Fiona Dodwell interview - Felten Ink (Jan. 30, 2020)

On Mozza: "He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own"

I saw interview on Fiona dodwell about her writing and they ended asking some questions about why she likes Mozza and why she would still support him, and I think it hits the nail on the head for a lot of fans who still stand by Morrissey, so thought worth sharing

Link to the full thing is here


I have to ask you about Morrissey, after all, you drew my attention with your interviews and I’ve been following you on social media ever since. What do you think that’s so divisive about him among people?

I think Morrissey is seen by some as a “divisive” figure because there simply is no one else out there like him, being so truthful, so open, so willing to discuss things that others won’t. He doesn’t pander to the press, he doesn’t bind himself to the apparent “boundaries” that other artists apply themselves to (out of fear of being controversial or opinionated). He is a rarity, a non-conformist, and because of that, people are sometimes shocked. Wow – a singer with an opinion? Aren’t they just supposed to stand there and inoffensively nod along? No, Morrissey has never been like that and it’s one of the reasons I admire him. There are few like him out there, we should treasure the braver souls amongst us.

What was the initial attraction for you?

First and foremost it’s about the music. That’s the main thing. He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own. I know I have spent many years with his music as the “backdrop” to my daily life and so his lyrics, his albums, are very special to me. Then, as we discussed above, there is his confidence and willingness to be bold and strong in the face of some really bad treatment from the mainstream media. That’s something I admire, more than I can express. I get bored of people who try to blend in, or who baulk at the idea of standing-out. It excites me when I see somebody who is willing to go against the grain, and let’s face it, Morrissey does this often. Alongside all of this, I’ve always admired his stance on animal rights.

Why do you think certain elements of the press now take such an unfavourable stance towards him?

I think it’s a combination of lazy journalism, lazy thinking and the hunger to be seen as “politically correct” in a climate where being offended is the fashion. Rarely does the mainstream press actually stop and examine why Morrissey says what he says, they just seem to take a line or two and then run away with their own story.

I find myself agreeing with him more than anything else, but I’d be appalled to be labelled ‘far right’…

It’s the names and labels that do the most damage. If you call somebody “far right” or “racist” then you have blocked the debate at hand, and stopped people examining the specific issues that are being discussed. Plenty of times, Morrissey has made valid points or issues that are relevant, yet what he says isn’t dissected, it’s people’s opinions about what he says that are instead dissected. Why are the mainstream so afraid of actually discussing what he says with level-headedness? Why does everything have to come down to name-calling, immature headlines and mud-slinging? Nobody needs to agree with what another says to at least respectfully hear them out.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I agree for the most part. I'm getting tired of discussing Tatchell every day but I will say this. While you're correct that Stephen Hoffman's posts broke down into nothing at the end Tatchell's quote mentions children as young as 9 so it provides plenty of fuel for anyone wishing to talk about young people. Of course anyone of the age of consent should be able to have sex with others of the age of consent.
The letter was painting a sunny picture of 9 year old children having sex with adults. My point is that regardless of motive you can't just call someone homophobic for bringing that up even if they give clear evidence elsewhere. It makes a handy weapon for homophobic people that would like to use to discredit Tatchell and his work in human rights. That is certainly inconvenient for those who value his work and support equality. I will take your word that he is a valuable asset in the fight for equality and at the same time I will not dismiss what he wrote. Do you see how he is also a liability? He gives people who are too dull and simple to come up with a real argument against equality this one sentence to discredit him, and then when the movement supports him, to also discredit the movement by association. It helps them sell lies and the real battle here is for the minds of the general public, not the LGBTQ-friendly or those like Pippistrella who get excited at the idea of turning back the clock. Those minds are made up. It's the people that are still unsure or think that it has nothing to do with them whose opinions matter in this.
The bottom line is that he can be both an asset and a liability and when his past statement is brought up it doesn't help to attack those who mentioned it.

Untruth tatchell went insane from a bump in the head from when a bus driver hit the breaks suddenly without warning.:screamcat:

the simple minded peeps -:blush:- are wondering just exactly in which language this post is written in.:openmouth:
Pup, I know you're lame. At last we can part on something we agree on.

What's with all the zoomorphisms? I don't see animal attributes as put downs, so thanks for the compliments.
No, you actually did provide further info and I should have acknowledged that. We're not going to agree on this issue but I don't just look for a way to attack you.
See, Stephen Hoffman thought he saw me disagreeing with you and felt I was on his side. Pippistrella thinks I'm on "the opposite side" to her. That's because they're both afflicted with the idea that every issue has two sides.
Now, in fact I'd be more likely to share the views that you claim to. But I've had too many friends who have been victimized as children and young teens and I've met my share of creeps as well growing up. That's why I'm vehemently against this Tatchell character and why I nearly went off Morrissey for good over his stupid "where were the parents?" line.
Anyone who excuses in any way the sexual exploitation of children and young people is not just stating an opinion but they are making it harder for people to speak up about their experiences. Then when people don't speak about their experiences for years or even decades they are questioned about why they waited so long.
Now, on a slightly different subject, people like Stephen Hoffman insist that gay men want to exploit children. That's his own ignorance but because this is one of the points that is used to try to prevent equal rights and, as Pippistrella puts it, to turn back the clock, this makes someone like Tatchell even more problematic and less acceptable as a spokesman for gay rights, even if he "now thinks he was wrong."
I am not asking you to throw him under the bus. I'm saying that he is an unfortunate choice for you to champion, and that even though I am "on your side" as opposed to the side of Pippistrella and Stephen Hoffman, I can't truly be on your side if Tatchell is also on your side.
I know that won't break your heart of anything. The point is it does matter that he wrote what he wrote, whether he believes it now or not.
It's not homophobic to have an issue with what he's saying.
Pipistrella claims that anytime someone is ignorant, racist or homophobic I accuse them of being ignorant, racist or homophobic, and she may have a point.
But I think you're actually doing that when you declare homophobia as the reason someone would hold Tatchell in contempt. I'm not homophobic. But when men are talking about how all of these unnamed people claim to have had sex with adults as children and find it to have been a beautiful experience :barf: I see that as a danger to children and to adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
I know it was "a debate that was happening at the time" but if he knows what he claims to have known then I don't see how it could have changed. It's all too convenient. And I'm not saying he is a pedo. But he does come with baggage that can't be discarded by calling someone a homophobe, even if they happen to be a homophobe.

Get a life!
Golly, well done it. Despite knowing of abuse by its priests for several decades it began to take action relatively recently. Your post shames not vindicates the Catholic Church.

No you don’t say? ‍♀️
It is also such staged "interviews", that help Morrissey lose the charm he once had. There is something of an isolated leader of a remote island state, who has a servant praising him as god and presenting him as a shining light. But in the background, the empty palace already collapses. Disgusting, even from those who still think such shit is good or still OK.

The amount of idiocy in this comment is staggering. Regards, the interviewer.
I mean - imagine - if the last bulwark against eternal oblivion is someone you've paid to say you're being brave by spouting racist bollocks. That's it? That's all that's left?

f*** racism, f*** Morrissey and f*** apologists like Dodwell. Shameful.

By the way - who IS she? What is she renowned for? Why should anyone value her scribblings?

"Why do you come here?" - the content spewed by this character is comical. Probably works for the Guardian.
fiona dodwell
Top Bottom