[bitontheslide]

MONTREAL (AP) — Three major Montreal radio stations have stopped playing Michael Jackson songs as a result of child-molestation allegations against the late musician that aired Sunday in an HBO documentary.

A spokeswoman for the owner of the French-language stations CKOI and Rythme and the English-language The Beat says Jackson’s music was pulled starting Monday morning.

Cogeco spokeswoman Christine Dicaire says the action is a response to listener reactions to the documentary.

She added that the decision will also apply to Cogeco Media stations in smaller markets in Quebec. The company operates 23 radio stations.

The documentary “Leaving Neverland” began airing on HBO Sunday. It details the abuse allegations of two men who had previously denied Jackson molested them and actually supported him to authorities.

[parmnion]

I think both the victims who have come forward didn't make accusations at the time because they may have felt guilty because they would maybe have enjoyed it at times.

I remember my 2 year older cousin getting me to touch his cock then allowing him to touch mine in a tent one night..at the time it felt ok but as the years past and I became older (think I was ten at the time because we had just moved next door to them) I became bitter and it resulted in me having a punch up at my sisters wedding with him.

A few days later we sat down and he explained his grandad was abusing him at the same time of the tent incident....after his explanation I forgave him and we hugged it out as we had been mates all along.


So because of my experience at the time of seeing nothing wrong with it, and later acting out due to my guilt at the feelings I could remember of the night. Perhaps these boys at the time even though they were of adult age, perhaps they felt some loyalty to Michael when they decided not to testify.



So, there you go..just like everything else I tell you all...that there is the truth.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

These are the same 'victims' that stood up for him in court testifying he had not touched them,and out they come years after his death and say the opposite, sorry I don't believe a word of it.There has been a witch hunt against him for years and seems there still is.

Exactly

I think it's utter BS ,if it's true why do they wait 10 years after his death to basically go back on their word. They lied on oath then in court ?!! .

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

If he wasn't a pop icon Chuff none of this would be happening as there would be no money or fame to gain . he was an eccentric ,but imo he wasn't a peado ,he just liked kids but its like you can't touch kids today as you're labelled a peado, other children stayed there and they have not accused him of anything ,but the two who now claim to have been abused by him defended him in court ,he wasn't a child either he was 20,and now 10 years after his death they start talking,so imo once a liar always a liar,so I need truthful proof.

For a grown man to sleep with other peoples children is wrong and can never, ever be right ,he hid behind the mask of being eccentric and naive, which I never believed he wash was sexual predator on innocent children .....like Saville hid behind his charity work and Cliff still hides behind God (Love you though xx )

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Exactly

I think it's utter BS ,if it's true why do they wait 10 years after his death to basically go back on their word. They lied on oath then in court ?!! .

Why did people come out about Saville and Ted Heath after death ? the same will happen with Cliff

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I think both the victims who have come forward didn't make accusations at the time because they may have felt guilty because they would maybe have enjoyed it at times.

I remember my 2 year older cousin getting me to touch his cock then allowing him to touch mine in a tent one night..at the time it felt ok but as the years past and I became older (think I was ten at the time because we had just moved next door to them) I became bitter and it resulted in me having a punch up at my sisters wedding with him.

A few days later we sat down and he explained his grandad was abusing him at the same time of the tent incident....after his explanation I forgave him and we hugged it out as we had been mates all along.


So because of my experience at the time of seeing nothing wrong with it, and later acting out due to my guilt at the feelings I could remember of the night. Perhaps these boys at the time even though they were of adult age, perhaps they felt some loyalty to Michael when they decided not to testify.



So, there you go..just like everything else I tell you all...that there is the truth.

that's so sad

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Why did people come out about Saville and Ted Heath after death ? the same will happen with Cliff

Difference is though Chuff these two had previously stood up in court and under oath defended MJ and said he never ever touched them, they were 20 at the time , something stinks about all this. So they lied if what they are saying we are supposed to believe now, so why should I believe them now, and I don't ( love you too , (lol)

[Wizard.]

I watched the documentary and I kind of believe them tbh. I was shocked at how much they describe Michael as lonely and I would’ve thought as a huge star he would always have people around him, friends, family, assistants etc... but they describe him as lonely and that he became a part of their family. Like he was left alone in Neverland with just one of the children whilst the rest of the family went to visit the Grand Canyon.

Also everything they described really, as well as the sexual abuse, was grooming. He got these boys to fall in love with him they were completely obsessed with Michael and he was with him. On the phone to him 8 hours a day it doesn’t seem believable but it probably did happen. I think Michael thought he was a kid and so probably didn’t see anything wrong with it which isn’t an excuse he was a grown ass man putting his penis inside a 7 year olds mouth but I guess we’ll never know his mental state.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I don't stan him but I still don't think he abused any kids. I think the parents were just opertunists who knew he had money.

I’d like to see if you still think this after watching the film. But I agree with the fact that the parents were opportunists. They were offered houses, lavish gifts, and all expenses paid travel by Michael. Not only that but Michael essentially promised the boys and their families fame and fortune, convincing them to literally take their kids out of school to let Michael guide them. Keeping in mind, at this point in time, Michael was the biggest superstar in the world. Just as the boys were seduced, so was their families.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's a lot of assumptions you're making about a lot of people.
Assuming why they think the way they do and even predicting what they may think if some hypothetical scenario that hasn't happened might happen.

But you do you.

Well, it’s my opinion. People are blinded by his superstardom and the impact and influence his music had on their lives, that they refuse to accept any possibility other than his innocence. I don’t think this is all hypothetical, it’s pretty obvious all the of the backlash is coming from fans or people who haven’t even seen the documentary and are making snap judgements based on hearsay.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Difference is though Chuff these two had previously stood up in court and under oath defended MJ and said he never ever touched them, they were 20 at the time , something stinks about all this. So they lied if what they are saying we are supposed to believe now, so why should I believe them now, and I don't ( love you too , (lol)

Only Wade Robson testified for him when he was in his early 20's, James refused and says that Michael was pretty angry about that. Wade Robson goes into plenty of detail as to why he supported him again; he still had affection for him, they were still friends, and at first he didn't want to be involved but Michael's lawyer talked to him and said something along the lines of "can you imagine what would happen to someone like Michael in prison". Other than that, they both testified on his behalf when they were still kids and they were still deeply involved with him.

The only reason people have a problem understanding this is because there's this idea that abuse victims must hate their abuser and want them to suffer but the very sad truth is that usually, the affection they felt for that person when they were "in a relationship" with them NEVER fully goes away. They were both deeply in love with him, while he was abusing them. Hard as that is to comprehend.

If you actually watch the documentary, it's fairly clear that for James that has started to twist into hatred now, but Wade still to this day clearly has a lot of affection for and good memories of MJ.

The misconception is that to be a child abuser he must have secretly been some evil cackling goblin. It seems like he was generous, fun, loving, attentive and affectionate... but still a paedophile.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by iRyan

Well, it’s my opinion. People are blinded by his superstardom and the impact and influence his music had on their lives, that they refuse to accept any possibility other than his innocence. I don’t think this is all hypothetical, it’s pretty obvious all the of the backlash is coming from fans or people who haven’t even seen the documentary and are making snap judgements based on hearsay.

So everyone who isn't in the "100% pedo" camp must be major MJ fans blinded by his fame?

No. Not really.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So everyone who isn't in the "100% pedo" camp must be major MJ fans blinded by his fame?



No. Not really.

No, though to be fair I would say that most people who aren't even willing to consider or discuss the possibility are. The "I'm not even watching this because it's definitely lies" camp.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, though to be fair I would say that most people who aren't even willing to consider or discuss the possibility are. The "I'm not even watching this because it's definitely lies" camp.

All well and good but not relevant to Ryan's opinion.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, though to be fair I would say that most people who aren't even willing to consider or discuss the possibility are. The "I'm not even watching this because it's definitely lies" camp.

My husband told me he doesn't want to watch it because he knows he won't enjoy his music after if he does. . At least he's honest

[reece(:]

Wbk he wasn't right when he was swinging babies off a balcony

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

My husband told me he doesn't want to watch it because he knows he won't enjoy his music after if he does. . At least he's honest

But is this not, turning a blind eye, so he can still enjoy his music.

I know you can’t answer for gav, but is a few songs worth over looking the truth.

[thesheriff443]

I think m j’s family are guilty for covering up what he was doing, his staff and friends are guilty for knowing what was going on and the children’s parents are guilty of letting their kids go and sleep at a mans house.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

I think m j’s family are guilty for covering up what he was doing, his staff and friends are guilty for knowing what was going on and the children’s parents are guilty of letting their kids go and sleep at a mans house.

So everyone is guilty except the two lying men who testified on oath that he never touched them , I don't know why we bother with any justice system lets have trial by media , there are also boys who have said he never did anything wrong ,but lets concentrate on the liars,so many seem desperate to believe all the hearsay, the media were obsessed with MJ when he was alive and now they have another opportunity to tarnish his legacy , they must be having a field day, there is no actual proof or evidence ,just the willingness for haters to hate some more.No one knows the actual truth but so many willing to go with the rumours and condemn him.

[Nicky91]

all of this coming to light now he's dead and can't defend himself

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

all of this coming to light now he's dead and can't defend himself

Don't worry, his nephew is on radio saying he wasn't a paedophile because he didn't touch him...swore on his kids life urging God to strike her down if he was lying......not sure how he knows......


Maybe it's all the royalties the family will lose out on that's sparked his memory.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

all of this coming to light now he's dead and can't defend himself

Would you say the same of Jimmy Saville? Should it just have been left buried because he was dead?

Originally Posted by parmnion

Don't worry, his nephew is on radio saying he wasn't a paedophile because he didn't touch him...swore on his kids life urging God to strike her down if he was lying......not sure how he knows......


Maybe it's all the royalties the family will lose out on that's sparked his memory.

The logic is truly bizarre... "he didn't molest every single child he encountered, therefore he must not be a paedophile". That's really not how it works and they talk in the documentary about how there were loads of kids around... OBVIOUSLY, he wasn't molesting all of them... but he had "a special relationship" with certain ones. I mean that part of the story is undeniable; you can literally see it playing out in press photography. He would have a boy aged around 10 who was always by his side, they would hit the early teens and disappear, and a new "favourite" would suddenly be in their place next to him. It's also perfectly feasible that he had a "platonic" (creepy as it is to use that term in this context) friendship with Macaulay Culkin, as if you look at their life stories, they had a VERY similar childhood so that specific friendship might have been based on that and never have gone anywhere perverse.

The idea that "MJ didn't abuse Macaulay Culkin, so he can't have abused any of the other boys" is a totally false logic. It's like a rapist going to court and his female lawyer arguing "He can't have raped this woman, because he's never even TRIED to rape me."

Maybe those sexual feelings never developed in that case. Maybe it was never his intention there. Maybe he realised that Culkin being so high profile meant that it was likely to come out if he did anything with him (he was the biggest child actor in the world at the time). Who knows. It's all speculation / opinion of course, just pointing out that there's no logical argument for the statement "didn't abuse some = didn't abuse any".

[Kazanne]

Dan Reed the director is doing the rounds this morning,first on GMTV and now Jeremy Vine, bet he's raking it in.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would you say the same of Jimmy Saville? Should it just have been left buried because he was dead?



The logic is truly bizarre... "he didn't molest every single child he encountered, therefore he must not be a paedophile". That's really not how it works and they talk in the documentary about how there were loads of kids around... OBVIOUSLY, he wasn't molesting all of them... but he had "a special relationship" with certain ones. I mean that part of the story is undeniable; you can literally see it playing out in press photography. He would have a boy aged around 10 who was always by his side, they would hit the early teens and disappear, and a new "favourite" would suddenly be in their place next to him. It's also perfectly feasible that he had a "platonic" (creepy as it is to use that term in this context) friendship with Macaulay Culkin, as if you look at their life stories, they had a VERY similar childhood so that specific friendship might have been based on that and never have gone anywhere perverse.

The idea that "MJ didn't abuse Macaulay Culkin, so he can't have abused any of the other boys" is a totally false logic. It's like a rapist going to court and his female lawyer arguing "He can't have raped this woman, because he's never even TRIED to rape me."

Maybe those sexual feelings never developed in that case. Maybe it was never his intention there. Maybe he realised that Culkin being so high profile meant that it was likely to come out if he did anything with him (he was the biggest child actor in the world at the time). Who knows. It's all speculation / opinion of course, just pointing out that there's no logical argument for the statement "didn't abuse some = didn't abuse any".

no, ew no

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would you say the same of Jimmy Saville? Should it just have been left buried because he was dead?



The logic is truly bizarre... "he didn't molest every single child he encountered, therefore he must not be a paedophile". That's really not how it works and they talk in the documentary about how there were loads of kids around... OBVIOUSLY, he wasn't molesting all of them... but he had "a special relationship" with certain ones. I mean that part of the story is undeniable; you can literally see it playing out in press photography. He would have a boy aged around 10 who was always by his side, they would hit the early teens and disappear, and a new "favourite" would suddenly be in their place next to him. It's also perfectly feasible that he had a "platonic" (creepy as it is to use that term in this context) friendship with Macaulay Culkin, as if you look at their life stories, they had a VERY similar childhood so that specific friendship might have been based on that and never have gone anywhere perverse.

The idea that "MJ didn't abuse Macaulay Culkin, so he can't have abused any of the other boys" is a totally false logic. It's like a rapist going to court and his female lawyer arguing "He can't have raped this woman, because he's never even TRIED to rape me."

Maybe those sexual feelings never developed in that case. Maybe it was never his intention there. Maybe he realised that Culkin being so high profile meant that it was likely to come out if he did anything with him (he was the biggest child actor in the world at the time). Who knows. It's all speculation / opinion of course, just pointing out that there's no logical argument for the statement "didn't abuse some = didn't abuse any".

jimmy savile was convicted, mj wasn't