Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Michael Jackson

536 replies

C4tintherug · 03/08/2024 12:00

Why has Michael Jackson not been cancelled?

I don’t understand why a musical has been made out of his music, and why his music is played at school discos and is still everywhere.

After I watched the documentary where the men described how he raped them, I won’t listen to his music at all, in fact, I feel a sense of disgust when it is played publicly.

I don’t understand why we seem to have cancelled everyone else except him. Is it because he died before he was officially found guilty?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
creamofroses · 03/08/2024 15:03

You would have to have been seriously shortchanged in the braincell department to think this man was not an unrepentent shameless pedophile.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 15:03

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 15:00

As the head of Children in Need said of why Savile had a blanket ban: “I don’t need a criminal conviction to tell me Savile should not be around children”

Edited
Show quote history

Once more with feeling, that’s an opinion. Doesn’t mean a thing in the absence of evidence to back it up. And the BBC have no room to talk on this subject do they ?

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 15:00

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 15:00

You might try getting some help with anger management instead of coming online to direct that anger at posters who are doing exactly the same as you - exercising their right to free speech and expressing their opinions.

Show quote history

She doesn’t sound angry to me.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 15:00

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:58

Don’t try patronising. It don’t work with me . He was as guilty as hell .

Show quote history

You might try getting some help with anger management instead of coming online to direct that anger at posters who are doing exactly the same as you - exercising their right to free speech and expressing their opinions.

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 15:00

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:59

Were you on the jury ? Were you privy to facts of the case not shared with the public ? If not, then you are not qualified to pronounce guilt or innocence. The fact is the jury found there to be not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Just because you’ve ‘read up’ on him (whatever that means) and you believe the victims doesn’t prove a thing.

Show quote history

As the head of Children in Need said of why Savile had a blanket ban: “I don’t need a criminal conviction to tell me Savile should not be around children”

LBFseBrom · 03/08/2024 14:59

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Exactly.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:59

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:54

get away with your blarney . He was as guilty as hell . I’ve read up on him for years and I believe the victims . That’s proof right there and you are boring me .

Show quote history

Were you on the jury ? Were you privy to facts of the case not shared with the public ? If not, then you are not qualified to pronounce guilt or innocence. The fact is the jury found there to be not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Just because you’ve ‘read up’ on him (whatever that means) and you believe the victims doesn’t prove a thing.

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:58

HungryLittleCrocodile · 03/08/2024 14:57

As much as you would love there to be, there was no proof, no conviction, no jail time, no criminal record. Michael Jackson was acquitted. Deal with it. And see someone about dealing with your irrational anger too. It's not healthy

Show quote history

Don’t try patronising. It don’t work with me . He was as guilty as hell .

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 14:58

HungryLittleCrocodile · 03/08/2024 14:57

As much as you would love there to be, there was no proof, no conviction, no jail time, no criminal record. Michael Jackson was acquitted. Deal with it. And see someone about dealing with your irrational anger too. It's not healthy

Show quote history

All of which is irrelevant to whether he is guilty. Which most intelligent people think he was at this point.

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 14:57

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:54

I would abide by the rule of law. There wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. End of. Do you know why ? Because I would expect that law to apply to everyone, including my own child, should they ever be accused of breaking the law in any way. As I said, unless someone has been part of the proceedings and is familiar with all the facts, they can’t possibly know.

Edited
Show quote history

You seem confused. The question was that if your child’s abuser was found not guilty you would you stop believing them. Your child is not accused of breaking the law, they are accusing someone else of breaking it.

HungryLittleCrocodile · 03/08/2024 14:57

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:54

get away with your blarney . He was as guilty as hell . I’ve read up on him for years and I believe the victims . That’s proof right there and you are boring me .

Show quote history

As much as you would love there to be, there was no proof, no conviction, no jail time, no criminal record. Michael Jackson was acquitted. Deal with it. And see someone about dealing with your irrational anger too. It's not healthy

HungryLittleCrocodile · 03/08/2024 14:56

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:51

If this is what you think then I think it’s you who’s living in a fairytale world. You can’t possibly know the facts of the case unless you were on the jury - they would be privy to all kinds of things not made public. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we convicted on gut feeling instead of the rule of law, half the bloody population would be in prison for something !!

Show quote history

This. Such a ludicrous, ill-informed comment from @Tourmalines

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:54

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:51

If this is what you think then I think it’s you who’s living in a fairytale world. You can’t possibly know the facts of the case unless you were on the jury - they would be privy to all kinds of things not made public. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we convicted on gut feeling instead of the rule of law, half the bloody population would be in prison for something !!

Show quote history

get away with your blarney . He was as guilty as hell . I’ve read up on him for years and I believe the victims . That’s proof right there and you are boring me .

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:54

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 14:52

Ok. If one you children came to you and told you they had been abused. Would you believe them? Would you stop believing them if a court found their famous abuser not guilty?

Show quote history

I would abide by the rule of law. There wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. End of. Do you know why ? Because I would expect that law to apply to everyone, including my own child, should they ever be accused of breaking the law in any way. As I said, unless someone has been part of the proceedings and is familiar with all the facts, they can’t possibly know.

Rummly · 03/08/2024 14:53

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

The only time Wagner’s ever been played on ITV.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:52

Twistybranch · 03/08/2024 14:31

I know, all he needed was couple more really good hits and he would have been fine

Show quote history

🤣🤣🤣

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 14:52

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:51

If this is what you think then I think it’s you who’s living in a fairytale world. You can’t possibly know the facts of the case unless you were on the jury - they would be privy to all kinds of things not made public. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we convicted on gut feeling instead of the rule of law, half the bloody population would be in prison for something !!

Show quote history

Ok. If one you children came to you and told you they had been abused. Would you believe them? Would you stop believing them if a court found their famous abuser not guilty?

Backscuttle · 03/08/2024 14:51

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Twistybranch · 03/08/2024 14:51

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:45

Gary Glitter was convicted of child sex offences. Michael Jackson was found not guilty in a court of law. That’s the difference - talent is nothing to do with it.

Show quote history

Jimmy Saville wasn’t a convicted sexual offender either?

Mirabai · 03/08/2024 14:51

jen337 · 03/08/2024 14:20

Absolutely, that must be why he’s widely recognised as one of the greatest artists of all time.

Show quote history

I was agreeing with previous poster who said his music was mediocre at best.

No he’s definitely not one of the greatest artists - musically he’s quite pedestrian. Churning out very average rather whiny pop ditties. They’re unimaginative, repetitive and annoying.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:51

Tourmalines · 03/08/2024 14:45

Why would I be desperate to have someone found guilty ??? Get real . There was a lot of evidence to say he was guilty , what planet are you living on. Lots of the jury thought he was guilty but it has be to unanimous . That rotten pedo was as guilty as hell . The law accuses wrong and the law lets wrong ones go . It’s not black and white . Stop living in a fairytale world

Show quote history

If this is what you think then I think it’s you who’s living in a fairytale world. You can’t possibly know the facts of the case unless you were on the jury - they would be privy to all kinds of things not made public. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we convicted on gut feeling instead of the rule of law, half the bloody population would be in prison for something !!

JLou08 · 03/08/2024 14:50

But he wasn't found guilty.

Westfacing · 03/08/2024 14:50

Jackson is dead so I think that's why he's not cancelled - rather like Wagner.

Neither is profiting from their music being performed.

Rosscameasdoody · 03/08/2024 14:48

NoImNotCurvyImFat · 03/08/2024 14:38

Yes that’s true he wasn’t found innocent he was found not guilty

which is so often the case when you have the best legal team money can buy behind you

There wasn’t enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If those are the facts, that would have been the case whoever was representing him.

Backscuttle · 03/08/2024 14:47

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.