Home | BLAM | Reviews | Bands | Links | The Gallery | News | Readers' Whines

If Paul Mills reckons he was a journalist for the NME and music press "in the old days" then there is no excuse for writing the offensive, and frighteningly defamatory reviews he has been posting on this website.

Indeed if it really was a long time ago then maybe he should brush up on his media law.

There is no doubt that his last couple of "articles" go far beyond a healthy critique of an evenings entertainment, and any journalist, whether they be good or piss poor, should know that a review that personally insults, rather than critically reviews, is a very dangerous game to play.

Any musician out there will also know (and they don't need a patronising reminder from Mills to have learnt this), that their music will be ripped apart at some point - but be rest assured this guy, on several occasions, has stepped out of the realms of what is socially, editorially and legally acceptable. It's just shoddy journalism.

Millsey, as you affectionately call yourself, don't let the side down you are the very epitome of what gives us journalists a bad name. You say yourself you don't have time to write for the established press because you "don't bother with that kinda thing anymore and have a life" - whatever happens don't give up your day job.

Louise Ford
Editor, Audience Magazine (and forum goer - ed)

And a reply from Mr. Mills....

Thanks for your comments Louise. Itís refreshing to actually have an intelligent reaction for a change, so I really appreciate that. Actually, it wasnít NME, it was another music publication, but letís not split hairs.

Having considered your comments, I have to say that you have raised a point or two that are perfectly valid and I should have been more careful. In retrospect, some of the things I have come out with are indeed going beyond what may or may not be acceptable and I seem to have lost sight of the plain and simple fact that it could result in Phil Davidson (as editor of HT) getting into trouble because of what I decide to submit. If it was just me, I wouldn't give a shit what you or anyone else says or thinks, but Holy Toilet is not my site, itís his, and perhaps the fact that Iím effectively given a free rein to submit whatever the hell I feel like with no editorial control, has caused me to be a touch careless about what goes in. I am actually aware of what is acceptable and what isnít editorially and legally (although socially, I couldnít give a toss), so must agree with you that I have been shoddy in this respect because HT isnít my own private blog, itís a website run by a dedicated fella who doesnít need to be exposed because I happen go over the top with my criticisms. Articles I submit elsewhere for mediums unconnected with The Forum are considerably different, but HT is not a serious journalistic endeavour (look at it's name for fuck's sake). Iím serious about how I feel about the scene, the Forum and what I write about it and try to do it as well as I can, but Holy Toilet is not the NME. Itís not Kerrang. Itís not even the local paper. Itís just a small webzine with a minimal and localised readership, so I have perhaps been concentrating on expressing an honest personal opinion of what I experience, rather than the potential consequences of such actions. This was perhaps thoughtless and Iím glad you pointed it out.

However, I will not apologise for what I wrote because I stand by it. If it offends anyone, tough. I write as honestly as I can and will continue to do so. Iím not going to back down and avoid saying what I think because thatís just how I write. Iím just expressing an opinion, thatís all. But strangely enough, I don't seem to get any complaints that I'm wrong when I sing a band's praises. There are far more positive reviews that come from my pen than negative, and I think I can count on one hand the number of reviews where I have been somewhat scathing, but I do my best to justify my reactions by just telling it how I see it. If that is construed as personal, well, so be it.

That being said though, I realise that I may have to perhaps consider toning down certain aspects of my work in order to avoid getting Holy Toilet, Blam or The Forum in trouble because some people have no sense of humour. To be honest, Iím getting pretty bloody sick of continually having to justify myself and all this hassle is starting to seriously get on my substantial man-tits, so I would like to give all the readers of HT, the punters at the Forum, the bands and artists and anyone else who feels that they deserve some form of recompense for my crimes against them, my assurance that from now on, Iíll try to be considerably more careful and balanced in the articles I submit and will not deliberately pour scorn and vitriol on their heads. Unless they really deserve it, and if necessary I'll set up a blog for that so that people can go to it if they want without getting Phil into difficulties.
Anything for a quiet life.

Yours affectionately,


Oi, what's wrong with the name? You really don't want to know how much spam I receive from scatologists.
Anyway, I personally find Paul's reviews entertaining and show an impressive, and well-rounded, musical knowledge. Of course, I personally may not necessarily agree with everything he has written, nor does he agree with all my views (hazy memories of me talking shite after a couple of beers spring to mind).
On balance, I believe that the considerable amount of time Paul has put into submitting reviews here has significantly contributed to the site, I thank him for that, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I wouldn't worry about getting me into trouble, it's about time I put some sort of disclaimer on the reviews page anyway!!
I also welcome Louise's email; an constructive critism of Paul's reviews - whoa, healthy intelligent debate? Whatever next? People will stop using this website to call people FUCKING COCKS soon.
Phil - ed
P.S. I still glad I'm not a member of Lo-Odio though. ;-)

Go on, send in some rants...