Article: NME case - July 16th to 19th - Turn up at court and support Morrissey - info at true-to-you.net

[hand in glove]

Very good reason to be there, if I could I will but I'm very far

Well, we're with him in spirit, and that means a great deal!

[hand in glove]

Maybe because it's not a fucking circus. It's not a rock concert; it's a fucking court case.

I was only agreeing with the statement on tty...God, the venom dripping from your pores make my eyes water.

[hand in glove]

Maybe that's a fair comment and perhaps I shouldn't call him bloated. Fair play, but it's not 'because I haven't had a lot of love in my life'; no matter how I look at it there IS no excuse for what Morrissey said about the Chinese being/behaving/resembling a sub-species. I've always liked Morrissey's music very much (perhaps not so much the recent material) but I can't forgive that comment.

My remarks were made in exasperation really, not bitterness. Support Morrissey in clearing his name against an NME accusation of racism? Nah, we're facing REAL problems here in Britain right now.

Alright, I understand how you can feel that way. As for real problems, well they're everywhere. We certainly have loads of our own here in the USA. What I meant was I wish I could support him as i would any friend or family member in my life. Since this is a Morrissey site and we are talking about a real problem in his life I felt what I said was appropriate. What I said about you personally was not. Forgive me.

[123xyz]

Actually my girlfriend at the time was a lawyer, nothing to do with that case, but she knew I was a fan of the band and mentioned that the case was about to start. I was so naive I didn't he even know you could go and watch such things.

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.

How odd it must have been, sitting there watching "The Smiths" disintegrate utterly. Thanks for posting these bits and pieces...

[2-J]

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!

Interesting to hear you say that as someone who sat through most of the case, because that's always been my feeling from a much less complete overview of it. I don't believe they weren't aware they were getting less, I fully believe they would have been sacked and / or the band would have split with Moz and Marr going on if they had insisted during the life of the band. ALL the stuff about them supposedly bringing it up with Moz or Marr during the life of the band is just one word against another. I believe they were aware they were getting less (that is also just one word against another as well as far as I can see, but I also have difficulty believing they couldnt have been aware of it over the 4+ years). I can understand on one level why the law presumes an equal partnership and I'm sure that leads to the correct outcome in many (most?) cases but I do think here is a case where it didn't.


Now about this current trial, I don't believe Morrissey is a racist though he has said some offensive and stupid things over the years. But in this case, it does seem NME really stitched him up just for controversy / sales / a good story. That editor
Conor McNicholas is a total fool and I hope he and NME get what's coming to them.

[bhops]

Interesting to hear you say that as someone who sat through most of the case, because that's always been my feeling from a much less complete overview of it. I don't believe they weren't aware they were getting less, I fully believe they would have been sacked and / or the band would have split with Moz and Marr going on if they had insisted during the life of the band. ALL the stuff about them supposedly bringing it up with Moz or Marr during the life of the band is just one word against another. I believe they were aware they were getting less (that is also just one word against another as well as far as I can see, but I also have difficulty believing they couldnt have been aware of it over the 4+ years). I can understand on one level why the law presumes an equal partnership and I'm sure that leads to the correct outcome in many (most?) cases but I do think here is a case where it didn't.


Now about this current trial, I don't believe Morrissey is a racist though he has said some offensive and stupid things over the years. But in this case, it does seem NME really stitched him up just for controversy / sales / a good story. That editor
Conor McNicholas is a total fool and I hope he and NME get what's coming to them.

Yep this is pretty much how I saw it.*

Throughout the court case both Morrissey and Marr's lawyers (what was weird was they clearly weren't working in tandem and this obviously hurt them big time) went to great pains to clarify that throughout the life of the band the only contractual signatures ever required were Morrissey's and Marr's.

Now I'm sorry but if you are in a business (which The Smiths also were) and you believe you are entitled to/receiving 25% of an arm of that business don't you DEMAND to see some paperwork? Don't you threaten to walk if this doesn't get sorted out?

The sense I got was that Mike and Andy hoped that The Smiths would become big enough that their 10% would mean something. And let's face it, bar the break-up it would've probably happened. With the backing of a major label all Marr and Morrissey had to do was write another 'How Soon is Now' or their own 'Losing my Religion' and they would've been over the top. I'd say the chances of that were pretty high.*

Look I'm not one of these Mike and Andy haters, business obviously wasn't one of their strengths and they clearly loved being part of the band. But at the same time you have to either draw a line in the sand (which they didn't) or live with the consequences. The fact they didn't draw that line is because they knew they would be replaced and Morrissey and Johnny swiftly move on. Harsh but true.

This court case to me seemed like having 2 bites of the cherry.

As for the NME case, I think it would be most fitting if after all the years they have hunted him, Morrissey has the honour of putting them into the ground. **

[Worm]

See this is where I will politely decline to agree. I wish i had noted down stuff whilst i was there but frankly i didn't want to look like Johnny Rodent and it was a long time ago.

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'll bow to your firsthand observation of the case. As you say, though, it's Johnny's word against Mike's. It could have been something like, "Johnny, I want a 25% split, have you talked to Morrissey?" "Yes, Mike, I brought it up with him, we're going to talk it over tomorrow night at dinner. You and Andy will be taken care of." Then Mike doesn't pursue it, and Johnny and Morrissey skate.

Is that lying? I suppose so, but-- and I hate to sound like a member of George W. Bush's legal team here, trying to chop up an argument too finely-- I think the "deception", such as it was, always had the nature of putting off an inevitable conflict about money rather than malicious intent. I'm sure, to that end, Johnny deliberately weaseled out of several uncomfortable conversations between '83 and '87. But so did Morrissey, and my point is really that both were deceitful. I don't believe either Morrissey or Marr should be singled out as a lying bastard. They were both guilty of fudging the books as long as they could to preserve the band, and for their part Rourke and Joyce were guilty of not being smart enough to demand a proper contract.

My feeling is that the business side of The Smiths was an unholy catastrophe caused by a lack of management, one which involved some stupidity, some spinelessness, and some mendacity. Nobody was untainted, nobody was unscathed. To me it's almost like each of the four members was innocent and also somewhat responsible in different ways. There's no one "bad guy" on that side of things. The real roots of the problem were The Smiths' lack of proper management, and it's in that part of the story where you find some...interesting behavior.

[2-J]

for their part Rourke and Joyce were guilty of not being smart enough to demand a proper contract.

Or maybe smart enough not to demand a proper contract. I'm not for a minute suggesting either were devious enough to think 'let's keep our heads down now and later on we can get the full 25% because we haven't had a proper contract', I just mean on the level of they might have realised they could have been sacked or they might have broken up the band (leaving Moz and Marr to carry on) had they pushed it. I find it hard to believe that had they put their feet down in 85 or 86 in any kind of meaningful or definitive sense, that Moz and Marr really would have signed a contract giving them the full 25%. I'm not saying that Moz or (especially) Marr didn't value their contribution to The Smiths, but it's not really believable that they saw them essential to The Smiths or the Morrissey / Marr partnership.

[Worm]

Or maybe smart enough not to demand a proper contract. I'm not for a minute suggesting either were devious enough to think 'let's keep our heads down now and later on we can get the full 25% because we haven't had a proper contract', I just mean on the level of they might have realised they could have been sacked or they might have broken up the band (leaving Moz and Marr to carry on) had they pushed it. I find it hard to believe that had they put their feet down in 85 or 86 in any kind of meaningful or definitive sense, that Moz and Marr really would have signed a contract giving them the full 25%. I'm not saying that Moz or (especially) Marr didn't value their contribution to The Smiths, but it's not really believable that they saw them essential to The Smiths or the Morrissey / Marr partnership.

I think you're probably 100% right, except that, in my view, I believe the dominant factor here, on all sides, was inexperience and a lack of strong management. Mike and Andy weren't smart enough to demand a contract in 1983. Would Morrissey and Marr have been quick to toss them overboard, had they done so? Maybe, maybe not. I think they might have agreed, readily, if someone could have made it quick and easy for them. They were four young guys who didn't know what the hell they were doing. I honestly don't think Morrissey and Marr intended to cheat them out of any money, or even play with the accounting to keep them in the dark. It just worked out that way. In retrospect it appears they took a shady, zig-zag route through their business affairs, but it's impossible to finger a single culprit. The Smiths were a ship without a captain.

There's some evidence to suggest lying and deception. But there's compelling evidence to suggest something else at work, something that didn't show up in transcripts and statements: conversations the four guys didn't have, agreements that were avoided, important matters pushed aside for another day, and so on. The communication between them was crappy at best. It's like a marriage when both parties don't speak about anything truly important for years and years and years. Heads are planted in the sand. Problems are allowed to fester. It happens all the time. There's a lack of truth and honesty, but it's not really a case of deliberate lying, if you see the distinction. In these kinds of situations, there can be dishonesty without malicious, deliberate liars. I think Marr paid up and remained friends with Andy precisely for this reason. He probably saw himself as both innocent of fraud and yet, at the same time, partly responsible for the dishonesty prevalent in the group's affairs. It seems like that might have been the more mature reaction.

[coldeskimo]

For goodness sake, there are slightly more important things going on; the Hollie Greig case for instance. If you want to see a man that's gone it alone in the courts fighting for justice, see Robert Green ... or Dr David Halpin. These are people of outstanding courage ... not a bloated a pop star with more money than you could imagine. Morrissey will do just fine without our so-called 'support'.

Nevermind if his comments were misconstrued in the NME, if someone were to really take him to task it would be for his erroneous output on the Chinese which he was still thrashing at the Hawick gig last year. Very sad. I don't know what's happened. Morrissey was very interesting in 1994 but ... not now.

This is a Morrissey forum, not a "what-story-is-more-newsworthy-forum-FFS" forum, you tit.

[smiler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18410933

Seems he got an apology online and in the magazine - good on him

The apology was a bit weak but its all over the media and is being presented as a clear victory for Morrissey.

Am glad it behind him - only good things are just around the corner now

- Why has this thread been moved/merged? This thread is about a link to an article on TTY which invited fans to attend the Court Case (which has been removed a long time ago.)

The story has moved on alot now. NME have aplogised and the case has been dropped don't you think that deserves its own thread????

[Anonymous]

"...the settlement did not involve payment of any damages or legal costs..."

Turns out, after all his bluster, he capitulated. Beautiful.

The NME haven't conceded that the article either portrayed him as a racist, or misrepresented him in any other way and yet Steven has just rolled over and accepted it. So much for wanting to have his day in court to clear his name. "If a fight broke out here, tonight..." etc.

To add insult to injury, he'll have to pay out a shitload of cash to lawyers. This has made my day.

[smiler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18410933

Seems he got an apology online and in the magazine - good on him

The apology was a bit weak but its all over the media and is being presented as a clear victory for Morrissey.

Am glad it behind him - only good things are just around the corner now

- Why has this thread been moved/merged? This thread is about a link to an article on TTY which invited fans to attend the Court Case (which has been removed a long time ago.)

The story has moved on alot now. NME have aplogised and the case has been dropped don't you think that deserves its own thread????

mods? ahem.

[Anonymous]

Turns out, after all his bluster, he capitulated. Beautiful.

The NME haven't conceded that the article either portrayed him as a racist, or misrepresented him in any other way and yet Steven has just rolled over and accepted it. So much for wanting to have his day in court to clear his name. "If a fight broke out here, tonight..." etc.

To add insult to injury, he'll have to pay out a shitload of cash to lawyers. This has made my day.

But you still won't see a penny Mike

[smiler]

Turns out, after all his bluster, he capitulated. Beautiful.

The NME haven't conceded that the article either portrayed him as a racist, or misrepresented him in any other way and yet Steven has just rolled over and accepted it. So much for wanting to have his day in court to clear his name. "If a fight broke out here, tonight..." etc.

To add insult to injury, he'll have to pay out a shitload of cash to lawyers. This has made my day.

actually it turns out that he got exactly what he wanted and what he publically asked for, an apology and his name cleared. This is a victory and nothing less

[Anonymous]

actually it turns out that he got exactly what he wanted and what he publically asked for, an apology and his name cleared. This is a victory and nothing less

Your loyalty to the famous/rich man is touching. However, I think both you and Steven are setting the barrier a little bit low. An actual "victory" for Morrissey would have been the High Court issuing a decision to the effect that he had been defamed by the NME after having heard evidence for and against the claim. That outcome wasn't possible, however, because Morrissey withdrew his case. Oh dear.

[Anonymous]

actually it turns out that he got exactly what he wanted and what he publically asked for, an apology and his name cleared. This is a victory and nothing less

Exactly! The NME are made to look the fools they are... again (as are the trolls posting here).

Most people know you ask for more than you desire in these situations and you negotiate down. Moz gets his name cleared, some additional pub in the press making the NME looks like the saddos they are and pisses in the Cheerios of all of his detractors... again. LOL!

[Mozza220559]

His songs didn't save my life; they ruined it. I hope the NME stand their ground and eat him alive.

Why don't you fuck off you daft cunt

[Skylarker]

Why don't you fuck off you daft cunt

Oh, I forgot to tell you. Mum moved your pills, love. Second shelf, medicine cabinet in the downstairs loo. Said she didn't have enough room for her Preparation H.

Oh, and umm...pip pip, cheerio, or something.

[Mozza220559]

Oh, I forgot to tell you. Mum moved your pills, love. Second shelf, medicine cabinet in the downstairs loo. Said she didn't have enough room for her Preparation H.

Oh, and umm...pip pip, cheerio, or something.

Whatever fuckwit