FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Micheal Jackson
Micheal Jackson
Jump to: Newest in thread
Anyone still idolise him????
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1317109/sickening-pictures-of-naked-teen-boys-child-torture-and-animal-sacrifice-found-at-singers-neverland-ranch-are-revealed-in-new-police-report/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nope and never did. A mere mortal world have been jailed years ago for that (if true).
I never get the idolisation of fallen icons - eg those that still chant 'Leader, Leader ..' at the likes of Gary Glitter etc. Some people really can't look beyond fame and the 'glamour' of celebrity and at the real person behind the mask however abominable that may be |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter."
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will... "
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will... "
Paying huge amounts of money to make things go away isn't the same as being proven innocent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I stopped being a fan when he started bleaching himself.
"
He didn't bleach himself, he got that skin condition I can't spell. I have a friend who has the same condition. It's for real. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Paying huge amounts of money to make things go away isn't the same as being proven innocent."
Always a conspiracy... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will... "
I stopped reading at "a police report from 2003" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day "
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them. "
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?"
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence! "
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Here's something that people might not have seen on the subject. It's not a perfect science but it is a lie detection 'expert' giving his opinion on the matter by studying Michaels interviews: https://youtu.be/a_Yp1GZ05P8 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence. "
Twice? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person."
Exactly my thought.
I'm glad there are some sane people left in the world :P  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person."
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice? "
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here's something that people might not have seen on the subject. It's not a perfect science but it is a lie detection 'expert' giving his opinion on the matter by studying Michaels interviews: https://youtu.be/a_Yp1GZ05P8"
My clairvoyant says he's guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person.
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ?"
No, I'm not some fart loving hippy who believes every song is deep and meaningful. The average song is grammatical nonsense and uses all sorts of horrendous slang just to fit a beat. You could make up whatever hidden meaning you want from that.
It's just another form of entertainment. There's nothing special about musician's, most of them are probably assholes. How hard is it to distinguish between talent and morals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming. "
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person.
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ?
No, I'm not some fart loving hippy who believes every song is deep and meaningful. The average song is grammatical nonsense and uses all sorts of horrendous slang just to fit a beat. You could make up whatever hidden meaning you want from that.
It's just another form of entertainment. There's nothing special about musician's, most of them are probably assholes. How hard is it to distinguish between talent and morals? "
I know there's nothing special about celebrities that's why I want them treated the same way as anybody else, hence my disgust at Jackson being allowed to buy his innocence.
But there is no hidden meaning in Do You Wanna Touch Me There, it says what it means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse? "
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person.
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ?
No, I'm not some fart loving hippy who believes every song is deep and meaningful. The average song is grammatical nonsense and uses all sorts of horrendous slang just to fit a beat. You could make up whatever hidden meaning you want from that.
It's just another form of entertainment. There's nothing special about musician's, most of them are probably assholes. How hard is it to distinguish between talent and morals?
I know there's nothing special about celebrities that's why I want them treated the same way as anybody else, hence my disgust at Jackson being allowed to buy his innocence.
But there is no hidden meaning in Do You Wanna Touch Me There, it says what it means. "
The kind of idolisation that was prevalent then was unheard of .
The Bay City Rolkers were making youngsters go crazy , as was Marc Bolan , Gary Glitter and a host of others .
Do you want to touch me .... Number one for weeks .... Who bought it ? Was the thought of seven year olds there then ? No .... It was an iconic song as were all his hits in the early seventies .... And yes I still listen to some now !
Not because I want to celebrate a paedophile , but because the beat , the memory , the sheer way the songs make me recall the teenage years I enjoyed is a special thing .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse?
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened. "
What's the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would all prefer money to justice after their kids had been abused, and they all have a common connection to Michael Jackson?
Shit, if I was a analyst I'd almost see a trend where leeches are drawn towards weird people with a lot of money... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person.
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ?
No, I'm not some fart loving hippy who believes every song is deep and meaningful. The average song is grammatical nonsense and uses all sorts of horrendous slang just to fit a beat. You could make up whatever hidden meaning you want from that.
It's just another form of entertainment. There's nothing special about musician's, most of them are probably assholes. How hard is it to distinguish between talent and morals?
I know there's nothing special about celebrities that's why I want them treated the same way as anybody else, hence my disgust at Jackson being allowed to buy his innocence.
But there is no hidden meaning in Do You Wanna Touch Me There, it says what it means.
The kind of idolisation that was prevalent then was unheard of .
The Bay City Rolkers were making youngsters go crazy , as was Marc Bolan , Gary Glitter and a host of others .
Do you want to touch me .... Number one for weeks .... Who bought it ? Was the thought of seven year olds there then ? No .... It was an iconic song as were all his hits in the early seventies .... And yes I still listen to some now !
Not because I want to celebrate a paedophile , but because the beat , the memory , the sheer way the songs make me recall the teenage years I enjoyed is a special thing .
"
Exactly, I like "leader of the gang" because it reminds me of the farewell episode of biker grove, which I loved as a kid. I don't give a crap who sings it. I didn't even know it was Gary Glitter for the first 8 years of liking that song. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"..IF this is true, am I still allowed to appreciate his songs? Of course, my opinion would change of him, but there's no denying some of his songs are great.
It's a catch 22 situation isn't it?
No its not a catch 22 at all!
I listen to Gary Glitter songs because I like them. He is a revolting human being but his songs are not him.
I can't stand people who want to rewrite history at every turn. It's the people that need to get real if they think that performing a song, kicking a football or painting a picture somehow equates to being a good person.
But surely his songs are him, he wrote them and performed them. When he's singing "Do you wanna touch me there" isn't just a little bit of you thinking he wrote that about a seven year old girl ?
No, I'm not some fart loving hippy who believes every song is deep and meaningful. The average song is grammatical nonsense and uses all sorts of horrendous slang just to fit a beat. You could make up whatever hidden meaning you want from that.
It's just another form of entertainment. There's nothing special about musician's, most of them are probably assholes. How hard is it to distinguish between talent and morals?
I know there's nothing special about celebrities that's why I want them treated the same way as anybody else, hence my disgust at Jackson being allowed to buy his innocence.
But there is no hidden meaning in Do You Wanna Touch Me There, it says what it means.
The kind of idolisation that was prevalent then was unheard of .
The Bay City Rolkers were making youngsters go crazy , as was Marc Bolan , Gary Glitter and a host of others .
Do you want to touch me .... Number one for weeks .... Who bought it ? Was the thought of seven year olds there then ? No .... It was an iconic song as were all his hits in the early seventies .... And yes I still listen to some now !
Not because I want to celebrate a paedophile , but because the beat , the memory , the sheer way the songs make me recall the teenage years I enjoyed is a special thing .
"
I bought it.
I went to many of his concerts.
I was in the Gary glitter gang.
I want to see the stage play he appeared in.
I no longer listen to his records.
I don't have this problem with Jackson though as I never listened to him anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse?
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened.
What's the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would all prefer money to justice after their kids had been abused, and they all have a common connection to Michael Jackson?
Shit, if I was a analyst I'd almost see a trend where leeches are drawn towards weird people with a lot of money... "
Jackson and his estate have never denied that these children slept at his ranch or that they paid them substantial amounts of money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse?
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened.
What's the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would all prefer money to justice after their kids had been abused, and they all have a common connection to Michael Jackson?
Shit, if I was a analyst I'd almost see a trend where leeches are drawn towards weird people with a lot of money...
Jackson and his estate have never denied that these children slept at his ranch or that they paid them substantial amounts of money. "
That much is fact. The question is whether there was sexual abuse. Again, think of the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would rather have a pay off than justice? Those are pathetic, disgusting people if they genuinely did that. I believe there are very few parents who would really prefer money to justice if their kids had actually been abused. I really can't imagine how you'd find 20 of then around the same guy at the same time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone still idolise him????
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1317109/sickening-pictures-of-naked-teen-boys-child-torture-and-animal-sacrifice-found-at-singers-neverland-ranch-are-revealed-in-new-police-report/"
Is he dead? Shit me. I thought he went quiet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse?
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened.
What's the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would all prefer money to justice after their kids had been abused, and they all have a common connection to Michael Jackson?
Shit, if I was a analyst I'd almost see a trend where leeches are drawn towards weird people with a lot of money...
Jackson and his estate have never denied that these children slept at his ranch or that they paid them substantial amounts of money.
That much is fact. The question is whether there was sexual abuse. Again, think of the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would rather have a pay off than justice? Those are pathetic, disgusting people if they genuinely did that. I believe there are very few parents who would really prefer money to justice if their kids had actually been abused. I really can't imagine how you'd find 20 of then around the same guy at the same time. "
We cannot judge people by our own standards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence. "
You have to wonder at a family who would take money for silence over their off springs abuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's no doubt he was a talent and did amazing things as an artist and performer. I had a ticket for his this is it tour but he sadly passed away.
I'll keep my lips closed on the mysterious dark side to him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
Never really been a fan. I have never been a fan of an adult wanting to spend so much time with other peoples kids. I have also never been a fan of parents who let other adults spend so much time alone with their kids |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Back in the day it was perfectly acceptable for an adult male to go swimming and end up throwing kids and even other people's kids up in the air in the pool and generally mess about.
These days I make it a point of not even talking to other people's kids just in case some twat misreads it.
Sign of the times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilacWoman
over a year ago
Cheshire |
" I have never been a fan of an adult wanting to spend so much time with other peoples kids. I have also never been a fan of parents who let other adults spend so much time alone with their kids "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone still idolise him????
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1317109/sickening-pictures-of-naked-teen-boys-child-torture-and-animal-sacrifice-found-at-singers-neverland-ranch-are-revealed-in-new-police-report/"
Hmmm the Sun, can't believe people still buy this shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone still idolise him????
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1317109/sickening-pictures-of-naked-teen-boys-child-torture-and-animal-sacrifice-found-at-singers-neverland-ranch-are-revealed-in-new-police-report/
Hmmm the Sun, can't believe people still buy this shit."
Didn't pay a thing for the link  (other nation/world wide news/information sources are available). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's just being used as a way to slur him. All evidence was reviewed by the jury and he was judged as innocent.
Don't dip into the gutter.
Exactly this!! I'm a fan he was an amazing singer, it was proven he was innocent! And in all fairness why bring this out now?? After years of being put to rest!! Something like this defo would of come out just after his death not years later, I don't believe any if this crap and never will...
Same here, not a massive fan but you can't ignore what he done over the decades with his music, why this has been brought up can only mean it's a slow news day
Slow news day ? It's the EU referendum the biggest news day this year.
Jackson was only found not guilty of the charges put before him. He had paid a family off so he didn't face any other charges. Many of the jury are on record as saying they have no doubt that he was a pedophile but they could only judge on the charges put before them.
Surely you can see the contradiction in your last sentence!
Maybe I have worded it wrong.
Jackson was faced with a specific charge. The jury could only rule on this.
When Jackson paid off the family all that evidence was then not allowed. The jury were then directed as to what verdict they could give based only on the allowed evidence.
Twice?
The Jackson foundation paid out over £200 million to over twenty families, they have admitted he had teenage boys over for "sleepovers"
I think that is pretty damming.
No its weird. Weird is not damning.
Equally I could say to you that if my child was sexually abused then no amount of money would stop me pursuing justice. What kind of parent thinks money compensates for sexual abuse?
A bad parent, but it happens and has happened.
What's the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would all prefer money to justice after their kids had been abused, and they all have a common connection to Michael Jackson?
Shit, if I was a analyst I'd almost see a trend where leeches are drawn towards weird people with a lot of money...
Jackson and his estate have never denied that these children slept at his ranch or that they paid them substantial amounts of money.
That much is fact. The question is whether there was sexual abuse. Again, think of the probability of finding 20 sets of parents who would rather have a pay off than justice? Those are pathetic, disgusting people if they genuinely did that. I believe there are very few parents who would really prefer money to justice if their kids had actually been abused. I really can't imagine how you'd find 20 of then around the same guy at the same time.
We cannot judge people by our own standards. "
I refer the honourable gentleman to his comments on sleepovers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
