Why hasn’t Michael Jackson been cancelled??

Because millions of people do not believe he did anything. Was he mentally childlike - yes. A paedophile - I do not believe so, no.

Isn’t there a feeling that the parents were possibly groomed as well? The biggest star in the world love-bombs your family. Wouldn’t you be flattered? And safeguarding wasn’t such a hot topic then as it today. People would have automatically trusted the big star, without questioning his antics.

I have one word for you - MONEY

I think to some degree he "groomed" whole families, making it easier for parents to let their kids stay overnight with him. In some instances they might not have even known they were staying in the same room.
Plenty of posters here are in denial, or overlooking the fact, he was almost doing this in plain sight, despite being the most famous man in the world, so its not much of a reach to think he fooled those parents as well.

Cross-posted with @Silverbirchleaf

So if it’s all about money, name one other rich, famous pop star who has been dogged by multiple claims, spanning decades, of child abuse by men who were all good looking, prepubescent boys at the time.

Well said.

Actually I think it’s you who doesn’t understand how the law works.

Many, many victims of rape and sexual assault never even report what happened to them because it is, in practice, very difficult to secure convictions for sex offenders.

I doubt any other people put themselves in the MJ's position by building Neverlend and inviting packs of children over.

But there are a LOT of famous musicians that are currently being accused of sex with underage girls, maybe you should google it.

You'd have to also cancel Elvis, David Bowie, Steven Tyler and, let's face it, half of the rock stars and groups from the 70s and 80s. Lots of them slept with underage girls.

I think Bill Wyman is horrific (starting a relationship with Mandy smith when she was 13 🤢) and I wonder why he was never properly cancelled. However the thread is not a general "who are you surprised isnt cancelled" its about MJ

Do you say the same about Jimmy Saville?

How good can it be? Sleeping in a bed with kids and the kids later saying they were sexually abused by him is dead giveaway no?

Because love is blind. People who hero worship him don't want to believe anything bad of their idol. But, like you, paedophilia is not something I could just gloss over because it was inconvenient

Not related to which side I am on but realistically, the number could actually be a billion+ rather than millions. Hence why comparison to Saville is unrealistic unless people think MJ can be cancelled just in UK

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

I think he groomed the whole world. Look at the numbers of women on this thread parroting the narrative that he was a little boy lost, child in a man’s body, who just wanted a childhood.

Where did that narrative come from? MJ. He created it. In order to get access to the children he wanted to abuse. Paedophiles do generally try to position themselves to access children - work, charity, hobby etc. It worked incredibly well, accessing a steady stream of kids. And despite some of those kids now having come forward to tell of the reality, many people still prefer the fantasy.

But they did report it and he was found not guilty. I understand perfectly thanks.

The thing with MJ missing his childhood and allegedly, simply trying to recreate it with young kids/boys....all his siblings are really close in age. He was the young "cute" one in the group but theres actually not much age gap between all of them. So wouldnt they all have had a fucked up childhood...? He could have invited them to neverland and had sleepovers to recreate - or re-invent their collective childhood. It would still be weird, but without involving young kids!

It's not a good look not to do even a cursory google to establish that, yes, there were discrepancies in what they said in that documentary.

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?

The parents of these children have a lot to answer for. It was the era of fake ignorance for fame.
The amount of young under age actors who attended adult parties was foul. Adults openly flirting with children in public on game shows, commenting on little girls with a twinkle in their perverted eye.
Sadly it’s not gone, just hidden.

Right, and are you accusing those under age girls of lying for money??

If you just stopped lying to yourself for a second you would realise that abuse victims primarily remember the abuse - not always all of the exact circumstances of where it took place.

That does not mean they are lying.

If you’re referring to the station and the Grand Canyon issue - as that’s literally all there is - I hope you’re not naive enough not to grasp that at that distance memories are fallible. If so and so thought something happend in x when actually it was in y - that does not bely the rest of the testimony. Discrepancies of memory is exactly what is used against victims of sexual abuse and sex offences in court to try to superficially discredit an account.