Daily Mail article about Morrissey out grocery shopping in LA (7 June 2022)

It's the usual Daily Mail style inf0-dump article, just with a couple of pics of Morrissey in a rented Mini, in LA.

The relevant text being:

Morrissey put on a low-key display as he was seen sitting in his car as he headed out to do a spot of food shopping in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

The singer, 63, cut a casual figure in a salmon shirt as he lounged in his black vehicle before sending his assistant into Gelson's to pick up some groceries.

He shielded his eyes from the bright sunshine with an oversized pair of brown sunglasses and wore his silver locks in a natural style.


full


full


 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not bollocks, it's self-evident. And for someone who doesn't believe the stories of teens, you have no problem believing any old bollocks that comes of Morrissey's mouth - including the '13' story Linder Sterling said he was asked, in his early 20s, if he was a virgin and he said that he was.

Self-evident?

He didn't get the details right. So it literally didn't happen.

And I didn't say Spacey didn't do the exact same thing as the character in the play. I said it didn't sound plausible. I would need more than a Buzzfeed article to go on.

Obviously you have far greater experience of being a teenage boy in the 1970s than I do.
 
Self-evident?

He didn't get the details right. So it literally didn't happen.

And I didn't say Spacey didn't do the exact same thing as the character in the play. I said it didn't sound plausible. I would need more than a Buzzfeed article to go on.

Obviously you have far greater experience of being a teenage boy in the 1970s than I do.
I'm not repeating myself again - the interview transcript is up there for everyone to read, his meaning was crystal clear and the fall-out from Morrissey's brainless comments is common knowledge. You're trying, and failing, to twist it into something "less bad" and doing your usual "he didn't really mean that..." routine, exactly like Dave said. Excusing victim-blaming claptrap because you idolise a pop star - it's pitiful.
 
I'm not repeating myself again - the interview transcript is up there for everyone to read, his meaning was crystal clear and the fall-out from Morrissey's brainless comments is common knowledge. You're trying, and failing, to twist it into something "less bad" and doing your usual "he didn't really mean that..." routine, exactly like Dave said. Excusing victim-blaming claptrap because you idolise a pop star - it's pitiful.

So you're saying it happened in a hotel room & that Morrissey's speculation was based on him knowing the case?
 
So you're saying it happened in a hotel room & that Morrissey's speculation was based on him knowing the case?
I am saying that a man who puts responsibility on a 14 yr old to know better and assumes they should 'have an inkling' of what might come so that they can avoid a paedophile's attentions is a clueless, victim-blaming f***ing dinosaur. And if it Bob down the pub was saying this stuff and not your favourite pop star, I'm damn sure you'd agree.

It doesn't MATTER whether it happened or not, because the facts of the case don't make Morrissey's speculation, attitude and remarks any less revolting. How hard is that to grasp?
 
I am saying that a man who puts responsibility on a 14 yr old to know better and to 'have an inkling' of what might come so that can avoid assault - is a clueless, victim-blaming f***ing dinosaur. It doesn't MATTER whether it happened or not, because the facts of the case don't make Morrissey's speculation, attitude and remarks any less revolting. How hard is that to grasp?

He doesn't put the responsibility on the 14 year old.

He literally says he's against people being forced into a sexual situation.

He was wondering if it happened.

And it didn't.

Because he hadn't heard or hadn't remembered the right story.
 
He doesn't put the responsibility on the 14 year old.

He literally says he's against people being forced into a sexual situation.

He was wondering if it happened.

And it didn't.

Because he hadn't heard or hadn't remembered the right story.
You know what - just f*** off.

Every single person with a pair of eyes and ears knows what he said - you're on your own, telling lies, re-writing history and making an absolute tit of yourself.

JL: What do you think that they cut Kevin Spacey out of films now?

Morrissey: I think it's absurd because uhh, as far as I understand the situation, he was in a hotel room with a 14 year old. Well, Kevin Spacey was 26, the boy was 14, you have to wonder where the boy's parents were. You have to assume that the boy had an inkling of what might possibly happen. I mean I don't know about you, but I've never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you're in somebody's bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren't we downstairs in the lobby... so it doesn't quite ring true to me and it seems that he has been unnecessarily attacked.
 
Last edited:
You know what - just f*** off.

Every single person with a pair of eyes and ears knows what he said - you're on your own, telling lies, re-writing history and making an absolute tit of yourself.

I posted the transcript.

I know that he clearly said he was against rape, physical attacks, & sexual situations forced on people.

And I know he didn't get the details of the case right - & thought it didn't ring true.

So it's not lies - even if you've decided differently.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone on planet earth saying that a fourteen year old, who has not been kidnapped or coerced, should not willingly be alone in the private bedroom of an adult movie star especially without parental or adult accompaniment - if we want the outcome of the interaction guaranteed to not cross any lines of propriety in any sense or for there to be any chance or question of unwanted conduct or of the situation taking any kind of a dangerous turn. The last 3 pages of this thread are still more Me-too hysteria.
 
I know that he clearly said he was against rape, physical attacks, & sexual situations forced on people.

Yes. Some folks always like to brush past those comments because it doesn’t help or support their accusation that Morrissey is a ‘monster, etc’.

And I know he didn't get the details of the case right - & thought it didn't ring true.

I take it that Morrissey assumes (and wrongly)
that every 14 year old is as aware
of those situations as he was when he was that age, and I take it that he assumes that every 14 year old has a parent that would make sure that their teen wouldn’t find themselves in that situation. So in Morrissey’s world, because of his experiences, and with the little information he has on the incident, ‘it doesn't quite ring true to me’ is him being skeptical. And ‘it seems that he has been unnecessarily attacked’ is Morrissey at that time not knowing the case, or that much about Spacey.

I understand and agree when people say that he shouldn’t have spoken on a incident that he didn’t have the facts on at that time. And again he seems to be answering the question by comparing it with his own experiences, and it comes off crudely.

But what also doesn’t help, is when the interviewer agrees with him after his replies, supporting his views, or goading him on (?) instead of questioning him on what he just said.
 
Last edited:
Yes, for some reason folks always like to brush past those comments because it doesn’t help or support their accusation that Morrissey is a ‘monster, etc’.



I take it that Morrissey assumes (and wrongly)
that every 14 year old is as aware
of those situations as he was when he was that age, and I take it that he assumes that every 14 year old has a parent that would make sure that their teen wouldn’t find themselves in that situation. So in Morrissey’s world, because of his experiences, and with the little information he has on the incident, ‘it doesn't quite ring true to me’ is him being skeptical. And ‘it seems that he has been unnecessarily attacked’ is Morrissey at that time not knowing the case, or that much about Spacey.

I understand and agree when people say that he shouldn’t have spoken on a incident that he didn’t have the facts on at that time. And again he seems to be answering the question by comparing it with his own experiences, and it comes off crudely.

But what also doesn’t help, is when the interviewer agrees with him after his replies, supporting his views, or goading him on (?) instead of questioning him on what he just said.

Sounds like she agreed. Wouldn't make a difference to the story write up though.

- I don't think he would have argued if she knew more or had different experiences to call upon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
usually overlooked, awful interviewing, or she knew exactly what she was doing(?)


for what reasons?

It's the way it went - what they do with it depends on what kind of article they're writing & for what audience.

The worst coverage came from anglophone hacks running it through a translator, cutting it & editorising it so he thought he was being accused of paedophilia (again) & literally wanting to kill a world leader (again)...
 
It's the way it went - what they do with it depends on what kind of article they're writing & for what audience.

The worst coverage came from anglophone hacks running it through a translator, cutting it & editorising it so he thought he was being accused of paedophilia (again) & literally wanting to kill a world leader (again)...

With the interview being uploaded and available, the article doesn't matter any more. He hung himself with his own words. He of all people should know better than to feel comfortable with a journalist.
 
With the interview being uploaded and available, the article doesn't matter any more. He hung himself with his own words. He of all people should know better than to feel comfortable with a journalist.

I agree no one should ever talk to a journalist like it's a real conversation.

But he didn't hang himself - it's unreasonable to claim he was defending things he didn't know about when he explicitly said he was against anyone being forced into anything.

One major problem is that he is contrary & disconnected from reality - possibly floating on a f*** ton of anti-depressants - so he would have to severely censor himself to avoid a phrase or idea getting ripped out.

Which I think he is trying to do.

But it's not great that we live in a society that's vicious & intolerant to people who struggle to fit in.
 
Redacted, that is a berserker troll post.

You could at least try to be consistent.
You invest way too much in defending him even when it's indefensible. It's like you have some compulsion you can't control.
 
You invest way too much in defending him even when it's indefensible. It's like you have some compulsion you can't control.

Exactly how is someone saying they're against all forms of physical & sexual abuse indefensible?
 
Actually Anthony Rapp sued Kevin Spacey under the Child Act, but he’s having hard time to prove his case. The judge allowed the case at moving forward, but dropped the sexual assault and just allowed sexual battery, less serious, at being discussed in a jury trial. FYI, Rapp failed to describe Spacey’s apartment, can’t remember any of guests at the party, and the journalist who wrote the bombshell is subpoenaed because, allegedly, he adjusted a lot of incorrect things Rapp said in the first draft of the article. I can’t predict how the case will end, but surely Rapp lied on something, Morrissey is an intuitive guy, probably he smelled a rat before anyone else. And please, don’t mention blind items, the site, CDAN, is trash, if you want to read it just for laughing it’s ok, but don’t take it seriously.
 
Actually Anthony Rapp sued Kevin Spacey under the Child Act, but he’s having hard time to prove his case. The judge allowed the case at moving forward, but dropped the sexual assault and just allowed sexual battery, less serious, at being discussed in a jury trial. FYI, Rapp failed to describe Spacey’s apartment, can’t remember any of guests at the party, and the journalist who wrote the bombshell is subpoenaed because, allegedly, he adjusted a lot of incorrect things Rapp said in the first draft of the article. I can’t predict how the case will end, but surely Rapp lied on something, Morrissey is an intuitive guy, probably he smelled a rat before anyone else. And please, don’t mention blind items, the site, CDAN, is trash, if you want to read it just for laughing it’s ok, but don’t take it seriously.
The assault charge was dismissed on a statute of limitations defense, which is an affirmative defense, not a matter of whether it's factual or not. It means the time for the claim has expired. Rapp can still go forward on his claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Spacey was just recently charged with 4 counts of sexual assault in the UK.
 
The assault charge was dismissed on a statute of limitations defense, which is an affirmative defense, not a matter of whether it's factual or not. It means the time for the claim has expired. Rapp can still go forward on his claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Spacey was just recently charged with 4 counts of sexual assault in the UK.
He’s suing under the Child Act, it’s a civil lawsuit SOL isn’t involved, but the sexual assault was submitted in a second motion and it was denied. Many newspapers didn’t report it accurately. The Chid Act allows people at filing civil lawsuits for any kind of sexual abuse and emotional distress previously expired due SOL. I don’t know much about the UK cases because court documents aren’t available, I just heard the news, and I read that he’s voluntarily going to go to UK for facing his charges. It would be better having court documents about these cases available as in USA, but that’s just my opinion.
 
He’s suing under the Child Act, it’s a civil lawsuit SOL isn’t involved, but the sexual assault was submitted in a second motion and it was denied. Many newspapers didn’t report it accurately. The Chid Act allows people at filing civil lawsuits for any kind of sexual abuse and emotional distress previously expired due SOL. I don’t know much about the UK cases because court documents aren’t available, I just heard the news, and I read that he’s voluntarily going to go to UK for facing his charges. It would be better having court documents about these cases available as in USA, but that’s just my opinion.
SOL applies to both civil and criminal, he's in federal court, not state court
 
SOL applies to both civil and criminal, he's in federal court, not state court
Child Act was approved just to give a chance to all the people assaulted as minor and who hadn’t the possibility to pursue civil or criminal lawsuits because the SOL expired. In other words the Child Act removed the SOL for sexual assault against minor in NYS. A motion by Rapp to move the case to the state court was denied.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom