Fiona Dodwell interview - Felten Ink (Jan. 30, 2020)

On Mozza: "He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own"

I saw interview on Fiona dodwell about her writing and they ended asking some questions about why she likes Mozza and why she would still support him, and I think it hits the nail on the head for a lot of fans who still stand by Morrissey, so thought worth sharing

Link to the full thing is here

FIONA DODWELL: “INEXPLICABLE EVENTS HAVE PROBABLY PLANTED LITTLE SEEDS OF INSPIRATION.” - Felten Ink

I have to ask you about Morrissey, after all, you drew my attention with your interviews and I’ve been following you on social media ever since. What do you think that’s so divisive about him among people?

I think Morrissey is seen by some as a “divisive” figure because there simply is no one else out there like him, being so truthful, so open, so willing to discuss things that others won’t. He doesn’t pander to the press, he doesn’t bind himself to the apparent “boundaries” that other artists apply themselves to (out of fear of being controversial or opinionated). He is a rarity, a non-conformist, and because of that, people are sometimes shocked. Wow – a singer with an opinion? Aren’t they just supposed to stand there and inoffensively nod along? No, Morrissey has never been like that and it’s one of the reasons I admire him. There are few like him out there, we should treasure the braver souls amongst us.

What was the initial attraction for you?

First and foremost it’s about the music. That’s the main thing. He is an absolutely outstanding artist, entirely in a league of his own. I know I have spent many years with his music as the “backdrop” to my daily life and so his lyrics, his albums, are very special to me. Then, as we discussed above, there is his confidence and willingness to be bold and strong in the face of some really bad treatment from the mainstream media. That’s something I admire, more than I can express. I get bored of people who try to blend in, or who baulk at the idea of standing-out. It excites me when I see somebody who is willing to go against the grain, and let’s face it, Morrissey does this often. Alongside all of this, I’ve always admired his stance on animal rights.

Why do you think certain elements of the press now take such an unfavourable stance towards him?

I think it’s a combination of lazy journalism, lazy thinking and the hunger to be seen as “politically correct” in a climate where being offended is the fashion. Rarely does the mainstream press actually stop and examine why Morrissey says what he says, they just seem to take a line or two and then run away with their own story.

I find myself agreeing with him more than anything else, but I’d be appalled to be labelled ‘far right’…

It’s the names and labels that do the most damage. If you call somebody “far right” or “racist” then you have blocked the debate at hand, and stopped people examining the specific issues that are being discussed. Plenty of times, Morrissey has made valid points or issues that are relevant, yet what he says isn’t dissected, it’s people’s opinions about what he says that are instead dissected. Why are the mainstream so afraid of actually discussing what he says with level-headedness? Why does everything have to come down to name-calling, immature headlines and mud-slinging? Nobody needs to agree with what another says to at least respectfully hear them out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E Scott

Well-Known Member
He was moaning because the nation he LOVED was being dismantled. Didn’t you notice?

“English heart”, for Christ’s sake.
We obviously have different interpretation of what is a patriot. I think it is someone who loves their country and community who doesn't want to leave it. Will stay and work hard through thick and thin; change things they are not happy about and fight for things they care about.They are not necessarily the chest beaters of history A patriot is not someone who mentions English heart in a one off song then buggers off to Lausanne for tax reasons.
 
Last edited:

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
You refused to curse Islam. You failed the test.

He's not the only person in the world who isn't going to 'curse' an entire religion. Even Morrissey isn't doing that, so you'd have to claim he was Skinny if he ever allowed comments on central.
 
D

Deleted member 28251

Guest
We obviously have different interpretation of what is a patriot. I think it is someone who loves their country and community who doesn't want to leave it. Will stay and work hard to change things they are not happy about and fight for things they care about. Not someone who mentions English heart in a one off song then buggers off to Lausanne for tax reasons.
In that case, stick a picture of Maggie Thatcher and Cromwell on your wall and forget the day you ever chanced upon Morrissey.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Skinny, you know you are woke and dont accept specieism.

I'm extremely anti-woke. It's eating the left from the inside.

But no, I'm not a full-on Animal Liberationist. I think it's unworkable politically. I care about animal welfare & rights though.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
In that case, stick a picture of Maggie Thatcher and Cromwell on your wall and forget the day you ever chanced upon Morrissey.

Morrissey's too conflicted to be a campaigner - you need a grand idea that doesn't worry about minor things like facts & reality.

Morrissey's grand ideas are: be a singer, liberate animals & Be British. He could easily have gone the other way & banged on about being Irish (which I think he should do immediately just to get the media heat off his back).
 

E Scott

Well-Known Member
I think Morrissey strength in the past was through his music is understanding a specific part of his personal cultural identity. He did have a great sense of time and place in his music and he is well read.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Morrissey's too conflicted to be a campaigner - you need a grand idea that doesn't worry about minor things like facts & reality.

Morrissey's grand ideas are: be a singer, liberate animals & Be British. He could easily have gone the other way & banged on about being Irish (which I think he should do immediately just to get the media heat off his back).

So, these ads on behalf of Peta, LP titles, merch - this to you is NOT campaigning?

Oh, and for the record Morrissey's is fixated with England and Englishness.

Morrissey WILL apply for Irish citizenship (if he hasn't already). The vast majority of the Brexit brigade could apply for dual citizenship - even Farage and Johnson.

Like you Morrissey has no need for facts or reality.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Morrissey is not a bigot or a racist, he's just wandered onto the battlefield of identity politics with the wrong weapons & no plan & without knowing that's the battle.

The only thing he's entirely wrong about is For Britain. If he's got any sense he will make it clear that he's not a member, has not voted for them & no longer supports them.

And though he hates labels, he really should remind the media that he's from a marginal, oppressed, immigrant, working-class, community & he's not in the gender or sexual or mental health mainstream.

Because I was listening to some god awful middle-class white male Public School, married with kids, C of E, Oxford grad 'left-winger' slag him off & it annoyed the hell out of me.

Wow! You're claiming either ignorance or stupidity as his excuse? And you call yourself a fan?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They made remarks about looks & called me shrill. They think it's not sexist, I think it is.

https://time.com/4268325/history-calling-women-shrill/

This is classic distraction. Nerak has wilfully chosen to misquote the user to create her false impression. This is what is so tastless and devious. A quick glance at the discussion outs Nerak. Silly.

Shrill: "(of a voice or sound) high-pitched and piercing. NB. not female sound or voice

The word shrill was not used within the comment that Nerak alleges to be sexist. The user asked Nerak to clarify her sexist allegation - she now claims female appearance. Everyone has a fizzog.

This level of dog whistling is quite dangerous. By all means call out sexism but do have a semblance of what it actually is and not what you believe it to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
IP Hash: 268e0baf1b

Really can't be arsed answering any of your trolling garbage... it might help if you could learn to sum it all up in one post instead of the usual 3 or 4 a night.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, you actually did provide further info and I should have acknowledged that. We're not going to agree on this issue but I don't just look for a way to attack you.
See, Stephen Hoffman thought he saw me disagreeing with you and felt I was on his side. Pippistrella thinks I'm on "the opposite side" to her. That's because they're both afflicted with the idea that every issue has two sides.
Now, in fact I'd be more likely to share the views that you claim to. But I've had too many friends who have been victimized as children and young teens and I've met my share of creeps as well growing up. That's why I'm vehemently against this Tatchell character and why I nearly went off Morrissey for good over his stupid "where were the parents?" line.
Anyone who excuses in any way the sexual exploitation of children and young people is not just stating an opinion but they are making it harder for people to speak up about their experiences. Then when people don't speak about their experiences for years or even decades they are questioned about why they waited so long.
Now, on a slightly different subject, people like Stephen Hoffman insist that gay men want to exploit children. That's his own ignorance but because this is one of the points that is used to try to prevent equal rights and, as Pippistrella puts it, to turn back the clock, this makes someone like Tatchell even more problematic and less acceptable as a spokesman for gay rights, even if he "now thinks he was wrong."
I am not asking you to throw him under the bus. I'm saying that he is an unfortunate choice for you to champion, and that even though I am "on your side" as opposed to the side of Pippistrella and Stephen Hoffman, I can't truly be on your side if Tatchell is also on your side.
I know that won't break your heart of anything. The point is it does matter that he wrote what he wrote, whether he believes it now or not.
It's not homophobic to have an issue with what he's saying.
Pipistrella claims that anytime someone is ignorant, racist or homophobic I accuse them of being ignorant, racist or homophobic, and she may have a point.
But I think you're actually doing that when you declare homophobia as the reason someone would hold Tatchell in contempt. I'm not homophobic. But when men are talking about how all of these unnamed people claim to have had sex with adults as children and find it to have been a beautiful experience :barf: I see that as a danger to children and to adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
I know it was "a debate that was happening at the time" but if he knows what he claims to have known then I don't see how it could have changed. It's all too convenient. And I'm not saying he is a pedo. But he does come with baggage that can't be discarded by calling someone a homophobe, even if they happen to be a homophobe.

Tatchell is an agitator. The direct action he has involved himself with has brought positive change to the lives of LGBT people in the UK whether LGBT people are aware of it or not.

Saying that, his tone and language has, on more than one occasion, raised my hackles.

Language is key when discussing this issue and hatemongers often refer to children or young men/women to weaponise their arguments. This allows them disguise the fact that these children, these young men/women are in fact adults - over 16 (UK).

This infantalisation is endemic in most news or other reports (and society as a whole). The media colludes and we begin to believe until we find out the girl/boy was actually a young woman/man and not as child as reported.
This is extenuated further when applied to gay men with the intention of polarising opinion. Stories of gay men having sex with 'boys' when the boy is in fact 19 years of age or young man when he is in fact 23. It has worked very successfully for those opposed to same sex relationships and they are not about to change any time soon.

The homophobic, paedophile obsessed Hofmann and the homohobic Pipistrella use this infantalism to their advantage promoting and feeding into a culture of mistrust and fear.

People of all ages, of all sexualities, of all genders should feel able to come forward to report what they believe to be a crime commited against them. Unfortunately, many of those who experience sexual abuse, gender abuse, identity abuse or LGBT abuse fail to report their experience. This is largely due to how they believe they will be perceived by police, social services and the legal system - should it get that far. I have been in this situation.
The perpetrator (bastard) was eventually convicted of hate related attempted murder. Almost four years of my life were all but lost to fighting this in the courts.
I received little support from so called support agencies and remain thankful to those friends who stood by me throughout. I understand why people choose not to report these types of crimes and given the current system I don't blame them.

People like Hofmann/Pipistrella make that fear a reality. Hatred has capitalised the internet in a way that tolerance hasn't and never will. People, in general, are accepting of hateful content, some challenge it but they are very much in the minority.

To me it is incomprehensible that people like Hofmann/Pipistrella who hold views that negatively impact on how Morrissey lives his life choose to be here abd are 'allowed' to remain here.

There are 2 self-confessed homophobes in this forum and the overall response is a disinterested shrug of the shoulders. Why are they so accepted? They are accepted because the norm on platforms is hatred.
Isn't that disheartening? Apparently not.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
IP Hash: 268e0baf1b

Really can't be arsed answering any of your trolling garbage... it might help if you could learn to sum it all up in one post instead of the usual 3 or 4 a night.

Distraction. The fact is you know the points raised are reasonable and fair. Can I ascertain from your response that you'll be limiting yourself to 3 to 4 responses per night?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
IP Hash: 268e0baf1b

Really can't be arsed answering any of your trolling garbage... it might help if you could learn to sum it all up in one post instead of the usual 3 or 4 a night.

Temper. Temper. It's unseemly.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
if reasonable & fair meant trolling garbage, then yes.

And I will confine myself to responding to you no times on any night from now on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Below is the comment from the user that Nerak consistently claims to be sexist. You’ll notice that despite Nerak’s later addition of the word shrill, shrill does not appear in the disputed comment. She has also alleged that the disputed comment contained a sexist remark about her appearance? There is a comment about appearance but it’s in no way sexist.

BS? Brilliantly said? What's this and a Mirror? You haven't broken another one with your fizzog have you?

Nerak responded to the users with the comment below. It contains an ageist comment and an unfounded allegation of sexism.

Troll away, you boring old sexist.

The user asked Nerak to explain why she had made her sexist allegation.

Explain what was sexist about that comment? I can put you in the direction of an ageist comment.

Nerak got shirty, put the user on ignore, and continued to misrepresent what was said in order to substantiate her actions.

Nerak wonders why some people think she is actually the troll Reelfountain in disguise.

There are a number of reasons that I can determine but here are just 2 examples:

  1. The actions above are exactly what Reelfountain would do i.e. engage in conversation, make unfounded allegations, block the user and then continue to rubbish them in the forum.
  2. The role of IP hash monitor was a common Reelfountain predilection. When annoyed Reelfountain would announce the block and then publish the IP hash. Sound familiar?
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Tatchell is an agitator. The direct action he has involved himself with has brought positive change to the lives of LGBT people in the UK whether LGBT people are aware of it or not.

Saying that, his tone and language has, on more than one occasion, raised my hackles.

Language is key when discussing this issue and hatemongers often refer to children or young men/women to weaponise their arguments. This allows them disguise the fact that these children, these young men/women are in fact adults - over 16 (UK).

This infantalisation is endemic in most news or other reports (and society as a whole). The media colludes and we begin to believe until we find out the girl/boy was actually a young woman/man and not as child as reported.
This is extenuated further when applied to gay men with the intention of polarising opinion. Stories of gay men having sex with 'boys' when the boy is in fact 19 years of age or young man when he is in fact 23. It has worked very successfully for those opposed to same sex relationships and they are not about to change any time soon.

The homophobic, paedophile obsessed Hofmann and the homohobic Pipistrella use this infantalism to their advantage promoting and feeding into a culture of mistrust and fear.

People of all ages, of all sexualities, of all genders should feel able to come forward to report what they believe to be a crime commited against them. Unfortunately, many of those who experience sexual abuse, gender abuse, identity abuse or LGBT abuse fail to report their experience. This is largely due to how they believe they will be perceived by police, social services and the legal system - should it get that far. I have been in this situation.
The perpetrator (bastard) was eventually convicted of hate related attempted murder. Almost four years of my life were all but lost to fighting this in the courts.
I received little support from so called support agencies and remain thankful to those friends who stood by me throughout. I understand why people choose not to report these types of crimes and given the current system I don't blame them.

People like Hofmann/Pipistrella make that fear a reality. Hatred has capitalised the internet in a way that tolerance hasn't and never will. People, in general, are accepting of hateful content, some challenge it but they are very much in the minority.

To me it is incomprehensible that people like Hofmann/Pipistrella who hold views that negatively impact on how Morrissey lives his life choose to be here abd are 'allowed' to remain here.

There are 2 self-confessed homophobes in this forum and the overall response is a disinterested shrug of the shoulders. Why are they so accepted? They are accepted because the norm on platforms is hatred.
Isn't that disheartening? Apparently not.

No, I agree for the most part. I'm getting tired of discussing Tatchell every day but I will say this. While you're correct that Stephen Hoffman's posts broke down into nothing at the end Tatchell's quote mentions children as young as 9 so it provides plenty of fuel for anyone wishing to talk about young people. Of course anyone of the age of consent should be able to have sex with others of the age of consent.
The letter was painting a sunny picture of 9 year old children having sex with adults. My point is that regardless of motive you can't just call someone homophobic for bringing that up even if they give clear evidence elsewhere. It makes a handy weapon for homophobic people that would like to use to discredit Tatchell and his work in human rights. That is certainly inconvenient for those who value his work and support equality. I will take your word that he is a valuable asset in the fight for equality and at the same time I will not dismiss what he wrote. Do you see how he is also a liability? He gives people who are too dull and simple to come up with a real argument against equality this one sentence to discredit him, and then when the movement supports him, to also discredit the movement by association. It helps them sell lies and the real battle here is for the minds of the general public, not the LGBTQ-friendly or those like Pippistrella who get excited at the idea of turning back the clock. Those minds are made up. It's the people that are still unsure or think that it has nothing to do with them whose opinions matter in this.
The bottom line is that he can be both an asset and a liability and when his past statement is brought up it doesn't help to attack those who mentioned it.
 
Tags
fiona dodwell

Trending Threads

Top Bottom