Michael Jackson was a paedophile. Why does the local school choose one of his songs for the kids to perform to?

If you're old enough to remember the MJ of the Jackson 5 and the Off the Wall album, a nice looking and very talented black guy, it was bewildering and sad to see what he turned into physically and in terms of how he behaved and I think a lot of excuses were made for him for a very long time. It seems like it is still going on. I suppose people will always defend those they admire and always will. I didn't follow the case but paying people off is never a good indicator of innocence.

Like OJ and Diddy.

I grew up in the 80s and we all knew he was bizarre and odd. Almost like human rules didn't apply to him. He seemed to not have a gender, a sexuality, anything you could pinpoint as normal. But we still danced and sang along to his music as it was so popular at the time.

I think now I wouldn't introduce my kids to his music as it's not something mainstream that they'll come into contact with unless an older person influenced them to look at or listen to him.

He was acquitted of all charges. Get over it.

He was a paedophile.

His music wasn't that good.

Drew Barrymore, allegedly

MJ has become popular again. Many of my teen’s friends are listening and singing to his music.

I think he was probably a paedophile. I do see the sense of separating the art from the artist, though.

My point was that even if you separate the artist from the art (which is what you had an issue with) people still wouldn’t watch Jim’ll Fix It.

The vast, vast majority of paedophiles and rapists are not convicted.

Being convicted makes you a criminal.

Having sex with kids makes you a paedophile.

One of these does not apply to Michael Jackson.

The poster I replied to said ever

And, as it still happens in some countries now, yes it was happening in the 90s

Michael Jackson is not a paedophile, he wasn't convicted

Congratulations on establishing the point. No one watches Jim’ll fix it cos it’s shit. But if it was put on tv no one would say ‘that’s shit turn it off’ they’d be (quite rightly) OUTRAGED. Whereas Michael Jackson people say ‘well yeah but he was a musical genius’ as if that makes it ok.

Yes absolutely, the vast majority of abuse and rape cases go unconvicted because these monsters are careful. There are often no witnesses. Victims often have vet shaky and unreliable recollections of the abuse because of the effects of trauma on the brain. It's not difficult to abuse vulnerable people and get away with it. It's easy, especially for rich and powerful people like MJ who can pay lawyers to intimidate victims and make them go away. How many of us on this thread have been raped, assaulted or abused and how many of the monsters responsible have been convicted. And how much damage does it do when people choose to side with the abuser.

It is just disgusting when people continue to defend men who behave like MJ, grooming young boys, sharing his bed with them, dumping them when they reached puberty. All in the public eye. It is just shameful, it makes me so angry.

Also in terms of ‘where do we draw the line?’ I’d say we have to start somewhere. Diddy, R Kelly, Michael Jackson. Let’s just keep going from there. Trying to irradiate all artists who have behaved badly is obviously impossible and therefore used as an argument by people who don’t want to have to stop listening to music they like.

Just like it’s basically impossible for a vegan to avoid all animal products in the modern day, it’s impossible to analyse every book, film or song for the behaviour of its creators.

But not playing the music of someone who based his entire identity around “I’m the dude with the candy and the fairground little ones” would be a great starting point.

I would have more patience for the ‘separate art from artist’ line if people were just dying to watch repeats of Jim’ll fix it or Animal Hospital (Rolf Harris)

You honestly can’t see the difference between listening to Michael Jackson’s music and watching reruns of Jim’ll Fix it? 😂. Even if Saville wasn’t paedophile, the programme was shit.

His music is amazing

I would have more patience for the ‘separate art from artist’ line if people were just dying to watch repeats of Jim’ll fix it or Animal Hospital (Rolf Harris) or listen to Garry Glitter. But they aren’t. Because those ‘artists’ aren’t fashionable. Paedo behaviour aside, they’re a bit cringy and 90s.

When sexual crimes are correctly investigated and prosecuted, go ahead and separate art from artist. But while women and children are still being asked what they were doing/wearing, did you say no, you wanted it really though didn’t you, why didn’t you come forward before? A massive statement needs to be made society that we will not accept this behaviour.

These artists don’t work alone. Their ‘people’ arrange for them to meet women and children and then say they had ‘no idea’ just because they weren’t actually in the room. Why? Because that artist continues to bring in A LOT of money. Anything remotely predatory needs to be the end of that artists career. Otherwise people are hugely incentivised to ‘turn a blind eye’

Letting your kids love an artist they will later discover ruined people’s lives with prolific sexual abuse is absolutely nuts.

This is so far removed from children singing a song he recorded. Did he write it? Whose song is it?

I hope you don’t listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers then whose lead singer openly admitted to having sex with a child in his autobiography.

It’s pretty long but it’s good to watch chase the Truth. It’s from an independant journalist who just wants to investigate rather than take a side and prove that side:. Goes into things like where the abusee said it took place that place wasn’t built at that time. That MJ had let the boy and his family stay at his ranch for over six months and they got very used to the lifesyle and wouldnt leave. He asked them to and when they did they completely changed on him and accused him of all sorts. That he settled because legally you have to do this first before you go to court as it can prejudice the case so the abusees wanted the civil case to go first and get thr money - MJs lawyers wanted the criminal case to go first but were forced to settle etc. I don’t remember it in detail but it did make me go whoa.

No, of course you fucking shouldn't.
Paul McCartney wrote a song about a 17 year old when he was 20.
Michael Jackson shared a bed with a 10 year old when he was 30.
I suggest you draw your line somewhere between the perfectly reasonable thing to do and the perverted thing to do

I don't know how all the people defending a man who slept with young boys can read this and say it's of no consequence that we continue to fete, acknowledge and praise this man as an artist? All the sophistry about 17 year olds, and drug taking and drawing lines - this is how we create a culture that welcomes weird uncles and dodgy headteachers and never listens to or protects children.