BBC bans Michael Jackson music amidst child abuse claims

[Wizard.]

Michael Jackson's music has been banned from BBC Radio 2 after a documentary exposing his alleged sex crimes is about to air.
According to The Sunday Times the decision was made last week ahead of Channel 4 screening Leaving Neverland, a four hour two part documentary featuring alleged victims James Safechuck and Wade Robson.
A BBC spokesman told the publication: "We consider each piece of music on its merits and decisions on what we play on different networks are always made with relevant audiences and context in mind."
Safechuck, 40, appeared on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show alongside fellow Jackson accuser Wade and Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed.

Both Safechuck and Robson, 36, tell their stories in the controversial film about the King Of Pop, and they relived their torment on today's show.
Safechuck fought back tears as he claimed Jackson manipulated him when he was a little boy.

When asked about the details of the abuse he claims to have suffered, Safehuck replied: "He taught me to masturbate, like it was this amazing new thing that's going to change your life.
"And French-kissing, he said I taught him how to do that. He also loved having his nipples rubbed."
Robson went on to allege Jackson "tried to penetrate me anally" when he was 14.
Safechuck also said the singer groomed not only him but his family and the wider public.

He said: "There's a long grooming process for Michael. He inserts himself into your family and becomes part of of your family.
"He grooms the children and grooms the parents as well.
"It's a meticulous build-up for him to be able to do that and it takes him a while to build the trust. It doesn't happen overnight.
Robson added: "Most of the time it's not the scary guy in the van in the alleyway.
"Of course, that happens sometimes but I think it is the minority of cases.
"Most of the time it's the coach, the uncle, the teacher, the stepfather, the father, the mother, whatever.

"Somebody who is absolutely trusted, who has gained the trust of the child first and foremost, then the whole family. This was the case.
"Michael made sure from day one that he had a really special relationship with me, and that he had a really special separate relationship with my mother and with my sister and then my father.
"Right from day one, in an unnoticeable way, he started drawing this wedge between myself and my father, my mother and my father.
"He was just a master manipulator."
Leaving Neverland contains explosive allegations of child abuse against the King Of Pop, who died in 2009, and has sparked outraged among some of Jackson's most ardent fans.

Looks like they're starting with the Pedo in the Mirror.

[Gstar]

Is R Kelly banned too?

[Kazanne]

Looks like they're starting with the Pedo in the Mirror.

Well that's radio 2 off my playlist.I will still listen to him afterall it's just hearsay with no proof.Shame they don't ban their license that is a crime against us all.

[MTVN]

Thank God for that, can't stand his music

Also obviously a paedo

[Liam-]

Is R Kelly banned too?

Nope, I heard Ignition in the car the other day

[Wizard.]

I find it weird how the victims are like “he groomed the whole world” seems like a bit of a Sensationalist thing to say about someone who molested you

[arista]

Radio 2
trying to be moral.

Its a hard one as some of MJ's music produced by Quincy Jones
is Quality music with even Eddie Van Halen
on a Guitar solo.

[Kazanne]

I find it weird how the victims are like “he groomed the whole world” seems like a bit of a Sensationalist thing to say about someone who molested you

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.

[Alf]

His music did nothing wrong.

[bots]

i think plenty people want to make money out of him and aren't trustworthy. However Jackson was seriously dodgy, that just cant be denied.

[Kazanne]

i think plenty people want to make money out of him and aren't trustworthy. However Jackson was seriously dodgy, that just cant be denied.

I agree ,he was a strange person in some ways , he was very childlike himself . but that doesn't prove he was a peado , just that he was very eccentric and different , amazing talent that some people seem to have always wanted to destroy . Very unfair now that he is dead aswell .

[Niamh.]

i think plenty people want to make money out of him and aren't trustworthy. However Jackson was seriously dodgy, that just cant be denied.He certainly seemed to have an odd relationship with children that's for sure

[Livia]

I find it strange that the family of one of the alleged victims accepted £15million and signed a non-disclosure agreement. So I hope the Jackson family will be seeking reimbursement because all I've heard so far against Jackson is hearsay, uncorroborated claims and that he paid people not to go to the press. That doesn't make him guilty. He was odd, I think everyone can agree with that... but I still don't believe there was any abuse, and until I see hard evidence I'm keeping off bandwagon. I remember the furore when Cliff Richard was arrested, at least he was able to provide evidence against the claims. But why, like in this case, wait till people are dead?

As for the BBC, I remember the appalling coverage of Cliff Richard's investigation that the BBC thought was acceptable... and it cost them several million. It was a knee jerk reaction from the BBC because it had allowed Saville to prey on kids for decades. Now they're playing it safe.

[Tom4784]

I'm unsure what to think of it all tbh.

I believe victims should always be heard but I can't deny that the story of these alleged victims is made dubious by the fact that they previously stood up for him, not as children who could have still been under his sway had they been groomed. but as adults who would have carried that pain around and would have been put under a microscope for coming to MJ's defense.

It's a difficult one, I hope that these guys can find peace somehow in case their story is true because I don't think they'll ever get true justice simply because they've given people reason to doubt them.

[Jessica.]

He wasn't convicted though, I think it's a bit much to stop playing his music.

[Beso]

Horrible man...feal sorry for him if the stories about him being buggered as a child are true..but to then go onto gods knows what as an adult just makes me hate him for the sick pedo he is...one of the worst kind cause he knows the pain.

[Kazanne]

I find it strange that the family of one of the alleged victims accepted £15million and signed a non-disclosure agreement. So I hope the Jackson family will be seeking reimbursement because all I've heard so far against Jackson is hearsay, uncorroborated claims and that he paid people not to go to the press. That doesn't make him guilty. He was odd, I think everyone can agree with that... but I still don't believe there was any abuse, and until I see hard evidence I'm keeping off bandwagon. I remember the furore when Cliff Richard was arrested, at least he was able to provide evidence against the claims. But why, like in this case, wait till people are dead?

As for the BBC, I remember the appalling coverage of Cliff Richard's investigation that the BBC thought was acceptable... and it cost them several million. It was a knee jerk reaction from the BBC because it had allowed Saville to prey on kids for decades. Now they're playing it safe.

100% Livia you put it so much better than I , the press /media have always had it in for Jackson simply because he was different but most of the odd things were explained others simply exaggerated ,but some people seem to have had a deep hatred for him and relish in anything that outs him in a bad light,so this must be nectar to them, So many things don't add up, he was also found not guilty which people seem to overlook a lot, The guy is dead,let him rest in peace.

[joeysteele]

Well that's radio 2 off my playlist.I will still listen to him afterall it's just hearsay with no proof.Shame they don't ban their license that is a crime against us all.

I agree on your points there.:wavey:

Don't get me started on the licence fee however, that's been my one big hate since I realised one was needed.
Scrap that thing and get rid of the truly awful TV licensing company.

[joeysteele]

I find it strange that the family of one of the alleged victims accepted £15million and signed a non-disclosure agreement. So I hope the Jackson family will be seeking reimbursement because all I've heard so far against Jackson is hearsay, uncorroborated claims and that he paid people not to go to the press. That doesn't make him guilty. He was odd, I think everyone can agree with that... but I still don't believe there was any abuse, and until I see hard evidence I'm keeping off bandwagon. I remember the furore when Cliff Richard was arrested, at least he was able to provide evidence against the claims. But why, like in this case, wait till people are dead?

As for the BBC, I remember the appalling coverage of Cliff Richard's investigation that the BBC thought was acceptable... and it cost them several million. It was a knee jerk reaction from the BBC because it had allowed Saville to prey on kids for decades. Now they're playing it safe.

Brilliant post Livia.
Post of this thread for me.

[Amy Jade]

I find it strange that the family of one of the alleged victims accepted £15million and signed a non-disclosure agreement. So I hope the Jackson family will be seeking reimbursement because all I've heard so far against Jackson is hearsay, uncorroborated claims and that he paid people not to go to the press. That doesn't make him guilty. He was odd, I think everyone can agree with that... but I still don't believe there was any abuse, and until I see hard evidence I'm keeping off bandwagon. I remember the furore when Cliff Richard was arrested, at least he was able to provide evidence against the claims. But why, like in this case, wait till people are dead?

As for the BBC, I remember the appalling coverage of Cliff Richard's investigation that the BBC thought was acceptable... and it cost them several million. It was a knee jerk reaction from the BBC because it had allowed Saville to prey on kids for decades. Now they're playing it safe.
Brilliant post :clap1:

Shame the BBC never learned from the Saville or Cliff cases.

I 100% believe Michael was just a lost soul and surrounded himself with kids because he related to them because he was never allowed a childhood and was deeply unhappy so just wanted to see other children happy.

[Northern Monkey]

I always wanted to believe Whacko was innocent.
I spent alot of my childhood listening to his tunes.My first ever cassette was ‘Bad’ when it had just released.
It was a big disappointment when the allegations came out.

I suppose nobody can ever know the truth now he’s gone.

[Jake.]

I believe he was an absolute nonce (and the “he didn’t have a childhood” excuse is bogus) but that’s not going to stop me listening to his music. He was a great artist.

[Mokka]

Welcome to our current social norms:

Accused of sexual misconduct
Put on trial
Cleared of charges
Dies
Reaccused
Found guilty in the court of public perception

I just dont know what the point of any of it is now

[Ramsay]

I believe he was an absolute nonce (and the “he didn’t have a childhood” excuse is bogus) but that’s not going to stop me listening to his music. He was a great artist.

Pretty much

[MTVN]

I'm kinda surprised at the support for him tbh: combine everything - all the things he definitely said and did, all the reports of people about what they saw and all the testimonies of those who were abused - and it's obvious that the most likely conclusion is that he did abuse young boys

[Niamh.]

I'm kinda surprised at the support for him tbh: combine everything - all the things he definitely said and did, all the reports of people about what they saw and all the testimonies of those who were abused - and it's obvious that the most likely conclusion is that he did abuse young boysPeople don't want to believe because they like his music imo

[MTVN]

People don't want to believe because they like his music imo

Yeah I think so too

[joeysteele]

People don't want to believe because they like his music imo

No, I think it's as Livia says and pointed out strongly in her post.

There are dubious actions from those complaining.
Why wait until he isn't alive too.

He's had trials, where were these people then.
Even Macauley Culkin was at a trial.

He may have been strange, however there's not in my view any justification for ceasing to play his music.

I mean love or hate Michael Jackson, you cannot cover music history or charts from the 70s to the 2000s leaving out this extremely huge star and influence in music.

Even moreso when he isn't here to be submitted to these accusations, especially after being thoroughly investigated and tried years ago.
Cleared in effect too.

[Marsh.]

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

[bots]

Trump is alive and 100% a crook and still 30% of the American population refuse to consider it because he is sticking it to the "elites". It's not inconceivable that 30% or more would excuse Jackson on the basis of he sang a good tune.

Whatever ones views on Jackson, he was a very flawed individual. If he was guilty, he can't do any more harm now, and I tend to believe that those coming out the woodwork at this point are after a fast buck. He is a prime target for that.

The test I put on him is this. Would I have allowed my children to go for "sleepovers" with him .... not a chance in hell.

[MTVN]

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

Well it's not just that is it, these two spent a lot of time around him when they were kids and have given very detailed testimonies of how he abused them. Then consider also that he himself said he shared beds with children, he surrounded himself with them, he had to pay off the first family who accused him and there were all these accusations and reports around for years

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

[user104658]

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

Well... I mean... It does get you off the hook. People like to believe that Saville didn't get away with his crimes because they were discovered after his death and his "name is mud" but really that doesn't mean anything. Dead is dead, he wasn't caught while he was alive, and he got away with it. There isn't some Saville ghost out there going "Oh nooo, my reputation!". He doesn't exist any more.

I know it's important for victims to feel like they're getting some justice by these things being exposed post-humously but if we're looking at it pragmatically, the dead perpetrator doesn't give a ****. They don't give an anything. They're just a memory.

[MTVN]

Well... I mean... It does get you off the hook. People like to believe that Saville didn't get away with his crimes because they were discovered after his death and his "name is mud" but really that doesn't mean anything. Dead is dead, he wasn't caught while he was alive, and he got away with it. There isn't some Saville ghost out there going "Oh nooo, my reputation!". He doesn't exist any more.

I know it's important for victims to feel like they're getting some justice by these things being exposed post-humously but if we're looking at it pragmatically, the dead perpetrator doesn't give a ****. They don't give an anything. They're just a memory.

Well legally it does, I just mean that it shouldn't make someone immune to accusations or scrutiny

[thesheriff443]

No one wants their hero to be a child molester.

Jimmy savile raised millions for charity but was a paedophil.

[Kazanne]

I'm kinda surprised at the support for him tbh: combine everything - all the things he definitely said and did, all the reports of people about what they saw and all the testimonies of those who were abused - and it's obvious that the most likely conclusion is that he did abuse young boys

One of those boys at least was a proven liar,so for me once a liar always a liar,you don't like him,fair enough but it will cloud your perception of him, he was trialled and found innocent, some just seem so desperate for fame and money they can say anything about him now.I'm not buying any of it.

[thesheriff443]

One of those boys at least was a proven liar,so for me once a liar always a liar,you don't like him,fair enough but it will cloud your perception of him, he was trialled and found innocent, some just seem so desperate for fame and money they can say anything about him now.I'm not buying any of it.

Oj Simpson was found not guilty of murder when we all know he did it, I see this case in the same light.

[Kazanne]

People don't want to believe because they like his music imo

You could also say ,people want to believe it because they didn't like him

[Cherie]

I will wait to see what this new documentary raises, though the fact that these two appear to have previously lied under oath should be raising some kind of red flags.

The BBC's reaction is ludicrous, he has not been convicted of anything....

[bots]

it's not like the BBC doesn't have history. It's banned all sorts of stuff over the years with no legal basis to do so. It's not like Jackson's music is current, who really gives a toss if the beeb never played any music again, let alone MJ's greatest hits

[Niamh.]

No, I think it's as Livia says and pointed out strongly in her post.

There are dubious actions from those complaining.
Why wait until he isn't alive too.

He's had trials, where were these people then.
Even Macauley Culkin was at a trial.

He may have been strange, however there's not in my view any justification for ceasing to play his music.

I mean love or hate Michael Jackson, you cannot cover music history or charts from the 70s to the 2000s leaving out this extremely huge star and influence in music.

Even moreso when he isn't here to be submitted to these accusations, especially after being thoroughly investigated and tried years ago.
Cleared in effect too.

I never said they should stop playing his music. I loved his music back in the 80's/90's too, it was fantastic. I'm also not suggesting a dead man should go on trial, what's the point? All I'm saying is he had a very odd relationship with children and imo there probably was something funny going on, I thought that when he was alive also :shrug:

[Niamh.]

Trump is alive and 100% a crook and still 30% of the American population refuse to consider it because he is sticking it to the "elites". It's not inconceivable that 30% or more would excuse Jackson on the basis of he sang a good tune.

Whatever ones views on Jackson, he was a very flawed individual. If he was guilty, he can't do any more harm now, and I tend to believe that those coming out the woodwork at this point are after a fast buck. He is a prime target for that.

The test I put on him is this. Would I have allowed my children to go for "sleepovers" with him .... not a chance in hell.

Oh I had an argument with my sister in law about Michael Jackson one time, she was absolutely adamant he wasn't a paedo and I asked her that question, would you leave him babysit your kids then? ..........No answer

[Niamh.]

You could also say ,people want to believe it because they didn't like him

You could say that but I actually like his music alot so...........

[Jake.]

You could also say ,people want to believe it because they didn't like him

Not for me, I loved his music (and still do)

[user104658]

Watched it and I have to say, I personally am inclined to believe their stories. The documentary doesn't even paint him as a monster - even they're saying he was the kind, wonderful, childlike personality that everyone believes him to be...... It's just that he was also really messed up and that part of those friendships was sexual experimentation. It's very strange listening to it. They clearly loved him (maybe STILL love him?) and were willing participants at the time. They say they weren't scared or upset during any of it, they felt special and like they had a special relationship with him. They would wait for hours by the phone for his phone calls and got jealous when he was seen with other kids. It's only when they got older and look back on it that they realise how wrong it all was.

I honestly don't know if Jackson himself even really understood that what he was doing was wrong... And he did think it was a "normal" expression of love and that others people just wouldn't understand. He doesn't come across as a predator even though the things he got them to do are objectively horrendous. Sadly I think it's a case of MJ being both a victim himself, and a victimiser of others... His childhood and fame completely warped his psychology, his understanding of what childhood is, and created some twisted ideas about sexuality and affection.

[Elliot]

mj had a lot of issues with the press and his acquaintances trying to slate him for attention, so something doesn't sit right joining in with this to slate a dead man. The day he gets convicted tho, is a different story

[Marsh.]

Well it's not just that is it, these two spent a lot of time around him when they were kids and have given very detailed testimonies of how he abused them. Then consider also that he himself said he shared beds with children, he surrounded himself with them, he had to pay off the first family who accused him and there were all these accusations and reports around for years

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

I never said being dead lets anyone off the hook. It's just yet another convenience.

These people whose testimonies you're investing in also spent a long time defending Michael Jackson.

It wasn't a Rose McGowan (or even Jimmy Saville) style keeping quiet until finally being able to speak out but actively defending him. Makes any of their claims completely dubious now they're deciding to change their tune 10 years after the man's death.

[user104658]

I never said being dead lets anyone off the hook. It's just yet another convenience.

These people whose testimonies you're investing in also spent a long time defending Michael Jackson.

It wasn't a Rose McGowan (or even Jimmy Saville) style keeping quiet until finally being able to speak out but actively defending him. Makes any of their claims completely dubious now they're deciding to change their tune 10 years after the man's death.I honestly don't think there's much question over whether or not it's true in this case. I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance over his guilt because people desperately want to believe in his innocence... And the fact of the matter is, he was prosecuted twice for child sex offences and the first time it was dropped because he made a HUGE out of court settlement, and the second time he would almost certainly have been found guilty if Wade Robson hadn't defended him again.

Their stories have a level of detail that make them totally feasible and explain their actions afterwards. What they describe, and their emotional response to it, is classic for child grooming. The idea that they, and their families, have concocted some elaborate scheme to say they were abused when they weren't is... Far fetched, at best.

I know he hasn't been convicted of anything and is unlikely to be posthumously convicted like Saville, but for me on a personal level I have very little doubt that he engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviours with children.

Again I don't think he was "faking" being who he was and was some calculating predator... I think he was a very damaged man himself and really believed that the relationships he had with these boys was real love and that others just wouldn't understand. But that doesn't mean he's innocent.

[Gstar]

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

This

[user104658]

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

would i let him babysit

NO

[iRyan]

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

If you actually took the time to watch the documentary you’d see it’s more than just “weird and eccentric behavior” It’s textbook grooming, to both the children and the parents. I don’t see how anyone could watch the documentary and still feel compelled to claim the victims are lying or it’s not true.

[Marsh.]

If you actually took the time to watch the documentary you’d see it’s more than just “weird and eccentric behavior” It’s textbook grooming, to both the children and the parents. I don’t see how anyone could watch the documentary and still feel compelled to claim the victims are lying or it’s not true.

Except my response wasn't aimed at people who had watched the documentary and were discussing reasons why they did or did not believe the allegations but those saying "Well Jacko is weird!" That's not evidence of anything and to start talking like it is, is stupid.

[iRyan]

I understand the emotional attachment people have to Michael and his image and his music, but if this was any other man there would be no way question that these accusations have merit. And in fact, the documentary does provide a plethora of evidence. Lavish gifts used as manipulation tactics, obsessive letters, distancing the children from their parents, moving from one young boy to the next once they hit puberty, sharing a bed with young boys he has no relation to. Despite there not being hard evidence that molestation took place, I think the story from these two men who spent many years extremely close to Michael speak for themselves.

[thesheriff443]

would i let him babysit

NO

Well he is dead, so he would be a bad baby sitter.

[Maxxie.]

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

You've made some interesting points so as your someone who's already seen the documentary I wanna ask you a few questions.

First of all, I'd never want to straight out not believe a claim simply because I don't want to, that's a horrible thing to do.

Although after doing research on the situation I feel that you can't prove either side of the argument, but there is a lot more evidence in Michael Jackson's defence imo.

Obviously there's the point that Robson testified against him under oath which is strange but understandable I suppose if your afraid of speaking out or the influence MJ had over him, despite Robson being a grown man at this point.

- If the above scenario was true, I would assume either of the men would have been quick to come forward with the story after he died, it's been TEN YEARS, I'd understand if wade Robson stayed silent but for YEARS after his death he went out of his way to commemorate him, and even tried to be apart of MJ: Cirque du Solei around 2011/2012, he got rejected for that.

Is that issue acknowledged in the film? Surely if a man abused you in the way Robson said mj did to him, you wouldn't wanna be an active part of his tributes and would surely want to distance him from your life now your trauma is over and MJ is long and gone? I find that extremely odd.

It seems that wade has only come forward with the making of this movie as it seems he has become a bit of a has been in the dance world, and this is after he attempted to sue the Jackson estate for ONE BILLION dollars in 2013 (which makes this clearly financially motivated) and this movie is now only being made after the court dismissed the claims for a lack of credibility.

[Maxxie.]

To be honest, this is the sole reason why I am HESITANT to watch this documentary. Films and documentaries especially have the power to be emotionally suggestive and to fit a certain agenda. At the end of the day, I'm only human and I'm a sucker for my emotions and opinions to be easily persuaded through the medium of film.

It's probably a very well constructed and well edited film, which is the exact reason I don't want to watch it as it will probably influence my opinion through emotion over fact.

I compare these allegations with R Kelly, which I do believe those to be true, based on the fact that even his family and ex wife are speaking out against him, and there are a far greater number of allegations from different woman than there are with Michael Jackson.

MJ had two ex wives, surely either of them would speak out if they had any suspicions at all of any sinister behaviour, I mean they were married to him for gods sake!

Lisa Marie Presley said he was amazing in bed btw, don't exactly think he'd be amazing if he was really into shagging little boys. :joker:

[Marsh.]

if this was any other man there would be no way question that these accusations have merit.

:conf:

[iRyan]

:conf:

I’m saying that the only reason people are questioning the victims and the evidence presented is because Michael Jackson was a superstar and a deity in the eyes of his fans. If the person in question was not Michael Jackson, nobody would be running to defend him when the signs of his child abuse are so blatantly clear.

[iRyan]

Just finished the second part. It is equally as important, if not more, than the first part. Hearing how the abuse affected these young men and their families growing into adulthood, and coming to terms with the realization what actually took place was abuse rather than ‘love’ that they were brainwashed to believe from Michael as children. I urge people to watch both parts of this documentary before making a judgment or coming to a conclusion. It’s clear that these men have no agenda other than speaking their truth, and it’s heart breaking to watch. Oprah also asks all the tough questions and addresses residual skepticism in her after special which is also a powerful watch.

[Kazanne]

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?

[user104658]

You've made some interesting points so as your someone who's already seen the documentary I wanna ask you a few questions.



First of all, I'd never want to straight out not believe a claim simply because I don't want to, that's a horrible thing to do.



Although after doing research on the situation I feel that you can't prove either side of the argument, but there is a lot more evidence in Michael Jackson's defence imo.



Obviously there's the point that Robson testified against him under oath which is strange but understandable I suppose if your afraid of speaking out or the influence MJ had over him, despite Robson being a grown man at this point.



- If the above scenario was true, I would assume either of the men would have been quick to come forward with the story after he died, it's been TEN YEARS, I'd understand if wade Robson stayed silent but for YEARS after his death he went out of his way to commemorate him, and even tried to be apart of MJ: Cirque du Solei around 2011/2012, he got rejected for that.



Is that issue acknowledged in the film? Surely if a man abused you in the way Robson said mj did to him, you wouldn't wanna be an active part of his tributes and would surely want to distance him from your life now your trauma is over and MJ is long and gone? I find that extremely odd.



It seems that wade has only come forward with the making of this movie as it seems he has become a bit of a has been in the dance world, and this is after he attempted to sue the Jackson estate for ONE BILLION dollars in 2013 (which makes this clearly financially motivated) and this movie is now only being made after the court dismissed the claims for a lack of credibility.Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.

[Cherie]

Well he is dead, so he would be a bad baby sitter.

:joker:

[Cherie]

Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.

Quick question are they both sueing the Estate or they just want to get this off their chests?

[user104658]

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?Extensively, it's basically the focus of the entire documentary so not easy to sum up. They loved him and they wanted to protect him.

I think that's why people find it so hard to get their heads around because the automatic assumption is that someone who was abused would hate or be scared of their abuser... But it's actually VERY common for abused people - especially groomed children - to have a deep rooted affection for their abuser.

[Kazanne]

Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.


I am sure the money they will reap from this will dry those 'tears' very quickly

[user104658]

Quick question are they both sueing the Estate or they just want to get this off their chests?It's already been legally established (several before the documentary was made) that it's not legally possible to sue the estate, only MJ as an individual (and that's obviously not possible either)

[user104658]

Also regarding MJ's wives / children being unaware, the time frame wasn't conveyed brilliantly but I got the impression that all of this was occurring in the 90's when he was single, and had stopped by the time he was married for the first time.

[iRyan]

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?

Nope, they address it fully in the documentary. It’s a bit hard to explain if you haven’t seen it for yourself, but basically they were brainwashed by Michael from a very young age to conceal the truth, and before recognizing what had happened to them was “abuse” they were still in a sense in love with Michael and were emotionally hardwired to defend him at any cost. He was aggressively involved in their lives throughout the court proceedings and they were coached prior to testifying. This is more nuanced and complex than I can explain in my own words. They don’t paint Michael as some violent monster, it was someone they genuinely felt love for, but were far too young to understand what was really happening to them - and it wasn’t until later in life that the damage that was done to their subconscious began to surface. As children they didn’t have any concept of sex other than what Michael groomed them for under the guise of love and admiration. Often people associate sexual abuse with being violent but that is not always, and in fact not often the case. In short: they were essentially experiencing a form of Stockholm syndrome.

[bots]

not wishing to throw cold water over those that got something from the documentary, but it seems to me it has reinforced beliefs already established in the viewers. I mean, these people changing their stories have been round the block, they will have been given advice on what to say to explain themselves. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that Jackson or those associated with him deserve any more time.

Jackson is long gone, and still people want to profit from association with him, from whatever angle one chooses. I also think that Jackson through his unique position is not even worth the time understanding or whatever, as it is a circumstance unlikely to ever happen again so there is really nothing to be gained from giving him further publicity/notoriety other than generating more cash for those associated with him.

[iRyan]

I am sure the money they will reap from this will dry those 'tears' very quickly

The director confirmed they did not receive or seek any financial compensation for their participation in this film.

[bots]

The director confirmed they did not receive or seek any financial compensation for their participation in this film.

not all income is generated by direct means

[iRyan]

not wishing to throw cold water over those that got something from the documentary, but it seems to me it has reinforced beliefs already established in the viewers. I mean, these people changing their stories have been round the block, they will have been given advice on what to say to explain themselves. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that Jackson or those associated with him deserve any more time.

Jackson is long gone, and still people want to profit from association with him, from whatever angle one chooses. I also think that Jackson through his unique position is not even worth the time understanding or whatever, as it is a circumstance unlikely to ever happen again so there is really nothing to be gained from giving him further publicity/notoriety other than generating more cash for those associated with him.

The purpose of the film is not to slander Michael Jackson, it’s presented as the experiences of two men who were victims sexual abuse as children, which happened to be at the hands of Michael Jackson. It is to bring awareness to sexual abuse of children and the warning signs of grooming. The film doesn’t present any biased negativity towards Jackson other than facts, and how the lives of the victims and their families were affected by their relationship with Jackson. People who peg this as a sensationalized money grab without having even seen it have completely got it all wrong. Watch both parts and then come to your own conclusion.

[iRyan]

not all income is generated by direct means

I’m aware of this, I’m simply stating a fact to consider. As I said, watch for yourself before you judge and see if you still believe it’s a money grab.

[iRyan]

Also regarding MJ's wives / children being unaware, the time frame wasn't conveyed brilliantly but I got the impression that all of this was occurring in the 90's when he was single, and had stopped by the time he was married for the first time.

Correct, Michael married after the allegations were first made by another boy, which we can only assume was to draw attention away from the public perception that he is a pedophile.

[Amy Jade]

I’m saying that the only reason people are questioning the victims and the evidence presented is because Michael Jackson was a superstar and a deity in the eyes of his fans. If the person in question was not Michael Jackson, nobody would be running to defend him when the signs of his child abuse are so blatantly clear.

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.

[user104658]

not wishing to throw cold water over those that got something from the documentary, but it seems to me it has reinforced beliefs already established in the viewers. I mean, these people changing their stories have been round the block, they will have been given advice on what to say to explain themselves. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that Jackson or those associated with him deserve any more time.



Jackson is long gone, and still people want to profit from association with him, from whatever angle one chooses. I also think that Jackson through his unique position is not even worth the time understanding or whatever, as it is a circumstance unlikely to ever happen again so there is really nothing to be gained from giving him further publicity/notoriety other than generating more cash for those associated with him.Honestly I don't think you're right there bots, for example, my wife grew up a huge MJ fan and has always wanted to believe in his innocence but after watching this (alongside, I hasten to add, a lot of googling and fact checking that we always do while watching documentaries), just sighed and said sadly; " :( I think he probably did it, didn't he."

Also (and this may be a controversial thing to say) but the documentary *whether true or not* is a powerful and well constructed message to adult victims of childhood abuse that it's ALWAYS ok - and psychologically healthy - to come forward later in life even if it seems "far too late"...

But yeah. They know that legal action isn't possible due to him being dead. They know that MJ fans are aggressively passionate and that many people won't believe what they have to say. They have had death threats, threats against their families, and know they'll get more... And it's supposed to be feasible that they - and their very normal seeming wives with normal jobs - and several members of both of their families who all knew Michael - are doing this to share out the revenue from a HBO documentary? It simply doesn't make sense.

On the most basic level, the logical holes that one has to dig to believe that decades of abuse allegations against Jackson, including one where he paid off the accuser before court and one where witnesses were coached by the defense lawyers, are actually some sort of evil conspiracy against him for cash, are utterly huge. The far more simple and rational conclusion is that there is at least some truth to the claims.

Whether he deliberately picked kids to groom, or simply DID crave close friendships with children, is another matter. I tend to believe the latter. He was a very troubled and lonely man and the friendships were real; not a ruse for sexual gratification. However another uncomfortable truth is that mild sexual experimentation amongst pre-adolescents is a very common part of childhood friendships... And when you stick an adult with a "childlike mind and emotional state", but an adult body and adult sexual drive, into a "childlike friendship" then it's not just possible that sexual activity happened but verging on likely.

Especially when you consider the content of what ALL of his accusers are saying. He never physically penetrated them in any way (him and Wade briefly tried, once, when Wade was a teenager and "as tall as Jackson himself" not a little kid but didn't even succeed and stopped immediately). They all describe it as mainly watching each other / touching and rubbing each others genitals and nipples, going in showers together and eventually some oral sex. They also all say that Jackson never ejaculated during the contact and would "finish off himself" after.

Exactly what you would expect if someone with the mind of a child but the body of an adult started to experiment sexually.

[user104658]

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.Well... Being blunt, his legal team spent several million dollars pushing that narrative in the press so it's unsurprising that a lot of people think that.

[Beso]

Hopefully he is drinking the devil's juice now.

[Beso]

To be honest, this is the sole reason why I am HESITANT to watch this documentary. Films and documentaries especially have the power to be emotionally suggestive and to fit a certain agenda. At the end of the day, I'm only human and I'm a sucker for my emotions and opinions to be easily persuaded through the medium of film.

It's probably a very well constructed and well edited film, which is the exact reason I don't want to watch it as it will probably influence my opinion through emotion over fact.

I compare these allegations with R Kelly, which I do believe those to be true, based on the fact that even his family and ex wife are speaking out against him, and there are a far greater number of allegations from different woman than there are with Michael Jackson.

MJ had two ex wives, surely either of them would speak out if they had any suspicions at all of any sinister behaviour, I mean they were married to him for gods sake!

Lisa Marie Presley said he was amazing in bed btw, don't exactly think he'd be amazing if he was really into shagging little boys. :joker:



His cock would be numb from.painkillers....pop a vaigra and poke away at something that doesn't turn you on and I think we could all be magic in bed...

I doubt she would know anyway what good or bad is when you look at her own upbringing.

[joeysteele]

I am sure the money they will reap from this will dry those 'tears' very quickly

I feel sure you are right.
Maybe not from this documentary perhaps but they'll know now, coming out with this in this way.
There'll be clamouring likely for more from them.
Magazines, other outlets too.

At a probable lucrative financial gain for them.

[user104658]

I feel sure you are right.

Maybe not from this documentary perhaps but they'll know now, coming out with this in this way.

There'll be clamouring likely for more from them.

Magazines, other outlets too.



At a probable lucrative financial gain for them.Again Joey, if this is the motivation of James Safechuck then he should be making a fortune in Hollywood. You would honestly have to believe that he's an A-grade method actor. Also do you genuinely believe that several members of their family are in it - saying things that they know will make them internationally hated and branded liars - for a small slice of interview money?

I understand that people really want to believe the best of Michael Jackson but I think doing so involves convincing oneself of things that are just not realistic, and automatically disbelieving adults with childhood abuse stories because they "waited so long" to say anything is really a dangerous mindset. MANY childhood abuse survivors don't say anything until adulthood, and the late 20's / early 30's (exactly the age these men have hit) are bang on the usual time that people start to process and understand childhood abuse that happened to them.

[Ramsay]

If he wasn't so good at music he wouldn't have so many people defending him

[arista]

Its on Ch4HD tomorrow Weds 9PM - 10:50PM Part 1
then Thursday 9PM - 11PM Part 2

[What People Are Saying About HBO's Michael Jackson Documentary 'Leaving Neverland'
The reaction has been mixed.]
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a26622488/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-hbo-reactions/

[arista]

Debate now on ITV1HD "This Morning"
on "should his music be banned " like Radio 2 have

[chuff me dizzy]

If he wasn't so good at music he wouldn't have so many people defending him

:clap1: Ive seen people on Facebook saying him being a filthy pervert should be forgiven because he made good music !! WTAF ?

[Ramsay]

:clap1: Ive seen people on Facebook saying him being a filthy pervert should be forgiven because he made good music !! WTAF ?

Madness, imagine he was just some average dude that worked in a shop having kids over for "sleepovers"..Pleaaaase

[chuff me dizzy]

Madness, imagine he was just some average dude that worked in a shop having kids over for "sleepovers"..Pleaaaase

The parents need to take some blame too, would any parent let their child sleep at a grown mans house and let them sleep over ? makes you wonder if he didn't pay the parents to allow it

[Ramsay]

The parents need to take some blame too, would any parent let their child sleep at a grown mans house and let them sleep over ? makes you wonder if he didn't pay the parents to allow it

Absolutely, I can't wrap my head around it

[Marsh.]

I’m saying that the only reason people are questioning the victims and the evidence presented is because Michael Jackson was a superstar and a deity in the eyes of his fans. If the person in question was not Michael Jackson, nobody would be running to defend him when the signs of his child abuse are so blatantly clear.

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.

[Marsh.]

The parents need to take some blame too, would any parent let their child sleep at a grown mans house and let them sleep over ? makes you wonder if he didn't pay the parents to allow it

Well, haven't two of the dads killed themselves?

[Tom4784]

I'm of the mind that, at this point, we probably won't ever know one way or the other. I just hope the accusers can find some peace in all of it.

[user104658]

Well, Wade Robson's mother at least seems to quite deeply blame herself. Also his older brother (who is 9 years older so was in his late teens when Wade started hanging around with MJ, and clearly thought the whole thing was weird) expresses towards the end that he's struggling to get his head around forgiving the mother for letting it happen. The other mum doesn't seem to blame herself as much, just acknowledges that it's crazy how taken in the whole family was. TBH it's pretty clear that both were swept up in the excitement of having a big celebrity so closely involved with their family and didn't so much turn a blind eye on purpose, but definitely let their guard down in a way that CLEARLY no one would with any other random adult coming into their lives.

Although "Abducted In Plain Sight" suggests that it happens with randoms too :think:. There are actually quite a few bizarre parallels with that documentary e.g. how they felt about him, wanting to protect him, that they loved him and lied for him etc... all very similar to the girl in that case. And she also didn't recognise it as abuse until adulthood, while there's no question of the man's guilt in that case. It's proof in itself that these things (them protecting Jackson and lying for him) are not actually unusual at all in grooming cases.

Well, haven't two of the dads killed themselves?

Indeed, although Wade Robson's dad had a history of mental health problems and killed himself before the abuse allegation. That said, reading between the lines, I feel like the dad had a major problem with Wade (and his mother and sister) being so deeply involved with Jackson right from the start and that probably played at least a partial role in their marital problems.

[chuff me dizzy]

If Jackson wasn't a pop icon would the parents have let their kids sleep in the same bed as him ?

[Niamh.]

If Jackson wasn't a pop icon would the parents have let their kids sleep in the same bed as him ?

of course they wouldn't and it's totally crazy for people to say there's any other reason an adult would want to sleep with strangers kids other than he's a paedo .................imo

[chuff me dizzy]

of course they wouldn't and it's totally crazy for people to say there's any other reason an adult would want to sleep with strangers kids other than he's a paedo .................imo

Totally agree ,why would a man build a funfair in his garden if not to get kids to want to keep coming back to his house ....
reminds me of a dirty old man asking kids if they want to go see his puppies

Years ago they was a documentary on MJ and his strange sleeping habits, but can I hellaslike find it

[Kazanne]

The director confirmed they did not receive or seek any financial compensation for their participation in this film.

They will earn loads in interviews etc.

[Kazanne]

If Jackson wasn't a pop icon would the parents have let their kids sleep in the same bed as him ?

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.

[user104658]

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.That logic is totally flawed, though... "he didn't abuse ALL the kids who went to his house, therefore he didn't abuse any of them".

Alsobthe reasons they've defended him in the past are well laid out and explained in The documentary and fall well within normal for abuse victims. You might not "get it" but that doesn't really change anything.

[Niamh.]

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.

:laugh2:

He just liked sleeping in bed with strangers kids ..........sure Jan

[Beso]

What's telling for me is how robson said when he got older he felt Michael was turning to new kids, making them his favourites... robson would then do what was asked of him thinking it would make him Michaels favourite again..... sounds like grooming to me.

[bots]

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.

[Beso]

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]

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 :clap1:

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 ?!! :suspect: .

[chuff me dizzy]

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]

Exactly :clap1:

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 ?!! :suspect: .

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

[montblanc]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[user104658]

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.]

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.

[user104658]

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.]

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.]

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 [emoji38]

[reece(:]

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

[thesheriff443]

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 [emoji38]

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]

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]

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

[Beso]

:notimpressed: 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.

[user104658]

:notimpressed: 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?

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]

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]

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

[AnnieK]

jimmy savile was convicted, mj wasn't

Convicted of what? His crimes were only uncovered after his death - I can't find any reports of posthumous convictions

[Vienna]

He wasn't convicted though, I think it's a bit much to stop playing his music.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/arts/music/michael-jackson-timeline-sexual-abuse-accusations.html

Exactly. He was never convicted but as usual the GP love to do trial by social media and hearsay and expect to be taken seriously. I’ll stick with the courts.

[user104658]

Just for some further info because... I mean come on, guys... those saying it's just a few people where most defend him... it's simply not true and the information is there for anyone to find. You don't need to just follow the documentary. In fact, yes, I would advise not blindly believing a documentary and following up for yourself, but as most people won't, I'll share what I've seen:


Terry George

Has stated that MJ sexually harassed him in telephone calls at the age of 13

Emmanuel Lewis

Says MJ never engaged in any sexual activity or talk with him / defends him

Johnathan Spence

Testified on MJ's behalf when he was a kid in the 90's, REFUSED to testify for him in 2005 and won't talk about him. A nude picture of Johnathan was found at the Neverland Ranch.

Sean Lennon

Has said that Michael never touched him, but has also mentioned watching porn with another boy and MJ.

James Safechuck

Testified for MJ in his early teens, refused in 2005, and has obviously now outright stated that he was abused.

Wade Robson

Defended Michael in the 90's AND in 2005, has of course now stated that he was abused and (if you watch the docu :idc: ) thoroughly explained why he testified for the defense.

Macaulay Culkin

Has always defended Jackson

Brett Barnes

Has always defended Jackson

Jordan Chandler

Outright stated that he was abused, lawsuit was settled out of court so there was never a trial. Jackson was NOT "found not guilty".

Anton Schleiter

Has never accused Jackson but has also never defended him; refuses to talk about their relationship. Also, MJ freely admitted in interview that the song "Speechless" was inspired by Anton. Make of that what you will. Lyrics below.

Your love is magical, that's how I feel
But I have not the words here to explain
Gone is the grace for expressions of passion
But there are worlds and worlds of ways to explain
To tell you how I feel


But I am speechless, speechless, that's how you make me feel
Though I'm with you I am far away and nothing is for real

When I'm with you I am lost for words, I don't know what to say
My head's spinning like a carousel, so silently I pray
Helpless and hopeless, that's how I feel inside
Nothing's real, but all is possible if God is on my side
When I'm with you I'm in the light where I cannot be found
It's as though I am standing in the place called Hallowed Ground


Speechless (speechless), speechless (speechless), that's how you make me feel
Though I'm with you I am far away and nothing is for real


I'd go anywhere and do anything just to touch your face
There's no mountain high I cannot climb
I'm humbled in your grace


Speechless, speechless, that's how you make me feel
Though I'm with you I am lost for words and nothing is for real
Speechless, speechless, that's how you make me feel
Though I'm with you I am far away, and nothing is for real
Speechless, speechless, that's how you make me feel
Though I'm with you I am lost for words and nothing is for real
Speechless


Your love is magical, that's how I feel
But in your presence I am lost for words
Words like
Like, "I love you"

Kendall Cunningham

Another one who refuses to defend Jackson, though also has never outright stated that abuse occurred. Police found semi-nude photos of him at Neverland.

Omer Bhatti

Was a huge part of MJ's life, one you would expect to be defending him. Won't talk about it.

Aaron Carter

Has made confusing, contradictory statements, publicly defends MJ but has been recorded in conversations saying that he was given alcohol and drugs, and also woke up to find Michael on his bed on at least one occasion. Said things to a journalist, later publicly claimed he never said them, but it had secretly been recorded.

Gavin Arvizo

Has outright accused Jackson of molestation. This went to court and there was found to be insufficient evidence; largely due to the testimony of Macaulay Culkin, and Wade Robson who has now stated that he lied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For those not keeping count; of 14 "special young male friends", 5 have outright stated there was abuse; a further 6 refuse to talk about it much (3 of those there's other questionable evidence or conflicting statements), and just 3 speak out in defence of him. Only one of those (Macaulay Culkin) has done so under oath that hasn't now been recanted.

[user104658]

I’ll stick with the courts.

But when will you stick with your ban? :facepalm:

[Marsh.]

But when will you stick with your ban? :facepalm:

:laugh2:

[Kazanne]

But when will you stick with your ban? :facepalm:

TS you seem very desperate to get the people who do not go with this story to believe it, when MJ was found innocent were the FBI , the police and anyone else who investigated it , were they all lying? he was found NOT guilty,just curious how some are happy to disbelieve the powers that be , but believe these men who are known liars, none of us will fully know ,but it seems some think they do ,like they were actually were there. I think it's a money making scheme, but we will never know but pretty strange they didn't come out while he was alive , too many discrepancies for me to believe 100 % that he was a paedophile ,I will watch the documentary but I have no doubt it's all made them tons of cash, plus no one has mentioned what about MJ children in all this , if he has never touched a kid inappropriately how horrible for them all this is.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/men/2019/03/05/TELEMMGLPICT000190371863_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqCoXrrbm FUCrx-ffhLpYWR3atOckM47EjAsv2wG8Fin0.jpeg?imwidth=700

...Leaving Neverland changes everything. The most devout fans will continue to refuse to believe it,
but their hero is unmasked now as what James Safechuck, after a quarter century of heartsick loyalty,
was finally able to call “an evil man”. The difference this time is that these are not sordid criminal
allegations which can be bought off or discredited.

The documentary presents an intimate and wholly credible portrait of the emotional experience of two
boys who loved Michael Jackson deeply, and who were sick with jealousy when they were supplanted by
a younger model. There is an excruciating moment when you realise why his victims couldn’t bring themselves
to testify against Jackson. So expertly had they been groomed, they didn’t even perceive what he had done
to them as abusive. Only when James and Wade each had a child of their own was the wicked spell finally
broken. Looking at their little boys, they realised that they could not have been complicit in the
violation of their own innocence. The guilt was Jackson’s alone.


“How could the mothers have let their little boys get into bed with a 30-year-old man?” That’s one
of the many disturbing question thrown up by this programme. Following a nervous breakdown, Wade
told his mum that he had no feelings for her whatsoever. James was quicker to realise that his parents
had also been groomed by the wily superstar.

Weren’t we all? It was evident for decades that, in Jackson’s big boy’s toystore, there lurked a real monster.
Like Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile, he was hiding in plain sight. If there is a broader message here, it’s that,
in a contest between fame and morality, rightful conduct comes a very poor second to celebrity power. It’s no coincidence
that, until now, only negligible entertainers like Savile and Gary Glitter have been held to account. Do You Wanna Be in
My Gang hardly bears comparison with Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’, does it? Our worship of fame, idolatry in its worst
sense, kept Michael Jackson safe and small boys in danger.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/michael-jackson-hiding-plain-sight-did-make-excuses-many-years/

[Kazanne]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/men/2019/03/05/TELEMMGLPICT000190371863_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqCoXrrbm FUCrx-ffhLpYWR3atOckM47EjAsv2wG8Fin0.jpeg?imwidth=700

...Leaving Neverland changes everything. The most devout fans will continue to refuse to believe it,
but their hero is unmasked now as what James Safechuck, after a quarter century of heartsick loyalty,
was finally able to call “an evil man”. The difference this time is that these are not sordid criminal
allegations which can be bought off or discredited.

The documentary presents an intimate and wholly credible portrait of the emotional experience of two
boys who loved Michael Jackson deeply, and who were sick with jealousy when they were supplanted by
a younger model. There is an excruciating moment when you realise why his victims couldn’t bring themselves
to testify against Jackson. So expertly had they been groomed, they didn’t even perceive what he had done
to them as abusive. Only when James and Wade each had a child of their own was the wicked spell finally
broken. Looking at their little boys, they realised that they could not have been complicit in the
violation of their own innocence. The guilt was Jackson’s alone.


“How could the mothers have let their little boys get into bed with a 30-year-old man?” That’s one
of the many disturbing question thrown up by this programme. Following a nervous breakdown, Wade
told his mum that he had no feelings for her whatsoever. James was quicker to realise that his parents
had also been groomed by the wily superstar.

Weren’t we all? It was evident for decades that, in Jackson’s big boy’s toystore, there lurked a real monster.
Like Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile, he was hiding in plain sight. If there is a broader message here, it’s that,
in a contest between fame and morality, rightful conduct comes a very poor second to celebrity power. It’s no coincidence
that, until now, only negligible entertainers like Savile and Gary Glitter have been held to account. Do You Wanna Be in
My Gang hardly bears comparison with Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’, does it? Our worship of fame, idolatry in its worst
sense, kept Michael Jackson safe and small boys in danger.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/michael-jackson-hiding-plain-sight-did-make-excuses-many-years/

That's probably in every newspaper today,I don't know ,once we get those claws in we like to draw blood.People had already decided years ago that their perception of him was the right one.

[Beso]

I think the type of abuse that happened is very telling and that of an immature adult, all boys basically having the same things jappen to them in almost the identical way....Imo says a lot and makes him guilty imo.

[user104658]

TS you seem very desperate to get the people who do not go with this story to believe it, when MJ was found innocent were the FBI , the police and anyone else who investigated it , were they all lying? he was found NOT guilty,just curious how some are happy to disbelieve the powers that be , but believe these men who are known liars, none of us will fully know ,but it seems some think they do ,like they were actually were there. I think it's a money making scheme, but we will never know but pretty strange they didn't come out while he was alive , too many discrepancies for me to believe 100 % that he was a paedophile ,I will watch the documentary but I have no doubt it's all made them tons of cash, plus no one has mentioned what about MJ children in all this , if he has never touched a kid inappropriately how horrible for them all this is.

Honestly I'm not desperate for people to believe it, though I personally do believe it. I'm just keen for people to look at the whole picture objectively and not with blinkers on, and not to automatically assume it must not have happened because he was never convicted. Several boys / men have now said it happened (read my above post) - more have said it happened than have defended him - and the FBI and police did find evidence - pictures for one, and a staff member who stated that she saw Jackson getting out of his shower with a boy is another - just not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I know many people put a lot of stock in that, but the legal system (for a good reason) is set up so that things must be proven beyond reasonable dount, which means that even if courts and juries think someone is "probably guilty" that's not enough for a guilty verdict, the proof has to be concrete and in this case he was very careful. It means nothing regarding whether or not his conduct was questionable.

There is in fact a brief snippet in the documentary of one of the jury members who makes it pretty clear that they found it all highly suspect - but had to return a not guilty verdict due to the lack of physical evidence.

Anyway... like I said, I'd just prefer if people could make up their own mind with full reasoning after actually watching it and reading up on the trials and other statements that are available, rather than just assuming. "He wasn't convicted so that's that!" is never going to be enough for me. I guess it's OK if it is for other people but there's no real point continuing to argue that one.

[Kazanne]

I think the type of abuse that happened is very telling and that of an immature adult, all boys basically having the same things jappen to them in almost the identical way....Imo says a lot and makes him guilty imo.

Well Parmy,kids who are abused usually try and stay away from someone who is abusing them, not stay there and keep going back for more, and actually defend him,sorry but not buying it unless proof is oncoming,as for the parents being groomed aswell,sorry don't believe that either,they were probably more interested in what MJ could give them, Jackson was a lot of things but a master manipulator ? I don't think so,but we wont ever know .

[Kazanne]

Honestly I'm not desperate for people to believe it, though I personally do believe it. I'm just keen for people to look at the whole picture objectively and not with blinkers on, and not to automatically assume it must not have happened because he was never convicted. Several boys / men have now said it happened (read my above post) - more have said it happened than have defended him - and the FBI and police did find evidence - pictures for one, and a staff member who stated that she saw Jackson getting out of his shower with a boy is another - just not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I know many people put a lot of stock in that, but the legal system (for a good reason) is set up so that things must be proven beyond reasonable dount, which means that even if courts and juries think someone is "probably guilty" that's not enough for a guilty verdict, the proof has to be concrete and in this case he was very careful. It means nothing regarding whether or not his conduct was questionable.

There is in fact a brief snippet in the documentary of one of the jury members who makes it pretty clear that they found it all highly suspect - but had to return a not guilty verdict due to the lack of physical evidence.

Anyway... like I said, I'd just prefer if people could make up their own mind with full reasoning after actually watching it and reading up on the trials and other statements that are available, rather than just assuming. "He wasn't convicted so that's that!" is never going to be enough for me. I guess it's OK if it is for other people but there's no real point continuing to argue that one.

Why should people who don't believe it have blinkers on? I have read a lot on it especially about Jordan Chandler and his father, I can and will make my own mind up, there are conflicting stories on all sides,so for me at the moment, I think it's all quite dodgy.

[user104658]

That's probably in every newspaper today,I don't know ,once we get those claws in we like to draw blood.People had already decided years ago that their perception of him was the right one.

Believe it or not; I was inclined to believe that he was innocent and just unfairly misunderstood before I watched the documentary and did some more research. I also still don't think he was a monster or "evil" though for me, now, he has clearly ruined a number of lives. He was horrendously mistreated as a child and was (very obviously, no matter what you believe about his guilt) a very unwell man who wrecked his body with surgery and drugs and ended up dying young. It's a tragic story from all angles. And that was the most surprising part of this documentary, honestly. It's NOT a smear-piece, it's not trying to paint him as some deeply sinister monster, it's a very open and honest account from people who clearly still admire other things about him despite everything.

Moreover; even if you DO come out of it believing that he was ever sexually inappropriate with children and simply loved their company... even if they are lying... he still hugely mistreated these children. He scooped young kids up, told them they were special, lavished them with attention and adoration and then would drop them as soon as they got a little older and move on to someone else who was special and adored. That in itself is emotional abuse.

[user104658]

Well Parmy,kids who are abused usually try and stay away from someone who is abusing them, not stay there and keep going back for more, and actually defend him.

Sorry Kazanne but this is simply 100% incorrect and shows that you have little if any understanding of the issues surrounding paedophiles and grooming. You're picturing abuse as force. Grooming is not about force. Grooming is when adults convince children that what they're doing is OK, loving, a normal expression of a close connection, but that it should be a secret because others "wouldn't understand".

It is VERY, VERY COMMON for abuse victims to defend their abuser well into adulthood. This is simple fact.

[Marsh.]

Well Parmy,kids who are abused usually try and stay away from someone who is abusing them, not stay there and keep going back for more, and actually defend him,sorry but not buying it unless proof is oncoming,as for the parents being groomed aswell,sorry don't believe that either,they were probably more interested in what MJ could give them, Jackson was a lot of things but a master manipulator ? I don't think so,but we wont ever know .

Well, tbf, when it comes to whole families being groomed it's not as though that's unheard of.

[Vienna]

Honestly I'm not desperate for people to believe it, though I personally do believe it. I'm just keen for people to look at the whole picture objectively and not with blinkers on, and not to automatically assume it must not have happened because he was never convicted. Several boys / men have now said it happened (read my above post) - more have said it happened than have defended him - and the FBI and police did find evidence - pictures for one, and a staff member who stated that she saw Jackson getting out of his shower with a boy is another - just not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I know many people put a lot of stock in that, but the legal system (for a good reason) is set up so that things must be proven beyond reasonable dount, which means that even if courts and juries think someone is "probably guilty" that's not enough for a guilty verdict, the proof has to be concrete and in this case he was very careful. It means nothing regarding whether or not his conduct was questionable.

There is in fact a brief snippet in the documentary of one of the jury members who makes it pretty clear that they found it all highly suspect - but had to return a not guilty verdict due to the lack of physical evidence.

Anyway... like I said, I'd just prefer if people could make up their own mind with full reasoning after actually watching it and reading up on the trials and other statements that are available, rather than just assuming. "He wasn't convicted so that's that!" is never going to be enough for me. I guess it's OK if it is for other people but there's no real point continuing to argue that one.

Which set of blinkers are those then, I see a lot of assumptions on both sides so such comments are dismissive and patronising. A proper legal conviction is totally relevant when slurring the name and reputation of someone who can no longer defend themselves. He was one of the most famous people in the world, one of the richest and eccentric and odd. A perfect target for such mud-slinging.

Like none of the accusers could possibly have anything to gain by lying. Too many unanswered questions so assume the worse. Unless they are looking for financial recompense what is there to gain for anyone in continuing to upset his family with what amounts to little more than gossip with many having ulterior motives for keeping that ball rolling.

Without a conviction let the dead rest in peace. What if all the the doubters are actually wrong, do you ever think of that?

[Beso]

Well Parmy,kids who are abused usually try and stay away from someone who is abusing them, not stay there and keep going back for more, and actually defend him,sorry but not buying it unless proof is oncoming,as for the parents being groomed aswell,sorry don't believe that either,they were probably more interested in what MJ could give them, Jackson was a lot of things but a master manipulator ? I don't think so,but we wont ever know .



First of all you don't ever need to apologise to me..:wavey:

The remarks about kids staying away from their abusers is a fair point when it is the type of abuse that physically hurts them, this was not that type of abuse..this type of abuse was tender and loving in Michaels head and the kids would have went along with it believing it was Michael showing them love to begin with...as the boys grew older and more wise to what was actually going on they then started distancing themselves from him did they not?


Michael Jackson was a master groomer who found it easy to get away with it for years due to his fame and fortune.....


Ps, TS highlighting the photos that were found by the police at neverland of naked and semi naked boys tips the balance further towards this sick bastards being guilty.... I hope he rots in hell for abusing others after being abused himself..

[Beso]

I'm. Wondering how many kids would have been drugged beforehand mind, ones with no recollection of events.

[Livia]

Sorry Kazanne but this is simply 100% incorrect and shows that you have little if any understanding of the issues surrounding paedophiles and grooming. You're picturing abuse as force. Grooming is not about force. Grooming is when adults convince children that what they're doing is OK, loving, a normal expression of a close connection, but that it should be a secret because others "wouldn't understand".

It is VERY, VERY COMMON for abuse victims to defend their abuser well into adulthood. This is simple fact.


But you know all about it, right? And everyone who doesn't share your own opinion is wearing blinkers. Looks like you're the one in blinkers, TS, with the greatest respect.

There is no irrefutable evidence or Jackson would have died in Jail.

The people who are now blackening his name, after he's dead of course, accepted HUGE non-disclosure payments. And now they're disclosing, so the first thing that should happen is that they should be sued for the return of those payments.

[Livia]

I'm. Wondering how many kids would have been drugged beforehand mind, ones with no recollection of events.

Objection... supposition.

[Beso]

Objection... supposition.




Isn't it all.

[Livia]

Isn't it all.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

The man's dead. When he was alive they were happy with their non disclosure payments of million and millions of dollars. Now he's dead they're back for more. How I see it in a nutshell.

[Kazanne]

Sorry Kazanne but this is simply 100% incorrect and shows that you have little if any understanding of the issues surrounding paedophiles and grooming. You're picturing abuse as force. Grooming is not about force. Grooming is when adults convince children that what they're doing is OK, loving, a normal expression of a close connection, but that it should be a secret because others "wouldn't understand".

It is VERY, VERY COMMON for abuse victims to defend their abuser well into adulthood. This is simple fact.

I was abused myself as a child so I think I have an inkling of what I am talking about,so please don't presume I don't have any understanding because I do . I suppose it depends in this case on our own individual thoughts on this and who do we believe,there are also articles on Chandler lying on the internet,depends what you want to believe, this is just one of many. https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/jordan-chandler-lied/

[user104658]

But you know all about it, right? And everyone who doesn't share your own opinion is wearing blinkers.

I know enough about it to know that the assertation that "all victims of childhood abuse try to stay away from their attackers and would never defend them" is patently false, yes. Groomed children do "go back for more". Groomed children do often "defend their abusers". This isn't my opinion, it's the facts (and not only that, but the purpose) of grooming.

"Grooming is when someone builds an emotional connection with a child to gain their trust for the purposes of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or trafficking.

Children and young people can be groomed online or face-to-face, by a stranger or by someone they know - for example a family member, friend or professional.

Groomers may be male or female. They could be any age.

Many children and young people don't understand that they have been groomed or that what has happened is abuse."

This is direct from the NSPCC. But by all means, brand it "just my opinion" if it helps.

[Kazanne]

I'm. Wondering how many kids would have been drugged beforehand mind, ones with no recollection of events.

See this is what happens people imagining stuff and adding to the falsehoods, Chinese whispers and people believing it all, it makes me more determined to stick with what the courts said.

[Ramsay]

Abducted in plain sight is a perfect example of the type of grooming TS is on about. That little girl kept going back to B because she thought he loved her

[user104658]

When he was alive they were happy with their non disclosure payments of million and millions of dollars. Now he's dead they're back for more. How I see it in a nutshell.

It was Jordan Chandler who took a non-disclosure payment of millions and he is not involved with this documentary. Neither of the men involved in this documentary received any non-disclosure payment. So this may be "how you see it", but apparently "how you see it" is based on misinformation.

[Beso]

Abso-bloody-lutely.

The man's dead. When he was alive they were happy with their non disclosure payments of million and millions of dollars. Now he's dead they're back for more. How I see it in a nutshell.

If I was offered millions to say I didn't wank or have him wank me I can honestly say I would take it...then my big mouth would have to tell the truth in later years.

[bots]

See this is what happens people imagining stuff and adding to the falsehoods, Chinese whispers and people believing it all, it makes me more determined to stick with what the courts said.

The sleepovers and bed sharing are documented facts though. Even if you put all other aspects aside, a normal adult wouldn't conceive of doing something like that ... not in a million years.

If TS were to put an advert in his local paper saying children invited for sleepovers with adult. Free icecreams provided ..... how long do you think it would take the police to come calling

[Beso]

See this is what happens people imagining stuff and adding to the falsehoods, Chinese whispers and people believing it all, it makes me more determined to stick with what the courts said.

Kids are saying they were given drugs by Michael though, I am intitled to wonder about the amount that were drugged at bedtime considering the amount of kids he had stay over through the years.

[Livia]

It was Jordan Chandler who took a non-disclosure payment of millions and he is not involved with this documentary. Neither of the men involved in this documentary received any non-disclosure payment. So this may be "how you see it", but apparently "how you see it" is based on misinformation.

No, it's based on a deluge of misinformation.... it's all we have. No facts, and definitely no evidence...

[Niamh.]

My brothers response to me saying Gav won't watch it incase it turns him off the music........:hehe:

Ah I think people have been compartmentalising that for a long time
"Great music, probably a paedo"

[user104658]

No, it's based on a deluge of misinformation.... it's all we have. No facts, and definitely no evidence...

Well... it's a fact that neither of the men on the documentary received non-disclosure payments from Jackson? Unless you're suggesting that they took payment off-the-record to testify for him / stay quiet but that would be pretty damning in itself.

[Glenn.]

I went completely off his music when he died and every radio station shoved him down our throats like he was such a loss lol

[Marsh.]

If I was offered millions to say I didn't wank or have him wank me I can honestly say I would take it...then my big mouth would have to tell the truth in later years.

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

[user104658]

Ah I think people have been compartmentalising that for a long time
"Great music, probably a paedo"

Well I mean, as controversial as it may be to say it... the two are really not related :shrug:.

Though I personally would argue that fewer than 10 of his songs can be described as "great", mostly it's just "very good for pop".

[Kazanne]

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

That was my thoughts too.

[user104658]

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

In an ideal world that I think we all have to sadly acknowledge does not reflect the real world.

People do a lot worse for significantly less, every single day.

[Niamh.]

Well I mean, as controversial as it may be to say it... the two are really not related :shrug:.

Though I personally would argue that fewer than 10 of his songs can be described as "great", mostly it's just "very good for pop".

It was music that defined pop in the 80's and into the 90's ...... I want to say I liked him more when I was a kid but that might not be very appropriate :hehe:

[Kazanne]

Exactly.

I watched the documentary last night and was disgusted by how incredibly one sided it was. It's nothing but a 4 hour propoganda piece designed to help get their appeal overturned after failing to sue MJ's estate for a BILLION dollars.

No one can deny the content and overly graphic and compelling material isn't shocking, but there are so many inconsistencies and facts the director, Dan Reed chose to omit or care to check up on. We see plenty of Wade and Jimmy's family, but nobody from Michael's family or anyone to speak up for him on his behalf.

Nothing is mentioned about Wade being bitter about being tossed aside in favour of Jamie King choreographing the Cirque Du Soleil shows that he DESPERATELY wanted to do, and coming to the realization he was abused by MJ TWO WEEKS afterwards.

Nothing is mentioned about him shopping around for a book deal to reveal all about MJ after getting dropped from Cirque Du Soleil.

Just like nothing is mentioned about MJ setting Wade and Brandy Jackson up on a date - to which they embarked on a 7 year relationship but ended after she found out he'd been cheating on her with Britney Spears - bearing in mind this was the same MJ who they claimed didn't like them associating and forming relationships with girls.

It's interesting how they spend so much of the documentary going into great detail about what happened durung the sexual abuse, but don't mention ANYTHING about Michael's Vitilego or the markings on his penis / body - which is something you'd expect to be of relevance to these accusations.

It's really difficult to comprehend how both would keep going back to a man who had allegedy done such disgusting things to them. I very much doubt a chld of 7 would perform oral sex on an adult without screaming blue murder, no matter how much they said they "loved each other".

They don't mention anything about the accusers appeal currently in motion to screw billions from MJ's Estate. (despite claiming "its not about money").

There's also inconsistencies with the familes too. Like when Safechuck's Mother claimed she danced when she heard MJ was dead in 2009, yet James said he didn't reveal anything about the abuse to her until 2013?

Then in the end credits we see Wade burning his MJ memorobilia, but what they don't tell you is he had sold off most items of REAL value years earlier with Julien’s Auctions - where he originally tried to sell them anonymously, but they wouldn't let him.

There's so many more shady facts on these guys that I could tell you.

When you look at their history of trying to get money out of MJ's estate, it's clear "Leaving Neverland" is just one big propoganda piece designed to make us pity them, and hoping this documentary this will help with their appeal. Unfortunately, those who don't know anything about the accusers will believe it and that's what's worrying. It's a slap in the face to REAL victims of abuse, tbh.

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

[Niamh.]

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

I mean he slept in the same bed as strangers kids, what do you think it "tells" about people who think that's a bit suspicious? :laugh:

[Livia]

Well... it's a fact that neither of the men on the documentary received non-disclosure payments from Jackson? Unless you're suggesting that they took payment off-the-record to testify for him / stay quiet but that would be pretty damning in itself.

No one knows, TS. You don't... I don't.... Jackson's dead so can't be interrogated... although if all the years that the FBI investigated him threw up nothing, I'm not about to believe unsubstantiated reports from people who haven't said anything until Jackson's dead and can't answer.

[user104658]

No one knows, TS. You don't... I don't.... Jackson's dead so can't be interrogated... although if all the years that the FBI investigated him threw up nothing, I'm not about to believe unsubstantiated reports from people who haven't said anything until Jackson's dead and can't answer.

Do you believe that Saville might be innocent?

[Livia]

Do you believe that Saville might be innocent?

No I don't. I believe the evidence against Saville was overwhelming. Unlike this case... so I'm not sure what point you're making by bringing that up.

[Marsh.]

In an ideal world that I think we all have to sadly acknowledge does not reflect the real world.

People do a lot worse for significantly less, every single day.

Yeah, I'm aware. I, too, live on planet Earth.

The question was put to Parm who categorically said he would take a payout.

[user104658]

No I don't. I believe the evidence against Saville was overwhelming. Unlike this case... so I'm not sure what point you're making by bringing that up.

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

[Kazanne]

I mean he slept in the same bed as strangers kids, what do you think it "tells" about people who think that's a bit suspicious? :laugh:

It tells me anyone who is close and sleeps with a kid is thought of as a paedo straight away, they weren't strangers kids according to them their parents welcomed him and regarded him as a friend as he had apparently groomed them too ,and as strange as it may seem ,just because someone sleeps in the same bed doesn't make them a paedo, he does explain that,it's all out there. In a nutshell there are too many lies and indiscrepancies for me to believe he abused kids.my opinion , that's all

[user104658]

Yeah, I'm aware. I, too, live on planet Earth.

The question was put to Parm who categorically said he would take a payout.

Yes but being totally honest I suspect most people say they wouldn't take the (alleged) $20+ million, until they're actually sat with a cheque for $20+ million in their hands. Especially when there are ZERO guarantees of what will happen if legal action continues, and the case may fail on lack of evidence. 20 million dallaz buys a lot of therapy.

[Kazanne]

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

Wasn't there tapes of Saville saying what he was doing ?

[Marsh.]

Yes but being totally honest I suspect most people say they wouldn't take the (alleged) $20+ million, until they're actually sat with a cheque for $20+ million in their hands. Especially when there are ZERO guarantees of what will happen if legal action continues, and the case may fail on lack of evidence. 20 million dallaz buys a lot of therapy.

Well, thank you. But, again, it was a questiom for Parm. :laugh:

[Beso]

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

As a kid, probably not. Infact it probably wouldn't even enter my head at that age.

[Livia]

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

You seem to have made quite a study of both of these cases to be able to talk at length about the similarities and differences in both cases. And as with everything, you assume no one else knows anything.

I'll leave it now, when you start lecturing me on witness statements and how to interpret evidence, I think you're taking the piss.

[Livia]

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Couldn't agree more.

[Beso]

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

I had him as guilty long before these 2 came out.

[Kazanne]

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Well said Nancy,and isn't it funny how some facts are conveniently overlooked, I do feel sorry for MJs kids and family it must be like watching a public execution. And the director of the documentry Dan Reed must be rubbing his hands together with glee,he's never had so much publicity.:wavey:

[user104658]

when you start lecturing me on witness statements and how to interpret evidence, I think you're taking the piss.

Yes, Livia, that's called professional arrogance. It's not out of character, sadly.

[Kazanne]

I had him as guilty long before these 2 came out.

I know you did as a lot of people did and do , but according to the USA court they didn't feel he was .

[Livia]

Yes, Livia, that's called professional arrogance. It's not out of character, sadly.

Why is it professional arrogance? What's arrogant is that you think you can lecture me on my own profession and then tell ME I'm arrogant.

[Beso]

I know you did as a lot of people did and do , but according to the USA court they didn't feel he was .

Didn't feel he was or not enough evidence at the time to say he was?

[user104658]

Why is it professional arrogance? What's arrogant is that you think you can lecture me on my own profession and then tell ME I'm arrogant.

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to mean something quite frequently.

[Marsh.]

As a kid, probably not. Infact it probably wouldn't even enter my head at that age.

True. But then as a kid of the age of 7 I can't imagine I'd have any understanding of any of it. Even money.

[Livia]

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to quite frequently.

Whereas you have nothing to back up your own assertions.

You get very prickly whenever I say anything about my profession.

I don't believe I'm right because of my profession. I believe I'm right because I've thought it through. If you don't want to be reminded what I do for a living stop trying to make your own case by talking me through evidence and witness statements.

[Marsh.]

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to mean something quite frequently.

How is it different to parents bringing their kids into the discussion as a statement on how much more valid their opinion was on the James Bulger thread?

It's ok for one and not the other?

:smug:

[Beso]

True. But then as a kid of the age of 7 I can't imagine I'd have any understanding of any of it. Even money.

But as a grown up you would look back and think, no..
.that wasn't right, then perhaps you would start talking to protect other kids from this form of abuse.

[Marsh.]

But as a grown up you would look back and think, no..
.that wasn't right, then perhaps you would start talking to protect other kids from this form of abuse.

Yes true. I'm just saying as a child I wouldn't understand the magnitude of a 20 million dollar check either. In terms of making a choice to make money rather than tell anyone.

[user104658]

Whereas you have nothing to back up your own assertions.

You get very prickly whenever I say anything about my profession.



Because you use it as a battering ram when it's entirely irrelevant; usually when you're feeling like your knowledge is being in some way "challenged" which you find insulting.

I don't believe I'm right because of my profession. I believe I'm right because I've thought it through.

Good! Then talk about your reasoning in thinking it through and not your profession?

If you don't want to be reminded what I do for a living stop trying to make your own case by talking me through evidence and witness statements.

Why would I do that when your profession is irrelevant?

[user104658]

How is it different to parents bringing their kids into the discussion as a statement on how much more valid their opinion was on the James Bulger thread?

It's ok for one and not the other?

:smug:

Don't you lecture ME on hypocrisy young man :hmph:. I have a BSc.

[Beso]

Yes true. I'm just saying as a child I wouldn't understand the magnitude of a 20 million dollar check either. In terms of making a choice to make money rather than tell anyone.

That's probably when the parents stepped in.:hee:

[Marsh.]

That's probably when the parents stepped in.:hee:

Well exactly. Case closed.

[Twosugars]

My brothers response to me saying Gav won't watch it incase it turns him off the music........:hehe:

Ah I think people have been compartmentalising that for a long time
"Great music, probably a paedo"

Yup, that's my view too.
I think he was emotionally and psychologically immature, arrested development, no childhood etc
Even those alleged sex acts remind of kids experimenting behind a bike shed: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

[Beso]

Well exactly. Case closed.

Maybe he had 100 of orphans stay over. I know from the many many girls he had stay that none have filed complaints...very telling that it's only males that have...

Anyway this photo of him and robsons family says it all...look how the dad's almost frozen out as Michael hugs everyone else in close as though that's the pic.


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/02/22/12/mj-and-robsons-feb-1990-1.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-how-to-watch-uk-channel-4-release-date-a8748161.html&h=2144&w=2500&tbnid=t6_czdsXEqej0M&tbnh=208&tbnw=242&usg=K_gDaqLsdRTe98iEJ-KQnlzsFThp8=&docid=cFdcO37kPNBvWM

[Niamh.]

Yup, that's my view too.
I think he was emotionally and psychologically immature, arrested development, no childhood etc
Even those alleged sex acts remind of kids experimenting behind a bike shed: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

[Beso]

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..

[Niamh.]

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..

Yeah definitely

[Twosugars]

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo
No, it doesn't, but provides some context as to why. If the allegations are true, of course.
But since his estate is very rich we can't overlook financial gain as motivation either.

[Beso]

I will still strut my stuff to his tunes though at the 80s night I'm going to this weekend if they play him..I will probably just interpret a pedo dancing while I dance.

[Beso]

No, it doesn't, but provides some context as to why. If the allegations are true, of course.
But since his estate is very rich we can't overlook financial gain as motivation either.

The estate should come out fighting in court now that the accusations are out their. ..instead they make payments...and line up the other Jackson to say he wasn't a pedo..

[Twosugars]

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..
Are you saying he was sexually interfered with when he was a child?

[Beso]

Are you saying he was sexually interfered with when he was a child?

The doctor who overdosed him says Michael was repeatedly buggered as a kid. The family are not discrediting it.

[Twosugars]

Didn't know that, thanks Parm.

[AnnieK]

I am reserving judgement until I have seen the documentary. I don't want to believe it but the documentary with Martin Bashir years ago was an eye opener

All I know that there is no way I would let my 8 year old son sleep in the same bed as a grown ass man, no matter how friendly I was......or how rich he was. Nether would many grown ass men want to sleep in bed with a child....unless there was some ulterior motive.

[Cherie]

I just listened to MJs nephew on the radio, unfortunately these guys are pursuing a civil suit of 100 million....who would have thought it

[user104658]

I just listened to MJs nephew on the radio, unfortunately these guys are pursuing a civil suit of 100 million....who would have thought it

Are you sure that's what he said? Because they both have historic civil suits that are under appeal, yes, but the new lawsuit as far as I can tell is actually from the Jackson estate, which is attempting to sue HBO for $100 million.

Either way I'm not entirely sure why the civil suits evidence that it's just about money. Perhaps it muddies the waters - but are we now saying that any victim of abuse or assault who seeks civil action must therefore be lying for the money? It's fairly commonplace to seek civil action in the US and their lives have been deeply affected.

As I said above that was completely ignored; even if you take the sexual allegations out of the equation, are we really comfortable excusing the way that Jackson undeniably brought children under his wing, then spat them back out after a couple of years to be replaced by a "new kid"? I honestly think his actions are seriously damaging whichever way you slice it, and he has permanently scarred several individuals.

[Kazanne]

Weren't the press and media gloating on how he was broke when he died ? now all of a sudden he is worth quite a bit,nothing is clear cut in this at all.

[reece(:]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-accused-fondling-terrified-14094338

Wtaf

[Beso]

Weren't the press and media gloating on how he was broke when he died ? now all of a sudden he is worth quite a bit,nothing is clear cut in this at all.

The royalties from the songs played on the radio on the day of his death must be worth about 10 million. ..and that's a conservative guess.

[Beso]

I just listened to MJs nephew on the radio, unfortunately these guys are pursuing a civil suit of 100 million....who would have thought it

I heard that pathetic little runt this morning...wishing God strike his daughter down dead if Michael was a pedo....was he a witness off all the crimes or just the times no crime was comitted.:shrug:

[Kazanne]

I heard that pathetic little runt this morning...wishing God strike his daughter down dead if Michael was a pedo....was he a witness off all the crimes or just the times no crime was comitted.:shrug:

He is family he knew him better than we did,seems you just don't like the family Parmy, NONE of us were witnesses but some seem sure he did it, just as sure as his nephew believes he didn't :shrug: There will be lots more coming out the woodwork now,so knock yourself out.

[Alf]

I am reserving judgement until I have seen the documentary. I don't want to believe it but the documentary with Martin Bashir years ago was an eye opener

All I know that there is no way I would let my 8 year old son sleep in the same bed as a grown ass man, no matter how friendly I was......or how rich he was. Nether would many grown ass men want to sleep in bed with a child....unless there was some ulterior motive.Annie, are you OK? are you OK? are you OK, Annie?

[Beso]

He is family he knew him better than we did,seems you just don't like the family Parmy, NONE of us were witnesses but some seem sure he did it, just as sure as his nephew believes he didn't :shrug: There will be lots more coming out the woodwork now,so knock yourself out.

Rather I did than Michael. ...


It's all the family does...pathetic we know Michael he would never do that.....


But we believe the doctor who says Michael was abused as a child.......floundering family members terrified about losing dosh so they are willing to say anything to defend him...it's pathetic....and that's all they are...

[Kazanne]

Rather I did than Michael. ...


It's all the family does...pathetic we know Michael he would never do that.....


But we believe the doctor who says Michael was abused as a child.......floundering family members terrified about losing dosh so they are willing to say anything to defend him...it's pathetic....and that's all they are...

Who said we believe the doctor ? :shrug: I certainly don't, I had not ever heard of that before all I know is his dad was pretty hard on him etc, of course they will defend him if they think he is being unfairly hounded and used for monetry gain they are his family,I am sure had they proof he did anything they would slip into the background,and why shouldn't they protect the money that he made ?

[Twosugars]

Annie, are you OK? are you OK? are you OK, Annie?

you suggesting he was a smooth criminal?

[user104658]

Weren't the press and media gloating on how he was broke when he died ? now all of a sudden he is worth quite a bit,nothing is clear cut in this at all.

He was in significant debt when he died but (ironically, I guess) his death sparked a HUGE resurgence in sales of his music. His estate went from being hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, to (I believe) over $1 billion in the black.

[Beso]

Who said we believe the doctor ? :shrug: I certainly don't, I had not ever heard of that before all I know is his dad was pretty hard on him etc, of course they will defend him if they think he is being unfairly hounded and used for monetry gain they are his family,I am sure had they proof he did anything they would slip into the background,and why shouldn't they protect the money that he made ?

Sorry I was speaking for the families ease at believing the doctor, thus believing Michael was abused, but they are still adamant that he wasn't a pedo....come on

[Marsh.]

I just listened to MJs nephew on the radio, unfortunately these guys are pursuing a civil suit of 100 million....who would have thought it

Just watched the documentary makers interview on GMB and he kept avoiding Piers questioning about any ulterior motives for the allegations, including mentioning money saying it was irrelevant.

[Beso]

Just watched the documentary makers interview on GMB and he kept avoiding Piers questioning about any ulterior motives for the allegations, including mentioning money saying it was irrelevant.

He has already stated time and time again before and after the airing at Montreal or wherever it was that the story is about the two blokes and not about Michael.....he's bored now.

[Marsh.]

He has already stated time and time again before and after the airing at Montreal or wherever it was that the story is about the two blokes and not about Michael.....he's bored now.

No. He clarified the documentary is not about the Jackson's and reiterated this isn't a documentary made to target the family today. But it certainly IS about Michael and bringing all of the allegations about Michael to the forefront. There is no other reason than to tell the world Michael is a child molester.

[Beso]

No. He clarified the documentary is not about the Jackson's and reiterated this isn't a documentary made to target the family today. But it certainly IS about Michael and bringing all of the allegations about Michael to the forefront. There is no other reason than to tell the world Michael is a child molester.



Well that's the debate isn't it....two blokes telling their accounts of being abused....the abuser just happens to be untouchable....for a better word of expression.

[Marsh.]

Well that's the debate isn't it....two blokes telling their accounts of being abused....the abuser just happens to be untouchable....for a better word of expression.

Because they chose to defend him and wait until they ran out of money he was dead to come forward.

[Beso]

Because they chose to defend him and wait until they ran out of money he was dead to come forward.

So what...I hope they drain every last penny from the estate for what Michael put them through and for what the estate/family are putting them through now.

[Marsh.]

So what...I hope they drain every last penny from the estate for what Michael put them through and the estate/family are putting them through.

So what?

Well this "justice" they apparently want can't happen when he's six feet under.

[Beso]

So what?

Well this "justice" they apparently want can't happen when he's six feet under.

Was that another song of his...or the **** I give?

[Nancy.]

Michael Jackson's Brothers Defend Him Amid 'Leaving Neverland' Drama

ciED_g1dwtA

[Marsh.]

Was that another song of his...or the **** I give?

wot

[Beso]

I'm actually raging at going over this again...his estate basically paid off families if the kids grassed Michael off for making them partake in mutual masterbation and probably cock kissing....but his music...oh his music....


This stinks on all accounts...power being the worst.

[chuff me dizzy]

Did anyone watch the doc last night ( not flicking back through all pages ) ? IF I didnt think he was a guilty, dirty nonce before watching it ,I would sure be convinced he was after watching .........He bought his way out of jail as he had mega $$$ If a man on a normal wage was arrested for EXACTLY the same reasons as MJ,he would still be in prison today ....Money talks and buys freedom

[Beso]

Parents probably gutted a rape didn't happen......dollar dollars

[chuff me dizzy]

I am reserving judgement until I have seen the documentary. I don't want to believe it but the documentary with Martin Bashir years ago was an eye opener

All I know that there is no way I would let my 8 year old son sleep in the same bed as a grown ass man, no matter how friendly I was......or how rich he was. Nether would many grown ass men want to sleep in bed with a child....unless there was some ulterior motive.

Yes it was !!!

[Marsh.]

I'm actually raging at going over this again...his estate basically paid off families if the kids grassed Michael off for making them partake in mutual masterbation and probably cock kissing....but his music...oh his music....


This stinks on all accounts...power being the worst.

"Probably".

[Marsh.]

Parents probably gutted a rape didn't happen......dollar dollars

Who?
:umm2:

[Kazanne]

He has already stated time and time again before and after the airing at Montreal or wherever it was that the story is about the two blokes and not about Michael.....he's bored now.

And rich:smug:

[Beso]

And rich:smug:

And don't the bitterness of it all show in jermaines face everytime he's on telly..... I hope they all get the lot.

[Marsh.]

And don't the bitterness of it all show in jermaines face everytime he's on telly..... I hope they all get the lot.

How dare he be bitter that his family name is being dragged through the mud. Again.

[armand.kay]

I'm somebody who's believed in MJ's innocence for a while now but thats not a hill i'm willing to die on.

i'm gonna give this documentary a chance and go into it with an open mind.

[Beso]

Come on Marsh. .

There are loads of levels of pedophillia some like forcing etc...but Michael was like the football coaches..get a load of kids together and get them competing for your affection and praise..then see how they are with you showing them affection...

You forget the devious mind of a pedo, the thrill is almost as exciting if not more than the end result.


So if your target seems ammiacable enough for your jollies then fine..if not then someone else becomes a target. .and lets face facts here, the amount of worldwide kids dressing up as Michael sending letters to him and photos of them dressed up as him.....come on....the ****ers had all day to pick and chose.

[Alf]

He's Bad

[Marsh.]

Come on Marsh. .

There are loads of levels of pedophillia some like forcing etc...but Michael was like the football coaches..get a load of kids together and get them competing for your affection and praise..then see how they are with you showing them affection...

You forget the devious mind of a pedo, the thrill is almost as exciting if not more than the end result.


So if your target seems ammiacable enough for your jollies then fine..if not then someone else becomes a target. .and lets face facts here, the amount of worldwide kids dressing up as Michael sending letters to him and photos of them dressed up as him.....come on....the ****ers had all day to pick and chose.

So he's guilty because he had kids as fans all over the world?

Ariana Grande is fooked.

[Beso]

So he's guilty because he had kids as fans all over the world?

Ariana Grande is fooked.

No...he's guilty because he took advantage of those kids and abused them.

[Marsh.]

No...he's guilty because he took advantage of those kids and abused them.

Were you there?

[Kazanne]

Did anyone watch the doc last night ( not flicking back through all pages ) ? IF I didnt think he was a guilty, dirty nonce before watching it ,I would sure be convinced he was after watching .........He bought his way out of jail as he had mega $$$ If a man on a normal wage was arrested for EXACTLY the same reasons as MJ,he would still be in prison today ....Money talks and buys freedom

Sorry Chuff I don't agree If I thought anyone had done that to my child no amount of money would suffice I would want justice, the documentary is supposed to make you believe the two guys, I'm not buying it from two proven liars and some
things I have read about them

[Beso]

Were you there?

Where?

[user104658]

The director of this documentary is a real piece of work.


In what sense? I watched it. I can see that he's getting frustrated but I also think it's fairly obvious that he wholeheartedly believes that the content of his documentary is the truth. I honestly can't see what in this clip results in him being branded "a piece of work" (other than that you clearly strongly believe in Michael Jackson's innocence and are thus incredulous about all of it).

[Crimson Dynamo]

Are we watching?

[Marsh.]

In what sense? I watched it. I can see that he's getting frustrated but I also think it's fairly obvious that he wholeheartedly believes that the content of his documentary is the truth. I honestly can't see what in this clip results in him being branded "a piece of work" (other than that you clearly strongly believe in Michael Jackson's innocence and are thus incredulous about all of it).

Which is kind of dangerous when he skews everything just to fit what he thinks and disregards anything that doesn't suit the agenda.

But, you'll rarely, if ever, get a documentary like this that isn't in someway biased one way or the other. Even Making a Murderer left out huge swathes of information to paint the picture the director intended.

[Marsh.]

The director of this documentary is a real piece of work. Watch this:

RUvS9rTdzes

The random nonsensical Ted Bundy comparison. :joker: