[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

no idea but no doubt you do.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

A stoned George Bush?

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

Absolutely Annie.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

Maybe we should look at in in a positive way he backed off as they got older so they could start to lead normal teenage lives rather than be forever kids, also I am not sure that he did back off with Wade, but stage Mom felt threatened enough to pack up and move to American... from what we are told he 'moved on' from two sexual relationships with young boys to two non sexual ones with Brett and Macauley which showed incredbile restraint on his part

[Cherry Christmas]

Also how did Wades Mom manage to move to the States, was she already an American citizen or something?

[Marsh.]

And the point of a hypothetical concerning a non existent man is?

The point is this IS about Michael Jackson which colours the discussion for good and bad on both sides of the argument.

Asking how you'd react to Ken next door inviting kids in for sleepovers is not relevant.

The context to the entire thing is so specific there's no use in an "imagine this was someone else".

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And the point of a hypothetical concerning a non existent man is?

The point is this IS about Michael Jackson which colours the discussion for good and bad on both sides of the argument.

Asking how you'd react to Ken next door inviting kids in for sleepovers is not relevant.

The context to the entire thing is so specific there's no use in an "imagine this was someone else".

This. I think comparing him to the average bloke off the council estate is a really lazy argument because it completely dismisses the unorthodox upbringing he had. You have to take into account MJ himself was thrust into an adult world at an early age and spent the majority of his childhood surrounded by and socialing with adults therefore it became something that was "normalised" to him, he was oblivious and naive to how anyone would find it perverted or seedy.

[Christmas Lights]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

This. I think comparing him to the average bloke off the council estate is a really lazy argument because it completely dismisses the unorthodox upbringing he had. You have to take into account MJ himself was thrust into an adult world at an early age and spent the majority of his childhood surrounded by and socialing with adults therefore it became something that was "normalised" to him, he was oblivious and naive to how anyone would find it perverted or seedy.

That average joe down the road argument is tiresome and irrelevant. If MJ was a nobody living down the road in a 1 bedroom flat with no money to his name then he wouldn't of been used by all these families in the first place and he wouldn't of been seen as a cash cow which people seem to forget .

Celebrities are easy targets especially ones as naive and trusting as MJ and they get accused all the time , the alleged victims want their 10 mins of fame and a cut of money ! . Greed makes some people do and say some disgusting stuff ! .

People sell lies to tabloids all the time .pretty pathetic really when they have to stoop so low for a quick buck .

[Kazanne]

Wade Robson talking about MJ

Youtube video

[ChristmasNeeve]

"He loves kids" no he loves little boys between the ages if 7 and 12. . . Nothing suspicious about that all

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"He loves kids" no he loves little boys between the ages if 7 and 12. . . Nothing suspicious about that all

media just homing in on the boys , girls stayed there aswell.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

media just homing in on the boys , girls stayed there aswell.

Which girls went on tour with him and slept with him? How come it was only boys of that age bracket ever made allegations against him?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which girls went on tour with him and slept with him? How come it was only boys of that age bracket ever made allegations against him?

Perhaps only the boys are greedy and want some of that sweet Jackson Estate pudding. Men!

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Perhaps only the boys are greedy and want some of that sweet Jackson Estate pudding. Men!

Well it makes a change anyway it's usually the women being accused of doing that

[Rustic bauble]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which girls went on tour with him and slept with him? How come it was only boys of that age bracket ever made allegations against him?

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

Oh yeah but not on their own with him like he did with the boys

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

Never on her own ,she wasn't asked to be kept for a year either

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"He loves kids" no he loves little boys between the ages if 7 and 12. . . Nothing suspicious about that all

No girls involved and you cannot "love children" if you want to abuse them and wreck their lives

[bots]

Here is my take.

Jackson was in a unique position to be able to do something about disadvantaged kids. Set up trusts, set up charities and give something back to the community.

What did he choose to do? Set up an exclusive club that was open only to little boys of his choosing. Go figure .....

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Here is my take.

Jackson was in a unique position to be able to do something about disadvantaged kids. Set up trusts, set up charities and give something back to the community.

What did he choose to do? Set up an exclusive club that was open only to little boys of his choosing. Go figure .....

He did do those things bots He paid for lots of kids treatments etc Neverland was not built with children in mind,did you watch any of the videos ? it was built to impress Elizabeth Taylor who he was very close to and also Marlon Brando

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He did do those things bots He paid for lots of kids treatments etc Neverland was not built with children in mind,did you watch any of the videos ? it was built to impress Elizabeth Taylor who he was very close to and also Marlon Brando

IIRC he himself stated quite explicitly in the Bashir documentary that he built it for children to come and enjoy . They may even have played an audio clip in Leaving Neverland, though I'm not 100% sure on that, it may have been one of the participants that said it.

[user104658]

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

I believe he slept and had sexual contact with both of the men and countless others, many who took his hush money ,IMO it won't be long before lots more find the strength to come out about it all, these 2 men are the tip of the iceberg

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

But... if it were as you say.... we still wouldn't know anything other than the words of Wade so the hypothetical is rather pointless and leads to the same conclusion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But... if it were as you say.... we still wouldn't know anything other than the words of Wade so the hypothetical is rather pointless and leads to the same conclusion.

All I'm illustrating is that "They want money!" can be true without making "He did abuse them" necessarily false. Both can be true. The claim that they want money is repeatedly being used in an attempt to "prove" that the abuse allegations are false. It actually has no bearing... it doesn't matter if they have dollar signs in their eyes if the claims are still true.