Morrissey "California Son" posters removed from Liverpool train stations

Commuter offended by Morrissey posters plastered across Merseyrail station - Liverpool Echo
The former Smiths frontman has shown support for Tommy Robinson and far-right party For Britain

Excerpt:

Merseyrail has ordered the removal of Morrissey posters plastered on its services and stations after an angry commuter complained about the singer's controversial views.

The former Smiths frontman is advertising his new solo album, California Son, which is due to be released on Friday.
However, his support for far-right parties and leaders have made him a controversial figure - leaving Merseyrail scrambling to get the posters removed after one Liverpool commuter voiced his offence.

Jack Dotchin, 32, was taking a Southport service into Moorfields this morning when he spotted the posters - and he wasn't happy.

The Toxteth resident said: "[The things Morrissey has said] offend me and a lot of other people. He's very far right these days, going on about immigrants and being pseudo-racist.

"It's just strange to think Merseyrail, being a public service for the people, is advertising someone with his views.

"It's just pictures of Morrissey with his new album. He's not doing anything inappropriate but his name is a by-name for questionable views at the moment.

"Lots of record stores are refusing to stock it so I'm not the only one to say it."

full
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NealCassidy

FREE SPEECH #FBPB
Free speech warrior!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Morrissey,, an English singer, songwriter, and author has had his advertising censored by Liverpool's travel authority Merseyrail, over ONE mans objections to his views and opinions.

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Have mercy on us Merseyside, we are in stitches laughing at your latest prank.
 

Verso

Well-Known Member
The ones who wear the clothing are indeed two dimensional. They have purposely rejected any sense of individuality for a collectivist outlook only. They choose to form a mass.

Brainwashing from childhood up can do this. And they're safely trapped from sanity for the rest of their days.

Muslims are extremely racist also. They will not allow their sons or daughters to marry white people or even go on dates with them. Only very progressive Muslims would have no problem with this. Most Muslims stick together because they don't like or trust other cultures i.e they fulfill the definition of what being actively 'racist' really is. If one of their daughters went out with a white boy she would be in severe trouble for breaking the sacred rule. She would be derided as a "bacon basher" - this is a racist term they commonly use that refers to White people as 'bacon' (i.e "dirty pigs" - and boy do they hate pigs!).

Many white people seem to think that only whites practice racism. I don't know whether this is ignorance or denial in action here, but you'll find that in Pakistani culture you are forced to marry your first cousin. (in the UK the NHS has been urging the UK massive Muslim Pakistani community to stop this custom as it causes unique genetic diseases). They marry their cousins because they don't like or trust strangers enough to introduce them into their families - let alone other cultures. This comes from a purely supremacist and racist way of thinking.

Islam is intrinsically racist, misogynist, supremacist and anti-human.
You should do stand-up comedy.
 

Verso

Well-Known Member
Ah, too much truth for you then.

I win again.
Uh, not quite. You only reinforce what I was saying about your worldview in the first place. White Christians are given the benefit of the doubt, the luxury of nuance. Everyone else is painted with broad strokes and tethered to your cherry-picked facts and figures. Did I ever mention anything about white people being the only population capable of racism? A mentality of tribalism exists within certain portions of ethnic communities, that isn’t some “truth bomb” you just dropped on me.

But the fact that you view conversation and debate within in a binary of winners and losers illustrates your intellectual weakness.
 

reelfountain

On Timeout
Uh, not quite. You only reinforce what I was saying about your worldview in the first place. White Christians are given the benefit of the doubt, the luxury of nuance. Everyone else is painted with broad strokes and tethered to your cherry-picked facts and figures. Did I ever mention anything about white people being the only population capable of racism? A mentality of tribalism exists within certain portions of ethnic communities, that isn’t some “truth bomb” you just dropped on me.

But the fact that you view conversation and debate within in a binary of winners and losers illustrates your intellectual weakness.
Well, I've argued with you before: I won. You try again, I win again.

But I suppose trying to defend a crazy racist and misogynist cult of a religion is a little silly, so I really shouldn't be congratulating myself.
 

Verso

Well-Known Member
Well, I've argued with you before: I won. You try again, I win again.

But I suppose trying to defend a crazy racist and misogynist cult of a religion is a little silly, so I really shouldn't be congratulating myself.
Ah yes, another hallmark of your much-touted intellect: addressing nothing of my actual message and declaring yourself the “winner” of a conversation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lest we forget the lyric, “It takes guts to be gentle and kind”...

Tear down the posters of Morrissey and replace them with more respectable images of people like Nigel Farage?

It’s Morrissey, he flirts with controversy like a child plays with matches...
 
H

High in High School

Guest
“Free speech” is a lame defence for talking and acting like a twat. In my opinion, you’re not entitled to an opinion if it causes harm to others. (And I’m not talking about offence, i’m taking about actual harm).
I think I agree with that statement, but I still disagree with you.
First, what do you mean by "you're not entitled to an opinion"? Do you mean that people that hold those opinions aren't entitled to express them? Or do you think that people who have those ideas aren't entitled to have them? If the latter, what do you suggest we do?
I'll tell you my opinion. I hate when people say "I won't debate X because I don't want to authenticate their views". I think that's rubbish. The views are authentic and valid as long as anyone hold them. They will have an effect on the world. Therefore, they must be discussed, if only to be rationally dismantled. For example, having a conversation with an anti-vaccine person about why they think what they think and telling them why you believe vaccines work would be far more effective/productive than dismissing them as stupid conspiracy theorists.
However, if it causes harm to others (I mean physical harm. Do you?), I don't think these people should be given platforms. The shift from ideas to action is where I draw the line.
What do you mean when you refer to an opinion that causes harm to others?
If I proclaim that I hate Islam, is that an opinion that causes harm to others?
How about if I say: All Muslims are evil? An awful thing to say, but does it cause physical harm to others?
I think the only time my words could be responsible for harming others is if I stood up and said: Go kill a Muslim!
Otherwise, though it might be hateful, it's not responsible for the actions taken in response. That's my opinion. I'd like to know yours.
I'm a big advocate for freedom of speech, because I believe in people's rights to be twats.
 

NealCassidy

FREE SPEECH #FBPB
“ you’re not entitled to an opinion“

Perfect
 
Tags
california son info
Top Bottom