Mike Joyce interview - Don't Believe The Hype (May 2016)

Mike Joyce Interview - Don't Believe The Hype (May 6, 2016)

Plenty of Smiths content, including the court case:

"The politics of being in a band are scary; nobody knows what is going to happen in the future, and you don’t want to upset your mates. But looking back, it’s an awful lot easier than being in a room with someone in a wig and thinking ‘how did it come to this?’ At the time I didn’t appreciate how serious it was, I didn’t think it would be such a big deal. After the first day, it was all over the newspapers, and it hit home”.

39257_mike-joyce.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But why should he cover his ears during the interview?
I'd rather have him cover his ears during stage performances to avoid tinnitus. I am afraid it's already too late. :(

yeah, I agree , why should he cover his ears? He should cover his mouth. ;)
 
Uh oh, I think your sweetums might just slightly disagree with you.
And some people on this site too. But others would agree.
I don't think he is a bad guy. Nor Moz.
But things happened and maybe without any deliberate intention, really bad things.
That happens when money and lawyers are involved and especially lawyers at both sides have a mutual interest to pursue and to process and to get as much money out of it.

Entitled or not, and name dragged throug the mud, or not, he received a large amount of money in the end.
Oh, how I cried all the way to the bank.

In order to collect the money as was the verdict and because Moz had his assets in the good old U S of A, "the pigs in grey suits persecuting " his mother, " uncivil servants unconcerned at how they frightened " her, " spare priggish money-men who scared the life out of her, bailiffs with bad breath" trying to get her out of her own house just by saying it was owned by Moz and that they were entitled to do so.

Listen to an essential Moz-song: " Mama Lay Softly On The Riverbed ".
Above quotes are from that song. There could be a typo.
Not saying this was Joyce his intention, others will say it was.
There is so much info and opinion about this to find on this site.
Let's just say that bad blood had rised long before the court case.

More myth peddling around Mike trying to kick Morrissey's mum out of 'her' home. But I suppose if you repeat it enough times enough people will believe it.....

Mike's legal bods had a right to go after Morrissey's assets when Morrissey began to play stupid games and avoid paying. However, crafty Morrissey had put the house he owned in Hale or Bowden into his mum's name, so therefore as Morrissey did not legally own the house, Mike's legal bods could not have any claim on it. No attempt was made to force anyone out. Now had Morrissey still had the house in his name that would have been a different matter. But it wasn't. So nothing to see here.....
 
More myth peddling around Mike trying to kick Morrissey's mum out of 'her' home. But I suppose if you repeat it enough times enough people will believe it.....
.

But, aren't Morrissey fans, by extension, supposed to repeat blindly all sorts of BS Morrissey says :) ?
 
More myth peddling around Mike trying to kick Morrissey's mum out of 'her' home. But I suppose if you repeat it enough times enough people will believe it.....

Mike's legal bods had a right to go after Morrissey's assets when Morrissey began to play stupid games and avoid paying. However, crafty Morrissey had put the house he owned in Hale or Bowden into his mum's name, so therefore as Morrissey did not legally own the house, Mike's legal bods could not have any claim on it. No attempt was made to force anyone out. Now had Morrissey still had the house in his name that would have been a different matter. But it wasn't. So nothing to see here.....

I think the point Morrissey was making was about decency and that money was the priority. Whether or not a old women lived there was incidental to recovering money. He could have been sheltering six orphans and still been within his legal rights to go after the house if it was in morrizzeys name but it'd still be in bad taste in terms of decency. I also like how you describe repossessing assets as just standard legal procedure but Morrissey putting the house in his mother's name as a Crafty move
 
He could have been sheltering six orphans and still been within his legal rights to go after the house if it was in morrizzeys name but it'd still be in bad taste in terms of decency. I also like how you describe repossessing assets as just standard legal procedure but Morrissey putting the house in his mother's name as a Crafty move

Well, you seem to ignore the fact Morrissey did/does have way more money to pay off Joyce, than he was entitled to pay, he just didn't WANT to. So in this imaginary case, if he willingly avoids his legal obligation it'd be him putting those orphans in danger, so any decency issue is on him.
 
Well, you seem to ignore the fact Morrissey did/does have way more money to pay off Joyce, than he was entitled to pay, he just didn't WANT to. So in this imaginary case, if he willingly avoids his legal obligation it'd be him putting those orphans in danger, so any decency issue is on him.

Still doesn't make Morrisseys point, that Joyce would take any legal action however indecent as he was obsessed with money, any different. He didn't want to pay as he disagreed with the result which I've no strong opinion on and yes I think people do need to abide by the law but it doesn't make the law or people's use of it any more dignified or moral. It's not like I'm saying he shouldn't go after Morrissey but to want to kick out his mother from her home doesn't sit right even if legal. A lot of imminent domain laws are legal but I don't think them moral or right
 
Still doesn't make Morrisseys point, that Joyce would take any legal action however indecent as he was obsessed with money, any different. He didn't want to pay as he disagreed with the result which I've no strong opinion on and yes I think people do need to abide by the law but it doesn't make the law or people's use of it any more dignified or moral. It's not like I'm saying he shouldn't go after Morrissey but to want to kick out his mother from her home doesn't sit right even if legal. A lot of imminent domain laws are legal but I don't think them moral or right

Can we have that again in English please? There's a point straining to burst through.
 
I think the point Morrissey was making was about decency and that money was the priority. Whether or not a old women lived there was incidental to recovering money. He could have been sheltering six orphans and still been within his legal rights to go after the house if it was in morrizzeys name but it'd still be in bad taste in terms of decency. I also like how you describe repossessing assets as just standard legal procedure but Morrissey putting the house in his mother's name as a Crafty move
Let me get this right. If you steal money from me that is just business but if I sue you to get it back I am a bad person who only cares about money?
And if I win the lawsuit and you start to hide your assets so you don't have to fulfill your legal obligation that is now just business again?
It almost sounds as if you favor one side over the other with no regard to the facts.
 
More myth peddling around Mike trying to kick Morrissey's mum out of 'her' home. But I suppose if you repeat it enough times enough people will believe it.....

Mike's legal bods had a right to go after Morrissey's assets when Morrissey began to play stupid games and avoid paying. However, crafty Morrissey had put the house he owned in Hale or Bowden into his mum's name, so therefore as Morrissey did not legally own the house, Mike's legal bods could not have any claim on it. No attempt was made to force anyone out. Now had Morrissey still had the house in his name that would have been a different matter. But it wasn't. So nothing to see here.....

I did not say Joyce tried to kick his mother out of her home.
But Moz felt it like that cause Mike's legal bods acted on his behalf.
As I said, bad blood had rised at both sides.
I still want to believe Joyce not really intended it.
You are right myths are all around Smiths and Moz. And as others it can be misleading. But still.

I really liked the song Mama Lay Softly On The Riverbed and felt it was an emotional very strong song and still think the emotion, the anger and the passionate drive was true and used as a basis for a memorable and important song.

If you are right, it was all based on fantasy he used to mislead his audience and to create this as a mean to be seen as victim and martyr. I must say I can't believe that.

Moz didn't accept the verdict of a judge who without any reason at all as a judge described him in public in the lowest terms possible.
Why did that judge do that? He could have leave it with the verdict.
A judge is supposed to be independent and even with a verdict in the disadvantage of one of the parties never to be dismissive afterwards.
If I was in moz shoes I would do the same.

That legal right can be distracted from a process with a verdict that was wrong. A judicial error. They do happen you know.
So if the house was owned by Moz they had a legal right to kick her out? It doesn't matter who owned the house. Kicking somebody out of her home is bad, miserable and brutal in itself who ever it is.
And there are already so many who know.

This is why I loved that song. It is about him and his feelings but it touches on a universally experienced emotion.
You say: No attempt was made to force anyone out. Maybe not a real attempt but there was a danger, a risk and something hovering over your head like a black cloud that scares you and you don't know what is going to happen.
 
As far as I know, his name was dragged through the mud by one specific person only.

If anybody's name was dragged through the mud it was Moz.
By a judge. In public. Without any reason. He could have leave it with the verdict without any of his nasty and vile comments.
 
I'm of the opinion that none of them, the judge morrissey or Joyce, came out smelling like roses but money and pride a often bring out the worst in people. Court cases are like that
 
'law' and the puppets in service to those who disagree with M's past views and what he stands for and what he is. M wasn't punished for not paying Joyce his 'equal ' share but for what he is, and what he must seem to be in the eyes of the 'law' or of those in power that want to uphold a certain view of what is 'right and normal' to them.


The so called 'facts' and so called 'law' were just tools used to perform an injustice towards a person who doesn't fit in with their scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
The so called 'facts' and so called 'law' were just tools used to perform an injustice towards a person who doesn't fit in with their scheme of things.

Except, the ''facts'' were actual facts. Morrissey and his lawyer(s) could have easily prove they are wrong, were they not facts. It is a documented trial for the public.
 
The so called 'facts' and so called 'law' were just tools used to perform an injustice towards a person who doesn't fit in with their scheme of things.

Additionally: with all my best intentions, you can still love what Morrissey stands for, but, why is it so impossible he was guilty in what he was sentenced for? Correct me, I might be wrong, but as far as I know, Johnny Marr, who was partner in crime (literally), never denied or critisized the base of the verdict.
You might think MORALLY they (M&M) shouldn't have paid equal live royalty share, but, in absence of a written agreement, this is UK law. Now you surely know the expression: '

Ignorantia juris non excusat

This is how things work in most democracies. I might not accept the tax system in my country, but that won't give me any ground not to pay them.
 
Except, the ''facts'' were actual facts. Morrissey and his lawyer(s) could have easily prove they are wrong, were they not facts. It is a documented trial for the public.

The " actual facts " consisted of people saying a lot of things that were contradictory, saying nothing at all, saying bullshit and stuff that at least was doubtful.

I agree it wouldn't be easy for ANY judge to base a verdict on these "actual" facts and he had to or felt the need to do that anyway. Lawyers on both sides having an interest to fight with each other. They smelled money.

Very well documented for the public but nothing more than hearsay. Cause there was no contract and it implied the decision of the judge based on that fact. The statements of Moz and Joyce made it worse.

I have a problem with regards to the words " actual facts" in this and other juridical procedures. Even when there is prove by recorded voices, film footage etcetera. I think they sometimes can be misleading. Not always but sometimes.

The words " actual facts " should be more reserved for science, based on very cold, hard facts, scientifically proven and logic.
They exist. Maybe just my problem.
Actual fact is judge Weeks stated in public without any need to, that Moz was dubious, trucellent and unreliable.

I thought they were all, including Joyce and Rourke, and Marr and judge Weeks. May the Lord have not so much mercy on him or may Satan not reject his soul.
 
Additionally: with all my best intentions, you can still love what Morrissey stands for, but, why is it so impossible he was guilty in what he was sentenced for? Correct me, I might be wrong, but as far as I know, Johnny Marr, who was partner in crime (literally), never denied or critisized the base of the verdict.
You might think MORALLY they (M&M) shouldn't have paid equal live royalty share, but, in absence of a written agreement, this is UK law. Now you surely know the expression: '

Ignorantia juris non excusat

This is how things work in most democracies. I might not accept the tax system in my country, but that won't give me any ground not to pay them.

Well I think morrissey had a bunch of qualms about how the case was handled which is why he appealed and let it get under his skin so much. That's where the pride issue comes in. I think it's more the legal meaning of the word guilty and and the common one. He was obviously found guilty by the judge but it doesn't mean that people think he should have been found guilty and that this disbelief has people siing with his resentment. He did of course end up abiding the law and paying
 
Back
Top Bottom