Serious accusations against Mark Morriss (Bluetones) CW: Coercion, abusive behaviour.

That’s more the kind of thing that would happen with a follow-up feature or interview, where the journalist has several hours/days to prepare questions, get responses legalled etc.
As this is a straight news report, the editor probably had a couple of hours tops to research and write it and get a response from Morriss.

1 Like

The headline is the real issue I think.

When you read the article for me it’s quite good at leaving you wondering what the fuck he thinks he’s doing, lots of pitting his vague rubbish against a lot of heavy points from her substack piece.

I would guess they are wary of seemingly ‘picking a side’ due to libel laws being what they are in the UK but even with that, the headline is far too bland. Shit stuff.

Also with stories like this, because people are already reading the initial report, this expands on what she’s written, otherwise they would just have reported what she said, with one of those “We contacted Mark Morriss but he chose not to respond” notes on the end.

Suspect there will be a follow up story if more people come forward or related stories arise.

Or even ask him a direct question about whether he was ever cautioned for assaulting her. Much harder to deny. Strangulation is such a massive escalation in domestic violence as well, rarely a first incident.

3 Likes

This has made me so fucking angry. There are a lot of people who rightly picked people up on it when they said “but he seemed so charming”. I’ve briefly met him and that did indeed seem the case. Last time I saw him, the first thing the door staff said to me was exactly that as I walked in. But with most people that seem charming it’s because (I hope) they actually are charming. To have that help as a smokescreen to help hide in plain sight for so long, it’s sickening.

Where it’s safe to do so, can people start naming all the bastards please? If I have to throw out half my record collection, well boo bloody hoo. Far more important is that everything is done to make it impossible for people to abuse their position ever again. I suspect that’s a big ask, but every step that can be taken in that direction has to be a good thing.

12 Likes
7 Likes

That’s an extraordinary failure of journalism isn’t it? That part of the original account pulls the carpet out from under anyone who wants to present this in a ‘he says/she says’ way, as a criminal caution is an admission to a criminal offence. Amazing that they let him get away with his bullshit minimisation without challenging him on that.

Yeh for sure - he’ll have been on the phone to his lawyer for wording for a generic statement in reply. He’s not going to throw himself to a seasoned journalist and get torn apart with different lines of questioning that he’ll have to answer on the spot.

2 Likes

Yeah it’s just a simple, “we’re running this story if you want to comment in response” thing I think, which is pretty standard as far as I know.

1 Like

Managed to really confuse myself reading about this because I had it in my head that Shed Seven was the band he was in.

1 Like

I think it’s a badly written piece because it foregrounds his response without interrogating either him or it.

You have to offer some kind of right of reply to protect yourself against defamation, but you surely don’t have publish the whole of it and you surely are entitled to comment on his failure to address the most serious accusation?

My limited understanding is it maybe is the libel laws in the UK. I imagine they don’t want to even question his statement because maybe by questioning it they could be seen to be suggesting his guilt? I don’t know.

From what I’ve seen of Laura’s writing - particularly the brave piece on Sun Kill Moon - she wouldn’t be one to take this sort of stuff lying down so I’m guessing she’s got advice from somewhere.

It’s not straightforward. I’m not a libel lawyer (I’d be much richer if I was) or a journalist (I’d be much poorer if I was) but basically if a media outlet repeats allegations made by someone else they potentially leave themselves open to a claim for libel. They have access to what is called a ‘public interest’ defence if they can show that they acted responsibly and that the issue was a genuine matter of public interest. Offering a ‘right of reply’ is often seen as part of the ‘responsible journalism’ defence but actually it’s not in the statute and the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not always required. Failure to do so could count against them in a libel case, but it would depend on the circumstances.

It’s certainly safer for newspapers to ask for comment and to publish it in full if they get one but the law doesn’t require them to do so. It’s safety first journalism. In this case I agree it was responsible to ask for his comment and to publish the gist of his reply, but it did not have to be at such length. There’s also nothing that I’m aware of that would prevent them commenting on the reply so long as in doing so they don’t say anything libellous or unfair. If here that had said ‘he did not comment on the allegation that he had accepted a police caution for a domestic violence assault’ I can’t see a problem. That statement is simply factual and doesn’t seem to be libellous to me.

3 Likes

Jesus, that’s really fucking sad. That piece is a real gut-punch for anyone with empathy.

What a piece of shit he very clearly is.

1 Like

I’m many years removed from my media law training but this all sounds right to me.

One thing they could’ve done would be get a confirmation from the police on any caution given, which would be pretty standard practice.

2 Likes

This is off the main topic, but I can’t get my head around how anyone can live a double / triple life like this. Even if you had the material wherewithal to do so - the excuses for constantly travelling, the money to fund your multiple relationships - it just staggers me that anyone could have the mental and emotional capacity to string people along, to live in a constant layer of lies.

26 Likes

I think you just don’t need much emotional capacity, because you basically only care about yourself. The pretending part probably doesn’t take much out of you.

2 Likes

Think it’s borderline sociopathic tbh.

5 Likes

Not even borderline, I don’t think

10 Likes

Yeah, requires a complete disconnect from the impact of your actions on others and the repercussions, and in a way a complete lack of care as to who finds out really, because you must know it’s unsustainable deep down and just not give a fuck.

2 Likes