How many people supported Mike Joyce's claim at the trial?

[Cornflakes]

Yes. It's astonishing that Weeks felt smug enough to call Joyce and Rourke simpletons (unintellectual) and Marr and Morrissey, liars (the former, one who "embroidered the truth" and the latter "devious").

No matter your opinion on who was entitled to what, it was a rare public airing of private bias.

It speaks as much about him as it does the grieving parties and respondents.

"Devious, truculent and unreliable" is a bit strong, but it's legitimately part of the judge's role in a case like this to make judgements about the reliability of the people giving evidence. If Morrissey was shifty and told porkies during the trial (ie his evidence was contradicted by other evidence), then maybe the description was warranted. I wasn't there so I don't know. But, lets face it, it's not unimaginable.

 

[Judge Judy]

Then there's the apparent fact that no one says these things are untrue; they just think the judge was mean to say them aloud in a public.

 

[Quando quando quando]

Then there's the apparent fact that no one says these things are untrue; they just think the judge was mean to say them aloud in a public.

Then there is the fact that many say these things are untrue, they just think the judge was biased and incapable, and the arguments whereupon the verdict rests were weak and by stating his opinion about Moz tried to give them more value. The judge could and should leave it with the verdict and the arguments it was based on. He undermined one of the principles a judge should be objective, not taken any sides and in doing so he has damaged the trust in justice.

 

[Judge Judy]

Then there is the fact that many say these things are untrue, they just think the judge was biased and incapable, and the arguments whereupon the verdict rests were weak and by stating his opinion about Moz tried to give them more value. The judge could and should leave it with the verdict and the arguments it was based on. He undermined one of the principles a judge should be objective, not taken any sides and in doing so he has damaged the trust in justice.

You think that a judge "should be objective, should not take any sides"? Really? A judge should not take sides? Here I was thinking that the entire purpose of a judge was to judge, judgmental as that may be. All judges have bias and always have. But the important thing is that the judge's comments were not about anything Morrissey said or did outside of the scope of the trial. If the Judge happened to have been a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher and had mentioned Morrissey's lyrical wish to see her put to death, that would be bias. But everyone that enters a courtroom is absolutely judged on the way in which they behave and answer questions, and not just on their actual answers.
I don't think it damaged Morrissey's own trust in the British legal system. After all he went on to successfully sue the NME for implying he was a racist.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it damaged Morrissey's own trust in the British legal system. After all he went on to successfully sue the NME for implying he was a racist.

If your idea of successful suing is not taking the case to court once you get advice that you don't have a leg to stand on, then yes.

 

[Quando quando quando]

You think that a judge "should be objective, should not take any sides"? Really? A judge should not take sides? Here I was thinking that the entire purpose of a judge was to judge, judgmental as that may be. All judges have bias and always have. But the important thing is that the judge's comments were not about anything Morrissey said or did outside of the scope of the trial. If the Judge happened to have been a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher and had mentioned Morrissey's lyrical wish to see her put to death, that would be bias. But everyone that enters a courtroom is absolutely judged on the way in which they behave and answer questions, and not just on their actual answers.
I don't think it damaged Morrissey's own trust in the British legal system. After all he went on to successfully sue the NME for implying he was a racist.

"You think that a judge "should be objective, should not take any sides"? Really? A judge should not take sides?"
To answer your question: Yes.
Of course he has to judge. Make a decision and state the arguments, the facts for it, in the verdict, as he sees them. But to explicitly call Moz, devious, truculent and unreliable was completely unnecessary.
And suggests that all info, testimonies, who said what and whatever were not convincing enough.
As the main issue was there was no written contract with the autographs of the participants, and the evidence of a verbal (gentleman's) agreement could not be established, as it was denied or not remembered (after so many years), why couldn't it be left at that? It was, to me the only argument that made any sense at all.

About Moz successfully suing NME for implying he was a racist, proving he still had trust in the British legal system, what other option did he have?
Just let it pass, and consequently let anybody say whatever they wanted about him?

 

[Cornflakes]

As the main issue was there was no written contract with the autographs of the participants, and the evidence of a verbal (gentleman's) agreement could not be established, as it was denied or not remembered (after so many years), why couldn't it be left at that?

Because the judgment is supposed to be comprehensive and address every argument and every bit of evidence that has been put before the court. If Morrissey said things during the course of the trial that he didn't believe were true, he was duty-bound to say that and explain why. That's his job. If judges didn't do that, every case would get appealed. Whether it was appropriate to put it in such strong terms is, though, hard to say without having been there.

 

[Judge Judy]

"You think that a judge "should be objective, should not take any sides"? Really? A judge should not take sides?"
To answer your question: Yes.
Of course he has to judge. Make a decision and state the arguments, the facts for it, in the verdict, as he sees them. But to explicitly call Moz, devious, truculent and unreliable was completely unnecessary.
And suggests that all info, testimonies, who said what and whatever were not convincing enough.
As the main issue was there was no written contract with the autographs of the participants, and the evidence of a verbal (gentleman's) agreement could not be established, as it was denied or not remembered (after so many years), why couldn't it be left at that? It was, to me the only argument that made any sense at all.

About Moz successfully suing NME for implying he was a racist, proving he still had trust in the British legal system, what other option did he have?
Just let it pass, and consequently let anybody say whatever they wanted about him?

Of course the judge's comments were unnecessary. He could have sat there quietly for the whole trial and had the bailiff read his verdict. And if you think a judge should not take sides I don't know what to say. That's what they are there for. They listen to both sides and render a verdict. His comments about Joyce and Rourke were not flattering either. The judge is not supposed to have a bias at the beginning of the trial. However, during the course of the trial it is the duty of the judge to form an opinion.
My opinion of you is that you are exceedingly diplomatic and generally hesitate to write a harsh word against anyone. If you were the judge you would have handled it differently. But again, for the fourth time, different judges have different philosophies and that is actually an important part of the system. Whatever your opinion on that, it doesn't affect the verdict.
Again, the judge's comments were based on what he witnessed in the courtroom. Maybe your opinion is different and that's fantastic, literally, in the sense that it doesn't affect events in the real world at all.

I didn't criticize Morrissey's decision to contest the statements made about him by the NME. I just meant that if he truly had no faith in the British justice system he wouldn't have considered filing a case.

If your idea of successful suing is not taking the case to court once you get advice that you don't have a leg to stand on, then yes.

He was granted permission to continue his action for libel. He got an apology and called it a victory. The apology was worded in the classic "sorry if I offended anyone" style and did not actually admit any wrongdoing. The wording of the article was not changed. Both sides saved face. I agree with you if what you're saying is that the implications made by the NME are backed up by Morrissey's own words in the article, especially the part about the "floodgates" of immigration. But being devious, truculent, and unreliable Morrissey still found cause to claim victory.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Because the judgment is supposed to be comprehensive and address every argument and every bit of evidence that has been put before the court. If Morrissey said things during the course of the trial that he didn't believe were true, he was duty-bound to say that and explain why. That's his job. If judges didn't do that, every case would get appealed. Whether it was appropriate to put it in such strong terms is, though, hard to say without having been there.

just think it should be a part of a judges duty to leave his verdict and judgment of the case in a more balanced
way. I could only imagine a judge saying what he did if M lunged over the bench and pulled the judges wig off or whatever, then I can see him feeling a little cross and ending his verdict with such words.

 

[Cornflakes]

just think it should be a part of a judges duty to leave his verdict and judgment of the case in a more balanced
way. I could only imagine a judge saying what he did if M lunged over the bench and pulled the judges wig off or whatever, then I can see him feeling a little cross and ending his verdict with such words.

Possibly. But, like I say, neither of us were there.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Possibly. But, like I say, neither of us were there.

so maybe M did lunge over the bench and pull Week's wig off !? I hope so.

 

[Cornflakes]

so maybe M did lunge over the bench and pull Week's wig off !? I hope so.

Surely not. In that case he would have said "devious, truculent and now the proud owner of a slightly used horsehair wig".

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Of course the judge's comments were unnecessary. He could have sat there quietly for the whole trial and had the bailiff read his verdict. And if you think a judge should not take sides I don't know what to say. That's what they are there for. They listen to both sides and render a verdict. His comments about Joyce and Rourke were not flattering either. The judge is not supposed to have a bias at the beginning of the trial. However, during the course of the trial it is the duty of the judge to form an opinion.
My opinion of you is that you are exceedingly diplomatic and generally hesitate to write a harsh word against anyone. If you were the judge you would have handled it differently. But again, for the fourth time, different judges have different philosophies and that is actually an important part of the system. Whatever your opinion on that, it doesn't affect the verdict.
Again, the judge's comments were based on what he witnessed in the courtroom. Maybe your opinion is different and that's fantastic, literally, in the sense that it doesn't affect events in the real world at all.

I didn't criticize Morrissey's decision to contest the statements made about him by the NME. I just meant that if he truly had no faith in the British justice system he wouldn't have considered filing a case.


He was granted permission to continue his action for libel. He got an apology and called it a victory. The apology was worded in the classic "sorry if I offended anyone" style and did not actually admit any wrongdoing. The wording of the article was not changed. Both sides saved face. I agree with you if what you're saying is that the implications made by the NME are backed up by Morrissey's own words in the article, especially the part about the "floodgates" of immigration. But being devious, truculent, and unreliable Morrissey still found cause to claim victory.

'Again, the judge's comments were based on what he witnessed in the courtroom.'

We would like to assume this is the case, and we hope so. But I feel it would be a bit naive to think that this judge wasn't tipped off to M's beliefs and views.

'Maybe your opinion is different and that's fantastic, literally, in the sense that it doesn't affect events in the real world at all.'

Really? you don't think different views can shape peoples beliefs (for better or worse) and therefor shape the real world ?

 

[Quando quando quando]

Of course the judge's comments were unnecessary. He could have sat there quietly for the whole trial and had the bailiff read his verdict. And if you think a judge should not take sides I don't know what to say. That's what they are there for. They listen to both sides and render a verdict. His comments about Joyce and Rourke were not flattering either. The judge is not supposed to have a bias at the beginning of the trial. However, during the course of the trial it is the duty of the judge to form an opinion.
My opinion of you is that you are exceedingly diplomatic and generally hesitate to write a harsh word against anyone. If you were the judge you would have handled it differently. But again, for the fourth time, different judges have different philosophies and that is actually an important part of the system. Whatever your opinion on that, it doesn't affect the verdict.
Again, the judge's comments were based on what he witnessed in the courtroom. Maybe your opinion is different and that's fantastic, literally, in the sense that it doesn't affect events in the real world at all.

I didn't criticize Morrissey's decision to contest the statements made about him by the NME. I just meant that if he truly had no faith in the British justice system he wouldn't have considered filing a case.


He was granted permission to continue his action for libel. He got an apology and called it a victory. The apology was worded in the classic "sorry if I offended anyone" style and did not actually admit any wrongdoing. The wording of the article was not changed. Both sides saved face. I agree with you if what you're saying is that the implications made by the NME are backed up by Morrissey's own words in the article, especially the part about the "floodgates" of immigration. But being devious, truculent, and unreliable Morrissey still found cause to claim victory.

"My opinion of you is that you are exceedingly diplomatic and generally hesitate to write a harsh word against anyone".
Thanks for that, I consider it as a compliment but the exceeding bit is indeed the weak part.
But I feel it is true.
I just still dislike the comments of the judge and if there could be such great differences between the verdicts of 4 different judges, and if it all boils down to how 4 different judges would interprete the law, I'd say it becomes something like a lottery. With a great chance of injustice being done.

And, whatever happened, the comments were very hurtful and damaging to Morrissey personal, and to his integrity as an artist.
It has put a label on him and it will be used against him forever.

Are you sure you were not at least a bit influenced by them as well and when you see any controversy regarding Moz allways thinking about that? I mean, due to those words, chance of Moz getting a fair judging by people has been minimalized.

Now, I don't think he cares anymore cause it's too much time and money consuming and the only ones who profit are lawyers having an interest in making as much money out of it as they can.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

"My opinion of you is that you are exceedingly diplomatic and generally hesitate to write a harsh word against anyone".
Thanks for that, I consider it as a compliment but the exceeding bit is indeed the weak part.
But I feel it is true.
I just still dislike the comments of the judge and if there could be such great differences between the verdicts of 4 different judges, and if it all boils down to how 4 different judges would interprete the law, I'd say it becomes something like a lottery. With a great chance of injustice being done.

And, whatever happened, the comments were very hurtful and damaging to Morrissey personal, and to his integrity as an artist.
It has put a label on him and it will be used against him forever.

Are you sure you were not at least a bit influenced by them as well and when you see any controversy regarding Moz allways thinking about that? I mean, due to those words, chance of Moz getting a fair judging by people has been minimalized.

Now, I don't think he cares anymore cause it's too much time and money consuming and the only ones who profit are lawyers having an interest in making as much money out of it as they can.

'It has put a label on him and it will be used against him forever.

Are you sure you were not at least a bit influenced by them as well and when you see any controversy regarding Moz allways thinking about that? I mean, due to those words, chance of Moz getting a fair judging by people has been minimalized.' ?

'But being devious, truculent, and unreliable Morrissey still found cause to claim victory.' - Judge Judy last line in post #148

 

[Quando quando quando]

'It has put a label on him and it will be used against him forever.

Are you sure you were not at least a bit influenced by them as well and when you see any controversy regarding Moz allways thinking about that? I mean, due to those words, chance of Moz getting a fair judging by people has been minimalized.' ?

'But being devious, truculent, and unreliable Morrissey still found cause to claim victory.' - Judge Judy last line in post #148

Yes, well I was only asking and trying to understand.

 

[Judge Judy]

'Again, the judge's comments were based on what he witnessed in the courtroom.'

We would like to assume this is the case, and we hope so. But I feel it would be a bit naive to think that this judge wasn't tipped off to M's beliefs and views.

I don't know if you're suggesting that Morrissey lost the case because the MI5 passed a note to the judge? I'll choose to believe that is what happened. It's more exciting than believing that Morrissey was just being Morrissey and the judge took offense.

'Maybe your opinion is different and that's fantastic, literally, in the sense that it doesn't affect events in the real world at all.'

Really? you don't think different views can shape peoples beliefs (for better or worse) and therefor shape the real world ?

I don't think any of our present day opinions affect the judge's past verdict.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Yes, well I was only asking and trying to understand.

yes, I was just confirming what you brought up, that right here is a small example, that peoples judgements and choice of words will be colored by that judges unnecessary past comments.

 

[Uncleskinny]

You think that a judge "should be objective, should not take any sides"? Really? A judge should not take sides? Here I was thinking that the entire purpose of a judge was to judge, judgmental as that may be. All judges have bias and always have. But the important thing is that the judge's comments were not about anything Morrissey said or did outside of the scope of the trial. If the Judge happened to have been a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher and had mentioned Morrissey's lyrical wish to see her put to death, that would be bias. But everyone that enters a courtroom is absolutely judged on the way in which they behave and answer questions, and not just on their actual answers.
I don't think it damaged Morrissey's own trust in the British legal system. After all he went on to successfully sue the NME for implying he was a racist.

Oh dear. You are confusing the result with the method. The judge's job, at least in the UK, is to be impartial and objective and consider all evidence in front of him/her. The end result, by definition, is that he/she comes down on one side. Judges do not have bias. If they did, they'd be booted. At least in the UK. What you are doing is retro-fitting the outcomes to your narrative.

 

[manicboy]

Moz & Marr were done in by the judgment. But whatcha gonna do? They're still millionaires but any Smiths fan can tell you Moz/Marr did the heavy lifting while the others did their lesser part. Marr seems to have moved on a bit better but Moz lost more money perhaps? All said, the 90+ pages in the Moz's autobio were overkill.