Why hasn’t Michael Jackson been cancelled??

When I asked one colleague if she’d let her 12 year old son sleep in a bed or even be alone with a man she didn’t know, but who was famous, being treated to gifts and clothes and days out etc and of course she said NO WAY because that would be weird. But for some reason she doesn’t think it weird that MJ did that.

Because some people revise to believe he was a paedophile and think that sharing his bed with children not related to him
was somehow innocent and he was a Peter Pan character.
Colleagues went to see the new film and we got into a discussion and they got really angry at me for saying I wouldn’t watch it, so t listen to his music because I think he was a predator. Apparently I’m a racist.

so he is guilty then if he can never be proved innocent?

you can’t have it both ways.

Caravaggio was a murderer. His paintings are still on display all over the world, and they're brilliant.
A person's (alleged) behaviour has nothing to do with their contribution to art, music, literature etc.
And cancelling anyone is rather a juvenile reaction.

Yeah, that's not what it means.

"Innocent until proven guilty" speaks to who had the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. The principle is that the prosecution has to prove guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove innocence.

And the prosection has a high bar to meet - "beyond reasonable doubt".

A finding of "not guilty" means the prosection has not met that burden.

To paraphrase one of the jurors - Jackson probably molested young boys, but the prosection was not able to prove that he definitely did.

That's a very simplistic phrase though and if you can't see that there's a very large grey area then I really can't help you.

Barry George anyone…

They’re doing that ‘not guilty but not quite innocent enough’ grey area to people they don’t like. Goal posts move depending upon whom is discussed.

so people are not innocent until proven guilty?

No it literally doesn't mean that. It means they don't have enough evidence to find them guilty. Of course some people who are found not guilty are in fact innocent but sometimes they are found not guilty because of lack of evidence or a technicality. Not guilty at trial does not equal innocent.

Are you suggesting that every single person who commits a crime and is tried is rightfully found guilty? That nobody has ever got off when they did in fact commit the crime?

Reasonable doubt does not mean he was innocent.

That is literally what it means. If you are not guilty you walk out an innocent man. The system works that the jurors hear all the evidence (of which we all outside of court might not have been party to) and make a decision. Are you suggesting every single person who goes to court and is found not guilty is actually guilty?

People seem to equate "he was found not guilty" to "he was found innocent".

The jury ultimately decided that, in the particular case brought against him, there was "reasonable doubt" - and it took them over 7 days to reach that verdict.

Some jurors, initially of the view there was no doubt, were ultimately convinced there was some doubt.

Of course, he only ever faced some of his accusers and a key witness in his defence - Wade - later said that he lied and that he was among Jackson's many victims.

I can get my head around some people feeling there is doubt, or otherwise being unconvinced, but the people who confidently assert that all the victims were liars, who were making up stories for the money, read as absolute creeps, to me.

But some people just can't keep their mind out of the gutter!

Whilst Roman Polanski, Woody Allen work and are celebrated, Dirty Gary Glitter’s music is celebrated in Joker (Arthur) then we do not need to pretend that anyone cares about PDFs.

We wouldn’t have had the Labour Party having links to pdf information exchange to lower age of consent to 10.

We wouldn’t have Epstein files suppressed.

We wouldn’t have child molesters and abusers like MPs, Huw Edward’s down to mere mortals one’s crimes evading custodial sentences.

If appears sex crimes against children is OK

True that. Don't ruin them all for me. 🙈😬

Oh right, I get it, thanks for clarifying.

Because it should be up to individuals whether and how they associate with other individuals.

Read the lyrics and tell me they’re about anything other than MJ.

Btw Prince supposedly turned down a duet with MJ on Bad due to that first line,

In an interview, Prince explained: "Who going to sing that to whom? Because you sure ain't singing it to me, and I sure ain't singing it to you".

Then why was it always good looking boys of a certain age, whose 'friendship' was then discarded when they got older?

Honestly, trying to excuse a grown man having children in his bed is just revolting.

Sony didn’t pay $750 million for 50% of Savile’s back catalogue.

Turned out few people liked Savile much and many people knew he was a perv.

These both songs are based on real life stories, Bad on a private school black student murder and Smooth Criminal on 1940s gangster I htink.

Well that’s what they thought at the time, but how much did they actually benefit in the long run?

Gavin had a brother called Star who also testified.

Do you mean Robson and Safechuck?

Why should "nobody" be cancelled?

Yes, but look at how it all fired up with Saville? Why not MJ?