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

The sheer number of allegations, supported by witnesses and even captured on camera along with confirmation by the police of how many reports there had been is why Saville can be safely labled a paedophile.

I don’t know the truth of MJ, the evidence isn’t overwhelming and relies almost entirely on the testimony of a few boys. That said, the documentary was harrowing and I have no reason to believe those reports are untrue.

At the very least, the optics of having small children dancing to his music are pretty poor.

Yes, allegedly.

Hang on David Bowie was a peadophile ?

You’re being ridiculous.

Throughout history many musicians , artists , business people have done immoral things.
For examples several UK cities were built on the proceeds of slavery, Jerry Lee Lewis who is still
celebrated for being one of the founders of rock and roll married a 13 year old, Picasso was a misogynist.

The abuse allegation is unfounded. He admitted to sleeping in the same bed as them, he didn't admit to abusing them. I personally think he was very damaged and as damaged/unaware of appropriateness and social norms as he was, saw it as a big sleepover and saw himself as a big kid/one of them. However that's just my guess, I'm not saying he definitely did or didn't abuse anyone because I have no way of knowing.

The pay off means nothing. Perhaps he was guilty and was paying for it to all go away, perhaps he was innocent and found it too stressful or traumatic to go through so paid it to go away.

None of us here can definitively say if he's guilty or innocent.

But he also paid irrepressible alleged victims off
Why would an innocent person do that?

Jimmy Savile was never charged during his lifetime. Michael Jackson was, and he was acquitted, and was never subsequently charged with or found guilty of anything. He was definitely weird, and deeply disturbed, and his upbringing has much to answer for. But that is not the same thing as being a paedophile.

MJ aside, I think you can label pop music as brilliant. You can label classical music, reggae, pop, metal - all can be brilliant musically, lyrically, artistically.

It’s very snobbish to say that pop cannot be brilliant and I’m not a particular fan of pop music.

So was Bob Marley and yet he spread messages of love towards women.

They’re all at it, all of them. Artists, writers, musicians.

Well said!

Also the peado sympathisers on this thread are something else....

'He wasn't convicted' doesn't mean anything does it?

Look in the papers or listen to your friends who were abused by their fathers/male relative/male friend etc, how many of those abusers where convicted?? Those abusers certainly didn't have the money or the power MJ and his team had and they still got away with it so imagine how easy it was for MJ to make his pedophilic behaviour and actions disappear.

Well neither was Jimmy Saville

But I don't see anyone arguing he wasn't a,paedophile and a prolific abuser of vulnerable adults.

But he wasn't convicted, so, technically he is not a paedo, no matter what inferences you may wish to draw from his actions. He may have done things that your friends might not usually do, that doesn't make him a paedo though

Yeah it’s weird not many people still watch programs with saville but they love mj’s music 🤷🏻‍♀️

it’s a shame he had some funky songs but I’m with you he makes me feel sick and the weird “he was never convicted” defence makes me laugh, neither was saville but they all believe it about him. People are weird.

Why are you shocked that the biggest peado ring in the UK plays songs by pedophiles?

I draw the line at paedophiles. I don't care whether he was convicted or not, money talks and he blatantly was.

Erm.
No, they're not.
They're just pop music which can never be labeled as "brilliant" FGS.

That is just an insane statement. I have never liked him, I don't like his music, I think he was weird, but that is not the same thing as a paedophile. He was convicted of nothing.

I've come to the conclusion recently that when it comes to separating the art from the artist, individuals must go with what feels most comfortable to them. For most artists, society will not reach a consensus.

MJ's music is tainted for me, in light of the allegations. I can't listen to any of his songs without them coming to mind, so I choose not to. If I worked in a school, I would think twice before using his music in lessons/performances and would err on the side of caution.

Roald Dahl was not only a raging anti-semite but also treated his wife terribly. He amended editions of his works to remove anti semitic references and I grew up with great affection from his stories, so I probably wouldn't deny my children them.

Bowie slept with underage girls, making him a rapist, and yet he seems to be universally loved, even by those same girls. I don't choose to listen to his music either.

Einstein and other incredible scientists often took credit for work their wives produced...

Like others have pointed out, where do you draw the line? I have decided that if a piece of art, whatever the medium, makes me uncomfortable because I cannot separate the artist from their work, I won't engage with it.

I try not to judge others who do still enjoy MJ or Bowie (or...etc) because I recognise that with other artists I can separate them from their art.

But for someone as contentious as MJ, I would probably avoid using his music in schools.

Well.for a start the first one might be questionable but very much legal
The other is illegal for very good reason

The legislation that is put in place to protect minors is where we draw the line. Aged 16 for consent.

You are over thinking it, to make it OK for people to listen to his music.

I dont judge people who listen to his music, but I do judge people who use over inflated arguments to justify it, while ignoring the abuse.

Of course I can see the difference. But both would draw criticism, and my question all along is ‘Where do we draw the line?’

Being a paedo doesn't render his much loved music shit all of a sudden. I don't think erasure of something good because the person who created it did something bad is helpful in any circumstance. It is like the tearing down of statues.

FYI I'm not a Jackson fan and I do think he was a paedo.