This is Morrissey: An Interview by Fiona Dodwell - Tremr

This is Morrissey: An Interview by Fiona Dodwell - Tremr
June 5, 2018

Excerpt:

When I penned my recent piece, 'Morrissey: The Great Unfiltered Artist' it was my aim to shine a light on somebody who I felt was at times misunderstood, and to attempt to question what we were 'sold to believe' (as I feel we always must when faced with a heavily biased media). Morrissey very kindly agreed to an interview with me. I came away from his responses having a greater sense of the man himself, and of where he was coming from - his words often insightful, at times humorous but always honest. For that, I thank him.

Here is the interview in full.


Media coverage:


Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
V

vegan.cro spirit# 453

Guest
You can be sure in the knowledge that even autistic people who can't speak are still more able than Vegan.Cro. I feel sorry for the poor bastard to be fair.


WTF? It seems to produce agglomeration.:crazy:[/QUOTE]

Haven't you got spastics to smite before you waste my time c***lips?[/QUOTE]


WTF? Like galvanism? Like Dr Frankenstein???:crazy:
 

joe frady

Vile Refusenik
If 'we' are going to start banning & burning (as opposed to virtue-signalling-tweeting-online-promo) ~ where does one begin? Or end?

How about men who have actually done terrible things, as opposed to saying them?
So should we then redact John Winston Lennon, who beat up every woman he ever slept with...?

.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh Dodwell
You tried to do so well
But it's all turned to hell
And you've not done well
Bring back Der Spiegel

Benny-the-British-Butcher :greatbritain::knife:
 

g23

Always crashing in the same car
If 'we' are going to start banning & burning (as opposed to virtue-signalling-tweeting-online-promo) ~ where does one begin? Or end?

How about men who have actually done terrible things, as opposed to saying them?
So should we then redact John Winston Lennon, who beat up every woman he ever slept with...?

.
Sure. I've written off Lennon for decades and laughed at all of the hippies who swallowed his brand of peace, love, and woman beating.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If 'we' are going to start banning & burning (as opposed to virtue-signalling-tweeting-online-promo) ~ where does one begin? Or end?

How about men who have actually done terrible things, as opposed to saying them?
So should we then redact John Winston Lennon, who beat up every woman he ever slept with...?

I believe he hit and was generally abusive to his first wife, rather than every woman he ever slept with.

But, in answer to your question, I believe we will probably carry on making our own individual decisions about how we feel about various things, what we wish to approve and disapprove of, and how we wish to spend our own money. And yawning at hysterical, overblown moral panic about this being the first step on the road to totalitarianism. Pretty much just as we always have done.
 

reelfountain

On Timeout
and Islam is a religion not a race. The term racist is sinking Europe. One little word has cost Europe their identity, money , safety , housing, and has changed some innocent woman's lives forever. Use it if it makes you feel better Europe, we rarely us the word in USA. it would be really weird to call someone racist.
In England we love the term racist. It's actually quite an obsession.
You don't like the Pakistani paedo rape gangs that are growing in every UK city?
You're a racist.
Don't like the fact the whole thing was hushed up for years?
Racist!

Don't like how a man who drew attention to the sheer scale of the problem has now been silenced and thrown in prison?
Evil fascist RACIST!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ffs

Get a grip peeps we are all adults - god in years to come is this going be the equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis near miss when 2 folk boycotts the Moz ban and bought 2 vinyl singles on the dark web. All this over the top condemnation of one man who has no real power though in his mind he does.

I agree. He hasn’t committed a crime or drug be anything illegal like many artists. Hasn’t hit any women like Lennon never molested anyone like glitter or iggy never sold drugs like so many hip hop artists or called someone a racial epitaph like Costello but here’s where people make a stand. All he did was say who he’s voting for and that someone was treated unfairly by the media
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sure. I've written off Lennon for decades and laughed at all of the hippies who swallowed his brand of peace, love, and woman beating.

What about iggy pop. Should he be banned by stores
 

StalinsPipe

Well-Known Member
Actually Robinson is locked up illegally. He was denied his own legal counsel. When they contacted the police to represent him they were told not to bother as he was about to be released. They lied and used a duty solicitor. Then reporting was blocked on the incident for several days. The whole thing is so obvious. He became an irritant to the government's enforced diversity agenda and has been shut away because of this. It's a tactic those socialists you love so much used to do in Soviet Russia.
Also 'contempt of court' is a catch all. It can mean anything. So that's what they used. On the live feed TR only mentioned info that was already in the public domain (local papers etc had released names and even addresses of all the suspects in court etc).
It's funny how so many on the left are now sounding like Tories saying, 'He broke the law, British justice, best in the world etc. It's laughable. We all know how petty the government/system can be when you draw attention to something they'd rather have swept under the carpet. They'll come for you with any excuse.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tommy-robinson-arrest/

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

Excerpt:
UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:

11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

The barrister previously instructed by Yaxley-Lennon has confirmed that she was not present at court for these proceedings. She is understandably declining to comment further unless or until authorised to do so. But in any case, Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, this professional prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.

12. No trial has ever taken place on the same day as a suspect’s arrest, oh FAKE LAWYER. This was special treatment dished out to a man who is a thorn in the side of the establishment. What do you say about that?

If we were talking about jury trials, I’d agree with you. But Yaxley-Lennon was not “tried”. The contempt proceedings were held on the same day, as is entirely standard (see details of the summary procedure for contempt above), and he admitted that he was in contempt of court. There is no special treatment here whatsoever. Anyone, infamous far-right totem or otherwise, would have been subject to the exact same process for contempt in breaching a reporting restriction. Not everyone would have been sent straight to prison; but then not everyone has a suspended sentence hanging over them for a near-identical offence.

13. I’ve seen a photo of the judge who sentenced Tommy watching his arrest from inside the court building. This judge was biased.

Even supposing the photograph shows what it is said to show, this is entirely irrelevant. If, as has happened in one of my cases, a member of the public starts shouting out at a judge mid-proceedings, the judge may direct the arrest of that person, and deal with them immediately for the contempt. Witnessing the arrest of an individual does not preclude a judge from dealing with that individual in these circumstances. This is, again, a complaint devoid of argument.

14. But the BBC reported on the same trial that Tommy did, and they’re not in prison. Why not?

Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So. Is there any truth to the rumour that the spirit of Mark E Smith has entered Morrissey?

It might explain the random bouts of bollocks coming out of his mouth recently!
 
W

WillieShakes

Guest
He could have said, 'Sometimes I eat vegan, sometimes I'm vegetarian', but he can't do that because he made a big thing of being vegan on Larry King and waving around his vegan Stella McCartney shoe, so he knows he would look like a hypocritical twat.
You speak as if you have some kind of magical insight into his mind. It couldn't have been the 2015 Larry King interview that induced him to reject these labels, because he said the exact same thing in a 2006 interview with Russell Brand. The time-stamp is about 8:57
 

reelfountain

On Timeout
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tommy-robinson-arrest/

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

Excerpt:
UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:

11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

The barrister previously instructed by Yaxley-Lennon has confirmed that she was not present at court for these proceedings. She is understandably declining to comment further unless or until authorised to do so. But in any case, Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, this professional prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.

12. No trial has ever taken place on the same day as a suspect’s arrest, oh FAKE LAWYER. This was special treatment dished out to a man who is a thorn in the side of the establishment. What do you say about that?

If we were talking about jury trials, I’d agree with you. But Yaxley-Lennon was not “tried”. The contempt proceedings were held on the same day, as is entirely standard (see details of the summary procedure for contempt above), and he admitted that he was in contempt of court. There is no special treatment here whatsoever. Anyone, infamous far-right totem or otherwise, would have been subject to the exact same process for contempt in breaching a reporting restriction. Not everyone would have been sent straight to prison; but then not everyone has a suspended sentence hanging over them for a near-identical offence.

13. I’ve seen a photo of the judge who sentenced Tommy watching his arrest from inside the court building. This judge was biased.

Even supposing the photograph shows what it is said to show, this is entirely irrelevant. If, as has happened in one of my cases, a member of the public starts shouting out at a judge mid-proceedings, the judge may direct the arrest of that person, and deal with them immediately for the contempt. Witnessing the arrest of an individual does not preclude a judge from dealing with that individual in these circumstances. This is, again, a complaint devoid of argument.

14. But the BBC reported on the same trial that Tommy did, and they’re not in prison. Why not?

Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions.
What a load of bollocks.
Being a socialist you know well how this game works.
Arrested for breach of the peace, then up in court for contempt of court?
The whole thing is a blatantly obvious stitch-up.
 

reelfountain

On Timeout
I love it. A barrister describes the legal ins and outs for you, and you're still clinging on to conspiracy theories. I pity you.
A barrister? You mean one of those nonce-types in a wig? Ah, it must be all true then as barristers never lie ever.
As a Marxist who wants to overthrow the system you're suddenly an upstanding supporter of British justice now? You lefties make me laugh.
 

Carly

Active Member
He still doesn't say he's a vegan only that being a vegan is hard and that you have to spend more and seek out speciality food and clothes using his faux leather shoe as an example and that even then people will suspect you. Sure I could see how people could read into that but morrissey has never been the most direct person when speaking. When he does state clearly his opinions or stance some still find some sort of fault. He's got faults but this isn't one

You see what people aren't getting, is that Morrissey loves pointing out people's faults when it comes to animal products, thats the reason he gets scrutinized about it. One rule for ol' mozza and another for everyone else.
 

E Scott

Well-Known Member
I'm happy to chew the cud even belch my anger and disappointment at this situation. But really in the scheme of things we musn't lose perpective. I will though continue to at least in here poke a few bears with big sticks.


I agree. He hasn’t committed a crime or drug be anything illegal like many artists. Hasn’t hit any women like Lennon never molested anyone like glitter or iggy never sold drugs like so many hip hop artists or called someone a racial epitaph like Costello but here’s where people make a stand. All he did was say who he’s voting for and that someone was treated unfairly by the media
 

StalinsPipe

Well-Known Member
A barrister? You mean one of those nonce-types in a wig? Ah, it must be all true then as barristers never lie ever.
As a Marxist who wants to overthrow the system you're suddenly an upstanding supporter of British justice now? You lefties make me laugh.

Yes, you are correct, I would like to overthrow the system. But, who would I rather trust? A racist conspiracy theorist, or someone who has trained for years and worked an assortment of legal cases.

Either way, Tommy broke a law. I don't agree with all laws, but the laws which Robinson broke are in place so the integrity of cases can't be damaged. As I said before, contempt of court can lead to mistrial, which can lead to dangerous offenders being set free on the streets.
 
Tags
fiona dodwell this is morrissey info

Trending Threads

Top Bottom