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

FIONA DODWELL: “INEXPLICABLE EVENTS HAVE PROBABLY PLANTED LITTLE SEEDS OF INSPIRATION.” - Felten Ink

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:
Hofmann

Obsessed with gay men :flowers:
Makes idiotic, inaccurate statements :swear

Desperate to provoke :whip: in a pitiful cry for attention

He knocks his head against brick walls :head-smack: and often reverts to racist or homophobic tropes.

He uses a scattergun approach :gun:as he peddles his hatred on social media.

He blames everyone else :mock: for his internalised anger:censored:

In the end he is always shot down in flames :flamethrow:

People like Hofmann make me :barf:

Hoffman has always been an utter bastard. He wore his ban from twitter with pride. He's a grade A racist, homophobic moron.
 
Who said all gays were into kids/young men? But to admit that a section of the group aren't is nonsense.
You said
A lot of gay men do want to sexualize young people.
Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.
You know it's true..you probably have friends that are just like this.

It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.

The letter isn't the same thing. It was part of a debate that was happening at the time.

No.

And my career's fine.

The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?
 
You said

Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.


It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.



The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?

He wrote the letter to The Guardian in defence of an academic book that was threatened with censorship. His point was about allowing research. That was the debate that was happening.

The campaign to change laws around consent for teenagers had nothing to do with the book or the letter or the debate about censoring or banning research.
 
You said

Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.


It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.



The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?

Your considered comment is far too reasonable for Hofmann and co to get their Trump brains around.

This is his latest homophobic tirade, it's not his worst, it won't be his last.

Black people, immigrants, gay men are but a sample of his focussed hatred.
 
You said

Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.


It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.



The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?

I responded with a character attack to that person because they've been stalking my comments on here obsessively for ages.
 
You said

Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.


It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.



The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?

Nerak seens quite incapable of responding to direct questions.

It's odd though that she is regularly asked to explain her comments. That, to me, seems to indicate a lack of proficient skills-set on her part.
 
You said

Now you're saying it's "a section" and you've added "young men" to the equation.

Some people prefer younger partners. Some prefer older partners. Some are just attracted to who they're attracted to. If they are adults it doesn't matter. So the "young men" part of your statement is just extra padding.
"A section of the group are into young men."
So what? You're spending far too much of your time keeping track of what adults are doing with other adults.

So that leaves "a section" who are attracted to children and then a smaller group who act on this and molest children. But that's a different subject. That isn't "gay" or "homosexuality." It's pedophilia. More men seem to be afflicted but there are women who molest children, too. And the victims are boys and girls. I don't know how all the percentages break down but to say that men who molest boys are an indication that "lots of gay men do want to sexualize young people" is ridiculous.

You are "moving the goal posts" and then when someone got impatient you respond with a character attack.


It seems that you just want to promote your viewpoint. You're not interested in discussion. I told you we can agree to disagree and I was polite. It's dishonest to pretend you're being reasonable when you're actually just promoting hate and ignorance. I don't blame you. You don't know any better but you should be aware that you're not making any points.



The letter isn't the same thing? The same thing as what?
It was part of a debate that was happening at the time? You seem to enjoy explaining everything to those of us who aren't blessed with your knowledge and inside information, so can you explain how this is relevant?
He made a clear statement. The context doesn't matter. It's self-contained. He says he knows these people and their experiences. It's not an isolated sentence that has been distorted. It's an explicit viewpoint.
I'm asking you to explain the context in which he has realized it was wrong or a mistake?
That's a simple question. You are an expert at public relations so it should be very simple to answer. Why deflect?

I don't know any better? You sound like an apologist. Get off the fence.
 
I don't know any better? You sound like an apologist. Get off the fence.
It seems plain that you can't respond to reason and resort to labeling so thank you for this exercise in futility. I think your campaign failed and no one is buying it but maybe when they let you back on twitter you can find an audience for your ignorant views.
 
It seems plain that you can't respond to reason and resort to labeling so thank you for this exercise in futility. I think your campaign failed and no one is buying it but maybe when they let you back on twitter you can find an audience for your ignorant views.

Liberals. The bane of my existence.
 
Just a few comments that Hofman has: posted directly, agreed with or actively promoted within this forum.

  • same sex parenting isn't normal
  • diversity should not be taught in schools
  • gay men are paedophiles
  • parents who take their children to LGBT events are immoral and are corrupting children
  • victims of LGBT hate crime can bring it upon themselves
  • victims of LGBT hate crime lie
  • the stoning to death of a gay man in the UAE was funny
  • the bombing of the Admiral Duncan (gay bar) was funny. He later tried to back peddle
There will be many, many more.
 
Just a few comments that Hofman has: posted directly, agreed with or actively promoted within this forum.

  • same sex parenting isn't normal
  • diversity should not be taught in schools
  • gay men are paedophiles
  • parents who take their children to LGBT events are immoral and are corrupting children
  • victims of LGBT hate crime can bring it upon themselves
  • victims of LGBT hate crime lie
  • the stoning to death of a gay man in the UAE was funny
  • the bombing of the Admiral Duncan (gay bar) was funny. He later tried to back peddle
There will be many, many more.

Same sex parenting isn't normal.
Diversity shouldn't be taught in schools.
Some gay men are paedophiles
Parents who take their children to LGBT events are f***ing weirdos and are corrupting children

I was in the Admiral Duncan pub 2 weeks before the bombing. I'd wondered in there after the end of my Uni drunk and didn't know it was a gay pub. The attack was vile and awful. So, you can f*** right off.

Oh...........and trannies aren't women. Just for the record.
 
It seems plain that you can't respond to reason and resort to labeling so thank you for this exercise in futility. I think your campaign failed and no one is buying it but maybe when they let you back on twitter you can find an audience for your ignorant views.

The guy is lost. There's absolutely no light at all in his life, only hatred. Attempts at politeness with him are futile. Without his hatred he has nothing so he lurks here, and on other platforms, spewing his bile.

I mean who in their right mind would:

a. search online for photos of men at London Pride
b. post those photos online beside comments that he and his trolls had made suggesting gay men are paedophiles
c. wrongly identify three men in one of the photos as paedophiles
d. spend several pages/days defending his actions despite the many protest comments

Twitter banned him, so he claims. Solo accepts his hatred.
 
Nerak seens quite incapable of responding to direct questions.

It's odd though that she is regularly asked to explain her comments. That, to me, seems to indicate a lack of proficient skills-set on her part.

I'm only asked to explain by sea-lioning trolls, who parrot my name & think I have some kind of control over the forum. Which is an excellent result.
 
Same sex parenting isn't normal.
Diversity shouldn't be taught in schools.
Some gay men are paedophiles
Parents who take their children to LGBT events are f***ing weirdos and are corrupting children

I was in the Admiral Duncan pub 2 weeks before the bombing. I'd wondered in there after the end of my Uni drunk and didn't know it was a gay pub. The attack was vile and awful. So, you can f*** right off.

Oh...........and trannies aren't women. Just for the record.

I think you meant Trans, doll. Trannie is short for transvestite and, shocker, men or women can be transvestite. Trans is something else entirely and both men and women can be trans. Posting about something you clearly know f*** all about, there's a surprise.

You do realise that within own post you have confirmed your rabid homophobia?
Just checking, I know you're not the brightest which you also confirmed in said post.
 
Nerak seens quite incapable of responding to direct questions.

It's odd though that she is regularly asked to explain her comments. That, to me, seems to indicate a lack of proficient skills-set on her part.

She seems to be doing pretty well in life, so I imagine her "skill-sets" are pretty efficient. I wouldn't worry.
 
Tags
fiona dodwell

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom