Michael Jackson

How on earth is this making excuses for ‘nonces’. It’s pointing out the difference between asking a girl out in the belief they’re older than they are, and asking them out knowing their real age. I well remember being mistaken for at least 18-19 when I was only 14, and a lot of it was intentional on my part. We may not like it, and knowing what I know now, I cringe when I look back, but let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen.

If it doesn't get deleted first like most of the other MJ threads.

I think the MJ fan club has been rattled. Bet you this thread makes the newsletter this month

No it’s not, it’s about cancelling their legacy and impact on society.

Youre welcome

In what way? Did I write it in Swahili?

It actually does you know. Cancelling an artist is about hitting them where it hurts. You can’t do that to a dead person. They have nothing to lose.

Your post literally makes no sense at all

I wasn’t alluding to his facial features, I was answering the poster who was ultimately deleted for the comment about MJ fans being bizarre.

No not reaching, I was asking, I am genuinely interested so thanks for answering. Although no amount of talking will ever make me change my mind, I believe he is guilty, I always have and I always will

He doesn't 'get a pass' though, because he is dead. His music gets a pass because he is no longer here to profit by it. There's a point to cancelling an artist by not buying their music/cancelling their stage shows. 1) it's punitive. Hitting them where it hurts, their bank balance or their need to perform. 2) If their position as a result of being wealthy and famous made it easier to abuse, stripping them of those two things along with high public knowledge make it much harder for them to continue abusing.
None of this applies to Jackson because he is dead. There's nothing we can do to punish or prevent his actions now. What would be the point?

Anybody accused of what MJ had been would have been foolish beyond reason to stand trial without securing the services of the best lawyers they could afford.

Why then, is it always the assertion on MN that if you can afford good lawyers, you are somehow buying a not guilty verdict ? I saw the same argument applied on a thread some time ago regarding the woman who had a seizure behind the wheel of her car and drove into a school yard, killing two little girls. She had incontrovertible medical evidence of a seizure during which she lost consciousness and was found not to be responsible for their deaths. When it came to light that she was quite wealthy, those who had supported her changed their tune in the same way - her expensive lawyers got her off. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now.

Wow, you’re really reaching on this one. We don’t, just as we don’t know that they were. But there is a jury selection process in which the jurors are questioned as to their suitability to serve and to uncover any bias either way. And defence lawyers don’t ’hand pick’ juries. During jury selection in the US, it’s the judge who decides what questions should be posed to potential jurors to decide their suitability to serve. And the list of questions is drawn up after consultation with all parties, not just the defence.

Cancelling an abuser is about not enabling them to profit from a position which they have held during times when they were abusers and may have used, directly or indirectly to procure victims. If Gary Glitter, like Jackson, had died without being brought to justice, chances are his music might still be played. But whilst he is still alive and could still use any profit/status from the sale of his records to continue abusing, there is purpose to cancelling.
There's no point cancelling Jackson. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I still wouldn't be interested in the musical of his life, but since he won't benefit in any way shape or form, I don't have a problem with it existing.

Then I’ll ask you the same question. If your own child was accused of being a paedophile and maintained their innocence, would you still believe them innocent if a jury found them guilty ? Whether or not you believe in either instance isn’t black and white, as I’ve explained until I’m exhausted, it depends on a lot of things and it’s not black and white. And once more, this is why family members don’t serve on juries. None of these arguments allow for objectivity.

Didn't his defense hand pick that jury though? And even if they didn't how do we know they weren't either fans/starstruck or paid off on the sly?

Of course it doesn’t. But the jury were in possession of all the facts when they made their decision. They still found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He was accused of abusing children. Inviting them to sleep in his bed - although really odd and disturbing - doesn’t prove he actually abused them. The charges were specific, the evidence didn’t support a conviction. And that’s my only point. If the charges had been inviting children into his bed and spending more time in their company than others thought reasonable, then he would have been bang to rights. Doesn’t mean he abused them.

I give up. And yes I do have children. I just don’t believe in standing by a family member if there is any doubt as to the veracity of their accusations against someone, and that, as I’ve explained several times, would depend on the circumstance - whether they were a truthful person, whether their evidence had been adequately weighed during the trial, and whether I had any reason to doubt them even before the verdict had been returned. It’s not black and white.

Let me ask you a question. If your adult child was accused of being a paedophile and they were adamant that they were innocent, would you continue to believe them even if they were convicted ?

He admitted to sleeping with those little boys, there are photo's of him in public with the little boys and all the stuff that was found in his house is available for all to see online. Innocent in court does not mean he actually was innocent either!

None of which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I was never particularly a fan of MJ and I agree, a lot of what came out at the trial spoke to the fact that he was definitely odd, but the fact remains that he was found not guilty on all charges. That’s the rule of law. Mob rule, which I get the impression some here would like applied to MJ, is an entirely different beast.

The last time I looked a documentary wasn’t a court of law. That’s trial by media. And how is your DP’s attitude to MJ ‘context’ ? It doesn’t support anything but his own opinion.

What is twisted is grooming children, sleeping in bed with them, taking them oit in public like a teddy bear and owning a lot of paedophilic literature.

It still doesn’t prove guilt or innocence, wherever the allegations came from. And there are some here who appear to be prepared to go to any lengths to brand MJ as a paedophile, including presenting their own opinions and ‘research’ as well as random documentaries as fact and proof of guilt, and asserting that there were ‘victims’ when the case wasn’t proven. Not to mention showing their own bias as branding MJ fans ‘weird’. That’s what’s twisted.

Personally I think he's music is fantastic. Magnastorm