Morrissey wins

[No1uno]

I have read the forum over the last couple of days and not specifically given a viewpoint on the matter.

---

Key points.

Tmz was contacted in some way or another and received information about the claim of lawsuit by stern and ran a story.

The claim was for termination of employment because of non compliance to the request to handle a fan coming to his shows. This was ambiguously stated as "could get hurt" and seek residence details by tmz.

It involved a website administrator who morrissey has stated dislike of.

No official documents are now available to access the veracity or specificness of the claim. So all speculation is just a bunch of nothing really.

---

As with any private enterprise/business or establishment. You have the right to refuse service or access as long as it does not pertain to a protected class of citizen. The no shirt/no service example.

--

Plausibility

When conducting the morrissey tour, it is plausible that morrissey, the tour manager, and security would discuss these issues. We know this to be corroborated with the previous example of David's refused entry at shows and pic on phone. The conversation had to happen before so it is completely plausible that it would happen for this tour.

If any of you have worked in the professional world devising strategies, you know conversations are going to happen regarding tactics to employ which will ensure a) success of the strategy and b) minimizing future problems of the same kind.

I have heard some pretty outrageous strategies in my career. And someone on the team must counter with "that road leads to nowhere" and then gets everyone focused on other ideas. The problem lies when someone blurts out a seemingly innocuous but sketchy solution and they get tacit approval in the form of acquiescence. Then bad decisions are laid into action and it goes down from there.

What I think (which means nothing). David is a problem for morrissey, but David makes himself a repeated problem for morrissey. The tried and failed attempts to keep him away have not worked. Frustration should have mounted in these circumstances. If morrissey is your boss, he's demanding results (I would). The tour manager has to produce. So would he be like, f*** this shit, let's handle this to solve the tours reoccurring problem, which would be David attending shows and probably a lot of them. The first person I would turn to is a security guy to handle it.

Security guy is fired, for an unknown factual reason at this time, and his claim was that David was the nexus reason. Morrissey claims, he was an at will employee, I let him go and now he's squeezing me for money.

---

Explanations that win no matter how you cut it. The tie goes to the runner these situations

"Could get hurt" - we didn't mean it physically, we meant emotionally by telling him he is not welcome. I wanted my security to say hateful things to discourage david from coming again.

"Could be gotten rid of" - we discussed the legal means that we could ensure he would not attempt to attend any shows. We need a physical address if and when we served and legal papers.

So even it it was really meant in the worst way, it is explainable in the best way. So Morrissey wins.

---

Mind you this is only from what I have read, undoubtably there are many more fact we are unaware of. Sorry bored and not wanting to finish real work.

 

[Anonymous]

All that stuff about passing a photo of David around to band members and security and getting him ejected from the gig.
If all those people had paid good money and traveled so far to see Morrissey perform, you'd kind of hope that he was focused entirely on putting on a good show and performing for them, not worrying about one person who may or may not be in the audience.
You'd have to be supremely narcissistic to be primarily concerned about some personal vendetta in such a situation.
It makes you wonder if he's even bothered about his fans at all, really.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

If this goes to court, Morrissey won't win...because Morrissey will settle.

 

[davidt]

Before continuing with your thesis, I'd like to question one of the assumptions - the idea that I am making myself 'a repeated problem' by going to shows. I talked to a lawyer and he suggested an artist can't actually ban me from the shows. It's a public event, I'm not there to cause any problems and I paid for my ticket. This isn't some professional sporting event where I cheated by taking steroids. The 'banning' is a power play because he doesn't like me because my site is 'critical'. Food critics are not welcome by some restaurants but they can't actually ban them.

What I think (which means nothing). David is a problem for morrissey, but David makes himself a repeated problem for morrissey. The tried and failed attempts to keep him away have not worked. Frustration should have mounted in these circumstances. If morrissey is your boss, he's demanding results (I would). The tour manager has to produce. So would he be like, f*** this shit, let's handle this to solve the tours reoccurring problem, which would be David attending shows and probably a lot of them.

Mind you this is only from what I have read, undoubtably there are many more fact we are unaware of. Sorry bored and not wanting to finish real work.

 

[No1uno]

If this goes to court, Morrissey won't win...because Morrissey will settle.

Yes, and it will surely be for the money this guy was owed in the first place, for either the time he did work or the contract time for the tour.

I will add, David was the perfect nexus for stern. Visibility, the press, known dislike from moz public statements, Like a pawn in the game of money between morrissey and stern.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Yes, and it will surely be for the money this guy was owed in the first place, for either the time he did work or the contract time for the tour.

I will add, David was the perfect nexus for stern. Visibility, the press, known dislike from moz public statements, Like a pawn in the game of money between morrissey and stern.

David wasn't what brought attention to this. The fact that Morrissey is crazy enough to want to hurt a man who has done more promotion for him over the last 20 years than he has done himself simply because he can't control him and the content of the site (like he does Julia) is what brought the attention to this.

 

[No1uno]

Before continuing with your thesis, I'd like to question one of the assumptions - the idea that I am making myself 'a repeated problem' by going to shows. I talked to a lawyer and he suggested an artist can't actually ban me from the shows. It's a public event, I'm not there to cause any problems and I paid for my ticket. This isn't some professional sporting event where I cheated by taking steroids. The 'banning' is a power play because he doesn't like me because my site is 'critical'. Food critics are not welcome by some restaurants but they can't actually ban them.

Actually they can ban a food critic. If I own a private business, I can refuse service to anyone but a protected class. As far as the show, it's is for sale to the public from a private entity.

Under your statement, morrissey with his banning has committed a civil offense (loss of money for tickets) in which you could claim restitution. Have you sought recourse with this action to see if what the lawyer told you was true.

 

[No1uno]

Before continuing with your thesis, I'd like to question one of the assumptions - the idea that I am making myself 'a repeated problem' by going to shows. I talked to a lawyer and he suggested an artist can't actually ban me from the shows. It's a public event, I'm not there to cause any problems and I paid for my ticket. This isn't some professional sporting event where I cheated by taking steroids. The 'banning' is a power play because he doesn't like me because my site is 'critical'. Food critics are not welcome by some restaurants but they can't actually ban them.

Ok the repeated problem, I will just put myself in morrissey's shoes. I don't want to see you. This is my show. I don't acknowledge you. I refuse to give you access to my private concerts.

Where he could not, is if he was performing in a public open access concert say in a park somewhere. Where any one can walk up and see morrissey.

I know of one example of a guy who crashed Super Bowl. He even used a wheelchair to get into one after he was banned. I football game that you pay for, owned by a company. He was banned. That's it. They can do that.

 

[No1uno]

Before continuing with your thesis, I'd like to question one of the assumptions - the idea that I am making myself 'a repeated problem' by going to shows. I talked to a lawyer and he suggested an artist can't actually ban me from the shows. It's a public event, I'm not there to cause any problems and I paid for my ticket. This isn't some professional sporting event where I cheated by taking steroids. The 'banning' is a power play because he doesn't like me because my site is 'critical'. Food critics are not welcome by some restaurants but they can't actually ban them.

And David, if I am really wrong on any of these, please just tell me, I don't know everything and always value more information that makes me understand the world around me a little better. I mean, I slept in my bed last night, not a holiday inn.

 

[Anonymous]

All that stuff about passing a photo of David around to band members and security and getting him ejected from the gig.
If all those people had paid good money and traveled so far to see Morrissey perform, you'd kind of hope that he was focused entirely on putting on a good show and performing for them, not worrying about one person who may or may not be in the audience.
You'd have to be supremely narcissistic to be primarily concerned about some personal vendetta in such a situation.
It makes you wonder if he's even bothered about his fans at all, really.

There's a reason for security, and it's not solely to focus on whether davidt is going to try to get into a gig. That's a very inaccurate, simplistic view of the entire security structure's concerns. While enforcing davidt's ban is clearly an objective of Morrissey's team, there are a multitude of issues to be dealt with, be it people, venue, transportation, etc.

 

[davidt]

I see, so the venue could ban me, but can the artist? I just learned about it and didn't go into too much about it as it's not that big of a deal. Fair enough he doesn't want me there and if he spots me I know I'll get kicked. But really, I'm not there to cause any problems, just to watch the show like everyone else.

Actually they can ban a food critic. If I own a private business, I can refuse service to anyone but a protected class. As far as the show, it's is for sale to the public from a private entity.

Under your statement, morrissey with his banning has committed a civil offense (loss of money for tickets) in which you could claim restitution. Have you sought recourse with this action to see if what the lawyer told you was true.

 

[No1uno]

I see, so the venue could ban me, but can the artist? I just learned about it and didn't go into too much about it as it's not that big of a deal. Fair enough he doesn't want me there and if he spots me I know I'll get kicked. But really, I'm not there to cause any problems, just to watch the show like everyone else.

To dissect it a little further. I believe a tour comes through with only a handful of security and they assume control of the venue security team. Now tour security has the strength of the venue "standing" for denial of service.

 

[Anonymous]

Before continuing with your thesis, I'd like to question one of the assumptions - the idea that I am making myself 'a repeated problem' by going to shows. I talked to a lawyer and he suggested an artist can't actually ban me from the shows. It's a public event, I'm not there to cause any problems and I paid for my ticket. This isn't some professional sporting event where I cheated by taking steroids. The 'banning' is a power play because he doesn't like me because my site is 'critical'. Food critics are not welcome by some restaurants but they can't actually ban them.

Yes, it is a power play, everyone realizes that. However, that doesn't necessarily mean Morrissey has no legal leg to stand on. If you have confidence in the attorney you consulted, fine, but you might want to ask the same questions from Morrissey's perspective, simply because you'll be given an entirely different answer about what constitutes a viable threat. An ambitious attorney would at least attempt to make a case that there's content on the website you operate which could be construed as a threat to Morrissey or the band.

I'm not pointing this out because I think you're a threat, David. I don't. I'm just concerned about some of the absolutist statements I've seen posted that could easily be turned on their ear in our legal system.

 

[davidt]

I was also told by someone that in some European it's actually illegal to have lists of undesirable names because this is the behavior of certain past regimes. Anyway, I think you have some valid points, the lawsuit certainly seems shaky but as I mentioned previously, if Steyn is pushing forward perhaps there is much more that we don't know about right now.

To dissect it a little further. I believe a tour comes through with only a handful of security and they assume control of the venue security team. Now tour security has the strength of the venue "standing" for denial of service.

 

[No1uno]

I was also told by someone that in some European it's actually illegal to have lists of undesirable names because this is the behavior of certain past regimes. Anyway, I think you have some valid points, the lawsuit certainly seems shaky but as I mentioned previously, if Steyn is pushing forward perhaps there is much more that we don't know about right now.

Yes any affidavit to show cause should be ripe with quotable statements. But always remember, it's only one sides view.

 

[Anonymous]

While enforcing davidt's ban is clearly an objective of Morrissey's team, there are a multitude of issues to be dealt with, be it people, venue, transportation, etc.

All of which should be at the bottom of Morrissey's list of concerns just before a gig.
You know, below putting on a good show for the paying audience, singing a few songs as best as he can, making sure the band plays well etc etc.
If he actually cared at all about his fans that is...

 

[Eurydice]

Davidt, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

LOL!

 

[Anonymous]

All of which should be at the bottom of Morrissey's list of concerns just before a gig.
You know, below putting on a good show for the paying audience, singing a few songs as best as he can, making sure the band plays well etc etc.
If he actually cared at all about his fans that is...

That's the point I was making about a security team. That's their department, not Morrissey's. He would simply be consulted.

 

[Nikita]

Actually they can ban a food critic. If I own a private business, I can refuse service to anyone but a protected class.

It would be completely illegal in France, and in most EU countries.

 

[Anonymous]

That's the point I was making about a security team. That's their department, not Morrissey's. He would simply be consulted.

General security is their department, not finding one single person that the singer has a personal vendetta against.
If it gets to the point where one of their jobs is looking for said person, then that's come directly from Morrissey and if Morrissey is spending that much effort on a personal vendetta at a gig where he should be concentrating on the fans who've paid and traveled to be there and putting on the best show for them, then you have to wonder how much he gives a f*** about those fans in the first place.