Michael Jackson

No but that's not the question is it? We're talking about if he did anything to them, and so far they've said he didn't.

So you think him sleeping in a bed with the 3 Culkin siblings is normal?

Gavin later accused MJ of molesting him.

He wasn’t just admitting to the Caulkins he said “many children” and merely used the Caulkins as an example.

He said he slept on the floor and Gavin and his brother took the bed in that clip. He admitted to having Macualay Culkin and his siblings stay in his bed (one a sister, for all the people saying "but why was it only boysss") and they haven't made any allegations.

I just don't understand how people can defend his actions!

Same

@Mirabai @saidthebellsofstclements those videos are sickening, no matter how many times I see them everytime they pop up they make my skin crawl! No one can ever convince me that he wasn't a predator and a filthy nonce!

Nice and normal behaviour.

MJ admitting he shared a bed with “many children”.

The “art” books were many, many books of naked and semi naked images of children and adolescents all jumbled in with adult porn.

He actually denied inviting kids into his bedroom he says the kids always wanted to stay with him and he never invited them which I think is an important distinction to make. He's not weirdo Barry down the road who kids are afraid of he was the biggest star in the world who most kids would do anything to meet. So completely different dynamics. I'm not saying it means he didn't also abuse them but I think it's important to take these things into account and look at other possible explanations. And yes it was still hugely appropriate and he shouldn't have allowed it to happen but nothing he has admitted to is actually illegal (maybe it should be) but inappropriate doesn't always mean illegal. There's a lot of misinformation about what was found. Literally heterosexual porn and some art books, that he got sent by fans, that's it. If there was anything worse he 100% would've been found guilty.

There seems to be a really poor understanding of the difference between evidence and proof.

Oh God, me too. All those silly vocal affectations made my teeth itch.

Plus nonce.

Whiny falsetto with strange hiccoughs. Pedestrian composition. Banal lyrics. Weird grindy crotch dancing, And a mashed up face. What’s not to love eh?

The one thing that is interesting about his lyrics, although disturbing, is that they can be now read as a kind of coded confessions.

@WhimsicalGubbins76 You’ve posted a lot of nonsense and now you’re claiming to be “trolled”. Ok. You’re no loss to the discussion.

The only difference with these men is that they are famous. Men (not all but an immense proportion of them) would dearly love to have sex with young girls (or boys) and you'd be naiive to believe otherwise.

The times I was accosted, hooted at, by men old enough to be my father, whilst I was walking to school - in school uniform. These odious men undoubtedly had children of their own and wives at home probably ranting away on a chatboard just like this one, about other paedophiles. But... not my Nigel!

The only difference being that their creepy Nigel isn't famous, hasn't achieved celebrity. Still a paedophile though.

Original post quoted.

No one who believes it's possible to defame the dead, either through libel or slander, is in any position to 'correct' anyone.

Same goes for anonymous user handles on the internet.

My wording is very clear. To 'libel' someone in UK law means you have to have defamed them in such a way as this would harm their reputation. You cannot 'harm' the reputation of an anonymous screen handle.

Posts are removed from MN all the time and for a variety of reasons as per talk guidelines. They are only defamatory if they attack the reputation of a named individual.

It's like breaking rocks on this site today. Is it the heat?

No, but the platform can be sued if they let libellous posts stand. Why do you think posts are taken down all the time ? And your original post very clearly demonstrated that you mistakenly thought the poster was defaming Jackson. At least admit you were wrong.

As much as I dislike abusers, and think he almost certainly was one, it hasn't changed my opinion of him as a musician one bit. I've always thought he had one of the most annoying voices in the music industry.

I have made sense of it, thanks.

You cannot 'libel' an anonymous screen handle.

Yep. Direct evidence that he slept in a bed with boys. Not proof that he abused them.

I’m the original poster and I can confirm that my post was nothing whatever to do with Jackson. The poster made some unfounded comments which I took to be aimed at me, that I took exception to. My reference to libellous was in respect of those comments. The poster answered me by telling me they were general comments about the thread, and not aimed at me, but they had tagged me so it seemed personal. If you look back through the thread you’ll hopefully make sense of it.

@Mirabai i genuinely have no idea what you’ve posted, frankly I have more interesting things to do, like cleaning the cat litter tray. Do stop trolling me, find something more worthwhile. You got something wrong, get over, move on and don’t have kids

I can see now what you were trying to say, but unfortunately your written English was confused and inarticulate.

There needed to be a full stop after: He was not found guilty, he was overwhelmingly acquitted of all charges; then no “and” before the next clause relating to Evan. In fact the whole confused para was 3 different sentences all run together.

I ignored your last para as it was so obtuse. If you cannot understand that the trauma of a global sex offence trial for a child would be as bad as the original sex offence, I can’t help you.