Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.