Why hasn’t Michael Jackson been cancelled??

There is plenty of evidence outside the Chandler case to demonstrate that MJ was a manipulative predatory paedophile.

I don’t care that people still listen to his songs- I have a problem with them thinking that pre-pubescent boys would be safe around him.

Do you remember the crazy/hot scale in HIMYM?

There’s a similar scale for “bad person”/talent. The more talented you are, the worse a person you can be while remaining culturally significant/relevant/uncancellable.

To a greater or lesser degree, people like MJ, Jonny Depp and JK Rowling have all fallen on the “right” side of that line. Roman Polanski is an interesting case demonstrating different cultural perceptions of where that line falls, but it’s the same principle.

This is nonsense.

MJ music is on its last legs for profitability and so the PR machine can force people to overlook it They are just squeezing the last 10 years out and then he will disappear and then when the rights run out the narrative will change pretty swiftly.

Music is very fashionable but films and books are different as they endure for longer and can be reimagined.

He’s dead …. People are listening to his music. Not letting him bath their children.

Right but we wouldn’t let kids watch Jim’ll Fix It though would we?

Young people are getting into him now though, it's not just squeezing money out of people who grew up listening to him.

The publishing (songwriting) royalties will keep flowing for most of his children's lifetimes.

Jim'll Fix It is outdated though and most children today would find it boring as they wouldn't know the famous people that children back then wanted to meet.

They still wouldn’t though would they even if it was popular.

It’s still a fashion which means it will die out. A lot of his popularity depends on nostalgia- particularly for men who were teenage boys at the time- and they are on longer the target market for music.

The two idiots on the Neverland documentary can’t even get their timeline in order, hence the judge sent them packing on more than one occasion.
False.

Whether you believe in the accusations or not, telling lies to undermine the accusers is not a good look.

There are some weird fucking takes on this thread. It's amazing what people will accept just because someone was talented.

Let me put it this way, would you be happy with your young children having a sleepover with a random bloke down the road, just because his house was filled with things children enjoy? Of course you wouldn't.

He's at worst sexually abused children, and at best is a creepy groomer even if it wasn't sexual. Stop defending him.

Because he was found Not Guilty! Whatever you think of him a court of law found him not guilty after a long trial. If you are unable to accept that verdict then what's the point in having a trial?

I don't know if he was 'a wrong un' but I do know that you don't know what happened and we have to trust that the courts had more than enough evidence. There's no reason to 'cancel' him.

And comparing him to others, Gary Glitter was found guilty. Jimmy died before a trail. Neither were found not guilty.

Definitely agree. They played his music at a children’s event I went to and it made me feel sick.

Anyone who thinks MJ’s behaviour was fine gives off serious red flags and I’d not want kids around them.

I accept the verdict.

And I also believe he was very likely a child abuser.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts, by any stretch.

Exactly, two things can be true!

Agreed. People who say hateful stuff about victims revolt me.

As other posters have pointed out, he was acquitted of the charges against him .

So was Casey Anthony.

@PestoPastaLife ”To a greater or lesser degree, people like MJ, Jonny Depp and JK Rowling have all fallen on the “right” side of that line.”

err, JK Rowling? You are dumping JK Rowling in with wife beaters and pedophiles?

They took him to trial with no evidence whatsoever? You think the American version of the CPS said ‘zero evidence? Literally nothing? Yeah go for it’

One of the richest human beings in the world convinced a star struck jury that there was an element of doubt that he did exactly what the boys said he did. He was not proven innocent, that’s not how the legal system works. He wasn’t found guilty of those specific crimes.

If a random man in your community walked up and down holding hands with his ‘boyfriends’ and had regular sleepovers or parties for all the kids in the area you would come to one conclusion.

He paid the first guy off and he was then seemingly willing to take the money rather than fight for justice in court. That understandably made everyone think he was just after money and I guess everyone thinks the same of accusers since, particularly since lots have been civil cases expecting financial remuneration. Of course it’s partly down to the statute of limitations in the US but people will likely see it as greed. Then some celebs who stayed with him said he never did anything untoward e.g Macaulay Culkin.

I personally think it’s much harder to dismiss multiple accusers. His music may be “genius” but that can live on without him. Plenty of artists were criminals and also just arseholes, their work is still revered.

I have a fairly good nonce/sleaze radar. Never got that vibe from MJ. He was definitely mentally imbalanced and on drugs but I don’t think he wanted anything from the kids except a childhood. It was quite sad really.

Let me put it this way, would you be happy with your young children having a sleepover with a random bloke down the road, just because his house was filled with things children enjoy? Of course you wouldn't.

You should put it this way: would you let your young children having a sleepover with a random bloke who is immensely famous and rich and who will provide you with substantial sums of money and other perks and benefits of fame and wealth? Obviously some parents could not resist.

Because you will find, generally speaking, that if someone has not been convicted of something, you cannot assume they did it. Not only not convicted but found not guilty. That’s called the law. I hope you have heard of it?