[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I can,you are on about the MJ case.how awful that some people aren't buying what you'de like them too.

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Why have these people waited until now to tell their stories?

Originally Posted by Livia

How come then, that no one spoke out during his lifetime? I mean, was he so scary and powerful? How come everyone now knows that it was true because it was " creepy" and yet no one thought it was right to put a stop to it while it was happening? Or is now now an easy target because he can't clear his own name?

------

Esther Rantzen throwing her weight behind these claims shows us just what that woman will do to keep her career alive

------

It all boils down to this: someone somewhere is making some cash out of this

I mean... these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.


I even asked Livia outright if she would have said the same about Saville and she was uncharacteristically dismissive of the question. It turns out that's because she literally did say exactly the same things about Saville almost word-for-word. Consistent opinions at least, I suppose.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.






I mean... these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.

Savilles case is nothing like the MJ case, loads of people complained and the police and the BBC turned a blind eye, he was never investigated in life never mind by the FBI

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Savilles case is nothing like the MJ case, loads of people complained and the police and the BBC turned a blind eye, he was never investigated in life never mind by the FBI

Yes and yet people (mostly the same people) were still casting doubt on it. The thread is like a mirror image, I don't see how that can be denied, it's right there to read.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think they should be named if it's in the public interest that they be informed.

I see Cliff Richard signed up to this supporting new laws, where existing laws saw the people that "wronged" him were found guilty and fined. So existing laws did the job they were supposed to.

But them being fined doesn't take back what they did.

He wants laws to prevent this kind of thing being allowed full stop.

If someone has not even been arrested or charged with anything they shouldn't have their name and reputation trashed.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't think everyone does it for money, but it definitely happens,there was quite a bit of evidence in the Saville case I believe even audio tapes ,so I think he was guilty,Cliff Richard on the other hand has been accused and cleared of any misconduct,so I think his was for money, it's shame it happens as it makes it hard for real victims.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

The problem was he didn't fit into the normal person model so was an easy victim for people to blame which is sad

That sounds oddly familiar.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.






I mean... these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.


I even asked Livia outright if she would have said the same about Saville and she was uncharacteristically dismissive of the question. It turns out that's because she literally did say exactly the same things about Saville almost word-for-word. Consistent opinions at least, I suppose.

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him.

Multiple accusers but no physical evidence found and so the claims have (again) been dismissed as "definitely false" rather than "not proven" by many people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him.

Yes there were two accusers

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty.

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him.

Wasn't it a teenage boy Marsh ? Oh I'm not sure now,better get investigating

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

Everybody's only giving their opinions and perspective on what the public gets to see. None of us know.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

No, we saw two men who had previously lied ,going into very graphic detail of what he was supposed to have done and some very dodgy parenting, there ate too many conflicting stories in the MJ case totally different from the Saville one,I don't know why people keep harping on abut the similarities there are none,we had a court of law aquit MJ,not so with Saville ,so can we separate the two as they are not connected.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

And I could say that people were definitely right when they insisted that Richards's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be right again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

You see we can play that game both ways.
So it doesn't help you going to a different thread and jumping at people. These are different cases, full stop, and should be treated separately and independently.

[Niamh.]

It was dodgy parenting because it was a dodgy situation

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It was dodgy parenting because it was a dodgy situation

It was dodgy behaviour full stop. Even if MJ was fookin Santa Claus.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It was dodgy behaviour full stop. Even if MJ was fookin Santa Claus.

Yes it's dodgy to leave your child with a man who likes to sleep with young boys I agree because you should wonder why a grown man wants to sleep with young boys

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes it's dodgy to leave your child with a man who likes to sleep with young boys I agree because you should wonder why a grown man wants to sleep with young boys

But you can't say it's dodgy to leave your child because the situation is dodgy. It's dodgy full stop. Even taking abuse out of the equation they sold their kids to Hollywood for their own selfish materialistic reasons.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But you can't say it's dodgy to leave your child because the situation is dodgy. It's dodgy full stop. Even taking abuse out of the equation they sold their kids to Hollywood for their own selfish materialistic reasons.

I am saying both

[Beso]

If they don't name them then they should be put on house arrest until trial or they agree to having their name released and are free ro move around until trial.