The Smiths: My Story – An Evening with Mike Joyce (Wolverhampton, July 28, 2017)

The Smiths: My Story – An Evening with Mike Joyce - Light House

40275_Mike-Joyce-Event-Web.jpg


A rare chance to hear the story of Mike Joyce, drummer of legendary band The Smiths, on his first visit to Light House.


After the audience event with Mike live in cinema one, we will have an after show party featuring Mike as a guest DJ, with local comedian / Smiths DJ Andrew McBurney.

Event Timings
Lock Works bar open all day pre-event.

8.30 – 9.30pm
Mike Joyce – his story, live in Cinema One.

9.30pm – late
After show party featuring DJ spot from Mike Joyce plus Andrew McBurney’s Smiths Disco

Late bar in Lock Works.

Do you have a question for Mike? Submit it to [email protected] and we’ll send the best through to him.

We can’t wait to welcome Mike and a legion of fans to Light House.

PLACES ARE STRICTLY LIMITED so early booking is advised.

Tickets are £20 and available on the blue link to our online booking system on the right, or by calling 01902 716 055 between 9am and 9pm. If the link is not showing, just give us a call.

Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as Morrissey was not using the buying / transferring of the houses as some sort of tax avoidance scam then he is within the law to gift them.
Anyone can legally ''gift'' anyone a property and sign legal papers stating that x person now owns the house. And then x legally owns the house. When I divorced, I let the ex have the house and I simply signed my half of the house over to the ex. Simple as. It was then wholly in her name and nothing whatsoever to do with me anymore. I was liable for nothing connected to the house financially or physically (ie repairs etc) and I was not able to use the house as collateral for any further purposes.

There would indeed have been a paper trail - for Morrissey's benefit - to prove he no longer owned the property - to prevent Mike's legal team taking any action against the property. Unless Morrissey could prove he no longer owned the properties, they could have / would have taken action against the properties. They weren't going to sit there and say ''Oh Morrissey said he gave it to his mum, so lets pack up and go, it's all over...'' Morrissey (or his legal team) would have disclosed documents showing he no longer owned the properties.

It's the same when famous people go bankrupt - but the house and expensive cars are in the wife's name and can't be taken by the baliffs or creditors - and the famous person has to provide documents showing whose name they are in to prevent the house / cars from being repossessed.

The short version: You have no evidence Morrissey owned those houses. None. He says he didn't. The long version: Your analogies are not applicable. You got divorced. That's what happens when people get divorced. Morrissey lost a legal judgment. One cannot simply gift assets to family members to avoid paying. If it was that simple no one would pay out, ever. Here Mom, have a million dollars? Sorry Mike? And everyone says okey dokey and goes home?

Also, that it not how bankruptcy works, at all. If I declare bankruptcy creditors will crawl down my wife's throat. Even if she parks the assets in Italy, where she is a citizen.
 
Ahhhhhhh - I concede defeat purely based on your evidence presented (by Morrissey) that Morrissey stated he didn't own the houses.

Of course, I should have recalled it was Mike whom the judge called ''devious, truculent and unreliable'' ;)
I'm pretty certain he never handed the houses over the day after the court case but would have been advised to do so in advance. The case took how many years to come to court? Five or six?
 
Why would it have been necessary for Mike to try to get a charge on Morrissey's mum's house?
 
So no one went to hear Mikes 'story' ? Did he confess that he was lying the whole time about not remembering how much he was being payed ?

CONFESS MIKE ! CONFESS !
:cool:
 
So no one went to hear Mikes 'story' ? Did he confess that he was lying the whole time about not remembering how much he was being payed ?

CONFESS MIKE ! CONFESS !
:cool:

"So no one went to hear Mikes 'story' ?"

You don't know for sure.
Maybe there were some people attending but feel ashamed now to confess they were cause the story wasn't that credible as they hoped...
:rolleyes:
Maybe he confessed to a priest? o_O
He was from Irish and therefore Catholic background too oo! :brows:
 
"So no one went to hear Mikes 'story' ?"

You don't know for sure.
Maybe there were some people attending but feel ashamed now to confess they were cause the story wasn't that credible as they hoped...
:rolleyes:
Maybe he confessed to a priest? o_O
He was from Irish and therefore Catholic background too oo! :brows:

M may forgive jesus, but he'll never forgive Joyce.



JOYCE YOU MUST CONFESS !
 
Ahhhhhhh - I concede defeat purely based on your evidence presented (by Morrissey) that Morrissey stated he didn't own the houses.

Of course, I should have recalled it was Mike whom the judge called ''devious, truculent and unreliable'' ;)
I'm pretty certain he never handed the houses over the day after the court case but would have been advised to do so in advance. The case took how many years to come to court? Five or six?

If that judge is your response than I don't know what to tell you. The judge that couldn't get basic Smiths facts right in his verdict? He was supposed to be deciding 10 v 25 percent, not what he thought personally of Morrissey.
 
If that judge is your response than I don't know what to tell you. The judge that couldn't get basic Smiths facts right in his verdict? He was supposed to be deciding 10 v 25 percent, not what he thought personally of Morrissey.

You're an utter moron. That's what judges DO in their summing up.
 
You're an utter moron. That's what judges DO in their summing up.

Ah yes, along comes the village idiot to provide comic relief. That's what judges DO right? They get numerous basic facts wrong and casually engage in slander against the defendant to demonstrate their total lack of objectivity.
 
Ah yes, along comes the village idiot to provide comic relief. That's what judges DO right? They get numerous basic facts wrong and casually engage in slander against the defendant to demonstrate their total lack of objectivity.

You need to look up what slander means, you dolt. I get that your hero didn't win his case. Even on appeal. What are YOU going to do about it, other than cry? Your indignance is real enough, so you should start a fund-raiser to revisit the case and get that judge what he damn well deserves. I mean, you're so SURE about it.
 
If that judge is your response than I don't know what to tell you. The judge that couldn't get basic Smiths facts right in his verdict? He was supposed to be deciding 10 v 25 percent, not what he thought personally of Morrissey.

OK, which basic Smiths fact didn't he get right?
 
OK, which basic Smiths fact didn't he get right?

Wait, have you even read Morrissey's book? He goes into the demonstrable errors in forensic and excruciatingly boring detail. I would have been perfectly happy to see an editor have at that section, but it was his revenge. So there you go. He saw the judge as incompetent and Joyce as a pitiful leech so the reader wasn't going to get off easy.
 
No I haven't read his book. Couldn't get past page 50 as it was a load of crap. However I have read up on other areas of the court case.
Are you really basing all of your evidence based on the words of Morrissey?
It's like religious people basing all of their answers on "it says so in the bible" therefore it must be true.
Open your eyes and take the Moz tinted glasses off.
 
No I haven't read his book. Couldn't get past page 50 as it was a load of crap. However I have read up on other areas of the court case.
Are you really basing all of your evidence based on the words of Morrissey?
It's like religious people basing all of their answers on "it says so in the bible" therefore it must be true.
Open your eyes and take the Moz tinted glasses off.

Atheist. Try again.

Really? Seriously? It's not the "words of Morrissey". It is the judge not being able to place simple events in the right decade. Morrissey goes to boring lengths to take the judge's own words and counter them with facts that are a matter of public record. The judge did not like Morrissey and was determined to make him pay. And he did. It happens. Every day in fact.

The Marr and Morrissey books don't align too neatly, but they sync completely on the matter of Mike Joyce. Marr is also a liar?

Parts of the autobiography dragged, but a Smiths fan who thinks Morrissey's book was "crap"? Are you a fan or just Mike Joyce's mate?
 
No I haven't read his book. Couldn't get past page 50 as it was a load of crap. However I have read up on other areas of the court case.
Are you really basing all of your evidence based on the words of Morrissey?
It's like religious people basing all of their answers on "it says so in the bible" therefore it must be true.
Open your eyes and take the Moz tinted glasses off.

Well, at least it was based on something written down for everybody to read and have an opinion on.
You, anonymous mouse state yourself you didn't read any further after page 50.
So, why should I value your ignorence more then anyone believing in some kind of almighty upperbeing?
Forget it, can't be bothered anymore. :tiphat:
 
Atheist. Try again.

Really? Seriously? It's not the "words of Morrissey". It is the judge not being able to place simple events in the right decade. Morrissey goes to boring lengths to take the judge's own words and counter them with facts that are a matter of public record. The judge did not like Morrissey and was determined to make him pay. And he did. It happens. Every day in fact.

The Marr and Morrissey books don't align too neatly, but they sync completely on the matter of Mike Joyce. Marr is also a liar?

Parts of the autobiography dragged, but a Smiths fan who thinks Morrissey's book was "crap"? Are you a fan or just Mike Joyce's mate?

Please tell me if you also thought List Of The Lost was an excellent effort too, because as a Smiths / Morrissey fan, that is what you must say??

M&M lost the case purely because they could not produce one piece of evidence that indicated that Mike and Andy were on / agreed to be on 20% of non recording royalties. All it needed was one contract, one piece of paper with signatures on with financial arrangements laid out. But non of the four nor the record company had anything. Mike could have been lying, but M&M had nothing presented in court to prove otherwise. M&M had to prove Mike and Andy were aware / agreed upon 20% and they failed to do that. Twice.
Mike and Andy didn't have to prove a thing beyond that they were not given an equal share.
 
Wait, have you even read Morrissey's book? He goes into the demonstrable errors in forensic and excruciatingly boring detail. I would have been perfectly happy to see an editor have at that section, but it was his revenge. So there you go. He saw the judge as incompetent and Joyce as a pitiful leech so the reader wasn't going to get off easy.

Again, exactly which basic facts about the Smiths did the judge get wrong? List them.
 
Again, exactly which basic facts about the Smiths did the judge get wrong? List them.

What "judge"? The one who said "Mr Morrissey is a more complicated character. He did not find giving evidence an easy or happy experience. To me at least he appeared devious, truculent and
unreliable
where his own interests were at stake."? Is that a judge or a member of the holy inquisition?
 


Mike (and Andy) didn't know they were on 10% - they were comfortable with what they were getting but unaware it was not an equal share until later.
The piece says M&M hired and fired those around them - so do I at work, but guess what? When hiring people, they get a written contract that outlines pay (amongst other HR issues). So if they are disgruntled at any point and take the company to a tribunal or whatever, both parties have the document in hand in court to present to Judge Judy.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom