Morrissey was given multiple opportunities to contribute to the programme, he chose not to. Why? Wouldn't it have been the perfect chance to explain his side of things? But like the child he is, he took his ball in and refused to play.

If any slanderous comments were made during the programme, Morrissey could have sued those who had lied, and maybe recouped some of his lost money, but he didn't sue. Could this be because there were no untruths in the documentary?

Hey!! Leave him alone! Blimmim' heck!! His news is posted on the main part of the Morrissey solo page, he's hardly going to be saying 'Let's all watch and HATE Morrissey, is he?'

If it is posted as news, it should be unbiased and informative, rather than a chance to stick the knife into people, who in his opinion, have done the dirty on Moz.

I appreciate the fact that he has taken the time to inform people about the repeat, although I will not see it, but it would be nice to read an unbiased mention of the programme, without it always being described as people attacking St. Morrissey.

Geoff Travis signed The Smiths, he didn't have to. The Smiths signed to Rough Trade, again, they didn't have to. One of Morrissey's strategies was 'non-promotion', in that the music should sell the records, not advertising.

All seven of The Smiths albums ended up in the top 10, with Meat Is Murder reaching number one, and five of the others reaching number two. The others were compilations, and sold less due to the fact that a lot of the tracks were already owned by collectors. Half of The Smiths 16 UK release singles, made it into the top 20. Bands would rather sell more albums than singles, as albums make for more profit. The Smiths were always an albums band anyway.

As far as How Soon is Now? goes..., fair enough, Geoff made an error of judgement, which he readily admits. But he also stopped the release of Reel Around The Fountain as a single,a single which would never have made a positive impact, even without the newsparer slurrs, and suggested that they release This Charming Man in it's place. Since this was the record that launched the group into a mass audience, I think that Travis' judgement wasn't bad at all.

"Two fine players (rourke & Joyce) but with time on their hands to develop drug and drink habits"

As we know, Mike was already no stranger to the world of drugs. In fact Johnny said that one of the reasons he was hired, was that he was 'tripping on magic mushrooms' at the audition.

"Did their lack of contribution to the songwriting and general presentation of the Smiths not tell them something?"

So why were they members of The Smiths for so long?

"Would you give Ringo 25%?"

If Ringo had been told that he would get 25%, then yes I would. If a 25% was the arrangement at the outset of the band, then why change it once the big money starts to appear? Remember that this point has been proved in a court of law. Johnny lost just as much as Morrissey in the legal action, but do we hear him taking every opportunity to slag Mike off? Mike & Johnny are still on speaking terms.

"A judge that had to have Top Of The Pops explained to him ordered Moz and Marr to cough up"

What has knowing about a TV music programme, got do do with points of contractural law? Judges, barristers, and legal people in general, are there to decide points of law, rather than be knowledgeable on pop culture.

"We all assumed it was going to be a condensed South Bank Show and I'm sure he did too"

You should never assume anything. How boring would it have been, to see a re-hash of another programme? Why make another 'Southbank Show', when one has already been made?

"Why would Morrissey feel a desire to talk to the BBC in 1998 which was when the programme was made? Let's talk about the past? Why for heavens sake?"

Is Morrissey not proud of his time with The Smiths? He's certainly proud enough to play Smiths songs on his 1999/2000 tour! Could the real reason for his non-appearance be that he had nothing to gain from the excercise? Morrissey only does things from which he can gain. This is how it has always been. Be it promotion, gigs, whatever.

I don't hate Morrissey, but neither do I idolise him. I can see him for what he is.

Unfortunately all the points you've raised, are recycled Morrissey interview snippets. With age, maybe you'll learn to take a less biased viewpoint.

'We were never told that we were going to get 25%, but we were never told that we were going to get less.' Mike Joyce.
I play in a band and I got paid £120 for a gig in Derry last week. I did not know how much I was going to get. But I trusted the Bar manager enough that I knew it would be a justifiable amount. Should I chase after him and demand £200 now that I realise he's got a till packed with fivers and tenners? There was no agreement made for 25%. There was no breach of contract just a crazy understanding of it by a mad judge. I'm sure if the great Dermot Morgan was still around and Father Ted was still on the go that judge would be given a part. He'd be better suited dealing with the affairs of the people of Craggy Island. How can we allow these people to pass judgement on us when they cannot comprehend our culture? Is law so removed from our lives? This is not just relevant to the Morrissey/Joyce case but to all cases in a court of law. Morrissey and Marr are just another couple of irish scapegoats.(I only half mean that).Joyce is irish after all.
Anyway I fully respect that 'Someone With A Big nose Who Knows' is entitled to his/her opinion and I admire anyone who challenges my views. I should say that I shall try to present news in the future(if I have any) with an unbiased approach and try to keep my own views out of the way. I now understand that this was an error on my behalf and I hope I haven't permanantly upset anyone. It's good to express different views but I don't know if this was the right place for it. Anyway I give my respect out to 'Someone With A Big Nose Who Knows' and just hope that his/her nose is not as big as my own.