Morrissey Central "Joaquin Is Not A Dog On A Chain" (February 10, 2020)

Joaquin Is Not A Dog On A Chain - Morrissey Central

February 10, 2020

Regards,
FWD.

 

[Anonymous]

View attachment 54462

Stop milking cows and let them explode.

 

[Anonymous]

He's paid about £400,000 for it. So far.

Although from what I've heard he wasn't honest about the age & doubts about ethics have set in... so it might prove to be a waste of money.

This "Although from what I've heard ..."
Where exactly did you hear it?

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know. It depends how much money they keep spending & if anyone in the media wants to risk a direct accusation.

It started because Amanda Holden hated him enough to start openly slagging him off. Which made the press hunt for other people who hated him, so they came across the teenage runner.

From what I've heard, he paid the teenager to stay quiet, also did the usual 'the press will destroy your family/career' stuff. But he was scared enough to come out & hope that LGBT's desire to be seen in a positive light would act as an insurance policy.

Here's that phrase again ... "From what I've heard ..." Doesn't it just scream destructive gossip?

Nerak 'claims' she has NEVER attacked someone without provocation - we already know this to be a bare faced lie - but, whatever has Philip Schofield done to her to be the object of her salacious gossip?

Nerak: Super-Spreader of gossip, viral, non-viral or otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

Schofield stuff out there right now.

 

[Anonymous]

Here's that phrase again ... "From what I've heard ..." Doesn't it just scream destructive gossip?

Nerak 'claims' she has NEVER attacked someone without provocation - we already know this to be a bare faced lie - but, whatever has Philip Schofield done to her to be the object of her salacious gossip?

Nerak: Super-Spreader of gossip, viral, non-viral or otherwise.

He's a groomer, apparently. Keep Up.

 

[Anonymous]

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/top-...illip-schofield-says-he-is-gay.1524603/page-3

 

[Anonymous]

https://limegoss.com/phillip-schofield-runner/

 

[Anonymous]

Here's that phrase again ... "From what I've heard ..." Doesn't it just scream destructive gossip?

Nerak 'claims' she has NEVER attacked someone without provocation - we already know this to be a bare faced lie - but, whatever has Philip Schofield done to her to be the object of her salacious gossip?

Nerak: Super-Spreader of gossip, viral, non-viral or otherwise.

A Day At Work With Nerak ​

Nerak arrived 35 minutes late. She had urgent business. She had received 5 responses to comments she made in the 387 forums that she frequents. To Nerak these responses must be dealt with urgently - after all they are about her. Nerak begins to tap furiously on her phone "You're wrong", "From what I've heard ..." "That's not what Morrissey meant", "factually I think" and "I never attack anyone. Prick!" Yes! This took her 35 minutes!?

"Psst. Psst! I didn't mean to disturb you." (fold arms over her chest and leans in to whisper to disinterested colleague) ...
"From what I've heard there's a terrible gossip in the office. Everybody's talking about it."
Colleague shrugs and turn away to look at PC screen. Nerak jabs her colleague with a boney finger demanding attention.
"I'm not one to say anything about anyone but I think it's her." Nerak points in the direction of woman studiously involved in her work.
"I'm always suspsicious of anyone who isn't constantly looking at their phone, aren't you? I mean what else is she doing?
Colleague gets up to leave, bored and in need of escape. The colleague goes into the kitchen.
Nerak scans the office. She heads in the direction of the studious woman.
"I see you're busy. I don't want to interupt you." She interupts her colleague.
"From what I've heard there's a terrible gossip in the office. Everybody's talking about it."
"I think it might be her that just went into the kitchen." Nerak points towards the kitchen.

.... and so her day and life continues​

 

[Anonymous]

He's a groomer, apparently. Keep Up.

If 'what I have read' is correct (I do like to keep a pinch of salt handy) then the man involved was 18, prior to any relationship taking place, therefore your reductive term of 'grooming' does not apply in the UK.

Nerak claims to be supportive of LGBTQ people. Why then is she going out of her way to comment and stoke spurious claims that once again attempt to assign the tag of paedophile to gay men? At this point it's tabloid title-tattle. Something Nerak revels in.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know. It depends how much money they keep spending & if anyone in the media wants to risk a direct accusation.

It started because Amanda Holden hated him enough to start openly slagging him off. Which made the press hunt for other people who hated him, so they came across the teenage runner.

From what I've heard, he paid the teenager to stay quiet, also did the usual 'the press will destroy your family/career' stuff. But he was scared enough to come out & hope that LGBT's desire to be seen in a positive light would act as an insurance policy.

Why use the term man when you can use the more provocative and emotive 'teenager'? It's like being assaulted with The Sun.

Curious use of language in the circumstances: "so they came across the 'teenage' runner"

 

[Anonymous]

If adults can be groomed, as some suggest in this forum, is Morrissey a groomer?

Both Jake and Damon are substantially younger than him.

 

[Anonymous]

If 'what I have read' is correct (I do like to keep a pinch of salt handy) then the man involved was 18, prior to any relationship taking place, therefore your reductive term of 'grooming' does not apply in the UK.

Nerak claims to be supportive of LGBTQ people. Why then is she going out of her way to comment and stoke spurious claims that once again attempt to assign the tag of paedophile to gay men? At this point it's tabloid title-tattle. Something Nerak revels in.

No you need to read a little deeper...apparently (yes conjecture thus far but no smoke without the proverbial fire) all this started some years ago when the person was a minor, in the eyes of UK law.
It started off with 'mentoring', which might be his MO.
Schofield is skating on very thin ice.

 

[Anonymous]

If adults can be groomed, as some suggest in this forum, is Morrissey a groomer?

Both Jake and Damon are substantially younger than him.

Oh don't be so silly.

Most mature adults can make up their own minds about what they do with their life, in the main that's what makes them 'adult'. There are exceptions for everything in society though, due to that particular adult possibly having issues (life, mental health, low self-esteem, etc.)...just look at Skinny.

Or are you just craving for some tenuous slander to aim at Moz?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

View attachment 54462

There’s nothing natural here.....

 

[Anonymous]

apparently (yes conjecture thus far but no smoke without the proverbial fire)

So, gossip till proven otherwise. Thanks for that.

 

[Anonymous]

Talking about animal rights and he has a dog with a collar? Even if he buys coffee with almond or soya milk he is still giving money to an industry that supports the use of animals!! Take homemade hot drinks! He's saying one thing and doing another. Not as radical and I thought! Truly truly disappointing!!! I don't have pets, I don't wear leather or wool, I don't eat meat or fish and I don't consume dairy products.

Most industries support the use of animals. We live in a carnist society.
You should read this essay by Alex O' Connor:
https://cosmicskeptic.com/2020/01/14/should-vegans-go-to-kfc/

"Veganism is a form of boycott. As with all boycotts, it is a refusal to partake in an immorality for purposes of achieving economically demand-driven change. Unlike with other boycotts, however, we do not refuse to purchase products of the food, clothing, and cosmetic industries to force them to change some unrelated policy or behaviour, but because the products are themselves in ethical need of change. Refusing to buy a product from a company because it pays its workers a low wage is one thing; refusing to buy a product because the product itself is immoral is another.
To consider why this is the case, the question should be reformulated in this manner: is veganism a boycott of animal products, or a boycott of companies and institutions which supply them?"

 

[Anonymous]

all this started some years ago when the person was a minor, in the eyes of UK law.

I'll bow to your alleged knowledge relating to UK law although you do seems to have but a tentative grasp.

If the man was under 16 when the alleged relationship took place then Philip Schoefield has questions to answer.
If the relationship took place while the young man was at the legal age of consent (England 16) then Schoefield may also have question to answers. This relates to the younger man's ability to act in mental health capacity. It would have to be proven in a court of law that the younger man did not have the mental capacity to act. This is applicable to all people deemed vulnerable in England from age 16 to 18.
If the man was 18 when the relationship began then only the moral argument remains: should a man be in a relationship with a man when both are of legal, consensual age?

As far as I am aware, as yet, there is no 'evidence' to suggest any 'wrong-doing'. If that evidence surfaces and concludes that Schoefiled broke the law then he is deserving of what will follow on from that. Until then I'll reserve jusdgement and refrain from joining the mob that uses such unconvincing argument as "there's no smoke without fire" or "Amanda Holden posted a cryptic tweet".

 

[Anonymous]

To consider why this is the case, the question should be reformulated in this manner: is veganism a boycott of animal products, or a boycott of companies and institutions which supply them?"

For me it's both. I believe the 2 questions to be quite distinct.

As for JP with his throw-away coffee cup, well ... it's ok for him to do it but for others to do is wholly unacceptable.

How many eco-warriors do you now that have children? I know many who would describe themsleves as 'green' but keep on producing and producing chidren. There is always an excuse but these 'greens' never provide a rationale for their dichotomy. It's like JP's coffee cup. It's ok for them to do it (have children) - it's others that have to change their behaviours.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh don't be so silly.

Most mature adults can make up their own minds about what they do with their life, in the main that's what makes them 'adult'. There are exceptions for everything in society though, due to that particular adult possibly having issues (life, mental health, low self-esteem, etc.)...just look at Skinny.

Or are you just craving for some tenuous slander to aim at Moz?

Why silly? If users in this forum can accuse an older gay man of 'grooming' his younger partner, despite the fact that they are in a consensual relationship, why would Morrissey be exempt from that accusation - why would any one if they are in a older/younger couple?

This is an argument about degrees, about infantalising adults so that it becomes easier for forum users, media etc. to be able to attack gay men. Unfortunately, it's rarely about protecting exploited children and/or adults and more about homophobia masquerading as societal concern.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll bow to your alleged knowledge relating to UK law although you do seems to have but a tentative grasp.

If the man was under 16 when the alleged relationship took place then Philip Schoefield has questions to answer.
If the relationship took place while the young man was at the legal age of consent (England 16) then Schoefield may also have question to answers. This relates to the younger man's ability to act in mental health capacity. It would have to be proven in a court of law that the younger man did not have the mental capacity to act. This is applicable to all people deemed vulnerable in England from age 16 to 18.
If the man was 18 when the relationship began then only the moral argument remains: should a man be in a relationship with a man when both are of legal, consensual age?

As far as I am aware, as yet, there is no 'evidence' to suggest any 'wrong-doing'. If that evidence surfaces and concludes that Schoefiled broke the law then he is deserving of what will follow on from that. Until then I'll reserve jusdgement and refrain from joining the mob that uses such unconvincing argument as "there's no smoke without fire" or "Amanda Holden posted a cryptic tweet".

I don't need a law degree to know that a child aged 10 is just that...a child; a minor being groomed.

Everyone is currently 'reserving judgement'...there are no clear facts, or evidence yet, because no-one is actually saying it out loud, or making accusations that can be substantiated...it's being kept under wraps, almost being suppressed. But, whispers are starting in certain quarters & the press are digging. If there was nothing to dig for, they wouldn't be bothering with it.

There clearly is something out there, so it's a waiting game while the diggers dig. Schofield's days are numbered, even amongst the TV-lovies. No smoke without fire.

When it all comes out people will be running in the opposite direction to Schofield, looking to distance themselves from him as fast as they can. You watch.

I bet some people are deleting/secreting emails & hard copy documentation as we speak.