I wonder if Jukebox Jury is back on here? It sounds as if he might be....
I wonder if Jukebox Jury is back on here? It sounds as if he might be....
In the context of Morrissey being apprehended for a few things he's said to have said, how's this in comparison for monstrous institutional incitement to hatred and ethnic cleansing? - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...tal-war-islam/
And an interesting article about the prejudiced rants printed daily in mainstream newspapers http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/10/1...o-media-myths/ How do they get away with that?
Ok, so this is a court trial with a verdict and such at end
meaning there is gambling involved
so, what do the odds makes put Moz's chances at winning?
True, there's risk, we must be worldwise, but if he plays it straight with his legal team, I think he had a more than 95% chance of winning. It's common for press to exploit and warp perceptions to sell with sensationalised headlines, but this infringes on rights. So NME's gamble has been called. Still the case will of course attract lots of interest, but it'll be done and dusted quite quickly.
And I was that fanOriginally Posted by MORRIZSEY;1986716201
Oh well at least it meant there were plenty of seats to go around and I got to sit next to Angie and listen to her muttering funny comments under her breath.
Johnny Rodent really does look very feral, one suspects if you got out a piece of cheese in front of him he'd go bat shit crazy. That and he spent the majority of his time in between court sessions attached to the coattails of Rourke and Joyce.
I hope ole Mozzer actually wins this one but something tells me he won't, and the prophetic words of Grant Showbiz in the Uncut article they did on him many years back continue to ring in my ears.
The only thing that can damage Morrissey's case more than his own testimony is a legion of his fans showing up to support him.
By the way, the concert in Stockton does not look as if it really were that much better than concerts given in 2009. The people in Manila and Horishima would have surely liked to also get a concert like this.
And of course this post is not going to get through because, you know, of those biased Japanese and Irish-British moderators.
She mainly saved her muttering for when Joyce's legal team were trying to make a point.
One thing I will say about that case was that Morrissey got made out to be the bad guy and Johnny was the poor sop in the middle trying to placate the Diva singer and the droopy backing band but Johnny defended his side, (he and Morrissey's) HARD.
In post trial interviews he made it sound like it was a misunderstanding on his part whilst trying to keep the peace between the 2 sides of the band. Not necessarily true. He downright refuted parts of Joyce's testimony and if anything was more in the firing line because Joyce (with Rourke's testimony) basically said that when approaches were made from their side it was always to Johnny as they weren't confident to broach the subject with Mozzer.
If anyone lied or fabricated the truth to Bruce and Rick it was more likely to have been Johnny (from what i observed at least.)
However you are right, Dame Morrissey's ahem......'performance' overshadowed the facts. Conveniently for Marr I might add. As much as I like Marr, he got to skate quite a bit as far as the culpability goes, although he obviously paid up. But as Morrissey has pointedly stated only after he lost the appeal.
Johnny strikes me as a clever swine. But a good one as well.
Thank You bhops.
"Morrissey is wearing a pair of vintage jeans and sipping from a can of Red Bull."Mon Coeur ne bat que pour Morrissey
Even in the early post-split years (say, '89-92), Moz frequently dropped hints here and there to imply that Johnny got a much fairer deal than his NME sob stories would suggest - wriggling out of the EMI contract when Moz had to stay and fulfil it, blaming Moz for the split but failing to mention that he wasn't exactly an angel himself and went onstage drunk quite frequently etc. "Getting Away With It? How apt". I think Johnny made a sensible decision to pay up and get the whole thing over with, and he's been classy enough to stay silent about the issue in later years, but he's two-faced to an absolutely unbelievable extent.
Last edited by Amy; May 29, 2012 at 04:27 PM.
Of course, from Rourke and Joyce's points of view, deception is deception. One way or another, they weren't getting the truth.
I'm pointing this out because I don't think either Morrissey or Marr, separately or together, intentionally went to Joyce and Rourke and straight-up lied. This doesn't wash their hands, but it's important because it doesn't make one more guilty than the other. You can't really single out one of them as being worse. They didn't want to pay Rourke and Joyce an equal share and kept putting off a final confrontation because the band's four years of existence were so successful and such a whirlwind that they didn't want to tamper with anything. What transpired would have happened to just about any band without strong management, or (at times) any management at all.
And Marr in the middle? Please. Very often that was the case, but Morrissey put him there. He could have stepped up and made the tough decisions but he didn't. He also kept forcing out anyone who might have done so. I'm sure at times Johnny tried to please everyone, and so pleased nobody. Who put him in that position?
But to give you one boring example Joyce testified that he was at Marr's house watching one of their TOTP performances, (I forget which but one of the earlier ones maybe around the William/Heaven times) and he said that the subject was dead set broached to johnny there and then and was given assurances that the split was all even and everything was being taken care of.
Morrissey was not there at the time.
Johnny testified that this conversation never took place, although yes they were at his house watching TOTP's. Somebodies telling porkies.
Rourke and Joyce must also accept their share of the blame, they never showed any interest in the financials until the whole thing was virtually over and Mike Joyce went to get a mortgage and buy a house, that is when he started looking into the financial aspects of The Smiths.
Y'know my feeling? Rourke and Joyce would've accepted 10% from the outset and part of me thinks that they did. Interestingly in the court case earnings were actually mentioned and I think in 1986 they both were paid somewhere in the region of 50,000 pounds each which wasn't bad money back in those days, considering The Smiths were big but were also no Wham!
The real problem was what many (including 3 members in the band) saw as the premature break-up of the band. I think if the The Smiths had gone on another 5 years and Rouke and Joyce had continued to earn good money this may not have even risen it's ugly head.
I thought they only had public galleries at things like murder trials!
The first couple of days were very low key and then the newspapers covered Morrissey's testimony and I thought for sure a few more fans would show up, but no. I was there for a lot of it but some days I had to work etc. I really wish in retrospect I had taken notes even at the end of the day because there was some fascinating detail in there.
It really was a far more intimate portrait of The Smiths than any book I've ever read.
One funny moment was when Joyce's counsel were cross-examining one of Morrissy's old lawyers or accountants I think at the end of the 3rd day (again the exact details escape me) who then admitted that they too were in the process of suing Morrissey as well for non-payment. That bought a chuckle through the courtroom, LOL.
Because of the low turn-out I also think that either Joyce's supporters in the gallery or Angie Marr knew quite what to make of me. I used to waft in and waft out without saying a word to anyone.