Judge John Weeks dead (April 2021)

His Honour John Weeks QC | Inner Temple

www.innertemple.org.uk

Excerpt:

His Honour John Weeks QC​

It is with much regret that we report that Master Weeks (His Honour John Weeks QC) sadly died on the Easter weekend, aged 82. The Inn’s flag will fly at half-mast on Monday 19 April 2021, in his memory.

Master Weeks was called to the Bar in 1963 and took Silk in 1983. In 1991 he was appointed a circuit judge on the Western Circuit and as a Chancery Circuit judge in 1997 until his retirement in 2006.

He was elected a Judicial Governing Bencher in 1996.

Details of any funeral and/or memorial service will be circulated as appropriate in due course.

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .777]

is that radish anon using 'whilst' and 'irony' in the same
post? defeating the purpose of the anon charade?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

His post was imbedded in your post. By clicking the reply button on this website, you automatically quote the post to which you're replying. As I'm doing here.

By quote I thought you meant...

“His post was imbedded in your post.” There is an example of me quoting you. I’m not really sure if what comes up automatically in a post when you reply to someone else is called quoting someone, or if there’s another name for that, I could be wrong.

 

[Geoffrey Ingram]

If it is true that - during the lifetime of The Smiths - Joyce knew all along that he was only getting 10%, and then after The Smiths pled ignorance and went after Morrissey and Marr in the courts, then you can understand Morrissey and Marr's hatred of him. But it is an "if". Only the people involved know the truth, and they accuse each other of lying.

However.

The fact remains that the 40-40-10-10 split was not written down. It should have been, but it wasn't. In the absence of a written agreement, the default position (as far as John Weeks saw it) was that since there were four members of the band who recorded and performed together, it should follow that the recording and performance royalties should be split equally four ways.

Under this arrangement, Joyce and Rourke get an equal share of those particular royalties, but Morrissey and Marr continue to earn far more money from The Smiths overall due to them sharing the more lucrative writing royalties 50-50.

I do find it peculiar however that Joyce only happened to find out (if indeed he was oblivious before) about only getting 10% after The Smiths broke up. From 1982 onwards he had gone from being an unknown drummer to being a member of one of the country's most popular groups and earning good money into the bargain. How is it possible that neither he, nor anyone around him who was willing to tell him, knew what he was earning as a percentage of The Smiths' performance and recording royalties?

From memory, I believe Joyce claimed that it was only when he applied for a mortgage after The Smiths broke up that his financial status within the band became clear. That is when, apparently, he realised he was only on 10% and not 25% as he claimed to have thought before. But what documentation or information was he given at this point which specifically spelt out his 10% share that he was, somehow, not privy to between 1982-1987?

My take is that Morrissey and Marr f.ucked up by not getting Rourke and Joyce to verbally accept 10% and then sign a contract to that effect. I believe Joyce knew all along he was only getting 10%, but then - knowing nothing had ever been signed - saw an opportunity to plead ignorance and try to get more through the courts.

Morrissey and Marr were remiss in not getting a contract signed. But Joyce was morally wrong to seek money he knew he was not really entitled to.

My guess is once the money came in after the first album and tours, Mike and Andy will have been pleased with the amount they received. They may have well asked each other "how much did you get?" But doubt they would have asked M&M.
That (again my guess) would have been consistent through the rest of the bands life - a nice cheque each month.
So when the band split for whatever reason (maybe it was due to Craig Gannon's claim?) Something stirred enough for Mike and Andy to sniff around.
Maybe Craig Gannon was told of the percentage he was on and queried it with the other two.
When Craig was involved, in M&M's minds, was the split now 40/40/6.6/6.6/6.6 or 35/35/10/10/10?

Now some folk will say if Mike / Andy were happy / comfortable on 10% so should have been grateful which is nonsense.
Imagine 4 of you building a house and you are offered £5,000 a month. "Fantastic!" You think. Good money. But then find out the other 3 are getting £10,000 a month.
Do you shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, I was happy with £5000, and say nothing or do you challenge the fact that there is inequality within the 4 for doing the same job.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

No, he didn't.

Yes technically Andy wrote those bass lines, but of course he couldn’t have written those exact bass lines without being inspired by Marr.

I mean, has Andy written as exciting and memorable a bass line on his own without Marr.

 

[Anonymous]

By quote I thought you meant...

“His post was imbedded in your post.” There is an example of me quoting you. I’m not really sure if what comes up automatically in a post when you reply to someone else is called quoting someone, or if there’s another name for that, I could be wrong.

You're wrong. It's a quote.

 

[Young And Alive]

My guess is once the money came in after the first album and tours, Mike and Andy will have been pleased with the amount they received. They may have well asked each other "how much did you get?" But doubt they would have asked M&M.
That (again my guess) would have been consistent through the rest of the bands life - a nice cheque each month.
So when the band split for whatever reason (maybe it was due to Craig Gannon's claim?) Something stirred enough for Mike and Andy to sniff around.
Maybe Craig Gannon was told of the percentage he was on and queried it with the other two.
When Craig was involved, in M&M's minds, was the split now 40/40/6.6/6.6/6.6 or 35/35/10/10/10?

Now some folk will say if Mike / Andy were happy / comfortable on 10% so should have been grateful which is nonsense.
Imagine 4 of you building a house and you are offered £5,000 a month. "Fantastic!" You think. Good money. But then find out the other 3 are getting £10,000 a month.
Do you shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, I was happy with £5000, and say nothing or do you challenge the fact that there is inequality within the 4 for doing the same job.

It's a matter of opinion whether Rourke and Joyce were doing the "same job" as Morrissey and Marr, simply because they were also present at the recording studio.

A head chef earns a lot more than a kitchen porter, even though they're both present in the same workplace.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes technically Andy wrote those bass lines, but of course he couldn’t have written those exact bass lines without being inspired by Marr.

I mean, has Andy written as exciting and memorable a bass line on his own without Marr.

It doesn't matter whether he was inspired by Marr('s music) or not, they're still his bass lines, and they were still a crucial contribution to, and component of the music. And many of Marr's guitar harmonies which were added to the basic rhythm tracks, were probably inspired by Rourke's melodic basslines.

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .777]

My guess is once the money came in after the first album and tours, Mike and Andy will have been pleased with the amount they received. They may have well asked each other "how much did you get?" But doubt they would have asked M&M.
That (again my guess) would have been consistent through the rest of the bands life - a nice cheque each month.
So when the band split for whatever reason (maybe it was due to Craig Gannon's claim?) Something stirred enough for Mike and Andy to sniff around.
Maybe Craig Gannon was told of the percentage he was on and queried it with the other two.
When Craig was involved, in M&M's minds, was the split now 40/40/6.6/6.6/6.6 or 35/35/10/10/10?

Now some folk will say if Mike / Andy were happy / comfortable on 10% so should have been grateful which is nonsense.
Imagine 4 of you building a house and you are offered £5,000 a month. "Fantastic!" You think. Good money. But then find out the other 3 are getting £10,000 a month.
Do you shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, I was happy with £5000, and say nothing or do you challenge the fact that there is inequality within the 4 for doing the same job.

something stirred alright...the horror at the thought of getting a real job

but now money is running low again, right FH?
time for another 'auction'

 

[Geoffrey Ingram]

It's a matter of opinion whether Rourke and Joyce were doing the "same job" as Morrissey and Marr, simply because they were also present at the recording studio.

A head chef earns a lot more than a kitchen porter, even though they're both present in the same workplace.

And their contract of employment will reflect that!

 

[Anonymous]

who ever thought FH Mike really wrote a song FFS?0
only FH Mike himself

Did Mike Joyce claim to have written songs in The Smiths? I didn't hear about that.

When Morrissey went solo Andy Rourke supposedly wrote 3 melodies for him. But later it was discovered one melody was taken from a song by "The Cookies" and another was from a Gilbert O'Sullivan song.

Craig Gannnon was the catalyst for what Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke did to Morrissey taking him to the High Court.

 

[Flibberty]

Now some folk will say if Mike / Andy were happy / comfortable on 10% so should have been grateful which is nonsense.
Imagine 4 of you building a house and you are offered £5,000 a month. "Fantastic!" You think. Good money. But then find out the other 3 are getting £10,000 a month.
Do you shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, I was happy with £5000, and say nothing or do you challenge the fact that there is inequality within the 4 for doing the same job.

They weren't doing the same job as all of the people around the band have attested. Morrissey and Johnny were doing far more for the group and it was never a band of equals.

Here is Richard Boon's quote about the working relationships of the members:

"Johnny and Morrissey were really driven and had a clear sense of purpose. They knew exactly what they wanted. They shared a vision. It was those two that pushed it forward. The other two were the rhythm section, nice as they were. For Johnny and Morrissey it really wasn’t about work. It was their passion. For the rhythm section it was work. They referred to it as work. I felt that Andy and Mike were slightly overwhelmed when The Smiths took off. It was very fast. They weren’t ready for it in the way that Johnny and Morrissey were. This was like their dream come true. No-one was really ready for it but Morrissey and Johnny had dreamt of it for a really long time."

The comments about every aspect of the group back this up. Morrissey and Johnny were organizing the tours and deciding every aspect of the group's existence. Andy and Mike were never equals.

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .777]

And their contract of employment will reflect that!

WtF are you talking about? employment contract
for a bar keep in 1982?

 

[Anonymous]

Yes technically Andy wrote those bass lines, but of course he couldn’t have written those exact bass lines without being inspired by Marr.

I mean, has Andy written as exciting and memorable a bass line on his own without Marr.

One might also ask if Marr has written as memorable and exciting a piece of music without Rourke and (in some instances) John Porter - my answer to that would be a definite no, and that's despite the fact that I think he has come up with a handful of pretty good backing tracks in the past 30 -odd years e.g. 'Forbidden City', some stuff on the first Electronic album, 'The Messenger' (song) - but nothing on a par with 'Willian, It was Really Nothing', 'This Charming Man', 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now', 'How Soon Is Now?', 'The Headmaster Ritual', to name but a few, which Marr apparently composed all by himself (according to some) but whose like he hasn't come close to rivalling since The Smiths split up.

 

[Anonymous]

They weren't doing the same job as all of the people around the band have attested. Morrissey and Johnny were doing far more for the group and it was never a band of equals.

Here is Richard Boon's quote about the working relationships of the members:

"Johnny and Morrissey were really driven and had a clear sense of purpose. They knew exactly what they wanted. They shared a vision. It was those two that pushed it forward. The other two were the rhythm section, nice as they were. For Johnny and Morrissey it really wasn’t about work. It was their passion. For the rhythm section it was work. They referred to it as work. I felt that Andy and Mike were slightly overwhelmed when The Smiths took off. It was very fast. They weren’t ready for it in the way that Johnny and Morrissey were. This was like their dream come true. No-one was really ready for it but Morrissey and Johnny had dreamt of it for a really long time."

The comments about every aspect of the group back this up. Morrissey and Johnny were organizing the tours and deciding every aspect of the group's existence. Andy and Mike were never equals.

There should have been a clear division in that case between earnings from performances and earnings from revenue. If the court case didn't recognise such a distinction, then I'd say Judge Weeks was at fault. But equally of course, clear contracts should have been drawn up in the first place.

 

[Anonymous]

One might also ask if Marr has written as memorable and exciting a piece of music without Rourke and (in some instances) John Porter - my answer to that would be a definite no, and that's despite the fact that I think he has come up with a handful of pretty good backing tracks in the past 30 -odd years e.g. 'Forbidden City', some stuff on the first Electronic album, 'The Messenger' (song) - but nothing on a par with 'Willian, It was Really Nothing', 'This Charming Man', 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now', 'How Soon Is Now?', 'The Headmaster Ritual', to name but a few, which Marr apparently composed all by himself (according to some) but whose like he hasn't come close to rivalling since The Smiths split up.

Ridiculous. Marr has expanded his palette. Of course he's not going to come up with Smiths sound-a-like songs every time. But he's collaborated and written some great songs, just as Morrissey has. "Hi Hello", "Different Gun", "Armatopia", "Walk Into the Sea", "Easy Money", "Dashboard", "Dynamo", "Only a Child", "Too Blue", "Down on the Corner", "We Share the Same Skies", "Sexuality", etc. etc. All great songs that will sit in the realm of the greatness of his songs with the Smiths.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

You're wrong. It's a quote.

But I didn’t call it something else, so how could I be wrong.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

One might also ask if Marr has written as memorable and exciting a piece of music without Rourke and (in some instances) John Porter - my answer to that would be a definite no, and that's despite the fact that I think he has come up with a handful of pretty good backing tracks in the past 30 -odd years e.g. 'Forbidden City', some stuff on the first Electronic album, 'The Messenger' (song) - but nothing on a par with 'Willian, It was Really Nothing', 'This Charming Man', 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now', 'How Soon Is Now?', 'The Headmaster Ritual', to name but a few, which Marr apparently composed all by himself (according to some) but whose like he hasn't come close to rivalling since The Smiths split up.

That’s simply because Marr doesn’t have Morrissey to be inspired by to write
music as great as he did in the Smiths.

Morrissey inspires himself, his last record was wonderful and with Bonfire in the wings, we all can’t wait to be engulfed by its awesomeness!


VIVA MOZ !!!

 

[T. H. Auden]

May he turn in his urn!

 

[Anonymous]

But I didn’t call it something else, so how could I be wrong.

See your post #182 above. You concluded your sentence "I’m not really sure if what comes up automatically in a post when you reply to someone else is called quoting someone, or if there’s another name for that" by saying "I could be wrong".

This to me implied that it was your view that there was indeed "another name for that" since you obviously felt that the correct name wasn't "quote" since you had challenged my use of the term. However, if I'm wrong, and you simply like to append random non-sequiturs to the ends of your sentences, then so be it.

 

[Anonymous]

Ridiculous. Marr has expanded his palette. Of course he's not going to come up with Smiths sound-a-like songs every time. But he's collaborated and written some great songs, just as Morrissey has. "Hi Hello", "Different Gun", "Armatopia", "Walk Into the Sea", "Easy Money", "Dashboard", "Dynamo", "Only a Child", "Too Blue", "Down on the Corner", "We Share the Same Skies", "Sexuality", etc. etc. All great songs that will sit in the realm of the greatness of his songs with the Smiths.

Yes, well horses for courses, but whilst l like many of the songs you cite here, I wouldn't describe any of them as great songs, primarily because every one of them has feeble lyrics. But as we're discussing Marr's music, I'd say it's impressive in many of these examples (Marr's music generally is impressive), but as I say, not as impressive, generally speaking, as the music of The Smiths (though I recognise that even The Smiths had a few duffers and less inspired tracks).