Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Why hasn’t Michael Jackson been cancelled??

619 replies

PoliteSquid · 12/09/2026 19:56

I’ve been out at a 80s day disco today… loads of fun. But it struck me that people were still delighted by MJ… why? He was a wrong ‘un of the very worst kind. How come he hasn’t been cancelled?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Thecatbeggar · 16/09/2026 06:46

Also he actually admitted sleeping in the same bed as young boys, even if that’s ‘all’ he did, that’s abuse.

Worriednanof1 · 16/09/2026 06:44

WigglywagglyWanda · 15/09/2026 21:04

Exactly

Those saying no case to answer, perhaps they'd like to explain childrens fingerprints on porn magazines? Among a LOT of other things.

And the Jesus juice which he gave the procession of lookalike children which was alcohol. The children explained he called it Jesus Juice... ugh ugh ugh.

That breathy childlike voice with the wide eyed bewildered look was an affectation, by the way. When he wasnt being "Michael" behind the scenes he was completely different.

Edited
Show quote history

How do you know he was different behind the scenes?

Thecatbeggar · 16/09/2026 06:44

I wonder this too OP, I used to love him and had a certain amount of pity for him until I watch the documentaries, obviously he wasn’t found guilty of anything but lots of evidence to the contrary.

There is a brilliant documentary on iplayer about him (I think called the American Dream or something) and it said his estate earns more from him now than when he was alive, so I suppose they have a real vested interest in just trying to get people to remember him for his music. Also he was so huge, I think we maybe forget how huge and a fanbase like that just doesn’t go away I suppose.

BananaPeels · 16/09/2026 06:37

MonteStory · 16/09/2026 06:20

I could maybe have agreed with you in 2005 but a lot more has come out since then.

You referred to the jury as ‘professional and well informed” which they weren’t l.

Show quote history

And that new evidence has been tested in court?

MonteStory · 16/09/2026 06:20

Meadowfinch · 16/09/2026 04:57

The jury had the benefit of legal advice from the judge, and they saw & heard all the evidence presented, so they were in a far better situation to judge than you or me.

Unless you were one of the jurors present at the trial or one of the prosecutors, I assume you know only what various tv documentories and newspapers have shown, and we have no way of knowing how accurate or complete that information was.

We have to accept the findings of the court because anything else is trial by tabloid. We really don't want to go there.

Show quote history

I could maybe have agreed with you in 2005 but a lot more has come out since then.

You referred to the jury as ‘professional and well informed” which they weren’t l.

Meadowfinch · 16/09/2026 04:57

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 20:40

They absolutely did not conclude no case to answer! Wtf?!

You can’t just throw around phrases you’ve heard on TV. ‘No case to answer’ is when a prosecution is thrown out because the judge basically ‘don’t be fucking ridiculous”. The case is never tried in such instances.

Jackson was arrested, charged and taken to trial. His case met the evidential thresholds at each stage. I don’t know the American system but in the UK the cps have to consider that not only might that person be guilty of a crime but that there is sufficient evidence that a jury will agree.

Who is this well informed, professional court you speak of? Again you seem to be getting your legal information from TV. Or perhaps you’re confusing the US with other legal systems such as South Africa where Oscar Pistorius was convicted by a team of - exactly as you say - professional and highly trained judges.

Jackson was tried by his peers. No legal
training. Many probably not professionals of any sort. People who have gone on record admitting to be star struck and finding Jackson ‘vulnerable’ and the victims as money grabbing. They may as well say ‘yeah I judged those books by their covers and didn’t listen to the evidence’

Well informed my arse.

Show quote history

The jury had the benefit of legal advice from the judge, and they saw & heard all the evidence presented, so they were in a far better situation to judge than you or me.

Unless you were one of the jurors present at the trial or one of the prosecutors, I assume you know only what various tv documentories and newspapers have shown, and we have no way of knowing how accurate or complete that information was.

We have to accept the findings of the court because anything else is trial by tabloid. We really don't want to go there.

SlothTigerMum · 15/09/2026 23:50

AutumnLover1999 · 14/09/2026 08:44

Enough with the Savile comparison! We know what he did. We have enough proof he was a disgusting human being.

Show quote history

Same for Jackson

WigglywagglyWanda · 15/09/2026 21:04

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 20:40

They absolutely did not conclude no case to answer! Wtf?!

You can’t just throw around phrases you’ve heard on TV. ‘No case to answer’ is when a prosecution is thrown out because the judge basically ‘don’t be fucking ridiculous”. The case is never tried in such instances.

Jackson was arrested, charged and taken to trial. His case met the evidential thresholds at each stage. I don’t know the American system but in the UK the cps have to consider that not only might that person be guilty of a crime but that there is sufficient evidence that a jury will agree.

Who is this well informed, professional court you speak of? Again you seem to be getting your legal information from TV. Or perhaps you’re confusing the US with other legal systems such as South Africa where Oscar Pistorius was convicted by a team of - exactly as you say - professional and highly trained judges.

Jackson was tried by his peers. No legal
training. Many probably not professionals of any sort. People who have gone on record admitting to be star struck and finding Jackson ‘vulnerable’ and the victims as money grabbing. They may as well say ‘yeah I judged those books by their covers and didn’t listen to the evidence’

Well informed my arse.

Show quote history

Exactly

Those saying no case to answer, perhaps they'd like to explain childrens fingerprints on porn magazines? Among a LOT of other things.

And the Jesus juice which he gave the procession of lookalike children which was alcohol. The children explained he called it Jesus Juice... ugh ugh ugh.

That breathy childlike voice with the wide eyed bewildered look was an affectation, by the way. When he wasnt being "Michael" behind the scenes he was completely different.

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 20:40

Meadowfinch · 14/09/2026 09:15

No but Jimmy Saville never faced a trial.

MJ did, and was found not guilty. A thorough & very expensive legal process concluded that there was no case to answer. Legally there was no stain against his character so there was no reason to veto his music.

I imagine any attempt to do so after that verdict would have prompted legal action by his estate, and rightly so.

Who are you to decide a man was guilty when a well informed, professional court reached the opposite conclusion?

Show quote history

They absolutely did not conclude no case to answer! Wtf?!

You can’t just throw around phrases you’ve heard on TV. ‘No case to answer’ is when a prosecution is thrown out because the judge basically ‘don’t be fucking ridiculous”. The case is never tried in such instances.

Jackson was arrested, charged and taken to trial. His case met the evidential thresholds at each stage. I don’t know the American system but in the UK the cps have to consider that not only might that person be guilty of a crime but that there is sufficient evidence that a jury will agree.

Who is this well informed, professional court you speak of? Again you seem to be getting your legal information from TV. Or perhaps you’re confusing the US with other legal systems such as South Africa where Oscar Pistorius was convicted by a team of - exactly as you say - professional and highly trained judges.

Jackson was tried by his peers. No legal
training. Many probably not professionals of any sort. People who have gone on record admitting to be star struck and finding Jackson ‘vulnerable’ and the victims as money grabbing. They may as well say ‘yeah I judged those books by their covers and didn’t listen to the evidence’

Well informed my arse.

SlothTigerMum · 15/09/2026 18:31

Meadowfinch · 14/09/2026 09:15

No but Jimmy Saville never faced a trial.

MJ did, and was found not guilty. A thorough & very expensive legal process concluded that there was no case to answer. Legally there was no stain against his character so there was no reason to veto his music.

I imagine any attempt to do so after that verdict would have prompted legal action by his estate, and rightly so.

Who are you to decide a man was guilty when a well informed, professional court reached the opposite conclusion?

Show quote history

If you have any knowledge of the American legal system, you would know that it is far from a fair system - the more money you have, the more likely you are to get let off. One trial does not mean you are innocent.

And why is he guilty - what grown man has kids sleep over at his house???

Whoachino · 15/09/2026 13:16

FrankieNeverRelax · 14/09/2026 22:23

Some people absolutely should be think of the worst of the worst here use your brain!

Edited
Show quote history

Ah thanks for advising me to use my brain, whilst using almost no punctuation.

We should make our own call about everyone. That doesn't excuse criminal conduct, nor does annoying a criminal's art make one sympathetic to the criminal. Our moral guardians choosing who or who not to 'cancel' is absurd. If you don't like a person's behaviour and feel that you should therefore avoid their art, that's fine. But it should be personal choice.

Palomiino · 15/09/2026 11:22

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:43

How is that picture compares to shagging a dead person?

Show quote history

Stop with the straw man arguments, honestly.

Silverbirchleaf · 15/09/2026 11:13

One person being nasty doesn’t negate the fact that someone else can also be nasty. It’s not either or, or a game of Top Trumps, ie, who has the most alleged crimes.

Aluna · 15/09/2026 10:49

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:42

I never said MJ was definitely not an abuse as we dont know that (however, we do know he was found not guilty in court and that his accusers changed their story many times and financially benefited from MJ).

I'm just saying you cant compare him to Saville.

Show quote history

His accusers haven’t changed their stories that’s just something you invented as you like his music.

You can compare him to Savile on the grounds of a similar MO of manoeuvring a career and charitable public persona to get access to children.

Savile is very much an outlier in terms of numbers.

user1464187087 · 15/09/2026 10:32

Limeandfigs · 12/09/2026 20:13

I don't think the two cases are comparable.

Saville has been the subject of a conclusive, admittedly posthumous, police inquiry with hundreds of identified victims.

Jackson has, by comparison, a handful of identified alleged victims and was found not guilty in a court. There is also an argument that he is culturally far, far more important on a scale against which Saville pales into insignificance.

My personal opinion is that he's a wrong-un, but I don't think he's comparable with Saville.

Edited
Show quote history

I though MJ just paid the alleged victims off. Did it actually go to a criminal court?

WigglywagglyWanda · 15/09/2026 08:17

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:42

I never said MJ was definitely not an abuse as we dont know that (however, we do know he was found not guilty in court and that his accusers changed their story many times and financially benefited from MJ).

I'm just saying you cant compare him to Saville.

Show quote history

You keep saying this.

Saville was never convicted of anything either so going by that logic he is also 'innocent '

We of course know he is far from it but your double standards show that youre putting your fingers in your ears.

All these safeguarding experts who seem to think nothing to see here shows why logic went out the window with the jury.

If it wasn't so serious it would be laughsble

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 07:59

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:43

How is that picture compares to shagging a dead person?

Show quote history

Jackson raped a 9 year old. At least a dead person doesn’t live with the trauma. (NOT minimising necrophilia or its impact on the family)

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:43

Palomiino · 14/09/2026 22:22

Not a pervert, no 🙄

Show quote history

How is that picture compares to shagging a dead person?

localnotail · 15/09/2026 07:42

Aluna · 14/09/2026 22:40

So how many is enough victims to count?

Are we to discount all abusers if they weren’t on the scale of Savile?

Jordy Chandler
Gavin Arviso
Star Arviso
Wade Robson
James Safechuck

Ive no doubt there were far more than the ones who and the courage to come forward. MJ’s sleepovers went on over a very long period.

I’d assume if you had been sexually abused you’d want it to be taken seriously even if you were the sole victim. It’s still a crime? It’s still ruined your childhood.

Edited
Show quote history

I never said MJ was definitely not an abuse as we dont know that (however, we do know he was found not guilty in court and that his accusers changed their story many times and financially benefited from MJ).

I'm just saying you cant compare him to Saville.

Fizbosshoes · 15/09/2026 07:33

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 07:21

I don’t understand how any intelligent adult can look at the evidence and not think he’s guilty.

After training you’re supposed to have learnt something. Obviously it’s possible they had training and ignored it. There have been many cases of adults in leadership positions abusing children - no lack of training just lack of morals.

i think what the jury lacked, probably all juries to be honest, was proper legal training. People still weight their ‘gut feeling’ or ‘but he’s not a bad person’ over actual evidence. Lots have been interviewed saying he probably abused kids but they felt the boys were not ‘good’ victims, wanted money (as if wanting money is morally wrong) and Jackson was vulnerable/messed up. None of which is relevant to the question ‘did he commit these crimes?’

Show quote history

Not to mention he will have had all the money to throw at the best defence lawyers.

I was interested on a documentary they had an interview with his attorney, who imo was arrogant and wholly unlikeable. He never at any point said he thought MJ didnt do it, or wasnt capable of such things. He said MJ called him in tears saying he was terrified of going to jail. So the attorney said they had a team go through every and any document/medical record/school documents basically anything relating to the victim to try to prove them liars (about something else) to then discredit them.

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 07:21

Worriednanof1 · 15/09/2026 07:08

So if the jurors all had safeguarding training they would have found him guilty?

Show quote history

I don’t understand how any intelligent adult can look at the evidence and not think he’s guilty.

After training you’re supposed to have learnt something. Obviously it’s possible they had training and ignored it. There have been many cases of adults in leadership positions abusing children - no lack of training just lack of morals.

i think what the jury lacked, probably all juries to be honest, was proper legal training. People still weight their ‘gut feeling’ or ‘but he’s not a bad person’ over actual evidence. Lots have been interviewed saying he probably abused kids but they felt the boys were not ‘good’ victims, wanted money (as if wanting money is morally wrong) and Jackson was vulnerable/messed up. None of which is relevant to the question ‘did he commit these crimes?’

Dottiethelurcher · 15/09/2026 07:09

Jackson had a bit of a different MO from Saville. Saville was an opportunist whereas Jackson played more of the long game so the numbers of victims is different but they were both sexual predators. Saville was never brought to justice either.

Worriednanof1 · 15/09/2026 07:08

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 07:00

So you don’t believe in innocent until proven guilty then.

If you’ve had any safeguarding training at all, you know he’s guilty and you’re wilfully choosing good music over children’s lives.

Show quote history

So if the jurors all had safeguarding training they would have found him guilty?

MonteStory · 15/09/2026 07:00

Doone22 · 15/09/2026 06:29

I do
As does pretty much everyone now have that duty but its very different as under the laws around safeguarding you are specifically instructed to treat people as guilty until proven innocent and in this case he was put on trial and found innocent so don't tell me I have to believe someone that just read celebrity gossip over a jury

Show quote history

So you don’t believe in innocent until proven guilty then.

If you’ve had any safeguarding training at all, you know he’s guilty and you’re wilfully choosing good music over children’s lives.