FOS discussion

[Anonymous]

If you think, sure. But in relation to his response to no longer do press interviews? I think that came more from the way some have interpreted and used ( some may say misused) the interview.



Yeah, that’s the general take. But I presently don’t believe that, as I once did.

probably more to do with the fact someone with controversial views like him would be better advised to make statements only through a publicity agent.

If he wants to protect his livelihood and income.

Being some outspoken contrarian is one thing but it is still a business and not many businesses could survive that kind of revelation or backlash.

Take his recent post slamming the satanism of Sam Smith on the Brits or whatever awards show it was claiming the industry releases the satanism of Sam Smith but does not want his album. There is not a publicity agent on the planet who would have advised it was a good idea to post that.

Freedom of speech or not, it is still a job and he is still an employer so many people depend on that income.

 

[No 27]

So why do they call it homoerotic?

Why the continual references to his sexuality?

Why did the crowd shout homophobic abuse as they bottled the f***er off? Which the hacks found funny - although the far right "queer bashed" as much as they targeted ethnic minorities?

Bit of coincidence that he actually was hanging round the Bell with gay skinheads & queercore filmmaker Derek Jarman who put the Union Jack in the video of the Queen is Dead.

Your razor is very blunt.

Instead of insisting on questions

So why do they call it homoerotic?

Why the continual references to his sexuality?

Why did the crowd shout homophobic abuse as they bottled the f***er off? Which the hacks found funny - although the far right "queer bashed" as much as they targeted ethnic minorities?

Bit of coincidence that he actually was hanging round the Bell with gay skinheads & queercore filmmaker Derek Jarman who put the Union Jack in the video of the Queen is Dead.

Your razor is very blunt.

That's not how this works, Karen. Instead of you insisting that other people answer questions that, you think somehow help your case, the burden of proof rests entirely on you.

You are making an assertion - that people made allegations of racism against Morrissey solely because they're homophobic. The responsibility to support and prove your case lies entirely with you.

Contrary to your idiosyncratic approach to these things, it's not for any-/everybody else to disprove your theory; it's for you to prove your theory.

Go for it. The floor is yours.

 

[Anonymous]

Also in 1984 he gave an interview to Square Peg - a gay magazine produced by a gay collective who met at the Bell.

Square Peg No. 6 – August 1984

“Morrissey interview. Square Peg was an arts and culture fanzine for the gay community. Topics: the media circus, their target audience, having influence, having male cover stars, sexual ambi…

illnessasart.com

I know about Square Peg and who they were.

Just because a group of people met at The Bell and set up a magazine and Morrissey gave them an interview doesnt mean he was hanging out at The Bell.

The Bell at the time was full of people who were involved in the alternative arts etc, and any Smiths fan living in London would have been going there because music wise there was no gay venue in London at that time that had a music policy like that. The fact that it was popular with Smiths fans and that it was gay was likely the very reason he wouldn't be hanging out there and likely the reason the one time he did go there he only stayed a few minutes and never went back.

Hanging out with fans socially isn't something he was doing, nor was he openly hanging out in London gay bars. I actually heard a story that one night whilst in Soho he refused to walk down Old Compton St to get to Covent Garden in case he was seen walking on the gay street of London and he insisted they all walked around to Trafalgar Square and the long way around to avoid it.

He was socially shy and was not openly out so your idea that he was hanging around in gay bars/clubs for his social entertainment is just fiction when in reality we know where he was hanging out in Camden for the most part.

 

[Malarkey]

Instead of insisting on questions

That's not how this works, Karen. Instead of you insisting that other people answer questions that, you think somehow help your case, the burden of proof rests entirely on you.

You are making an assertion - that people made allegations of racism against Morrissey solely because they're homophobic. The responsibility to support and prove your case lies entirely with you.

Contrary to your idiosyncratic approach to these things, it's not for any-/everybody else to disprove your theory; it's for you to prove your theory.

Go for it. The floor is yours.

I've posted evidence that the Madstock scandal was about his sexuality.

It's up to you to explain why they called it homoerotic.

That is how it works.

 

[Malarkey]

I know about Square Peg and who they were.

Just because a group of people met at The Bell and set up a magazine and Morrissey gave them an interview doesnt mean he was hanging out at The Bell.

The Bell at the time was full of people who were involved in the alternative arts etc, and any Smiths fan living in London would have been going there because music wise there was no gay venue in London at that time that had a music policy like that. The fact that it was popular with Smiths fans and that it was gay was likely the very reason he wouldn't be hanging out there and likely the reason the one time he did go there he only stayed a few minutes and never went back.

Hanging out with fans socially isn't something he was doing, nor was he openly hanging out in London gay bars. I actually heard a story that one night whilst in Soho he refused to walk down Old Compton St to get to Covent Garden in case he was seen walking on the gay street of London and he insisted they all walked around to Trafalgar Square and the long way around to avoid it.

He was socially shy and was not openly out so your idea that he was hanging around in gay bars/clubs for his social entertainment is just fiction when in reality we know where he was hanging out in Camden for the most part.

I heard that story on here too - there isn't anything to back it up.

I've posted two interviews from two gay magazines that link him with two gay London venues.

 

[Anonymous]

I've posted evidence that the Madstock scandal was about his sexuality.

It's up to you to explain why they called it homoerotic.

That is how it works.

No it isn't how it works.

You haven't provided any evidence at all. Zero.

You think someone making a comment that includes the word homoerotic means they are homophobic and then from that bizarre pie in the sky analysis you jump to that being proof that all Morrissey's issues have come from a group of journalists because they were homophobic.

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds and actually is?

Do you yet have anything to add about your statement that said Morrissey has been hijacked by the far right and that you are ok with him posting videos by PJW and him posting such videos with one of the world's worst outspoken racist white supremacists in the video saying how great Morrissey is. Any comment on it at all? Or is the reason that video praising Morrissey appeared on Morrissey's own web site because PJW is homophobic. He is actually homophobic and hates vegans but he doesn't use the word homoerotic to express that hate.

The word homoerotic has been used many times in relation to Morrissey because a lot of the art, cover art is exactly that but that doesn't mean that term is being used in a homophobic way.

If I say the cover of Hand In Glove is homoerotic am I being homophobic?

 

[Anonymous]

I heard that story on here too - there isn't anything to back it up.

I've posted two interviews from two gay magazines that link him with two gay London venues.

Two interviews done by two gay magazines in empty pubs during the day do not equate to hanging out in gay venues.

I can assure you he wasn't hanging out in gay venues in London and I can state the story re Old Compton St is 100% true. I know that for a fact. Whether you believe that or not makes no different to me. I don't need to prove it but you have tried to prove he was hanging out in gay pubs in London.

Do you not think for one minute that for all the years he lived in London there would be more in your little black book of evidence aside from doing a couple of interviews in empty gay pubs for a couple of gay magazines that would suggest he was ever seen in london gay venues.

That scene was/is rife with gossip and the tabloids would have loved to have found him a gay club but did they, no.

Places like the Bell were cliques, most people knew everyone and it was full of regular faces week in week out. Full of Smiths fans, no way was he hanging out there with Jarman.

In 86 Jarman left London because he was diagnosed with HIV so he couldn't have been hanging out in The Bell with Morrissey.

Stop making stuff up. It takes away any credibility from anything you have to say, if there is any.

 

[Malarkey]

No it isn't how it works.

You haven't provided any evidence at all. Zero.

You think someone making a comment that includes the word homoerotic means they are homophobic and then from that bizarre pie in the sky analysis you jump to that being proof that all Morrissey's issues have come from a group of journalists because they were homophobic.

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds and actually is?

Do you yet have anything to add about your statement that said Morrissey has been hijacked by the far right and that you are ok with him posting videos by PJW and him posting such videos with one of the world's worst outspoken racist white supremacists in the video saying how great Morrissey is. Any comment on it at all? Or is the reason that video praising Morrissey appeared on Morrissey's own web site because PJW is homophobic. He is actually homophobic and hates vegans but he doesn't use the word homoerotic to express that hate.

The word homoerotic has been used many times in relation to Morrissey because a lot of the art, cover art is exactly that but that doesn't mean that term is being used in a homophobic way.

If I say the cover of Hand In Glove is homoerotic am I being homophobic?

Why did the journalists use the word homoerotic in relation to skinheads in an article about Madstock where they say the audience 'bottled the f***er off'?

Yeah - the videos got sent to SER & he posted them because he thought they refuted the Guardian.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

nerak, you need to show some decency and just stop. you take up huge swathes of the board with your go-nowhere nonsense that nobody wants to have to read, and at this point it's really just rude and inconsiderate.

 

[Malarkey]

nerak, you need to show some decency and just stop. you take up huge swathes of the board with your go-nowhere nonsense that nobody wants to have to read, and at this point it's really just rude and inconsiderate.

They don't have to read it.

Or get so worked up because I post articles & links instead of huge screeds about mass immigration or his music being shit or how he just wants Marr to love him.

 

[Anonymous]

Why did the journalists use the word homoerotic in relation to skinheads in an article about Madstock where they say the audience 'bottled the f***er off'?

Yeah - the videos got sent to SER & he posted them because he thought they refuted the Guardian.

not why you think. You need to have better knowledge about gay culture at that time. A lot of skinhead imagery was considered to be homoerotic but not all gay skinhead culture had anything to do with neo nazi or racist culture. It was more about the origin of skinhead culture which is from working class origins that have nothing to do with racism. The gay skinheads hanging around in The Bell or in Earls Court weren’t for the most part racist. It was a gay fashion and fetish subculture rather than a neo nazi subculture.

Now you state PJW sent videos to Sam and he posted them.

Please tell me how you know that? That video as with other PJW’s videos are openly available on his YouTube channel. You don’t know why and how or if there has been any contact between PJW and Sam or Morrissey and you don’t know who posted that video.

Stop making things up.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

probably more to do with the fact someone with controversial views like him would be better advised to make statements only through a publicity agent.

If he wants to protect his livelihood and income.

Being some outspoken contrarian is one thing but it is still a business and not many businesses could survive that kind of revelation or backlash.

Take his recent post slamming the satanism of Sam Smith on the Brits or whatever awards show it was claiming the industry releases the satanism of Sam Smith but does not want his album. There is not a publicity agent on the planet who would have advised it was a good idea to post that.

especially these days.

Freedom of speech or not, it is still a job and he is still an employer so many people depend on that income.

True, but should he be beholden to anyone?
I can’t imagine he’s really thinking about his ‘employees’ when he’s expressing himself in interview.

 

[Anonymous]

They don't have to read it.

Or get so worked up because I post articles & links instead of huge screeds about mass immigration or his music being shit or how he just wants Marr to love him.

I expect it isn’t the articles or links people have problems with, rather your incoherent illogical attempts to state those links mean what you say they do without any intelligent reason for them doing so. Nothing you are trying to prove is logical or evidenced

It is all in your imagination and the obsession with homophobia being the reason for all the bad press is just quite frankly nuts.

 

[Anonymous]

especially these days.

True, but should he be beholden to anyone?
I can’t imagine he’s really thinking about his ‘employees’ when he’s expressing himself in interview.

I expect he totally regrets that interview even if he does believe the things he said. It has significantly slashed his income and decimated his credibility within the industry and the very people he needs to continue unless he self releases but I suspect he likes also being able to play the martyr so if he self releases and it ends up being a flop because it isn’t that great then he will have thrown away huge amounts of his savings and will lose many of the remnants of credibility he has left amongst his reduced fanbase. It would be a risk to take without the backing financially of a label and if it goes wrong it could be that final nail in the coffin so I suspect he won’t do it and just continue to do the odd smaller set of gigs here and there and continue to state he has been the victim of cancelling culture. Going out as a victim is probably something that fits his MO.

 

[Malarkey]

not why you think. You need to have better knowledge about gay culture at that time. A lot of skinhead imagery was considered to be homoerotic but not all gay skinhead culture had anything to do with neo nazi or racist culture. It was more about the origin of skinhead culture which is from working class origins that have nothing to do with racism. The gay skinheads hanging around in The Bell or in Earls Court weren’t for the most part racist. It was a gay fashion and fetish subculture rather than a neo nazi subculture.

Now you state PJW sent videos to Sam and he posted them.

Please tell me how you know that? That video as with other PJW’s videos are openly available on his YouTube channel. You don’t know why and how or if there has been any contact between PJW and Sam or Morrissey and you don’t know who posted that video.

Stop making things up.

The article about gay skinheads in Square Peg says that it's about sex & not about racism.

"Fans" sent the videos.

 

[Malarkey]

I expect it isn’t the articles or links people have problems with, rather your incoherent illogical attempts to state those links mean what you say they do without any intelligent reason for them doing so. Nothing you are trying to prove is logical or evidenced

It is all in your imagination and the obsession with homophobia being the reason for all the bad press is just quite frankly nuts.

So why did they call it homoerotic?

 

[nicky wire's legs]

I expect it isn’t the articles or links people have problems with, rather your incoherent illogical attempts to state those links mean what you say they do without any intelligent reason for them doing so. Nothing you are trying to prove is logical or evidenced

It is all in your imagination and the obsession with homophobia being the reason for all the bad press is just quite frankly nuts.

No, it's not that. I don't give a shit about what she's saying. I get that pr is her thing and thus she's in her element here (although the lack of self awareness makes her seem rather unskilled and ineffective no matter how determine she is to spin things). It's the amount of space her posts take up!! In order not to read them, one has to skip over pages and pages!! And who knows, one might miss a post of actual interest from some innocent party in the process. It's f***ing obnoxious and boorish and inconsiderate.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I expect he totally regrets that interview even if he does believe the things he said. It has significantly slashed his income and decimated his credibility within the industry and the very people he needs to continue unless he self releases but I suspect he likes also being able to play the martyr so if he self releases and it ends up being a flop because it isn’t that great then he will have thrown away huge amounts of his savings and will lose many of the remnants of credibility he has left amongst his reduced fanbase. It would be a risk to take without the backing financially of a label and if it goes wrong it could be that final nail in the coffin so I suspect he won’t do it and just continue to do the odd smaller set of gigs here and there and continue to state he has been the victim of cancelling culture. Going out as a victim is probably something that fits his MO.

But if he self released, and didn’t press an exorbitant amount of albums, or just went digital, then I guess it wouldn’t be

a flop because it isn’t that great then he will have thrown away huge amounts of his savings

So that’s a possibility. Unfortunately, as it seems, I think he’s still holding out and believes that eventually some record label will release WMTWD. I think what probably holds him back from getting a record contract these days, is not really the controversy, but more likely terms that he or the label can’t agree to. This is just speculation, since I don’t know what’s in those contracts.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

No it isn't how it works.

You haven't provided any evidence at all. Zero.

You think someone making a comment that includes the word homoerotic means they are homophobic and then from that bizarre pie in the sky analysis you jump to that being proof that all Morrissey's issues have come from a group of journalists because they were homophobic.

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds and actually is?

Do you yet have anything to add about your statement that said Morrissey has been hijacked by the far right and that you are ok with him posting videos by PJW and him posting such videos with one of the world's worst outspoken racist white supremacists in the video saying how great Morrissey is. Any comment on it at all? Or is the reason that video praising Morrissey appeared on Morrissey's own web site because PJW is homophobic. He is actually homophobic and hates vegans but he doesn't use the word homoerotic to express that hate.

The word homoerotic has been used many times in relation to Morrissey because a lot of the art, cover art is exactly that but that doesn't mean that term is being used in a homophobic way.

If I say the cover of Hand In Glove is homoerotic am I being homophobic?

I wonder though.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve never seen ‘sexy’ rock album art work described as ‘heteroerotic’

Edit: I’m not saying that you are homophobic for describing HIG’s cover as ‘homoerotic’, but why would you use that word instead of ‘erotic’?

 

[Amy]

They don't have to read it.

Or get so worked up because I post articles & links instead of huge screeds about mass immigration or his music being shit or how he just wants Marr to love him.

If you kept your theories to your "Folk Devil" thread instead of shoehorning them everywhere, people could choose if they wanted to engage with it and you might get some curious (or at least less negative) responses. You could take part in much more positive discussions if you could leave it alone for a bit, you must see that?

The fact that you keep on and on to the extent that people are basically begging you to pack it in, that's undignified. It's being the Internet version of the mad guy in the pub - most people just want to dodge him discreetly, but now he's locked the doors and climbed on the bar with a loudspeaker and there's no way out. Every thread you post in goes the same way and you wonder why people who want to talk about the music get worked up?

Damn right about our boy Johnny, though.