London - Wembley (Mar. 14, 2020) post-show fight thread

A

Anonymous

Guest
I have never really liked arena gigs and always seem like a cash cow so slightly biased. I don't think Morrissey is in the league any more for UK arena tours and should be looking to do smaller venues
Except he no longer has the constitution to do that kind of schedule without regularly getting ill and cancelling. Yes, there's a better atmosphere in smaller venues (and that's true of any artist), but I thought the whole arena idea was a strategy designed by his new touring management to allow him play to the same numbers over a lot fewer dates.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Crashing Person who doesn't know how to discuss the point made alert so instead resorts to calling someone a bore.
Bad men make good art. Twas ever thus. And I'd argue that political opinions are not even that 'bad'. I'd never insist that an artist should vote the same way as me before I bought a ticket. If I like the music, then I'll go to the gig. This kind of proscriptive nonsense about other people's political/cultural opinions does the left (and I include myself) no favours at all. Haven't the Beach Boys done lots of rallies for the Republicans? It's not as though Morrissey's done anything even close to what Polanski pled guilty to before he skipped bail.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bad men make good art. Twas ever thus. And I'd argue that political opinions are not even that 'bad'. I'd never insist that an artist should vote the same way as me before I bought a ticket. If I like the music, then I'll go to the gig. This kind of proscriptive nonsense about other people's political/cultural opinions does the left (and I include myself) no favours at all. Haven't the Beach Boys done lots of rallies for the Republicans? It's not as though Morrissey's done anything even close to what Polanski pled guilty to before he skipped bail.
Bad and good or indifferent are subjective.

Good men also make good art. You almost imply there that only bad people make good art which is obviously unsubstantiated.

This goes beyond meat political opinions. I would never support an artist who has publicly suggested to people that they vote for a political party whose membership includes a leader and others who have proven links to Generation Identity, a hideous racist organisation that believe in pie in the sky conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory and the Jewish Conspiracy that all the world and justice systems are controlled by Jews and there is a master plan by Islamics to take over the world and remove White Europeans and Christianity from Europe. They also have direct links to other groups in the UK and Europe who speak out about the removal of all non UK born non whites from the UK.

Their leader, whom Morrissey has described as a great person, also has links to Holocaust Deniers and even invited one of the most infamous Swedish Holocaust deniers to its party conference to speak.

He claims they are interested in animal welfare which is an absolute fallacy. On their website they have a page about animal welfare and try to disguise their real motive on that page by talking about having manifesto aims to remove veal crating etc from the UK. If they were a political party who were interested in animal welfare they would know that veal crating has been illegal in the UK for over 30 years. Their real connection to animal rights subjects in reality is only connected to Halal meat production because they are a one policy party and that policy is Islamaphobia. They also talk continually about child abuse but they never want to discuss the child abuse by institutions such as the Catholic Church or other Christian groups or sporting bodies and the fact that the majority of child abusers in this country historically and currently are white. They only focus on Aisan and specifically Muslim child abusers.

You also mention the left. This has nothing to do with the left or centre or right. You will not find anyone on the right of the Tory party promoting an Islamaphobic manifesto. There are people from all political spectrums who absolutely are against the likes of For Britain and the hateful divisive views. Many people from both the right, centre and left have abandoned Morrissey for this support and their views.

Whether you think that is wrong isn't really irrelevant. People have the right to express their dislike of those views any way they wish and saying that you would never assess an artist's political or moral views before buying a ticket doesn't take away other people's choice to do absolutely that.

Morrissey has given verbal support to one of the UK's most hideous political parties and continually has attacked immigration and made so many statements about race that everyone now almost expects him to say them. Whether you believe in them or not people will always decide what is comfortable for them on their own which is exactly what they have done and to try to claim that is proscriptive nonsense is in itself nonsense.

People can separate the art from politics but a lot of people can't, nor do they want to.

Morrissey has constantly dissed artists who have been involved with support for hunting for example. Using your logic shouldn't he just ignore the politics or morals of those artists and buy a ticket to their show? He also bans meat food producers from his shows. Is that proscriptive nonsense too?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bad men make good art. Twas ever thus. And I'd argue that political opinions are not even that 'bad'. I'd never insist that an artist should vote the same way as me before I bought a ticket. If I like the music, then I'll go to the gig. This kind of proscriptive nonsense about other people's political/cultural opinions does the left (and I include myself) no favours at all. Haven't the Beach Boys done lots of rallies for the Republicans? It's not as though Morrissey's done anything even close to what Polanski pled guilty to before he skipped bail.
Also this "It's not as though Morrissey's done anything even close to what Polanski pled guilty to before he skipped bail." You do hopefully see the nonsense in that statement.

Is there a scale of badness where we are supposed to only be against people who have committed bad acts that are graded against the bad other people have done?

This person only felt up a child's arse. It is not as though they have done anything even close to what Ian Brady did.

It is a non sensical argument.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bad and good or indifferent are subjective.

Good men also make good art. You almost imply there that only bad people make good art which is obviously unsubstantiated.

This goes beyond meat political opinions. I would never support an artist who has publicly suggested to people that they vote for a political party whose membership includes a leader and others who have proven links to Generation Identity, a hideous racist organisation that believe in pie in the sky conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory and the Jewish Conspiracy that all the world and justice systems are controlled by Jews and there is a master plan by Islamics to take over the world and remove White Europeans and Christianity from Europe. They also have direct links to other groups in the UK and Europe who speak out about the removal of all non UK born non whites from the UK.

Their leader, whom Morrissey has described as a great person, also has links to Holocaust Deniers and even invited one of the most infamous Swedish Holocaust deniers to its party conference to speak.

He claims they are interested in animal welfare which is an absolute fallacy. On their website they have a page about animal welfare and try to disguise their real motive on that page by talking about having manifesto aims to remove veal crating etc from the UK. If they were a political party who were interested in animal welfare they would know that veal crating has been illegal in the UK for over 30 years. Their real connection to animal rights subjects in reality is only connected to Halal meat production because they are a one policy party and that policy is Islamaphobia. They also talk continually about child abuse but they never want to discuss the child abuse by institutions such as the Catholic Church or other Christian groups or sporting bodies and the fact that the majority of child abusers in this country historically and currently are white. They only focus on Aisan and specifically Muslim child abusers.

You also mention the left. This has nothing to do with the left or centre or right. You will not find anyone on the right of the Tory party promoting an Islamaphobic manifesto. There are people from all political spectrums who absolutely are against the likes of For Britain and the hateful divisive views. Many people from both the right, centre and left have abandoned Morrissey for this support and their views.

Whether you think that is wrong isn't really irrelevant. People have the right to express their dislike of those views any way they wish and saying that you would never assess an artist's political or moral views before buying a ticket doesn't take away other people's choice to do absolutely that.

Morrissey has given verbal support to one of the UK's most hideous political parties and continually has attacked immigration and made so many statements about race that everyone now almost expects him to say them. Whether you believe in them or not people will always decide what is comfortable for them on their own which is exactly what they have done and to try to claim that is proscriptive nonsense is in itself nonsense.

People can separate the art from politics but a lot of people can't, nor do they want to.

Morrissey has constantly dissed artists who have been involved with support for hunting for example. Using your logic shouldn't he just ignore the politics or morals of those artists and buy a ticket to their show? He also bans meat food producers from his shows. Is that proscriptive nonsense too?
YOU again!!!
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Bad and good or indifferent are subjective.

Good men also make good art. You almost imply there that only bad people make good art which is obviously unsubstantiated.

This goes beyond meat political opinions. I would never support an artist who has publicly suggested to people that they vote for a political party whose membership includes a leader and others who have proven links to Generation Identity, a hideous racist organisation that believe in pie in the sky conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory and the Jewish Conspiracy that all the world and justice systems are controlled by Jews and there is a master plan by Islamics to take over the world and remove White Europeans and Christianity from Europe. They also have direct links to other groups in the UK and Europe who speak out about the removal of all non UK born non whites from the UK.

Their leader, whom Morrissey has described as a great person, also has links to Holocaust Deniers and even invited one of the most infamous Swedish Holocaust deniers to its party conference to speak.

He claims they are interested in animal welfare which is an absolute fallacy. On their website they have a page about animal welfare and try to disguise their real motive on that page by talking about having manifesto aims to remove veal crating etc from the UK. If they were a political party who were interested in animal welfare they would know that veal crating has been illegal in the UK for over 30 years. Their real connection to animal rights subjects in reality is only connected to Halal meat production because they are a one policy party and that policy is Islamaphobia. They also talk continually about child abuse but they never want to discuss the child abuse by institutions such as the Catholic Church or other Christian groups or sporting bodies and the fact that the majority of child abusers in this country historically and currently are white. They only focus on Aisan and specifically Muslim child abusers.

You also mention the left. This has nothing to do with the left or centre or right. You will not find anyone on the right of the Tory party promoting an Islamaphobic manifesto. There are people from all political spectrums who absolutely are against the likes of For Britain and the hateful divisive views. Many people from both the right, centre and left have abandoned Morrissey for this support and their views.

Whether you think that is wrong isn't really irrelevant. People have the right to express their dislike of those views any way they wish and saying that you would never assess an artist's political or moral views before buying a ticket doesn't take away other people's choice to do absolutely that.

Morrissey has given verbal support to one of the UK's most hideous political parties and continually has attacked immigration and made so many statements about race that everyone now almost expects him to say them. Whether you believe in them or not people will always decide what is comfortable for them on their own which is exactly what they have done and to try to claim that is proscriptive nonsense is in itself nonsense.

People can separate the art from politics but a lot of people can't, nor do they want to.

Morrissey has constantly dissed artists who have been involved with support for hunting for example. Using your logic shouldn't he just ignore the politics or morals of those artists and buy a ticket to their show? He also bans meat food producers from his shows. Is that proscriptive nonsense too?
What's wrong with Generation Identity? Martin K seems like a pretty normal dude to me. You say that the great replacement theory is pie in the sky.........if it is.......why aren't the numbers of British people going up and not down? You're such a wuss.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Bad and good or indifferent are subjective.

Good men also make good art. You almost imply there that only bad people make good art which is obviously unsubstantiated.

This goes beyond meat political opinions. I would never support an artist who has publicly suggested to people that they vote for a political party whose membership includes a leader and others who have proven links to Generation Identity, a hideous racist organisation that believe in pie in the sky conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory and the Jewish Conspiracy that all the world and justice systems are controlled by Jews and there is a master plan by Islamics to take over the world and remove White Europeans and Christianity from Europe. They also have direct links to other groups in the UK and Europe who speak out about the removal of all non UK born non whites from the UK.

Their leader, whom Morrissey has described as a great person, also has links to Holocaust Deniers and even invited one of the most infamous Swedish Holocaust deniers to its party conference to speak.

He claims they are interested in animal welfare which is an absolute fallacy. On their website they have a page about animal welfare and try to disguise their real motive on that page by talking about having manifesto aims to remove veal crating etc from the UK. If they were a political party who were interested in animal welfare they would know that veal crating has been illegal in the UK for over 30 years. Their real connection to animal rights subjects in reality is only connected to Halal meat production because they are a one policy party and that policy is Islamaphobia. They also talk continually about child abuse but they never want to discuss the child abuse by institutions such as the Catholic Church or other Christian groups or sporting bodies and the fact that the majority of child abusers in this country historically and currently are white. They only focus on Aisan and specifically Muslim child abusers.

You also mention the left. This has nothing to do with the left or centre or right. You will not find anyone on the right of the Tory party promoting an Islamaphobic manifesto. There are people from all political spectrums who absolutely are against the likes of For Britain and the hateful divisive views. Many people from both the right, centre and left have abandoned Morrissey for this support and their views.

Whether you think that is wrong isn't really irrelevant. People have the right to express their dislike of those views any way they wish and saying that you would never assess an artist's political or moral views before buying a ticket doesn't take away other people's choice to do absolutely that.

Morrissey has given verbal support to one of the UK's most hideous political parties and continually has attacked immigration and made so many statements about race that everyone now almost expects him to say them. Whether you believe in them or not people will always decide what is comfortable for them on their own which is exactly what they have done and to try to claim that is proscriptive nonsense is in itself nonsense.

People can separate the art from politics but a lot of people can't, nor do they want to.

Morrissey has constantly dissed artists who have been involved with support for hunting for example. Using your logic shouldn't he just ignore the politics or morals of those artists and buy a ticket to their show? He also bans meat food producers from his shows. Is that proscriptive nonsense too?

"one of the UK's most hideous political parties" - It's basically one woman and her youtube channel.......lets not get into fantasy world son, because you don't seem to have a clue about this stuff. I'd remove all non-British born criminals from the country. If current political party's had any real balls they'd do what the public want. It's hardly that outrageous a thought.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This has been an interesting week.

As part of an official agency we started an experiment for research and educational purposes a week ago.

This research is related to the pattens of discussion in connection specifically with the way people resort to established, well patterned, predictable and repeated tactics and methods to support alleged claims that ethnicity or religion are to blame for unrelated points of view and to produce research for other agencies and official bodies and to assist with education on how such discussions can be managed.

We chose this particular site from a possible selective list of sites where we were informed there was activity taking place regularly in relation to the issues we wanted to analyse. We carried out historical analysis on the subject matter of this site and planned ahead points we could raise to drive the analysis that would connect people who would be interested in commenting on the subject matter.

The discussion was started just over a week ago by us in relation to whether the running of a mass gathering and attendance at a mass gathering was responsible in relation to a global health emergency and when scientific guidance was to be socially distant. We wanted to see how easily and quickly this discussion was moved by those on the site into the themes of the research and that didn't take long.

We allowed people to move that discussion in whatever way they chose and two or three individuals in particular moved that discussion into various topics which ranged from the failure of globalisation and the need for permanent closed borders, through the death of English culture even though there was little provided by said people as to what that culture consisted of in their minds, and then they moved the discussion into the dangers of living in the UK today because of Muslims and Black people and drifted many times into other side opinions such as the allegation that Nelson Mandela was responsible for planting bombs that killed people even though logically with regard to the timeline this would have been impossible since he was in prison when these bombs went off.

There was also a move into a lengthy history of the IRA and a discussion on knife crime and allegations/opinions on who were responsible for all of this crime contrary to actual official statistics. Throughout many of these discussions when official links and statistics were provided the pattern consistently was to say that they were "fiddled" and that the "fiddling" of statistics and facts was official policy in government departments and crime agencies. The use of conspiracy theory to justify agendas was a prevalent tactic.

Our aim was to keep it as realistic as possible with regard to our responses although we tried to avoid offensive personal language.

Another analysis was in connection with the language used and often throughout these discussions the people involved on this site used offensive racially targeted language that would be against the controls of hate crime legislation within the UK and this never seemed to be challenged by moderators or anyone else on the site.

This brings an end to our research and educational exercise and thank you for being a part of it. Our researchers and educational students all joined in with the exercise and it has been significantly useful for us and will provide a helpful contribution for future work. Once the research has been fully analysed and reported on this will be shared with other agencies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"one of the UK's most hideous political parties" - It's basically one woman and her youtube channel.......lets not get into fantasy world son, because you don't seem to have a clue about this stuff. I'd remove all non-British born criminals from the country. If current political party's had any real balls they'd do what the public want. It's hardly that outrageous a thought.
I didn't say criminals. The objectives of the group I mentioned is to remove all non UK born non whites full stop regardless of criminal activity. You added criminals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"one of the UK's most hideous political parties" - It's basically one woman and her youtube channel.......lets not get into fantasy world son, because you don't seem to have a clue about this stuff. I'd remove all non-British born criminals from the country. If current political party's had any real balls they'd do what the public want. It's hardly that outrageous a thought.
it isn't one woman and he youtube channel. It is a political registered party and it has a following and members and an annual conference. But size of her party isn't what is at stake here. No one is fantasising. This was about the support of a party consisting of holocaust deniers and delusional paranoid fools.

The reason the party is small and insignificant is because no one likes her or her message. A political party with no political representation is a waste of space but thanks for backing that up. It is still a party, it is still hideous but yes you are right. They are insignificant and ignored.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
it isn't one woman and he youtube channel. It is a political registered party and it has a following and members and an annual conference. But size of her party isn't what is at stake here. No one is fantasising. This was about the support of a party consisting of holocaust deniers and delusional paranoid fools.

The reason the party is small and insignificant is because no one likes her or her message. A political party with no political representation is a waste of space but thanks for backing that up. It is still a party, it is still hideous but yes you are right. They are insignificant and ignored.
I've never heard her deny the Holocaust didn't take place and I've watched tons of videos out of interest. The reason her "party" isn't popular, might be because she doesn't have the cash to get known.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
I didn't say criminals. The objectives of the group I mentioned is to remove all non UK born non whites full stop regardless of criminal activity. You added criminals.
I don't see anything wrong with voluntary repatriation. Jeez, the UN and Britain have done it for yrs for illegal immigrants.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
This has been an interesting week.

As part of an official agency we started an experiment for research and educational purposes a week ago.

This research is related to the pattens of discussion in connection specifically with the way people resort to established, well patterned, predictable and repeated tactics and methods to support alleged claims that ethnicity or religion are to blame for unrelated points of view and to produce research for other agencies and official bodies and to assist with education on how such discussions can be managed.

We chose this particular site from a possible selective list of sites where we were informed there was activity taking place regularly in relation to the issues we wanted to analyse. We carried out historical analysis on the subject matter of this site and planned ahead points we could raise to drive the analysis that would connect people who would be interested in commenting on the subject matter.

The discussion was started just over a week ago by us in relation to whether the running of a mass gathering and attendance at a mass gathering was responsible in relation to a global health emergency and when scientific guidance was to be socially distant. We wanted to see how easily and quickly this discussion was moved by those on the site into the themes of the research and that didn't take long.

We allowed people to move that discussion in whatever way they chose and two or three individuals in particular moved that discussion into various topics which ranged from the failure of globalisation and the need for permanent closed borders, through the death of English culture even though there was little provided by said people as to what that culture consisted of in their minds, and then they moved the discussion into the dangers of living in the UK today because of Muslims and Black people and drifted many times into other side opinions such as the allegation that Nelson Mandela was responsible for planting bombs that killed people even though logically with regard to the timeline this would have been impossible since he was in prison when these bombs went off.

There was also a move into a lengthy history of the IRA and a discussion on knife crime and allegations/opinions on who were responsible for all of this crime contrary to actual official statistics. Throughout many of these discussions when official links and statistics were provided the pattern consistently was to say that they were "fiddled" and that the "fiddling" of statistics and facts was official policy in government departments and crime agencies. The use of conspiracy theory to justify agendas was a prevalent tactic.

Our aim was to keep it as realistic as possible with regard to our responses although we tried to avoid offensive personal language.

Another analysis was in connection with the language used and often throughout these discussions the people involved on this site used offensive racially targeted language that would be against the controls of hate crime legislation within the UK and this never seemed to be challenged by moderators or anyone else on the site.

This brings an end to our research and educational exercise and thank you for being a part of it. Our researchers and educational students all joined in with the exercise and it has been significantly useful for us and will provide a helpful contribution for future work. Once the research has been fully analysed and reported on this will be shared with other agencies.

You should consider getting a real job son.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This has been an interesting week.

As part of an official agency we started an experiment for research and educational purposes a week ago.

This research is related to the pattens of discussion in connection specifically with the way people resort to established, well patterned, predictable and repeated tactics and methods to support alleged claims that ethnicity or religion are to blame for unrelated points of view and to produce research for other agencies and official bodies and to assist with education on how such discussions can be managed.

We chose this particular site from a possible selective list of sites where we were informed there was activity taking place regularly in relation to the issues we wanted to analyse. We carried out historical analysis on the subject matter of this site and planned ahead points we could raise to drive the analysis that would connect people who would be interested in commenting on the subject matter.

The discussion was started just over a week ago by us in relation to whether the running of a mass gathering and attendance at a mass gathering was responsible in relation to a global health emergency and when scientific guidance was to be socially distant. We wanted to see how easily and quickly this discussion was moved by those on the site into the themes of the research and that didn't take long.

We allowed people to move that discussion in whatever way they chose and two or three individuals in particular moved that discussion into various topics which ranged from the failure of globalisation and the need for permanent closed borders, through the death of English culture even though there was little provided by said people as to what that culture consisted of in their minds, and then they moved the discussion into the dangers of living in the UK today because of Muslims and Black people and drifted many times into other side opinions such as the allegation that Nelson Mandela was responsible for planting bombs that killed people even though logically with regard to the timeline this would have been impossible since he was in prison when these bombs went off.

There was also a move into a lengthy history of the IRA and a discussion on knife crime and allegations/opinions on who were responsible for all of this crime contrary to actual official statistics. Throughout many of these discussions when official links and statistics were provided the pattern consistently was to say that they were "fiddled" and that the "fiddling" of statistics and facts was official policy in government departments and crime agencies. The use of conspiracy theory to justify agendas was a prevalent tactic.

Our aim was to keep it as realistic as possible with regard to our responses although we tried to avoid offensive personal language.

Another analysis was in connection with the language used and often throughout these discussions the people involved on this site used offensive racially targeted language that would be against the controls of hate crime legislation within the UK and this never seemed to be challenged by moderators or anyone else on the site.

This brings an end to our research and educational exercise and thank you for being a part of it. Our researchers and educational students all joined in with the exercise and it has been significantly useful for us and will provide a helpful contribution for future work. Once the research has been fully analysed and reported on this will be shared with other agencies.
Aye right ?
 
Top Bottom