Michaelm Jackson was scum and a freak, and thats assuming he WASN"T a pedophile. This media frenzy making him to be a great person is utter hollywood gutter tripe.

If he hadn't been uber rich he'd be alive today, in prison.

That is the sort of thinking that gets people lynched. Mob rule sucks.

You don't really KNOW the truth. No one here does. The court found him not guilty and AQUITTED him. He didn't damn well do it.

So the thread got to page two and nobody has mentioned that he was accused of pedophilia twice, but only went to trial once. He settled out of court with the boy's family the first time.

I dunno about the trial. Like others have pointed out the wealthy have another system of justice. OJ was found innocent for Federal Murder charges, but guilty in the civil case. How is that? He claimed he had nothing to do with the crime. Can one say that he was in fact guilty, but can't be called back for the crime due to double jepordy? I don't know enough about the law to say. To lesser degrees... a celeb gets his/her third, forth fifth DUI with a suspended license and could have even hurt somebody and what happens? The most we've seen is what? Paris Hilton's three weeks in jail? The average person would be put away for years. Drugs... how many celebs got a slap on the wrist while their not so famous counterparts went to prison for 2-5 years? Fame, money and the media/fanbase reaction all seem to play a part in the outcome.

MJ was an incredibly talented man, of that there is no doubt. It's my opinion that one does not pay large sums of money to keep people quiet unless there's something to hide. Even the "he did it to avoid bad press" argument is thin given the status of his career at the time of the accusations. MJ had already withdrawn from the public by that time.

Whatever the truth is, at least he doesn't have to deal with his fear of the press/public or his discomfort with his own body anymore.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That is the sort of thinking that gets people lynched. Mob rule sucks.

You don't really KNOW the truth. No one here does. The court found him not guilty and AQUITTED him. He didn't damn well do it.

You're forgetting all the other laswsuits settled out of courts for tens of millions of dollars.
Get real. Failing to convict doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. It means he had a lot of money to throw and a a jury of slackjawed LA types.

Al Capone was never convicted of murder either.

If it was settled out of court, that casts a poor light on the child's parents. It seems to me that the parents weren't convinced that anything wrong or illegal had happened and were in it for the money. No way were they not intending to blackmail and squeeze as much out of him as possible.

@Frazzled: What is the alternative? mob rule? where an outrageous rumour gets people killed? If that were the case, we would still be burning witches becuase they tripped as they walked inside.

Redbeard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hmmm. Lets see.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson accused of child molestation murder.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is tried before a jury of 12 people.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is found not guilty on the accusation of child molestation murder.

Ergo, Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is not a Child Molestor Murderer.

Don't you realize that rich people buy their way out of trouble?

I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest. If I'm wrong, the child is denied an opportunity to meet a really weird man. If I'm right, the child is spared a lifetime of reliving the event. Risk/Reward - the risk isn't worth it.

Don't you realize that rich people buy their way out of trouble?
Maybe, but in both cases no conviction was made so the accused has the RIGHT to be considered innocent.

I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest.
Would you get kids to avoid blacks in case they get mugged, or moslems in case they get suicide bombed? Where do you draw the line? It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care. You have to look at individuals, very very few catholic priests are peadophiles but what is the the risk/reward of the child coming away from your care without an infusion of bigotry if this is how you think.

Orlanth wrote:
It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care.

Oh SNAP!

It seems the point of the politician has gotten lost because he threw in the usual accusation against MJ. Too bad he didn't stick to the fact that the media is ignoring more serious stories for endless speculation around the death of a celebrity.

MJs death doesn't matter to the course of world history. People are standing up for their rights in Iran, there is unrest in and the exile of a president in Honduras, mass protests and a crackdown in China, North Korea (led by a mobster) is testing missiles to deliver nukes. I think these warrant much more attention than "Bubbles" the effin' chimp and his sidekick. No?

Maybe, but in both cases no conviction was made so the accused has the RIGHT to be considered innocent.

A somewhat major correction. He has the right to be considered not convicted. Thats all he had a right to.

He had admitted to literally sleeping in the same bed with children not related to them.
He had admitted to giving them colas with booze in it.

He was a perv.

MJs death doesn't matter to the course of world history. People are standing up for their rights in Iran, there is unrest in and the exile of a president in Honduras, mass protests and a crackdown in China, North Korea (led by a mobster) is testing missiles to deliver nukes. I think these warrant much more attention than "Bubbles" the effin' chimp and his sidekick. No?

Utan wins the thread.

Cases like this never ceases to amaze me. I guess it only goes to show how vile some crimes are considered to be
by the general audience. People can be acquitted of murder, and life goes on. Someone is accused (rightly or not) of
child molestation, and their life and reputation is forfeit, regardless of how the trial goes.

We do know that Michael Jackson was found "not guilty" during both cases. There's the case of a vast amount of money
being payed out to the alleged victim in the first case, but that has been explained. Given that, how long are people
going to drag this up in the media? At some point, they should realise that they are beating the proverbial dead horse with
a 2-by-4 with rusty nails driven through it (also, it's on fire). But then again, nothing gets you a couple of minutes in the media
like being controversial.

al-Majid Agandhjin bin Ahfal al-Rashid

We will drag it up everytime some wannabe fanboy screams about how aweseme he was.

He made some good albums and sold gobs and gobs ofr ecords, and helped revolutionize music videos. Leave it at that. Anything about how awesome he was personally and then you have to look at the full record.

The media and attention seekers are just going for the easy news and besides dead people don't talk back.

I agree that Jackson was a Pedo and he shouldn't be this covered on national news, but King shows a lack of understanding of the the importance of Jackson to music. At the end of the day, Americans don't really give two gaks about what's going on overseas. King probably thinks that politics are the great saviors of America. He says this "focus on the real heros" bs when I'm certain he's saying just to bolster his image.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's an interesting one:

Wikipedia wrote:Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, and O.J. Simpson.

That happened in an English libel trial some years ago.

The jury found against the plaintiff on the grounds that he had no reputation to defame.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's an interesting one:

Wikipedia wrote:Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, and O.J. Simpson.

That happened in an English libel trial some years ago.

The jury found against the plaintiff on the grounds that he had no reputation to defame.

That was a Piers "Morgan" Moron case vs. good old Private Eye, wasn't it?

Orlanth wrote:
I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest.
Would you get kids to avoid blacks in case they get mugged, or moslems in case they get suicide bombed?

There's a name for this sort of falacy, I'm sure you can look it up on your own.

Where do you draw the line? It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care. You have to look at individuals, very very few catholic priests are peadophiles but what is the the risk/reward of the child coming away from your care without an infusion of bigotry if this is how you think.

I agree that you look at people as individuals - Michael Jackson was a perverted individual.

You also look at people based on choices they make. In the case of Catholic priests, perhaps you're not aware of how endemic pedophilia is within that organization. Perhaps you should read the report recently published by The commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, I think you'll find the evidence damning. Perhaps you should consider that more than one archdiocese declared bankruptcy to avoid further trials for abuse by their priests. This isn't one, or even two isolated cases, this is systemic abuse that has gone on for generations, that is known about by the leaders of the organization, and where the organization has gone out of its way to protect the abusers.

One quote from the study above:

The Conclusions on sexual abuse which are outlined at Paragraph 7.549 were that sexual abuse of boys in Artane by Brothers was a chronic problem. Complaints were not handled properly and the steps taken by the Congregation to avoid scandal and publicity protected perpetrators of abuse. The safety of children was not a priority at any time during the relevant period.

The period covered by this study started in 1936!

People have no choice as to what race they're born to. They have choices about what organizations they belong to. When you have an organization that has gone out of its way to cover up child abuse and that has enabled it's leaders to commit these abuses for generations, that organization deserves all the contempt and distrust possible. If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot. It's better than tolerating pedophiles.

Seriously? He's a pedophile.

The man could barely contain his lust for children in public, imagine his actions in private.

Point 1: You don't have to be a conservative to dislike or disprove of MJ.
Point 2: MJ had some serious mental problems, this can't be denied.
Point 3: Just because he had mental problems doesn't automatically = pedophile
Point 4: MJ was rich and had mental problems, therefore easy target for money grubbing parents
Point 5: MJ taunted the california DA which increased the allready large target on his forehead
Point 6: The fact that parents allowed the kids to stay with someone that had mental problems is an indication of people trying to gain something. whether he was a pedo or not.

I'm not an MJ fanboy, but I am also very aware that people can look at something one way and see something that isn't really there.

BY the way the Politician was wrong to say what he said, end of story.

GG

I think MJ was a pedophile, but I also think the Politician is making a shameless grab for headlines by bashing the guy. And my guess is that the Politician has plenty of skeletons in his closet, I hope that someone starts pulling them out.

Could not be more precicse, the freak was just horribel. Like a nurgling in human form, good ridance

Question 1: Do I believe that he was a pedophile?
Answer: Jesus Juice, nuff said

Question 2: Was he convicted for previously stated crimes?
Answer: No

Question 3: Should Politicians, Hollywood types, etc... be able to say what they want regarding one's innocense (sp) or guilt?
Answer: No (see Question 2)

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Anshal wrote:Could not be more precicse, the freak was just horribel. Like a nurgling in human form, good ridance

Oh, please. If Micheal Jackson were a follower of Chaos, he would be dedicated to Slaneesh, period.

grizgrin wrote:

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Respect.

Are we sure that Michael Jackson is a pedophile?

Or someone who is mentally damage.

Yes - you are as old as you are physically - only if your mind matches.


MJ's did not match his age - proof?


Neverland ranch.

His friends - even at a young age were younger children.

His father abused him - prevented him from also enjoying his adolescent years.
He grew up too fast in the high life of entertainment.


If you watch the interview videos of 'Living with Michael Jackson' and also the fixed version Part 2, where they interviewed him.

You could see him as two different things - either he IS a pedo.

Or he is just a little boy in the mind.


Look at the way that he normally speaks.

Wearing pajamas.

If you also look in the interview - he likes to do childish thing.

He also invited misfortunate children to Neverland by the busloads monthly.

(if you watched the videos).

And he pretty much let them go around neverland for free. MJ also joins them in rides and etc.

I mean - look at his face - he denies it. There is always a reasoning behind everything.
There was something behind why he fixed/messed with his face.

If his face alteration is not considered normal behavior - and from there off - you can see that he is simply mentally derranged more so than a master pedophile
like PEE WEE HERMAN.

IDK - I could be wrong.

I just see him as a 50 year old with a little kid mind.
Due to mental hammering and such.

He got stuck with his young ages that he was never able to have.



Thats just my oppinion.

I didn't really like MJ as a person. I did like some of his music though.
As for this 'KING' fellow, i am not going to pretend to know anything about American politics or politicians.
I think i should be in charge. The world would be a much nicer place. Free hot muffins for everyone one daily & a full days work that starts at 12 & ends at 1pm!
What does this have to do with Warhammer again?
LoL!

Roguemarket wrote:If his face alteration is not considered normal behavior - and from there off - you can see that he is simply mentally derranged more so than a master pedophile
like PEE WEE HERMAN.

Not to nit-pick, but I believe Pee-Wee just liked to jerk it in public. Then again my Pedo-knowledge is not up-to-date.

Paul Ruben is not a pedo.

BrookM wrote:Paul Ruben is not a pedo.

Truth. He jerked it in a movie theater. That is not at all pedophilia.

sebster wrote:And there is a lot of ground between 'he was found not guilty' and 'he didn't do it and you shouldn't say he did'.

Agreed. They sort of branch off in different directions at that point.

Frazzled wrote:

grizgrin wrote:

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Respect.

I actually agree with this, though I strongly doubt MJ was a Kiddy Diddler.

After the first accusation, and the eyebrow raising pay off* no parent in their right mind, unless on the make, would leave their sprogs with him. The same goes for a person with a history of substance abuse, a short temper, violent mood swings etc. It's a risk you just cannot take.

*And again, I hasten to point out that the pay off was for a pending civil case, where rather than be punished, he'd just have to give them a buttload of money. There was little to no evidence, hence a judicial case was not called. And why was there little to no evidence? Probably because he didn't do it. That pay off sadly damned him. But hey, you're an international megastar with a reputation to maintain. I guess he was damned either way. Poor guy.

Paul Reubens - got arrested in 2002 - for child pornography didn't he?

haha or maybe i'm forgettin...

idk - twas too early in the morn.

Emperors Faithful wrote:If it was settled out of court, that casts a poor light on the child's parents. It seems to me that the parents weren't convinced that anything wrong or illegal had happened and were in it for the money. No way were they not intending to blackmail and squeeze as much out of him as possible.

Very nice!

So what does that tell about the parents that sued? Many dakka members are proud loving parents too , if any of your children are molested , would you take any amount of money?
Or make sure the guilty is found guilty and throw in jail?

GREAT point Emperors Faithful.

dietrich wrote:I think MJ was a pedophile, but I also think the Politician is making a shameless grab for headlines by bashing the guy. And my guess is that the Politician has plenty of skeletons in his closet, I hope that someone starts pulling them out.

I'm torn on this. I think he was overly theatric in his statements, but I wish more politicians would step up to the plate. Yes MJ had a huge impact on the music scene, yes he was very talented, yes he has a huge following, but the near constant news coverage of him, his death, and the reactions of the world is too much. There are soo many more society altering news items that should be given coverage. Journalism is dead, buried and well rotted. It's all about money and ratings now. It's sad that items like Cap and Trade legislation that's in the Senate now gets barely a foot note on national news while four out of five minutes is about MJ and his worldwide freakshow.

Republicans and Conservatives need to get over the morality thing though. They need to realize that people are going to do what they feel like doing and as long as it doesn't harm anyone (sorry guys gay marrige doesn't hurt anybody). Individual rights, with that stipulation of doing no harm, is a popular platform. They can't complain about the Dems telling them what they can drive, what they can eat, where they can smoke etc, and then go tell people how they should live. Message: Drop the morality bit. The politician should have focused on the impact of current issues being more important than the death of a celebrity, regardless of his talent, popularity or infamy.

LunaHound wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If it was settled out of court, that casts a poor light on the child's parents. It seems to me that the parents weren't convinced that anything wrong or illegal had happened and were in it for the money. No way were they not intending to blackmail and squeeze as much out of him as possible.

Very nice!

So what does that tell about the parents that sued? Many dakka members are proud loving parents too , if any of your children are molested , would you take any amount of money?
Or make sure the guilty is found guilty and throw in jail?

GREAT point Emperors Faithful.

Its not a fair comment. This would be the only level of justice appropriate.

RogueMarket wrote:

Paul Reubens - got arrested in 2002 - for child pornography didn't he?

haha or maybe i'm forgettin...

idk - twas too early in the morn.

Get some coffee and clear your head, your posts are showing your lack of brainpower.

And while Paul did get arrested for possession of children in certain photographs in certain vintage magazines, he isn't into that sort of thing, as his smut peddler would testify during that court case.

dietrich wrote:I think MJ was a pedophile, but I also think the Politician is making a shameless grab for headlines by bashing the guy. And my guess is that the Politician has plenty of skeletons in his closet, I hope that someone starts pulling them out.

QTF

Given that an Australian has been arrested for having pictures of imaginary cartoon characters in sexual situations, there is no limit to the foetid paranoia of some of the "Who will think of the children?" brigade.

My opinion on MJ was that he never had a proper childhood because he was forced into showbiz by his father from a very young age. He spent much of his adult life trying to capture the kind of innocence of childhood he never experienced.

Yes, he slept with children -- we've all slept with children when we were children! (My mother used to send me to Measles parties and so on.) It doesn't mean anything sexual went on. It was just trying to capture the excitement of sleep-overs and midnight feasts that anyone with a normal childhood would have but MJ was prevented from enjoying.

There was absolutely no forensic evidence against MJ. All the key evidence against him was from people who stood to gain financially.

This US politician hasn't got any cojones. He has picked on a target who can't fight back. If he had made this accusation six months ago he would have had a new rear end torn out for him in court by MJ's lawyers.

If this guy ever really cared about 'the children' and thought MJ was a paedo, he should have been fighting him for the last 10 years.

Kilkrazy wrote:Given that an Australian has been arrested for having pictures of imaginary cartoon characters in sexual situations, there is no limit to the foetid paranoia of some of the "Who will think of the children?" brigade.

My opinion on MJ was that he never had a proper childhood because he was forced into showbiz by his father from a very young age. He spent much of his adult life trying to capture the kind of innocence of childhood he never experienced.

Yes, he slept with children -- we've all slept with children when we were children! (My mother used to send me to Measles parties and so on.) It doesn't mean anything sexual went on. It was just trying to capture the excitement of sleep-overs and midnight feasts that anyone with a normal childhood would have but MJ was prevented from enjoying.

There was absolutely no forensic evidence against MJ. All the key evidence against him was from people who stood to gain financially.

This US politician hasn't got any cojones. He has picked on a target who can't fight back. If he had made this accusation six months ago he would have had a new rear end torn out for him in court by MJ's lawyers.

If this guy ever really cared about 'the children' and thought MJ was a paedo, he should have been fighting him for the last 10 years.

Word like a Mo'Fo!

We the public are under no obligation to accept a not guilty verdict as gospel and can continue to be suspicious of a person if we choose. A politician however I think is a bit different. If the legal system acquits a defendant then a politician should, in public at least, accept and defend the verdict and the system that delivered it. Same with the media.

Kilkrazy wrote:This US politician hasn't got any cojones. He has picked on a target who can't fight back. If he had made this accusation six months ago he would have had a new rear end torn out for him in court by MJ's lawyers.

If this guy ever really cared about 'the children' and thought MJ was a paedo, he should have been fighting him for the last 10 years.

Personally, I think Jackson molested children, but I have to agree with this statement. Of course, Politicians are about the same level as pedophiles in the food chain.

LuciusAR wrote:We the public are under no obligation to accept a not guilty verdict as gospel and can continue to be suspicious of a person if we choose. A politician however I think is a bit different. If the legal system acquits a defendant then a politician should, in public at least, accept and defend the verdict and the system that delivered it. Same with the media.

By that logic must a Supreme Court judge refuse to maintain their position on an issue if the rest of the court rules against them? I'm not sure that's a good standard to hold politicians to.

Also, why would the media have to abide by the court's decision? Ideally, I would think they would display evidence on a controversial issue, without making claims either way as to what the fact of the matter is. I think simply assuming that the court could have made no mistake is as negligent of the media as it would be of a citizen.

Kilkrazy wrote:Given that an Australian has been arrested for having pictures of imaginary cartoon characters in sexual situations, there is no limit to the foetid paranoia of some of the "Who will think of the children?" brigade.

My opinion on MJ was that he never had a proper childhood because he was forced into showbiz by his father from a very young age. He spent much of his adult life trying to capture the kind of innocence of childhood he never experienced.

Yes, he slept with children -- we've all slept with children when we were children! (My mother used to send me to Measles parties and so on.) It doesn't mean anything sexual went on. It was just trying to capture the excitement of sleep-overs and midnight feasts that anyone with a normal childhood would have but MJ was prevented from enjoying.

There was absolutely no forensic evidence against MJ. All the key evidence against him was from people who stood to gain financially.

This US politician hasn't got any cojones. He has picked on a target who can't fight back. If he had made this accusation six months ago he would have had a new rear end torn out for him in court by MJ's lawyers.

If this guy ever really cared about 'the children' and thought MJ was a paedo, he should have been fighting him for the last 10 years.

I can't go back and watch the clip again because I'm at work (yeah I know I'm the definition of a productive worker lol), but what I took from it was that he was protesting the ammount of coverage given compared to other news items in current events. He just did it in a moralistic D-baggy kinda way. The protest against the ammount of coverage, I'm all for. The manner in which he did it, not so much.

Good points killkrazy and LuciusAR.

@Frazzled: Mate, I am deeply disturbed if you think that people who have onlu been ACCUSED should be hung. That is called lynching as is a GROSS injustice and wrongdoing.

I think MJ was wierd sure. But I cannot damn him as a peadophile if he was found innocent. I really think it stange that the people went to a CIVIL court (where they could get MONEY) instead of a Criminal court (where in all likelihood the charges would have been shot down.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:We the public are under no obligation to accept a not guilty verdict as gospel and can continue to be suspicious of a person if we choose. A politician however I think is a bit different. If the legal system acquits a defendant then a politician should, in public at least, accept and defend the verdict and the system that delivered it. Same with the media.

By that logic must a Supreme Court judge refuse to maintain their position on an issue if the rest of the court rules against them? I'm not sure that's a good standard to hold politicians to.

Also, why would the media have to abide by the court's decision? Ideally, I would think they would display evidence on a controversial issue, without making claims either way as to what the fact of the matter is. I think simply assuming that the court could have made no mistake is as negligent of the media as it would be of a citizen.

Ok I think I didn't phrase that as well as I could have. Of course an official and the media should be able to challenge a court decision if they have additional evidence and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I simply mean that once the legal system finds a person not guilty of pedophilia they can't simply going round openly calling that person a pedophile unless they know something the court didn't and are prepared to back that up.

Oh. Yeah, I'd say that's fair.

I don't think there's enough evidence against Jackson in this case to say things like that in such an official capacity.

Frazzled wrote:

grizgrin wrote:

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Respect.

This is just paranoia, labelling based on an occupation or rumour. Its one thing to decide how to protect a child, its another to label and worse yet to do so in front of a child and thus encourage them into such a poor means of thinking. Also such labels are seldom done on the quiet.
The only guaranteed effect is that it teaches the children to be as shallow, two faced and judgemental as the parents. Ironically it doesnt protect them, after all bigots tend to be poor judges of character and in the end are more likely not to spot the real dangers.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

BrookM wrote:Paul Ruben is not a pedo.

Truth. He jerked it in a movie theater. That is not at all pedophilia.

youngblood wrote:

dietrich wrote:I think MJ was a pedophile, but I also think the Politician is making a shameless grab for headlines by bashing the guy. And my guess is that the Politician has plenty of skeletons in his closet, I hope that someone starts pulling them out.

QTF

Quite True fething? Huh? Lol, just had to call you on it.

LuciusAR wrote:We the public are under no obligation to accept a not guilty verdict as gospel and can continue to be suspicious of a person if we choose. A politician however I think is a bit different. If the legal system acquits a defendant then a politician should, in public at least, accept and defend the verdict and the system that delivered it. Same with the media.

This much is true. An innocent verdict is a statement that the system cannot or should not convict. It is not a statement of the facts of what occurred. This can be a tremendous distinction.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good points killkrazy and LuciusAR.

@Frazzled: Mate, I am deeply disturbed if you think that people who have onlu been ACCUSED should be hung. That is called lynching as is a GROSS injustice and wrongdoing.

Not all lynch mobs had it wrong, m'fren.

Bad timing on the Pollie's behalf fo' sho. Bit of a gutless whimp.

Mind you , the Media pointing a Mic or Camera @ any Tom, Dick or Harry that says ANYTHING about MJ doesn't help.

Hard to get involved in a purely media-informed way as to his guilt/innocence.

Just let him RIP I reckon.

grizgrin wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good points killkrazy and LuciusAR.

@Frazzled: Mate, I am deeply disturbed if you think that people who have onlu been ACCUSED should be hung. That is called lynching as is a GROSS injustice and wrongdoing.

Not all lynch mobs had it wrong, m'fren.

Mabye grizgrin. But you can never know for sure. What person has the power, or the right, to damn a person regardless of the evidence. Mob rule bassically means that whoever shouts loudest wins, no matter what stupid &%$£ he's spouting out.

Those who participate in lynching are just as bad, and often worse, than the victim (and that's IF they actually commited the crime in the first place. Human life is sacred, and cannot be fluanted swiftly by an individual ignorant of the circumstances.

Vigilanteism is never the answer. What if you were wrong? What if you have killed someone who, despite the rumours, was completely innocent?

A lynch mob would have strung up a paediatrician in the UK a few years ago, after one of our newspapers started an 'out the paedos' campaign and published her address by mistake.

...really?

Yes.

I can't remember the paper -- it was probably either the Mail or the Express. They started a kind of 'Megan's Law' campaign to release the addresses of convicted paedophiles to the general public. They got a list somehow and started to publish them in the paper.

Unfortunately, they malappropped 'paedophile' with 'paediatrician' and a howling mob arrived outside some poor doctor's house. Fortunately the police arrived before serious harm could result.

...wow. Mob Rule for ya.

The Sun also tried this 'public service' a few years back and decided to out paedophiles.

To be fair they did get the right ones, but there were at least two instances of people hospitalised because they resembled persons whos pictures were printed. One of them was crippled for life by the attack.

Again, mob rule for ya.
...What about the peados themselves? Did they mob actually attack anyone that was ACTUALLY a peado?

In this case the media is wrong and taking the law into its own hands as much as the mob.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good points killkrazy and LuciusAR.

@Frazzled: Mate, I am deeply disturbed if you think that people who have onlu been ACCUSED should be hung. That is called lynching as is a GROSS injustice and wrongdoing.

1. I'm betting you're not a parent.
2. You turkeys brought it up by making it personal.

Strange how the kids PARENTS were more keen on getting money from him than getting justice or even revenge. Believe me it smells like a shceme.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Strange how the kids PARENTS were more keen on getting money from him than getting justice or even revenge. Believe me it smells like a shceme.

I could agree with that.

...The bad backround is what made the 2nd accusation more scandulous.

Orlanth wrote:The Sun also tried this 'public service' a few years back and decided to out paedophiles.

To be fair they did get the right ones, but there were at least two instances of people hospitalised because they resembled persons whos pictures were printed. One of them was crippled for life by the attack.

Yeah. If memory serves it then later turned out that the self appointed "leader" of the local group turned out to be a benefits cheat/fraudster too.

..was it Portsmouth or Plymouth ? Somewhere like that.

Spot on Frazzled.

Aw, at first this thread was awesome becuase it was EXACTLY 50-50 half the time, but the AGREE section seem to be pulling ahead.

I know.... :I

Hang on, it's getting closer!

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aw, at first this thread was awesome becuase it was EXACTLY 50-50 half the time, but the AGREE section seem to be pulling ahead.

Yeah, it's like when you're watching some sport on the telly and you don't really care who wins, you just love that it's so close.

I disagree. I think he never had a real childhood... well what we'd consider a normal one anyway. Therefore he really was just acting like a child... the interview he did where he climbed the tree... I don't know many non-lumberjack adults that do that for a past time.

From what I have seen and read I know that he was acquitted of the charges therefore should not be labelled as a pedophile in the public eye, especially not by a politician.

He was an accused pedophile.

I honestly don't know if Michael Jackson was or wasn't a pedophile,but the fact that there was monetary compinsation gives me pause...I know that if I belived some one molested one of my children,no amount of money on this earth could save them.

@DaIronGob: Smack on target mate.

Certainly FITZZ, if there was money involved it sounds more like there was a scam instead of a scandal.

What sort of parent would have allowed their child to have a sleep-over with MJ - especially, after the first allegations?

Someone hopelessly naive?
Maybe.

A star f***er pimping out their child to get attention, cash and prizes from a celebrity?
BINGO! Unfortunately, parents who abuse their own children (in various ways) do exist. The credibility of the parents does not excuse the crime against the child. It just means there are two criminals involved.

In fact, MJ did leave behind a confession. In his music he directly tells us that he was "bad, you know it" and that we've "been hit by a smooth criminal".

DaIronGob wrote:I disagree. I think he never had a real childhood... well what we'd consider a normal one anyway. Therefore he really was just acting like a child... the interview he did where he climbed the tree... I don't know many non-lumberjack adults that do that for a past time.

From what I have seen and read I know that he was acquitted of the charges therefore should not be labelled as a pedophile in the public eye, especially not by a politician.

He was an accused pedophile.

As far as MJ's childhood, I call bs. Sure, Papa Joe Jackson was a bastard who did terrible things to his family and frankly from everything I have heard didnt deserve them. However, at some point in all our lives we grow up and become responsible for ourselves, our actions, and our lives. WE, as individuals. Not society, not mummy, not daddy. You take your good childhood, your bad childhood, your lack or excess of childhood; and you roll on with your life. YOU are responsible for your successes and failures. So the apologists can take their excuses and cram them up their butts. Because many people have had much worse starts in life, and florished as contributing members of society without resorting to behavior like this. And I am speaking solely of his documented and admitted behavior. Jesus Juice? Really? That's appropriate? Some guy gives my kid Jesus Juice and I'd blow through the ceilin! You're gonna give my kid booze?!

FITZZ wrote: I honestly don't know if Michael Jackson was or wasn't a pedophile,but the fact that there was monetary compinsation gives me pause...I know that if I belived some one molested one of my children,no amount of money on this earth could save them.

You know, it is quite easy to dismiss the words here as the ravings of the typical internet tough guy. "I was a Navy SEAL in Vietnam and WW I. I'm so bad ass, Chuck Norris makes Chuck Norris jokes about ME!" Unless you 've seen pics of FITZZ. I have a healthy enough regard for someone his size who is covered in tats and scars. Not relevant to the current conversation really, but just wanted to throw that out there.

utan wrote:What sort of parent would have allowed their child to have a sleep-over with MJ - especially, after the first allegations?

Someone hopelessly naive?
Maybe.

A star f***er pimping out their child to get attention, cash and prizes from a celebrity?
BINGO! Unfortunately, parents who abuse their own children (in various ways) do exist. The credibility of the parents does not excuse the crime against the child. It just means there are two criminals involved.

In fact, MJ did leave behind a confession. In his music he directly tells us that he was "bad, you know it" and that we've "been hit by a smooth criminal".

I cannot think of a good enough reason that such a parent should not have their children re-loacted to a better home. And as far as you MJ "confession", you are a bad, bad dakkaite.

VermilionButterfly wrote:The exact article reads:
"There is nothing good about this guy. He may have been a good singer and did some dancing, but the bottom line is would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room as Michael Jackson?" King said.
Agree or Disagree?

Except for the millions upon millions of dollars he donated to childrens charity not to mention the time and effort he spent bringing up awareness for other causes.

As far as MJ's childhood, I call bs. Sure, Papa Joe Jackson was a bastard who did terrible things to his family and frankly from everything I have heard didnt deserve them. However, at some point in all our lives we grow up and become responsible for ourselves, our actions, and our lives. WE, as individuals. Not society, not mummy, not daddy. You take your good childhood, your bad childhood, your lack or excess of childhood; and you roll on with your life. YOU are responsible for your successes and failures. So the apologists can take their excuses and cram them up their butts. Because many people have had much worse starts in life, and florished as contributing members of society without resorting to behavior like this. And I am speaking solely of his documented and admitted behavior.

My but you are taking a LOT of what little was said. While calling BS is your right to do since you are stating an opinion, I think that maybe you took way too much out of what I said.

Look at it this way, you are correct in that one is responsible for oneself... however, I was stating that MJ WANTED to be a kid at 50 yrs old. He surrounded himself with child-like things, he wanted everyone to laugh and play along with him. To him it may have seemed harmless, to us however it's down right weird and suspicious. Sometimes this kind of behavior is directly related to ones childhood. He was an entertainer since he was what? Ten? At that point 'fun' turned into 'work'. Also from the interviews I've read and seen, MJ was 'ahead of his time' when he was younger. Always taking the next step always pushing for more... Most ten yr olds I know only push for a new toy...

Mind you, acting a bit strangely isn't the same as behaving as Spartan warriors did towards the young boys.

DaIronGob wrote:
Look at it this way, you are correct in that one is responsible for oneself... however, I was stating that MJ WANTED to be a kid at 50 yrs old. He surrounded himself with child-like things, he wanted everyone to laugh and play along with him. To him it may have seemed harmless, to us however it's down right weird and suspicious. Sometimes this kind of behavior is directly related to ones childhood. He was an entertainer since he was what? Ten? At that point 'fun' turned into 'work'. Also from the interviews I've read and seen, MJ was 'ahead of his time' when he was younger. Always taking the next step always pushing for more... Most ten yr olds I know only push for a new toy...

Yes i 100% agree . The place i highlighted i would like to expand on that idea.

This "weirdness , and suspicion " is nothing but a reflection on how clean or dirty an individual's mind is.

If looking at an adult playing with children will automatically spawn "omg he is a molester" then you should also rethink about yourself.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mind you, acting a bit strangely isn't the same as behaving as Spartan warriors did towards the young boys.

Athenians. Spartans didn't have time for that sort of thing...they were too busy training to do the provolone beat down on everyone else...

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Mind you, acting a bit strangely isn't the same as behaving as Spartan warriors did towards the young boys.

Athenians. Spartans didn't have time for that sort of thing...they were too busy training to do the provolone beat down on everyone else...

According to various sources it was institutionalised in Spartan culture.

ICHY!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_en_ce/us_pelosi_michael_jackson

Even Satan weighs in.

Tyras wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_en_ce/us_pelosi_michael_jackson

Even Satan weighs in.

it's not satan, it is a robot

drakedeming wrote:

Tyras wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_en_ce/us_pelosi_michael_jackson

Even Satan weighs in.

it's not satan, it is a robot

Robosatan?

Tyras wrote:

drakedeming wrote:

Tyras wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_en_ce/us_pelosi_michael_jackson

Even Satan weighs in.

it's not satan, it is a robot

Robosatan?

Maybe a robot built by Satan, I mean just look at her and honestly tell me she is not a robot.

tonight on sci-fi......mechasatan vs. godzilla followed by giant monster snake attacks some stupid campers 23

drakedeming wrote:Maybe a robot built by Satan...

El Diablo Robotico?

MJ wanted to two things - to be white and a child forever. He got one but the other was impossible as hard he tried. I don't think he was a pedo he just loved kids on a rare and hard to understand level. I honestly don't believe he has ever molested a child.

He started when he was 5 years old when they debuted the Jackson 5, which means he was in training before that. He was on television and in magazines/newspapers for 45 of his 50 years and was not able to do the things we take for granted like just going to the store or playing in a park. Many of the people who talked about about meeting him when he was young talked about how adult he was at such a young age.

I don't think the White thing is correct either because he never once denied being a black man and often referred to himself as such. I think the skin thing is a little more complicated for that.

Yes Im sure that would require maturity and fast, being in such a fast paced world. I read somewhere he was negotiating his own contracts in his teens.

@PanamaG and @Ahtman, I'm along these lines of thought myself.

I think MJ was foolish and acted very inappropriately towards younger people but I DO NOT believe he acted indecent towards them. He was never allowed to have a childhood and he was trying to get that in his life during adulthood

He was naive and didn't understand that the outside world would not see things the way he saw them and he payed a heavy price for it.

Once one person made an accusation the money grabbing mindset of our claimculture hopped on the bandwagon trying to milk yet another rich person of their money.

I'm not a fan of MJ or the majority of his music he made, but i do see that the guy was extremely talented and did not deserve most of what was thrown his way in life.

IMHO

The people around him as well as his family are to blame for this as well. They should of stopped him plain and simple. One or more of them should of made him get help and told him to stop, for his own good. Sexual behaviour will always raise it's head when kids are involved, you can't avoid it. Just think about how many kids end up going too far (intentionally or innocently) whilst playing Doctors & Nurses. You add an (alleged) child like adult into the mix and it's going to go south very quickly, especially as some of his behaviour (jesus juice and grabbing crotch) falls into adult behaviour. It's a bad mix.

...was that "jesus juice and crotch grabbing" directed at the kids?

I don't think so, IIRC, and from his point of view he wasn't doing anything wrong. But he should of realised how some of his actions would be taken by the puplic eye. It seems that in regard to this MJ was either extremely naive of the habits of the media, or arrogant enough to think they wouldn't take advantage of him. (regardless of whether there WAS a scandal)