FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should. Michael. Jackson's. Music. Be. Banned?
Should. Michael. Jackson's. Music. Be. Banned?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
Peach x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their is going to be a controversial documentary going to be shown about him." If that documentary proves beyond doubt that he was guilty of some of the things that he is alleged to have done, then it may bring about a change in people's attitudes towards him but I very much doubt it will be anything more than the usual sensationalisation without actually proving a great deal. I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, and personally don't understand the deification he gets, any more than I do that of Elvis Presley - and it's obvious he had a very troubled life but until something is proven (which I very much doubt it will be) I don't see why his music should not be played. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their is going to be a controversial documentary going to be shown about him. If that documentary proves beyond doubt that he was guilty of some of the things that he is alleged to have done, then it may bring about a change in people's attitudes towards him but I very much doubt it will be anything more than the usual sensationalisation without actually proving a great deal. I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, and personally don't understand the deification he gets, any more than I do that of Elvis Presley - and it's obvious he had a very troubled life but until something is proven (which I very much doubt it will be) I don't see why his music should not be played. "  . I’m not a fan either. But wash that mouth out talking about Elvis in that way!  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just to detract op....can you change the settings on your keyboard so that when you press spacebar it doesn't put in a full stop please? It's messing with my head reading your post titles....
Peach x"Seems you have the same problem but only intermittently - at the moment it's only affecting after the fourth and last words - might want to get it checked before it gets worse | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Their is going to be a controversial documentary going to be shown about him. If that documentary proves beyond doubt that he was guilty of some of the things that he is alleged to have done, then it may bring about a change in people's attitudes towards him but I very much doubt it will be anything more than the usual sensationalisation without actually proving a great deal. I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, and personally don't understand the deification he gets, any more than I do that of Elvis Presley - and it's obvious he had a very troubled life but until something is proven (which I very much doubt it will be) I don't see why his music should not be played. " Agreed. He can’t defend himself from the grave. He did when alive and was found not guilty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If .....so no one can profit from what was a musical genius to be fair." I think you might be doing a disservice to Quincy Jones with that statement | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"How about no ... How about if anything is ever proven (doubtful as he can't defend himself)... the proceeds from his music go to charities supporting victims" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We. Should. Put. Stylophones. on. a. big. bonfire. too." I miss my Stylophone  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing was ever proven and that is enough for me personally. Has anybody seen the new film that has come out which I believe the alleged victims discuss the situation?" Waits with anticipation. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Need to be found guilty first guys" Jimmy Saville was never found guilty of anything either. We all know what a scumbag he was though | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Need to be found guilty first guys Jimmy Saville was never found guilty of anything either. We all know what a scumbag he was though" He may not have been "found" guilty but he was "proven" guilty after his death (despite his guilt being well known in certain quarters before his death) - neither has been the case, yet, with Michael Jackson | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Need to be found guilty first guys Jimmy Saville was never found guilty of anything either. We all know what a scumbag he was though He may not have been "found" guilty but he was "proven" guilty after his death (despite his guilt being well known in certain quarters before his death) - neither has been the case, yet, with Michael Jackson" I think it will be. Money and friends in high places can cover up almost anything. It wouldn't keep cropping up if there was no truth behind it | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Now why you Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'? You people make me wanna Scream with these false accusations. I swear I Can't Make It Another Day listening to these blatant, Off The Wall lies. We've Had Enough of the media and those lying accusers and their attempts to smear MJ's name and paint him as some sort of Dangerous predator or Smooth Criminal or Monster who was abusing kids Behind The Mask. Do you Remember The Time he went to court to fight the allegations? Gave me Butterflies. Well, Breaking News, he was found innocent of all charges, ok. That day was The Best of Joy. This is the way you get treated when you just want to Heal The World, I guess it's just Human Nature unfortunately, It doesn't matter if you're Black or White, They Don't Care About Us, they only care about money. We just need to Keep the Faith. No, his music shouldn't be banned unless he was found guilty. Until then I'll continue to be a Slave To The Rhythm. Now Beat It! " How many hours did it take for you to think that post up? Lol | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"All I know is if my kids went through anything of that nature no amount of money would stop me wanting justice. He isn’t here to defend himself, so his music should still be played, regardless of if he didn’t or did he still made bloody good music, I mean if he was found guilty of the crimes against him then maybe I might feel differently. I’m not putting George Micheal in with this kind of thing but he did some bad things didn’t he, yet his music lives on, ok it’s not the same crimes at all but still. Danish x" What were George Michael's crimes? Ive heard alot of good things that he did that went on under the raidar but apart from having sex in dodgy places I haven't heard owt else. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Now why you Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'? You people make me wanna Scream with these false accusations. I swear I Can't Make It Another Day listening to these blatant, Off The Wall lies. We've Had Enough of the media and those lying accusers and their attempts to smear MJ's name and paint him as some sort of Dangerous predator or Smooth Criminal or Monster who was abusing kids Behind The Mask. Do you Remember The Time he went to court to fight the allegations? Gave me Butterflies. Well, Breaking News, he was found innocent of all charges, ok. That day was The Best of Joy. This is the way you get treated when you just want to Heal The World, I guess it's just Human Nature unfortunately, It doesn't matter if you're Black or White, They Don't Care About Us, they only care about money. We just need to Keep the Faith. No, his music shouldn't be banned unless he was found guilty. Until then I'll continue to be a Slave To The Rhythm. Now Beat It! How many hours did it take for you to think that post up? Lol " Now Why You Wanna Trip on Me? I think you have spoken Much Too Soon because you can see that the post is not hours long. Leave Me Alone or you're going to see Another Part of Me. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx " Well said. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Heee heeee shamone mo foes " HAHAHA | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing was ever proven and that is enough for me personally. Has anybody seen the new film that has come out which I believe the alleged victims discuss the situation?" Mmm Baby Be Mine  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet." Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why would his music be banned though?" cus it's shit!!!! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx " Just picking up on your comment about it being wrong to share his bed with young boys. My question is to the parents of these boys who allowed this to happen in the first place - but nobody ever asks that question do they? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died." Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx Just picking up on your comment about it being wrong to share his bed with young boys. My question is to the parents of these boys who allowed this to happen in the first place - but nobody ever asks that question do they? " I would never allow my son to share a bed with a grown man. He’s not small he’s quite tall for his age and as a mum he likes a hug sometimes at night. I would never allow him to share a bed with his freinds parents tho male or female I mean like if it was a girl you certainly wouldn’t so why should it be different him bein a little boy Mrscxxx | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I dont particularly like his music but I found it very interesting how the producers came out and made a big thing of the fact neither of these 2 men were paid nothing for the documentary therefore implying they must be telling the truth. (Which pretty much also says they are liars as they previously under oath and in a court of law said nothing happened). You then find out both of them are trying to sue Michael Jackson's estate for millions of dollars each. Call me cynical but as they always say if you want to find out the truth...follow the money." This Is It! You Are Not Alone in thinking this way. I believe they felt entitled to large sums of money for telling the truth of Michael's innocence and are mad that they were told to Beat It, lol. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died." didn’t say they are innocent. Just should report ASAP. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why would his music be banned though?" Because of (pc) the days. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. " Technically speaking, he was never PROVEN innocent - but that is simply because of the 'presumption of innocence' i.e. That someone is innocent until proven guilty. (For the record, I totally believe that he WAS innocent), however the fact is that he was only not proven to be guilty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. " No one is proven innocent, they are assumed innocent. There is a big difference. When a court case falls apart or someone is sent free, they were not proven innocent, they were just not proven guilty. Look I get it, youre okay with the many many allegations and the shush money, both at the time and historically. I get you see a difference between the church accepting responsibility and jacksons family only admitting that he shared bed with children, gave them alcohol, and maybe they had access to adult material, and nothing more. Its a very important distinction? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx Just picking up on your comment about it being wrong to share his bed with young boys. My question is to the parents of these boys who allowed this to happen in the first place - but nobody ever asks that question do they? I would never allow my son to share a bed with a grown man. He’s not small he’s quite tall for his age and as a mum he likes a hug sometimes at night. I would never allow him to share a bed with his freinds parents tho male or female I mean like if it was a girl you certainly wouldn’t so why should it be different him bein a little boy Mrscxxx " If it was a Liberian Girl would you allow a girl to share her bed, or is it only boys and men who's Bad? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Church berry, jerry Lee Lewis and probably many others, if MJ is one day found guilty should he be removed from the history of music? I don't think we should censor, although mainstream radio would probably stop playing him." What about Rolf Harris it was proven with him yet his music is still played on mainstream media Mrscxxx | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"what about Rolf Harris it was proven with him yet his music is still played on mainstream media Mrscxxx " Well that's a crime in itself  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. No one is proven innocent, they are assumed innocent. There is a big difference. When a court case falls apart or someone is sent free, they were not proven innocent, they were just not proven guilty. Look I get it, youre okay with the many many allegations and the shush money, both at the time and historically. I get you see a difference between the church accepting responsibility and jacksons family only admitting that he shared bed with children, gave them alcohol, and maybe they had access to adult material, and nothing more. Its a very important distinction?" Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. " Thats simply not how it works, no one is proven innocent. No one ever. Secondly, so child abuse is okay with you if the parents know its happening? Well that would make sense, considering you're defending MJ. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Nothing was ever proven and that is enough for me personally. Has anybody seen the new film that has come out which I believe the alleged victims discuss the situation?" Watched all 4 hours of it last night Pretty hard to watch tbh | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. No one is proven innocent, they are assumed innocent. There is a big difference. When a court case falls apart or someone is sent free, they were not proven innocent, they were just not proven guilty. Look I get it, youre okay with the many many allegations and the shush money, both at the time and historically. I get you see a difference between the church accepting responsibility and jacksons family only admitting that he shared bed with children, gave them alcohol, and maybe they had access to adult material, and nothing more. Its a very important distinction? Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. " Yes my child is at school where he should be | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. Thats simply not how it works, no one is proven innocent. No one ever. Secondly, so child abuse is okay with you if the parents know its happening?" That seems to be what you believe since the parents haven't been prosecuted and you haven't suggested that they should 
"Well that would make sense, considering you're defending MJ." Yes, and you're defending the parents.. They haven't been proven innocent. Gotta look at The Man In The Mirror mate. I think charges should be brought against the parents. Will You Be There to condemn them? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx Just picking up on your comment about it being wrong to share his bed with young boys. My question is to the parents of these boys who allowed this to happen in the first place - but nobody ever asks that question do they? " Well this has always been my question, most abusehappens at the hands of family members or is induced by family members, perhaps said family members pushing for the kids to spend time with mj had more sinister motives and then when it turns out they weren’t getting him to play ball as it were turned on him, no one will ever know what really happened anymore there been too many changes to stories, the way I see it mj was happy to let it go to court and was proven innocent yes families were given payouts but hey maybe mj had other reasons to pay families money like maybe he really cared about kids and hoped giving the parents money they might actually care about their kids and stop using them as pawns and destroying their childhood who knows he was certainly naive and I still to this day think he may have been ASD | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. Thats simply not how it works, no one is proven innocent. No one ever. Secondly, so child abuse is okay with you if the parents know its happening? That seems to be what you believe since the parents haven't been prosecuted and you haven't suggested that they should
Well that would make sense, considering you're defending MJ.
Yes, and you're defending the parents.. They haven't been proven innocent. Gotta look at The Man In The Mirror mate. I think charges should be brought against the parents. Will You Be There to condemn them?"I didn't defend the parents? I think they are scum? I think anyone who endangers a child in any way is scum. Leaving your child with a non family adult in the way they did, edangered the kids. If i find out someone endangered children, then I don't support them ever again. I wont even watch a pierce brosnan film, or Ewan Mcgreggor, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Eva Green etc etc Because they worked with someone they know abused a child. It's pretty black and white to me. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No it shouldn’t. If you leave it years before telling someone you was abused. How can you prove it. Nothing been proved yet. Do you think Jimmy Savile is innocent too, and the catholic church? All of their allegations are historical. Lets be honest, many many allegations were made at the time MJ was alive. Most were settled or taken to court etc, its not like they all came out as a surprise after he died. Look, We've Had Enough of the comparisons. MJ was proven innocent whereas the Catholic Church admits there was abuse. For One Day In Your Life, you have to allow the evidence to speak for itself mate. No one is proven innocent, they are assumed innocent. There is a big difference. When a court case falls apart or someone is sent free, they were not proven innocent, they were just not proven guilty. Look I get it, youre okay with the many many allegations and the shush money, both at the time and historically. I get you see a difference between the church accepting responsibility and jacksons family only admitting that he shared bed with children, gave them alcohol, and maybe they had access to adult material, and nothing more. Its a very important distinction?" Unfortunately it’s only words as nowadays thanks to media everyone is assumed guilty then proven innocent | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’m a fan of Micheal Jackson nothing has ever been proven so why should it be banned? He was a great singer with a troubled past. And I don’t for one second believe he touched up children yes it was wrong of him to share his bed with young boys and I would have a different tone if it was my 9 year old son but nothing was proven and I don’t believe his death was an accident either Mrscxxx Just picking up on your comment about it being wrong to share his bed with young boys. My question is to the parents of these boys who allowed this to happen in the first place - but nobody ever asks that question do they? Well this has always been my question, most abusehappens at the hands of family members or is induced by family members, perhaps said family members pushing for the kids to spend time with mj had more sinister motives and then when it turns out they weren’t getting him to play ball as it were turned on him, no one will ever know what really happened anymore there been too many changes to stories, the way I see it mj was happy to let it go to court and was proven innocent yes families were given payouts but hey maybe mj had other reasons to pay families money like maybe he really cared about kids and hoped giving the parents money they might actually care about their kids and stop using them as pawns and destroying their childhood who knows he was certainly naive and I still to this day think he may have been ASD " Well said | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do You Know Where Your Children Are? Right, well those parents knew where their kids were and approved. I can Rock With You on your definition of proof outside of a system of justice, but in the context of justice he was proven innocent. Thats simply not how it works, no one is proven innocent. No one ever. Secondly, so child abuse is okay with you if the parents know its happening? That seems to be what you believe since the parents haven't been prosecuted and you haven't suggested that they should
Well that would make sense, considering you're defending MJ.
Yes, and you're defending the parents.. They haven't been proven innocent. Gotta look at The Man In The Mirror mate. I think charges should be brought against the parents. Will You Be There to condemn them?
I didn't defend the parents? I think they are scum?
I think anyone who endangers a child in any way is scum. Leaving your child with a non family adult in the way they did, endangered the kids.
If i find out someone endangered children, then I don't support them ever again. I wont even watch a pierce brosnan film, or Ewan Mcgreggor, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Eva Green etc etc
Because they worked with someone they know abused a child.
It's pretty black and white to me."Hey, You Are Not Alone, the only missing piece is that there's no evidence MJ did anything. You're following pure conjecture. I mean I think it's great that you're Showin' how funky and strong is your fight, but It doesn't matter who's wrong or right. Just beat it beat it beat... Sorry, digressing there.. but yeah, no evidence mate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Church berry, jerry Lee Lewis and probably many others, if MJ is one day found guilty should he be removed from the history of music? I don't think we should censor, although mainstream radio would probably stop playing him. What about Rolf Harris it was proven with him yet his music is still played on mainstream media Mrscxxx " What media are you watching or listening? Albanian , possibly Afghan | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"All I know is if my kids went through anything of that nature no amount of money would stop me wanting justice. He isn’t here to defend himself, so his music should still be played, regardless of if he didn’t or did he still made bloody good music, I mean if he was found guilty of the crimes against him then maybe I might feel differently. I’m not putting George Micheal in with this kind of thing but he did some bad things didn’t he, yet his music lives on, ok it’s not the same crimes at all but still. Danish x What were George Michael's crimes? Ive heard alot of good things that he did that went on under the raidar but apart from having sex in dodgy places I haven't heard owt else. " That’s what I mean, I didn’t stay his crimes was anywhere near MJ’s, but the driving in to the front of supersnaps wasn’t his finest moment but yet his songs still got played, like getting arrested in a public toilet and he was actually convicted of that ‘crime’ yet the airwaves was still full of his material, MJ hasn’t been convicted of ANY crime yet his songs have been or will be banned, I know the two crimes aren’t connected in anyway but a conviction is still a conviction none the less, probably a stupid comparison really! Danish x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven?" That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya? "Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly."Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'? "So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Should. People. That. Continually. Use. Full. Stops. Be. Banned? As for MJ, his music is his legacy, tainted by some unsavoury allegations that were never proven. It's still my firm belief that the accusers parents were behind accusations. Seeing $'s from a guy worth a fortune. The documentaries are nothing more than distasteful trial by media, with the accused unable to defend himself. Would they be broadcast were he still alive? I'd wager not. " A | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?"Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?
Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal. "But he wasn't any of these children's father, brother or grandfather. He did take underage children to bed, he admitted that and no, I never have either - I have no inclination to do so, I didn't grow up with brothers or sisters and have no children. I'm sure there other ways of putting "taken an underage child to bed", but surely that's just semantics. If there are people around today who were abused as children, even if it wasn't by a rich and famous pop singer, surely they should have some sort of voice? If you have kids, and when of them told you he/she was sexually abused as a child, what would you do? There are many reasons why kids don't say anything at the time, and these are quite well documented in individual cases - sometimes fear they won't be believed, fear of being shunned by friends if the "accused" is popular, in the US money is a big factor - the list goes on. In my opinion, an abused child's right to justice shouldn't have a time limit and shouldn't be ignored just because the accused is dead, or was a famous pop star. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?
Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal.
But he wasn't any of these children's father, brother or grandfather. He did take underage children to bed, he admitted that and no, I never have either - I have no inclination to do so, I didn't grow up with brothers or sisters and have no children. I'm sure there other ways of putting "taken an underage child to bed", but surely that's just semantics. If there are people around today who were abused as children, even if it wasn't by a rich and famous pop singer, surely they should have some sort of voice? If you have kids, and when of them told you he/she was sexually abused as a child, what would you do? There are many reasons why kids don't say anything at the time, and these are quite well documented in individual cases - sometimes fear they won't be believed, fear of being shunned by friends if the "accused" is popular, in the US money is a big factor - the list goes on. In my opinion, an abused child's right to justice shouldn't have a time limit and shouldn't be ignored just because the accused is dead, or was a famous pop star. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He hasn't been proven guilty, but even with people who have been found guilty of terrible crimes I haven't heard their music being banned. People should have the choice of what they listen to and who they support." Agreed and I am a fan. #MJ | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?
Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal.
But he wasn't any of these children's father, brother or grandfather."But he WAS a famous and rich popstar and you felt the need to eliminate that as well from the equation, so I eliminated father or brother. So what you're saying is that if it's a father or brother then it's ok to take a child into your bed and it's never a cause for investigation.. yes? "He did take underage children to bed, he admitted that" All children are 'underage'. That's the definition of 'child'. By using the word 'underage' you seem to be implying age of consent to sexual intercourse, otherwise I don't see the point. This is why I criticised the way you're framing your question. You're basically asking if it's ok to be a pedophile. What I'd like to know is why you needed to eliminate him being a famous pop star in order to make it problematic. Why do you have trouble problematising it with him remaining as a pop star? Let me be clear, I'm not saying it is my practice or that I would do the same. I'm saying it's a particular culture and you're suggesting that it is automatically sexual in nature. Why isn't it sexual with fathers and brothers and why not with women too? "and no, I never have either - I have no inclination to do so, I didn't grow up with brothers or sisters and have no children." But you would if you had children? "I'm sure there other ways of putting "taken an underage child to bed", but surely that's just semantics." Is there? Is there a way to take an "underage" child to bed without it being sexual? For starters, you might want to remove the word "underage" before you get yourself into trouble by suggesting ways to 'take them to bed'! "If there are people around today who were abused as children, even if it wasn't by a rich and famous pop singer, surely they should have some sort of voice?" Who's taking anyone's voice away? Do you mean that every accusing voice is the gospel and every accused person shouldn't have a voice? They have their voice, in court! And it was found to be lies! "If you have kids, and one of them told you he/she was sexually abused as a child, what would you do?" I would support them! I would fight for justice! They are my children! I wouldn't expect the whole world to believe the stories just because I do, and I certainly wouldn't expect the courts to find someone guilty without evidence, ESPECIALLY if the court already found them innocent! Are those kids your own? Right, so you need evidence to criticise me or others. Otherwise, I'm entitled to my opinion that they are greedy money grabbers and I'm definitely entitled to trust the verdict and where the evidence points. There's no way in hell I would hear of allegations that other kids were abused and then support my own child to DEFEND the accused without making damn certain that my child was not abused! I wouldn't personally approve of my kids being with a stranger, famous pop star or not, first of all. But you eliminated that from the equation, so I didn't respond to that. I'm not from their culture. So my question, just as a mental muse, is what would you do if you were accused of being an abuser and the court determined that the allegations were false? Should someone like me still believe that you are guilty and treat you accordingly? "There are many reasons why kids don't say anything at the time, and these are quite well documented in individual cases - sometimes fear they won't be believed, fear of being shunned by friends if the "accused" is popular, in the US money is a big factor - the list goes on. In my opinion, an abused child's right to justice shouldn't have a time limit and shouldn't be ignored just because the accused is dead, or was a famous pop star." I agree. But what does this have to do with EVIDENCE and PROOF? It's odd that you express a trust in justice systems but refuse to accept the verdict of not guilty for MJ. Why? There's no evidence my friend! Surely you can accept that you are misguided to try painting those who accept the VERDICT as supporters of abuse! You feel the same about the judge and jury? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?
Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal.
But he wasn't any of these children's father, brother or grandfather.
But he WAS a famous and rich popstar and you felt the need to eliminate that as well from the equation, so I eliminated father or brother. So what you're saying is that if it's a father or brother then it's ok to take a child into your bed and it's never a cause for investigation.. yes? He did take underage children to bed, he admitted that
All children are 'underage'. That's the definition of 'child'. By using the word 'underage' you seem to be implying age of consent to sexual intercourse, otherwise I don't see the point. This is why I criticised the way you're framing your question. You're basically asking if it's ok to be a pedophile. What I'd like to know is why you needed to eliminate him being a famous pop star in order to make it problematic. Why do you have trouble problematising it with him remaining as a pop star? Let me be clear, I'm not saying it is my practice or that I would do the same. I'm saying it's a particular culture and you're suggesting that it is automatically sexual in nature. Why isn't it sexual with fathers and brothers and why not with women too?
and no, I never have either - I have no inclination to do so, I didn't grow up with brothers or sisters and have no children.
But you would if you had children?
I'm sure there other ways of putting "taken an underage child to bed", but surely that's just semantics.
Is there? Is there a way to take an "underage" child to bed without it being sexual? For starters, you might want to remove the word "underage" before you get yourself into trouble by suggesting ways to 'take them to bed'!
If there are people around today who were abused as children, even if it wasn't by a rich and famous pop singer, surely they should have some sort of voice?
Who's taking anyone's voice away? Do you mean that every accusing voice is the gospel and every accused person shouldn't have a voice? They have their voice, in court! And it was found to be lies!
If you have kids, and one of them told you he/she was sexually abused as a child, what would you do?
I would support them! I would fight for justice! They are my children! I wouldn't expect the whole world to believe the stories just because I do, and I certainly wouldn't expect the courts to find someone guilty without evidence, ESPECIALLY if the court already found them innocent! Are those kids your own? Right, so you need evidence to criticise me or others. Otherwise, I'm entitled to my opinion that they are greedy money grabbers and I'm definitely entitled to trust the verdict and where the evidence points. There's no way in hell I would hear of allegations that other kids were abused and then support my own child to DEFEND the accused without making damn certain that my child was not abused! I wouldn't personally approve of my kids being with a stranger, famous pop star or not, first of all. But you eliminated that from the equation, so I didn't respond to that. I'm not from their culture. So my question, just as a mental muse, is what would you do if you were accused of being an abuser and the court determined that the allegations were false? Should someone like me still believe that you are guilty and treat you accordingly?
There are many reasons why kids don't say anything at the time, and these are quite well documented in individual cases - sometimes fear they won't be believed, fear of being shunned by friends if the "accused" is popular, in the US money is a big factor - the list goes on. In my opinion, an abused child's right to justice shouldn't have a time limit and shouldn't be ignored just because the accused is dead, or was a famous pop star.
I agree. But what does this have to do with EVIDENCE and PROOF? It's odd that you express a trust in justice systems but refuse to accept the verdict of not guilty for MJ. Why? There's no evidence my friend! Surely you can accept that you are misguided to try painting those who accept the VERDICT as supporters of abuse! You feel the same about the judge and jury? "well, that must have taken you quite some time, so thank you for your insights. What culture is it that deems it perfectly acceptable for an adult man to take a completely unrelated child to his bed? You didn't actually say. Will you be watching the programme? If so, will you come back to the thread and comment on it afterwards? I'd be interested in your perspective. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just out of impersonal interest- to the MJ fans on here who have shown support for him, would you change your mind and condemn him if sufficient evidence of guilt in an offence against a minor was shown or proven? That seems a bit suggestive and an unfair question to ask. I don't see anyone supporting him except for the fact that there is no evidence of his guilt and the fact that he was proven innocent. So why is there a question of evidence being brought against him to prove guilt? It's like asking the same question to the fans of any other person who has not committed any crime. He's innocent, case closed! You just Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough, do ya?
Ok, I put the question wrong, but I feel it was a valid one. When the whole thing about Savile came up his family very vocally defended him and condemned his accusers. Then stuff was proven and they disappeared bloody quickly.
Yeah I'd disappear in a flash if it were proven... and that's 'proven'! So if there's anyone with that evidence I'd like to know 'Who Is It'?
So would a lot of people, I'd imagine. Again a question - and this isn't personal to you, just a mental musing - if a adult male who wasn't a rich and famous pop star took an underage child into his bed, would that be a cause for concern and further investigation?
Father's do it all the time.. So do grandfathers and big brothers... Parents encourage it and think nothing of it. So let me ask, if you remove the fatherhood or brotherhood or close relationship, would it be a cause for investigation? Well that's what you're doing when you remove Micheal Jackson's particular characteristics and identity. It's essentially the same as asking would it be a cause for investigation if the relationship wasn't the relationship and the circumstances weren't the circumstances. It's redundant! It's a different culture. Would you ask the same if it was a woman who let girls sleep in her bed? I can't imagine why you would frame your question in such a way... "take an underage child to his bed"... Quite suggestive and perniciously ambiguous. Here's my question In The Closet... Have you ever 'taken an underage child to bed'? Nothing personal.
But he wasn't any of these children's father, brother or grandfather.
But he WAS a famous and rich popstar and you felt the need to eliminate that as well from the equation, so I eliminated father or brother. So what you're saying is that if it's a father or brother then it's ok to take a child into your bed and it's never a cause for investigation.. yes? He did take underage children to bed, he admitted that
All children are 'underage'. That's the definition of 'child'. By using the word 'underage' you seem to be implying age of consent to sexual intercourse, otherwise I don't see the point. This is why I criticised the way you're framing your question. You're basically asking if it's ok to be a pedophile. What I'd like to know is why you needed to eliminate him being a famous pop star in order to make it problematic. Why do you have trouble problematising it with him remaining as a pop star? Let me be clear, I'm not saying it is my practice or that I would do the same. I'm saying it's a particular culture and you're suggesting that it is automatically sexual in nature. Why isn't it sexual with fathers and brothers and why not with women too?
and no, I never have either - I have no inclination to do so, I didn't grow up with brothers or sisters and have no children.
But you would if you had children?
I'm sure there other ways of putting "taken an underage child to bed", but surely that's just semantics.
Is there? Is there a way to take an "underage" child to bed without it being sexual? For starters, you might want to remove the word "underage" before you get yourself into trouble by suggesting ways to 'take them to bed'!
If there are people around today who were abused as children, even if it wasn't by a rich and famous pop singer, surely they should have some sort of voice?
Who's taking anyone's voice away? Do you mean that every accusing voice is the gospel and every accused person shouldn't have a voice? They have their voice, in court! And it was found to be lies!
If you have kids, and one of them told you he/she was sexually abused as a child, what would you do?
I would support them! I would fight for justice! They are my children! I wouldn't expect the whole world to believe the stories just because I do, and I certainly wouldn't expect the courts to find someone guilty without evidence, ESPECIALLY if the court already found them innocent! Are those kids your own? Right, so you need evidence to criticise me or others. Otherwise, I'm entitled to my opinion that they are greedy money grabbers and I'm definitely entitled to trust the verdict and where the evidence points. There's no way in hell I would hear of allegations that other kids were abused and then support my own child to DEFEND the accused without making damn certain that my child was not abused! I wouldn't personally approve of my kids being with a stranger, famous pop star or not, first of all. But you eliminated that from the equation, so I didn't respond to that. I'm not from their culture. So my question, just as a mental muse, is what would you do if you were accused of being an abuser and the court determined that the allegations were false? Should someone like me still believe that you are guilty and treat you accordingly?
There are many reasons why kids don't say anything at the time, and these are quite well documented in individual cases - sometimes fear they won't be believed, fear of being shunned by friends if the "accused" is popular, in the US money is a big factor - the list goes on. In my opinion, an abused child's right to justice shouldn't have a time limit and shouldn't be ignored just because the accused is dead, or was a famous pop star.
I agree. But what does this have to do with EVIDENCE and PROOF? It's odd that you express a trust in justice systems but refuse to accept the verdict of not guilty for MJ. Why? There's no evidence my friend! Surely you can accept that you are misguided to try painting those who accept the VERDICT as supporters of abuse! You feel the same about the judge and jury?
Well, that must have taken you quite some time, so thank you for your insights. What culture is it that deems it perfectly acceptable for an adult man to take a completely unrelated child to his bed? You didn't actually say. Will you be watching the programme? If so, will you come back to the thread and comment on it afterwards? I'd be interested in your perspective."About 10 mins perhaps, not very long so no worries at all. The culture would be that of those parents, fans and stars who interact with each other in that way. Most of them seem to be people who worship their idols and don't see anything wrong with that at all and the stars give the fans an experience they expect based on the character of the star. Probably not the best example here but you have folk who will pay a woman for the "girlfriend experience". I'm not surprised that there is a culture where folk make godfathers of their popstar idols and want to have the "big brother" experience or even "father" or grandfather experience. People let their kids sit on Santa's lap and tell him what gifts they want. They teach their kids that this famous total stranger from the North Pole is allowed to break into their home at night through the chimney while everyone is asleep and leave goodies for them. They even leave milk and cookies out for him to eat. At least this is what millions of people are willing to teach their children about strangers. Maybe your parents taught you the same? I'm not at all surprised that popstars are viewed and trusted in a similar way. It's a fantasy. They are not viewed simply as a stranger. The people have a very close affinity for them and the stars are also under pressure to make that dream come true. They're kids man. Don't think I'll be tuning in to the programming as I've had my fill of the propaganda already and it doesn't mount to much more than a smear campaign at this point. When it goes to court again, I'll tune in. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling." The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. " And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Unfortunately it’s only words as nowadays thanks to media everyone is assumed guilty then proven innocent " Words was the Bee Gees mate, keep up
"He was found not guilty in a court of law Facts don’t lie, people do" Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"He was tried, and found innocent when alive. Yes he was a bit odd, but many people are a bit odd just don't have the money that attracts attention and beeing odd but harmless only interests the media if you are famous. Let's face it if Cliff Richard was dead when the BBC, with the aid of the police declared him a paedo he wouldn't have been able to deny it and subsequently be accepted as innocent. " Sorry. But you are completely wrong. No-one has ever been found ""innocent" of anything. The only verdict a court can give is whether the evidence brought before the court pis sufficient for a "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" verdict (also "not proven" in Scotland). No-one can porove their innocence of ANYTHING in court. Jackson was never declared innocent of anything. Juries can be bought, judges can direct juries and the more money you got... the better the lawyers you have. Also the more money you have the easier it is to make Out Of Court Settlements and cover them with expensive gag-orders and Superinjunctions - which prevent the mere existence of the gag-orders ever being allowed to be referred to. He had those. NO-ONE has EVER been tried for anything and "Found Innocent". There is often insufficient eveidence for a Guiilty Verdict but the tiral goes ahead - just to make the beast sweat in public. Lets the beast know that we all know what he's been doing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. " Yes, the law is ALWAYS the right PATH to justice! There is no other way! Or let's just scrap that whole law nonsense and go back to the days of witch hunting and mob justice. I propose we hang all megastars first for having money. They're all guilty! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. Yes, the law is ALWAYS the right PATH to justice! There is no other way! Or let's just scrap that whole law nonsense and go back to the days of witch hunting and mob justice. I propose we hang all megastars first for having money. They're all guilty! " I find it a little odd that your responses are so emotional and excessive in their content. Do you consider Jackson to be above reproach and further investigation just because you like his pop music? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. Yes, the law is ALWAYS the right PATH to justice! There is no other way! Or let's just scrap that whole law nonsense and go back to the days of witch hunting and mob justice. I propose we hang all megastars first for having money. They're all guilty! I find it a little odd that your responses are so emotional and excessive in their content. Do you consider Jackson to be above reproach and further investigation just because you like his pop music?" Can I ask that you commit yourself to an objective, evidence based discussion and not make subjective assumptions or accusations about my emotional investment into the discussion unless it's framed as a question or the assumed emotion changes the meaning of what I've shared? Can you please describe exactly what you mean by "emotional" and can you point out exactly what I have shared that makes my comments fit that description? Can you also define exactly what you mean by "excessive" and point out how my posts fit that description? It seems to me that you're having a subjective reaction to me having a response to your arguments that is causing you to now switch to a discussion about my subjective state, rather than my arguments. I wonder why that is more important to you? That is what I find a little odd. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. Yes, the law is ALWAYS the right PATH to justice! There is no other way! Or let's just scrap that whole law nonsense and go back to the days of witch hunting and mob justice. I propose we hang all megastars first for having money. They're all guilty! I find it a little odd that your responses are so emotional and excessive in their content. Do you consider Jackson to be above reproach and further investigation just because you like his pop music? Can I ask that you commit yourself to an objective, evidence based discussion and not make subjective assumptions or accusations about my emotional investment into the discussion unless it's framed as a question or the assumed emotion changes the meaning of what I've shared? Can you please describe exactly what you mean by "emotional" and can you point out exactly what I have shared that makes my comments fit that description? Can you also define exactly what you mean by "excessive" and point out how my posts fit that description? It seems to me that you're having a subjective reaction to me having a response to your arguments that is causing you to now switch to a discussion about my subjective state, rather than my arguments. I wonder why that is more important to you? That is what I find a little odd. " Answering questions with questions is counterproductive to good discussion, so I'll leave it there. Thanks for your input. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Do you consider Jackson to be above reproach and further investigation just because you like his pop music?" How did you draw that conclusion from me stating clearly earlier that I would wait for a further investigation and a new judgement before believing that he's guilty? Do you consider yourself above the law and Jackson undeserving of the due process of the justice system just because you don't like his pop music or because you have a personal opinion? What makes you correct and me wrong apart from the fact that I am basing my judgement on the FACT that the courts found him NOT GUILTY and you're basing yours on testimony that the courts threw out! What are you really standing upon here, evidentially speaking? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're not going to watch it? The Gavin Arvizo testimony is shockingly compelling. The court didn't think so. The law disagrees. And the law is always right, especially in America where multi-million dollar megastars are involved. Probably. Yes, the law is ALWAYS the right PATH to justice! There is no other way! Or let's just scrap that whole law nonsense and go back to the days of witch hunting and mob justice. I propose we hang all megastars first for having money. They're all guilty! I find it a little odd that your responses are so emotional and excessive in their content. Do you consider Jackson to be above reproach and further investigation just because you like his pop music? Can I ask that you commit yourself to an objective, evidence based discussion and not make subjective assumptions or accusations about my emotional investment into the discussion unless it's framed as a question or the assumed emotion changes the meaning of what I've shared? Can you please describe exactly what you mean by "emotional" and can you point out exactly what I have shared that makes my comments fit that description? Can you also define exactly what you mean by "excessive" and point out how my posts fit that description? It seems to me that you're having a subjective reaction to me having a response to your arguments that is causing you to now switch to a discussion about my subjective state, rather than my arguments. I wonder why that is more important to you? That is what I find a little odd. Answering questions with questions is counterproductive to good discussion, so I'll leave it there. Thanks for your input. "Expecting presupository questions to be answered categorically without investigation and refutation is counterintuitive and unjust to respondents. Did you stop sucking MJ's cock before his trial or after? See how that works? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"NO-ONE has EVER been tried for anything and "Found Innocent". There is often insufficient eveidence for a Guiilty Verdict but the tiral goes ahead - just to make the beast sweat in public. Lets the beast know that we all know what he's been doing. " Kind of true, but not guilty is actually innocent of the charges tried and tested in a court of law, which has a lot more information than the spit bubble blowing mob rule that doesn't care for evidence and wants to find someone guilty because they emotionally want it to be so. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"One thing to bear in mind is that his main accuser (particularly in this documentary) had previously denied, on a number of occasions, any wrong doing by Michael Jackson, and even went as far as defending him when other allegations had been made against him. Since Michael's death he has attempted to sue MJ's estate but was unsuccessful. It also came to light that the original allegations made by the Chandler family were purely for extortion. Chandler's father had allegedly contacted Jackson and demanded a massive payout or he would go to the papers and destroy him. Jackson refused, which is why the allegations then came. Let's not forget though that Jackson was arrested, charge and stood trial on allegations of such assault and was acquitted. His family are currently in the process of bringing legal proceedings against the producers of this documentary" well i hope to god michaels family do get justice its disgraceful behaviour trying to destroy a good man's life they won't get any good out of it rest assured | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"What. Are. You. On. About." I. Think. He. Was. Touching. Himself. And. Laughing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes his music should be banned. It was crap. Formulaic. His releases were over-produced and showed little singing talent or ability. By the 90s his star was in the gutter and he was avoiding the Courts with massive payouts and out-of-court settlements. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Perhaps instead of completely banning the music they could put out a compilation album of tunes penned by musical paedophiles. May I suggest, Now That’s What I Call Pedo Hits." Michael Jackson fans would definitely buy it | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"After watching this Doc..... Yes 100000000000% Sick Fuck " What the one where the parents sent their kids to a strangers house for regular sleep overs, and the kids and parents sat in a court of law and said nothing inappropriate happened... until the money ran out. If there is any truth in it they should all go to jail for pimping, purgery, and just generally being stupid people. If not then they should go to jail for making the film. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"After watching this Doc..... Yes 100000000000% Sick Fuck What the one where the parents sent their kids to a strangers house for regular sleep overs, and the kids and parents sat in a court of law and said nothing inappropriate happened... until the money ran out. If there is any truth in it they should all go to jail for pimping, purgery, and just generally being stupid people. If not then they should go to jail for making the film. " Amazing what some people will say to justify they want to listen to music made by a man who took kids to bed.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"After watching this Doc..... Yes 100000000000% Sick Fuck What the one where the parents sent their kids to a strangers house for regular sleep overs, and the kids and parents sat in a court of law and said nothing inappropriate happened... until the money ran out. If there is any truth in it they should all go to jail for pimping, purgery, and just generally being stupid people. If not then they should go to jail for making the film. Amazing what some people will say to justify they want to listen to music made by a man who took kids to bed. "Personally I choose not to listen, but as I said up the thread somewhere he went to court accused of this and was found not guilty. I am damned sure the court had more actual evidence in front of them than you do. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"After watching this Doc..... Yes 100000000000% Sick Fuck What the one where the parents sent their kids to a strangers house for regular sleep overs, and the kids and parents sat in a court of law and said nothing inappropriate happened... until the money ran out. If there is any truth in it they should all go to jail for pimping, purgery, and just generally being stupid people. If not then they should go to jail for making the film. Amazing what some people will say to justify they want to listen to music made by a man who took kids to bed.
Personally I choose not to listen, but as I said up the thread somewhere he went to court accused of this and was found not guilty. I am damned sure the court had more actual evidence in front of them than you do."Yep courts always get it right just like David Beckham getting off a speeding ticket. Expensive lawyers are very clever at getting people off as they say money talks. You will be saying Jimmy Savile is innocent next he was never convicted either. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You will be saying Jimmy Savile is innocent next he was never convicted either. "Technically he was never charged with any crime, but I don't believe he didn't do something, though I don't actually even know exactly what he is accused of, do you? Difference is the charges against Jackson went to court and he got aquited so in the eyes of the law he is innocent. You are judging him guilty with no evidence, so how do you reach your judgement? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"NO-ONE has EVER been tried for anything and "Found Innocent". There is often insufficient evidence for a Guilty Verdict but the trial goes ahead - just to make the beast sweat in public. Lets the beast know that we all know what he's been doing. Kind of true, but not guilty is actually innocent of the charges tried and tested in a court of law, which has a lot more information than the spit bubble blowing mob rule that doesn't care for evidence and wants to find someone guilty because they emotionally want it to be so. " WRONG. Sorry. But you are wrong. Being found "Not Guilty" does NOT equal to being declared "Innocent". A Court cannot declare ANYONE as "Innocent". Just ask Angus Sinclair. He was acquitted of the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie. Case thrown out for insufficient evidence. 37 years after he r*ped and murdered those two girls he was retried and found GUILTY and sentenced to 37 years. Just because you were found "not guilty" of a crime does not mean you are "innocent". Just because the Police were unable to prove "Guilt" does NOT mean the Court says you are "Innocent". No court has ever declared ANYONE "innocent". No court has ever declared anyone "innocent". They are "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" of the crime based on THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT at the time. Sometimes new evidence comes up and _ Bingo... like Angus Sinclair - it is clink, Guilty... prison. Jacko escaped prison through his grave methinks. But he was never found "innicent" by any court. Because Courts are not set up to try someone's "Innocence". They were unable to prove his guilt at the time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Whatever the documentary tries to prove , it won’t be any more or any less than Jacko went through when he was alive . Did he pay hush money ? I don’t think so , I think he was just so distraught at the thought that people thought he would do what they were saying he did and just wanted it to go away . He was naive , but the guy lived in a fantasy world . I don’t think he was evil one bit . So let’s keep listening to his music ." Yeah I agree with this. If there are pitchforks being raised, maybe we can point them at the paedophilia going on in the UK establishment instead. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The most dangerous pedophile ever. Limitless money and stature that made him untouchable. " This. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Whatever the documentary tries to prove , it won’t be any more or any less than Jacko went through when he was alive . Did he pay hush money ? I don’t think so , I think he was just so distraught at the thought that people thought he would do what they were saying he did and just wanted it to go away . He was naive , but the guy lived in a fantasy world . I don’t think he was evil one bit . So let’s keep listening to his music . Yeah I agree with this. If there are pitchforks being raised, maybe we can point them at the paedophilia going on in the UK establishment instead." Why not both? Or all pedos? Evidence and methods used in this, and other cases can be used to trap future predators. That's a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No because it's cool. I think he was really weird though. Innocent till proven guilty. " Jimi Savile was never taken to court and never found guilty or not guilty. This means that he is "innocent until proven guilty", and that's a legal definition. Do you believe Savile to be innocent? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No because it's cool. I think he was really weird though. Innocent till proven guilty. Jimi Savile was never taken to court and never found guilty or not guilty. This means that he is "innocent until proven guilty", and that's a legal definition. Do you believe Savile to be innocent?" Just my opinion, I don't think Saville was but in the eyes of the law he is. Michael Jackson doesn't seem the type to me. It's like he has the mental age of a kid. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity." I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, his music should not be banned. The two boys had there day in court and stated, on oath, that nothing went on. Several years later, after time to research and be coached. They do a documentary, changing there view. Amazing how that happens in America a lot when their is a multi billion pound estate to go after. He was found NOT guilty in court...when he was able to defend himself!!! Just saying......." THIS! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up." That is right | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Innocent till proven guilty??" not on fab no such thing it’s pitchfork at the ready  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Innocent till proven guilty?? not on fab no such thing it’s pitchfork at the ready "Lol drowning like witches in the good old days ?  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Innocent till proven guilty?? not on fab no such thing it’s pitchfork at the ready " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No because it's cool. I think he was really weird though. Innocent till proven guilty. Jimi Savile was never taken to court and never found guilty or not guilty. This means that he is "innocent until proven guilty", and that's a legal definition. Do you believe Savile to be innocent? Just my opinion, I don't think Saville was but in the eyes of the law he is. Michael Jackson doesn't seem the type to me. It's like he has the mental age of a kid. " He was an adult male, not a child. "Michael Jackson doesn't seem the type to me." - you knew him personally, or you knew his on-screen persona? Huge, huge difference. Since the showing of a documentary, Childline have reported an increase in calls from vulnerable children. If just one child is saved from abuse due to the showing, and backlash of this documentary, I would consider it justified. Here's an interesting article:- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/child-sexual-abuse-victims-michael-jackson | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity." I'ma feminist and i stuck up for him.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right ""They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I'ma feminist and i stuck up for him. "That is good. I meant the radical ones. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No because it's cool. I think he was really weird though. Innocent till proven guilty. Jimi Savile was never taken to court and never found guilty or not guilty. This means that he is "innocent until proven guilty", and that's a legal definition. Do you believe Savile to be innocent? Just my opinion, I don't think Saville was but in the eyes of the law he is. Michael Jackson doesn't seem the type to me. It's like he has the mental age of a kid. He was an adult male, not a child. "Michael Jackson doesn't seem the type to me." - you knew him personally, or you knew his on-screen persona? Huge, huge difference. Since the showing of a documentary, Childline have reported an increase in calls from vulnerable children. If just one child is saved from abuse due to the showing, and backlash of this documentary, I would consider it justified. Here's an interesting article:- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/child-sexual-abuse-victims-michael-jackson" Just my opinion. I don't know whether he was guilty just like you don't know whether he was innocent. I'm goad people are speaking out from watching it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?"Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything. It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?
Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything.
It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?
Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything.
It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though. "Did you tell your parents everything? Really???? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I didn’t watch it but must admit when it all came out before I didn’t think he had. I think he was more like a child in a mans body. Like a Peter Pan type person. Very odd person though none the less. Was never a fan. " Glad you're back my love x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?
Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything.
It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though.
Did you tell your parents everything? Really???? "My old man could rule with a iron fist. I found £1200 in a wallet on a golf course when I was 14 and handed it in because I knew if he found out he wouldn't be happy. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?
Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything.
It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though.
Did you tell your parents everything? Really???? My old man could rule with a iron fist. I found £1200 in a wallet on a golf course when I was 14 and handed it in because I knew if he found out he wouldn't be happy. "And he never hit me because he never needed to. It was just made clear. I got half a pint of as a reward. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity. I sympathise with any victims of abuse. They need to act at the time though with evidence. As hard as that may be they need examples of people who have stood up.That is right
"They need to act at the time though with evidence" This is a horribly simplistic statement. Do you really have so little clue what it's like to be intensively groomed then abused?
Fortunately I have never suffered abuse but if I had children I would hope they would be able to tell me anything.
It's the only way to not have any ambiguity though.
Did you tell your parents everything? Really???? My old man could rule with a iron fist. I found £1200 in a wallet on a golf course when I was 14 and handed it in because I knew if he found out he wouldn't be happy. "Amazing | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, no daubt it is radical feminists that is on a man hunt mission yet again with another celebrity." No doubt misogynists who think its ok to do as they wish sexually with women and children without their consent feel the need to defend such things. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt?" You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt? You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt..." Assets aren't always directly or easily transferable to cash - any accountant will tell you that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt? You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt..." But he was in debt he owed more than he had in cash/money in the bank the true value of assets cannot be determined till sold. The guy owed money he was living of overdrawn accounts he was in debt. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt? You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt... Assets aren't always directly or easily transferable to cash - any accountant will tell you that." Try going into a shop to buy something, and when the shopkeeper requires payment say "I haven't got any cash, but I do own the rights to a birthday song". See how far that gets you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt? You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt... Assets aren't always directly or easily transferable to cash - any accountant will tell you that. Try going into a shop to buy something, and when the shopkeeper requires payment say "I haven't got any cash, but I do own the rights to a birthday song". See how far that gets you." Nowhere now as it's in the public domain. Assets can be sold quite easily. Especially assets like the beatles. You're just in an argumentative mood. You're waffling on too much! Let's all just see what happens. Is this going to trail? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's reported in various news sources that he was $370 million in debt when he died. Just a few years before this he had paid an out of court settlement of $21 million to Evan Chandler, another of his victims. The official story is that he was "too ill" to carry on with the case, so he paid his way out. If he was innocent, why did he not see the case through, relying on his legal team to "take the strain" rather then increase his already considerable debt? You do realise the assets he had. He bought every single Beatles and his own original music tapes and the rights to them. He also had the rights to the song Happy Birthday. That's why in America they sang the other happy happy birthday. He wasn't in debt... Assets aren't always directly or easily transferable to cash - any accountant will tell you that. Try going into a shop to buy something, and when the shopkeeper requires payment say "I haven't got any cash, but I do own the rights to a birthday song". See how far that gets you. Nowhere now as it's in the public domain. Assets can be sold quite easily. Especially assets like the beatles. You're just in an argumentative mood. You're waffling on too much! Let's all just see what happens. Is this going to trail? " I'm in an argumentative mood because I'm trying to defend abused children? Really?? That is a very wrong opinion to have. Perhaps you should spend some time talking to some of the underage victims to get some perspective. Again, there are cases you can read about, stemming from the NSPCC. The original case cannot be re-tried because of America's "double-jeopardy" clause, but other potential victims may now come forward as a result of the documentary. As I've said on the other thread " According to some news sources, 11 further "potential victims" have already come forward. Yes, they may be doing it just for the money but they will have been advised of the scrutiny they will be subjected to, and the inevitable accusations of "only in it for the money". They, and the two guys in the documentary are very brave people." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
