Morrissey Central "Joaquin Is Not A Dog On A Chain" (February 10, 2020)

Joaquin Is Not A Dog On A Chain - Morrissey Central

February 10, 2020

i_just_might_die_ik9rax.png


Regards,
FWD.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why silly? If users in this forum can accuse an older gay man of 'grooming' his younger partner, despite the fact that they are in a consensual relationship, why would Morrissey be exempt from that accusation - why would any one if they are in a older/younger couple?

This is an argument about degrees, about infantalising adults so that it becomes easier for forum users, media etc. to be able to attack gay men. Unfortunately, it's rarely about protecting exploited children and/or adults and more about homophobia masquerading as societal concern.

I think you're coming at it the wrong way, probably because you are gay, so you're assuming, & looking to make, this a homophobic issue. It isn't.

As far as I'm concerned, this is about an adult male, then married, grooming a child aged 10 over a long term.
Providing mentoring, preferential treatment with the aim of something more sinister later.

It's also mixed with the deep & long term utter disgraceful deception of his wife & family. This guy is/was a well liked TV personality who used his position & influence in relation to a young child, which then continued into the child become an adult. The fall out from this will be huge owing to to long term nature of the grooming & the length of the deception.

He will be exposed, of that there's no doubt. If his behaviour was deemed as acceptable, then this wouldn't even be in the air. But it is & therefore tells you/us all we need to know.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't need a law degree to know that a child aged 10 is just that...a child; a minor being groomed.

Everyone is currently 'reserving judgement'...there are no clear facts, or evidence yet, because no-one is actually saying it out loud, or making accusations that can be substantiated...it's being kept under wraps, almost being suppressed. But, whispers are starting in certain quarters & the press are digging. If there was nothing to dig for, they wouldn't be bothering with it.

There clearly is something out there, so it's a waiting game while the diggers dig. Schofield's days are numbered, even amongst the TV-lovies. No smoke without fire.

When it all comes out people will be running in the opposite direction to Schofield, looking to distance themselves from him as fast as they can. You watch.

I bet some people are deleting/secreting emails & hard copy documentation as we speak.

Do you read these things before you posts them?

Is the man, alleged to be in the relationship, 10 years old? If your response is no why did you include this quite ludicrous statement? If your answer is yes, and you have proof of this, I urge you to contact the police immediately and report it.

"Everyone is currently 'reserving judgement'" but you contradict yourself with "Schofield's days are numbered ..."

You go on ...

" ...there are no clear facts, or evidence yet, because no-one is actually saying it out loud, or making accusations that can be substantiated ..."
Swiftly followed by "There clearly is something out there".

I'll also take this opportunity to disabuse you of the notion that the UK press/media only dig were dirt can be found. In actuality they dig constantly and often come up short and, on occasion, have been known to falsely report i.e. smoke without fire I know, it's shocking, isn't it?

Clearly you have made your judgement and have been quiet unable to hide it - despite a valiant attempt.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think you're coming at it the wrong way, probably because you are gay, so you're assuming, & looking to make, this a homophobic issue. It isn't.

As far as I'm concerned, this is about an adult male, then married, grooming a child aged 10 over a long term.
Providing mentoring, preferential treatment with the aim of something more sinister later.

It's also mixed with the deep & long term utter disgraceful deception of his wife & family. This guy is/was a well liked TV personality who used his position & influence in relation to a young child, which then continued into the child become an adult. The fall out from this will be huge owing to to long term nature of the grooming & the length of the deception.

He will be exposed, of that there's no doubt. If his behaviour was deemed as acceptable, then this wouldn't even be in the air. But it is & therefore tells you/us all we need to know.

Because I believe in proven guilt I'm probably gay? Interesting concept you have there.

At this time there is no evidence, no evidence at all that substantiates the claims made against Philip Schoefield. If facts come to light and he has been involved in the 'grooming' of a 10 year old then he will be prosecuted under the law.

I'd like to know where this 'suspicion' or alleged 'fact' about the 10 year old boy began? Could it be the same tabloids that have attempted to portray Amanda Holden's tweet "what goes on behind the scenes" as cryptic in regards to PS - even though it's hard to see how that tweet is in anyway related to PS? To me it's an insight into the behind the scenes of a photographic shoot.

PS's family took no part in any deception. Why is PS's sexuality any business of anyone else? His family protected a family member due to hsi sexuality - isn't that what families do, on the whole - protect each other? You seem to be suggesting and suggesting in strong language that his daughters, his wife and his mother etc all knew about this alleged 'grooming' incident. On the basis of probabilties alone I think that rather unlikely. Family members will protect but few would protect in such circumstances as you describe.

And no, we don't all need to know, some people want to know - that's quite different.

"He will be exposed, of that there's no doubt." It's good to know you have an open mind about these things.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You seem to be suggesting and suggesting in strong language that his daughters, his wife and his mother etc all knew about this alleged 'grooming' incident. On the basis of probabilties alone I think that rather unlikely.

No, you're imagining what I said, & reading things which are simply not there. He's the deceiver. They are innocent by-standers, & of course, now victims of his long term deceit. I never suggested they knew of his grooming MO. Please stop rushing in to reply.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A Day At Work With Nerak

Nerak arrived 35 minutes late. She had urgent business. She had received 5 responses to comments she made in the 387 forums that she frequents. To Nerak these responses must be dealt with urgently - after all they are about her. Nerak begins to tap furiously on her phone "You're wrong", "From what I've heard ..." "That's not what Morrissey meant", "factually I think" and "I never attack anyone. Prick!" Yes! This took her 35 minutes!?

"Psst. Psst! I didn't mean to disturb you." (fold arms over her chest and leans in to whisper to disinterested colleague) ...
"From what I've heard there's a terrible gossip in the office. Everybody's talking about it."
Colleague shrugs and turn away to look at PC screen. Nerak jabs her colleague with a boney finger demanding attention.
"I'm not one to say anything about anyone but I think it's her." Nerak points in the direction of woman studiously involved in her work.
"I'm always suspsicious of anyone who isn't constantly looking at their phone, aren't you? I mean what else is she doing?
Colleague gets up to leave, bored and in need of escape. The colleague goes into the kitchen.
Nerak scans the office. She heads in the direction of the studious woman.
"I see you're busy. I don't want to interupt you." She interupts her colleague.
"From what I've heard there's a terrible gossip in the office. Everybody's talking about it."
"I think it might be her that just went into the kitchen."
Nerak points towards the kitchen.

.... and so her day and life continues​


:laughing:

We have an Nerak in our office. :drama:
It might be this Nerak. :ahhh:

Always complaining. :swear
Always pointing the finger.
:mock:

:bow:



 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, you're imagining what I said, & reading things which are simply not there. He's the deceiver. They are innocent by-standers, & of course, now victims of his long term deceit. I never suggested they knew of his grooming MO. Please stop rushing in to reply.

Did I really imagine this ....

"It's also mixed with the deep & long term utter disgraceful deception of his wife & family. This guy is/was a well liked TV personality who used his position & influence in relation to a young child, which then continued into the child become an adult. The fall out from this will be huge owing to to long term nature of the grooming & the length of the deception."

How are the lines, in bold, supposed to read given the context of the paragraph? You have ascribed the term victims to his wife and family. Have you read any of their statements?. I'm not sensing victimhood only compassion for their husband, father, son. Whatever you believe to be 'disgraceful deception' his family don't share it. End of.

He is also innocent at this time. But you woefully omit that. You have him cast as guilty without a single fact to back up your dreadful accusations.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Sorry.

I won't mention the super-injuction.

I'll only be constructive about daytime t.v. presenters.

& I'll try to think of something to post that involves Kerrygold, death threats & whatever that cabbage was all about.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sorry.

I won't mention the super-injuction.

I'll only be constructive about daytime t.v. presenters.

& I'll try to think of something to post that involves Kerrygold, death threats & whatever that cabbage was all about.

What are you hearing re; Schofield? All sorts of shit flying around.
Genuine enquiry, Nerak.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The words 'grooming' & 'children's theatre company' have been cropping up.

Each and every time you type them.

But, you know, you wouldn't want to attack anyone would you? You wouldn't wish to presume and promote someone guilty without evidence would you?

Oh, you would? You have? You always will?

Repeating this accusation constantly, without a single fact to back it up, makes you seem like wingless harpie.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
The source is my networks & the question was, what have I been hearing.

You can believe there's nothing in it.

I'm not going to fight with the Schofield fans.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Did I really imagine this ....

"It's also mixed with the deep & long term utter disgraceful deception of his wife & family. This guy is/was a well liked TV personality who used his position & influence in relation to a young child, which then continued into the child become an adult. The fall out from this will be huge owing to to long term nature of the grooming & the length of the deception."

How are the lines, in bold, supposed to read given the context of the paragraph? You have ascribed the term victims to his wife and family. Have you read any of their statements?. I'm not sensing victimhood only compassion for their husband, father, son. Whatever you believe to be 'disgraceful deception' his family don't share it. End of.

He is also innocent at this time. But you woefully omit that. You have him cast as guilty without a single fact to back up your dreadful accusations.

What were they supposed to say? Thanks dad, you're a deceiving toerag that's duped us all?
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom