Why hasn’t Michael Jackson been cancelled??

How is that picture compares to shagging a dead person?

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)

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

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

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.

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.

Stop with the straw man arguments, honestly.

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.

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???

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.

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.

Same for Jackson

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.

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.

And that new evidence has been tested in court?

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.

How do you know he was different behind the scenes?

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002trr2 - this is brilliant and well worth a watch.

No he was already dead.

I believe the victims of CSA. And now he’s thankfully dead no one can claim they want his money or he’s an ‘easy target’. If 2 grown men giving detailed accounts of what he did to them isn’t ‘evidence’ then what is? Someone who watched him do it will be claimed to be lying, video evidence will be ‘AI’ or ‘a lookalike’

One of the ones I’ve never been able to get past in his original trial was that they took pictures of the vitiligo on the underside of his penis and when the boys were asked to describe it from memory they were correct. But it’s ok that those boys have seen his erect penis multiple times cos he had a bad childhood and he’s a really good performer 🙄🙄🙄

Do you also cheerlead for Prince Andrew and Jimmy Saville?
A woman near me was recently found strangled to death with her husband nearby having killed himself. Her family are engaging with campaigns on domestic violence. Are they wrong? Maybe the husband was innocent?

I don't think you can put prince Andrew in the same category as saville either. Saville (who many keep mentioning) was in an absolute horrendous league of his own, every one KNOWS he is guilty and his crimes were horrific. Regarding MJ, not proven and clearly 50% of people claim his innocence.

Isn't it interesting though about "proof "

Here in NI we've had a very high level politician recently found guilty of SA and rape of his daughter and her friend going back to the 80s. His wife is guilty of aiding and abetting.

The girls said they were too frightened to speak before due to his reputation. What "evidence " did they have only their stories?

Very very hard to prove a case of SA, much like rape, unless caught in the act a good solicitor could show doubt, especially when you have a jury who like a lot on this thread thought he was a child and not a highly manipulative adult. And there was a LOT of evidence in this case.

50% of people don’t claim his innocence - where do you get that from? 🤣

This thread and generally people i speak to, in fact im a teacher and all staff and students at my school love him.