Liberal approach! Craft each argument to only meet and fit your specific view! Much like the NSA wiretapping...liberals will have the world try to believe that Bush is trying to destroy individual rights. Yet, they don't have a good defense of that posture when confronted with the facts: Clinton did the exact same thing, and actually argued that it should have gone even further than the Bush Admin's intercepts!

Those damn facts! I hate it when those things keep showing up around here, spoiling my jaded, stupid, sophomoric attempts at intelligent debate!

2006 Liberals = The Biggest Hypocrites in the history of the world

(A close second, however, would be Pro-Life Christians who somehow defend the death penalty. See! Fair and Balanced = Dewdrop! )

Supporting violence is stupid.
And i do eat sausages and stakes, so what.

Morrissey is a moral retard! I can understand him being against the meat industry, which resembles a concentation camp, but how can anyone in their right mind be against fox hunting, which is beautiful fun, brief, natural, and very sporting? Better take a stance against pets, which like meat factories deprive animals of the dignity of the wild.

As I've posted before, this is political theater. Morrissey believes in making strong statements and always has. From the beginning, with The Smiths, he has made bold, reckless, and irresponsible statements from time to time. He supported the ALF in '84, made callous comments about Thatcher (lamenting that the bomb missed her) and of course "Margaret On The Guillotine". This item shouldn't be news to any Morrissey fans familiar with his history. Death and violence have always been his soy-meat and potatoes, if you will, but he has only used them for dramatic purposes. The contradiction in his worldview is neatly expressed in "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side": "Behind the hatred there lies/A murderous desire/For love".

Also, to put this into perspective, lots of "socially conscious" bands have taken views like this in one form or another. You could argue The Clash more or less supported violence in songs like "Guns Of Brixton" and others. Paul Heaton (Housemartins, Beautiful South) has written explicitly murderous songs about wiping out the upper classes. And looking elsewhere, even "acceptable" hip-hop outfits like Public Enemy have given lip service to the "by any means necessary" solution. Violence has never been far from the lyrics of many songwriters who came along after punk. It's a pose and an attitude-- nothing more.

That said, it's a little disappointing to read Morrissey's statement. Surely there was another way of relating his sentiments in support of animal rights. But, again, longtime fans of the man know that he contradicts himself. As early as 1985 people were pointing out his wearing of leather garments, and he never gave a damn. Not the most consistent fellow, Morrissey, but always interesting. There are far more powerful characters out there, committing far more invidious crimes, for us to worry about at the moment. Seems insane for people to criticize a pop singer with a Texas-flavored dictatorship budding in Washington right before our eyes.

He said he supports animal rights extremists and he understands why they do what they do... he hasn't actually said anything about encouraging them to do what they do!
I don't agree with what the extremists do, or violence in general, but i think the journalist really twisted what he said. he's not inciting violence, he didn't tell people to attack those tv chefs. I didn't read anything in his interview that would make me go out and thump someone for eating meat.
Anyway isn't the guy who owns the Times also the guy who owns the Sun?