Michael Jackson

You are not wrong op. Any other man would be ‘cancelled’ for regularly inviting other people’s young children into their bed regardless if anything sexual took place because it is entirely inappropriate and grooming behaviour. But because MJ was briefly the most famous person on the planet he gets ‘a pass’ from way too many people.

Most reasonable reasonable people, including MJ fans, who watched the doc you mentioned would be disgusted at his music still being celebrated at public events too.

For context, my DP was a massive MJ fan, had tickets to his tour and was devastated when he died but he will not listen to MJ again.

I’m inferring you don’t actually have kids as this approach is very strange.

You either believe your kid of you don’t. If you do, you know they’re telling the truth about abuse and the perpetrator is found not guilty - if you took the approach you outlined above you would simply lose your child’s respect and trust for good.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In any case, it was a civil case, MJ could have fought til the end but he chose to settle.

For the people who claim JC’s allegations were invented by his father, the second case, was initially brought by JC alone, in which he summarised the abuse, showing that his allegations did not come from his father.

I know MJ fans are weird but claiming that anyone wants someone to be a paedophile is particularly twisted. It’s terrible, terrible shame for all his victims.

That doesn’t answer the question, if your child was abused, whether you would stop believing them if the protagonist was found innocent.

Surely you mean if my child alleged that they had been abused. I’ve answered this twice now. Whether I believed or disbelieved my child would be irrelevant after a verdict of not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And whether I continued to believe them after the verdict would depend on many things, including whether my child was always truthful, whether I had any doubts about the veracity of their allegations myself, and the strength of the evidence behind the verdict. I would have to accept the verdict of a jury who were in possession of the full facts and made that determination, so as I say, whether I believed the child or not is irrelevant in the end.

The rule of law shouldn’t be down to a gut feeling or familial bias - that’s why family members are not allowed to sit on juries. They can’t be objective.

No I’m saying he is exactly the same as Michael Jackson, he isn’t a convicted sexual abuser just as you say, Michael wasn’t convicted either

I don’t think everyone does have the facts.

I work on facts - direct evidence from the complainants, direct evidence from MJ himself who admitted he slept in beds with children, and from multiple items found in the police search.

I don’t go on feelz and fandom.

It’s not merely opinion that MJ has a face very disfigure by plastic surgery.

Why on earth would you think of anyone doubting he was guilty as being unintelligent ? We all have the facts, we all interpret them differently. Some - as evidenced here - prefer to go on their own gut feeling and try to wrap that up as ‘proof innit’. I know which I would consider the more unintelligent approach.

No you didn’t answer it, you merely said you would “abide” by the law.

That doesn’t answer the question, if your child was abused, whether you would stop believing them if the protagonist was found innocent.

Also Are you a teacher?? Shouldn’t you be safeguarding teenage girls not making excuses for nonces.

Of course you can say that child abuse, irrespective of the circumstances, was wrong.

I don't believe Cheryl dated him when he was 14. I believe they met when he was 14. Presley dated Presilla when she was 14 and he was 24. It's well documented. Years later, Bill Wyman dated 13 year old Mandy Smith, that was also wrong.

Abusing kids is bad - hope that's clear, dearest.

Agree. That’s why family members of defendants are not allowed to sit on juries.

Stop trying to be condescending. A 24 year old man, or a 40 year old per the celine dion example, fancying a 14 yo, is a perv no matter how you try to excuse it.

Genuine question. How is ‘reading up on him’ and believing the victims proof of anything ? Except maybe in your own mind ?

Because he was acquitted twice. There is no proof that he ever did anything wrong.

Not confused at all thanks. You asked a question. I answered it. Whether I believe my child or not is not the issue. It’s what’s decided by the jury and the rule of law.

No, I said how could he have found a child attractive. Even at 16 she's still a child. He was 24, it would be different if he was 15 or 16 himself.

There is a whole history of predatory men in the entertainment industry, some like Saville predated in secret, apparently Elvis liked young girls all his life. His cronies would pick them out for him from the gates at Graceland.

And yes, Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old and, even though child marriage is legal in the US, it caused quite a storm. So Presley's management kept their relationship quiet.

Why do people keep trotting this out ? MJ was alive to stand trial for the allegations and found not guilty. Savile was dead by the time what he had done came into the public domain. In light of the hundreds of people who came forward and the details of the atmosphere of fear of reporting him because of the connections in high places he had, do you actually think if he had lived to stand trial, he would have been acquitted ?

Because lots of people actually looked into it rather than just getting outraged by the headlines. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is mounds of evidence pointing to these allegations being extortion going back to the 90s case.

His contribution to music and culture continues to be celebrated as it should be.

I've taught very pretty, very tall 12 year old girls who I would have thought were 18 if I hadn't known otherwise! I don't think an adult man would have been unreasonable to fancy one of them if he saw them out and about and didn't know their real age. He would have been unreasonable to ask them out (or worse) if he knew their real age. Nothing to do with paedophilia, which is attraction to pre-pubescent children. Didn't all men fancy you when you were a teenage girl? They certainly fancied me at that age, and I'm no supermodel.

Because he was dead by the time it all came to light. There was incontrovertible proof of what he’d done. Do you doubt he would have been convicted had he lived to stand trial ?

There was no court case connected to Saville, but there was irrefutable proof of what he did - hundreds came forward with similar credible stories of being abused. Saville manipulated his way into jobs and voluntary work where he had access to his victims. He also had considerable influence in high places and there was an atmosphere of fear around ‘whistle blowing’ - even when nursing staff knew he was abusing vulnerable disabled children on the wards where he worked. The only thing that stopped Saville being tried and convicted was that he was dead by the time it all came out. He was a monster.

Think it’s you that’s trolling here. Puberty can occur as early as 9, so could be say a ‘post pubescent’ 11 year old who looks ‘much older’ and can’t fault any red-blooded man from thinking she’s fair game? Proving Elvis fans can be as nuts as Jacko defenders.