Ozzy Osbourne - we shouldn't speak ill of the dead but has his domestic abuse and serial infidelity been glossed over in all the eulogies?

[mids2019]

Maybe because he was a rocker firm the 70s but it seems Ozzy's real character flaws have been warped into a 'charismatic hell raiser ' image to be admired.

In reality should we also be critical about his actions and views?

Quite obvious Sharon and all 3 children have poor coping strategies and rely on medical intervention to help regulate their lives.

@Velmy That's the last thing I'm going to do obviously and I don't give 2 hoots if you or "multiple" ( um..possibly 2 could be a million) don't agree on MN.
That moment has stayed with me all my life. The son couldn't have faked the breaking of the little dog's neck. It happened and I saw it. It was subsequently covered up which made me even more furious.
Did you watch it at the time it was actually aired or later?
PS. Plenty of Animal charities out there would be grateful for your spare cash and your devoted altruism.

I wont be bullied by you or anyone else on this thread.

Its a complicated legacy. Sadly the most influential people in society, usually have a more than cavalier attidude to how they treat other people.

I hope someday someone comes up with some sort of guidence on how to manage this in popular culture that isn't driven by capitalistic greed.

I still listen to Amy Winehouse (abuser of men) Elvis Presley (controlling and abusive) Eminem (speaks from the heart about what he wants to do to the mother of his child) and I am sure many others. I don't listen to MJ as I struggle with the child sexual abuse, but I don't judge others who do. I mean people still voted for Trump after the nasty misogynistic behaviour, stirring up insurrection and the Felon charge.

I think if Ozzy Osbourne was an average man on the street, people wouldn't be so willing to consider that he'd transformed.

As recently as 2016 he was caught having a four-year affair with a member of his staff.

Sharon has always been media-savvy and she's managed their image to a masterful level. She has managed to get him rebranded as some kind of national treasure with a history of being a bit of a naughty boy.

The truth is much darker than Sharon would have people think. The kids were exposed to all sorts, and it's no surprise that they developed heroin addictions etc - which is not an inevitable consequence of having famous parents.

If Ozzy was still well enough, I have no doubt that he would continue to shag everyone that he could persuade - and if he had been able to continue to drink/take drugs, I suspect the violence would have been repeated. The strangling episode wasn't a one-off.

Not everyone becomes violent when drunk/high. Not everyone would deliberately bite the head off a dove. Not everyone would have had continuous affairs over the years, leading their wife to say that no woman providing any kind of services to the household would be safe from his advances.

He was a phenomenal musician. His music was influential. And actually, I do believe that he and Sharon loved each other very much.

I just don't think he was a particularly good or kind person, despite how it's been portrayed. I think the effects of such heavy drinking and drug use, plus the Parkinsons, made him appear to be much more benign and harmless than he really was.

Very well said.

I think the maxim “don’t speak ill of the dead” is designed to stop people talking about this sort of thing. He was an abuser, a cheater and just not a nice person.

I mean that no-one on this thread has ever met or knew Ozzy, or his family yet are intimate with every detail of his life.
How are we to know that any of this, good or bad, is true. We're only seeing it through the lens of the media.

I've never been into him or his music or paid attention to the family. But I've just read about him biting the heads of those birds.

Why would someone's mind even go down that line of thinking? Even if they are off their rocker on substances.

Presumably the multiple reports of domestic violence and infidelity would have been retracted if not true

Its really not, addiction takes over. If it was just a simple choice there would be no drug addicts in the world.

I thought Sharon played up to the crowd and cameras yetsedsay. Unpopular opinion but there have been many public showings of grief, even Princess Diana’s boys had more composure at their young age. Look at Diogo Jotas young wife left with 3 tiny children/babies, days after their wedding, she could stand on her own without needing to be propped up.

Sharon is a lot older than Jotas' wife. She's in her 70s and very frail. I remember my grandmother almost collapsing at my grandpa's funeral. She had to be caught and held up by my Dad and his brothers.

Was she also playing up? Absolutely not, she was a grieving woman in her 70s, and very frail.

Dear christ, if she hadn't you'd have said she was unfeeling.

Now that is a pretty unkind thing to think let alone say.

She’s very frail though.

All i see is the following.
Sharon has lost the love of her life.
Her kids have lost their dad.
Friends have lost their friend.
Fans have lost their idol.

You should be a shamed of yourself.
The woman as lost the love of her life we all grieve in different ways.
My sister couldnt stand at all at her own daughters funereal.
Maybe your just a really tough woman but i hope you dont have to live through what some of us have done.

She is in her 70s, weighs less than 100 lbs, the combination of age and weight loss surgery have left her v frail indeed. Don't think it's fair to compare grieving composure.

Well put.

i didn’t know all 3 children got into heroin.

I noticed as well that only 1 child of his previous marriage was in attendance at his funeral.

I wonder if all six of his children were there.

Some of the comments on these Ozzy threads are downright deranged and disgusting. I can’t quite work out what certain posters issues are.

Not liking Ozzy?
Not liking Sharon?
Having an issue with heavy metal?
having an issue with the heavy metal community?
Not being able to accept people change over a period of 40 odd years?

Not liking abusive men (both to humans and pets)

I don’t think it’s any of those.

I think some people can’t get past the animal cruelty, domestic abuse and arrest for attempted murder.

I think some people can’t get past the animal cruelty, domestic abuse and arrest for attempted murder.

Yeah that. Apparently the violence towards Sharon wasn’t a one off either.

It didn't happen though. You didn't see it because it didn't happen. Multiple people have told you this. You have the entire internet at your fingertips to confirm that it didn't happen. You are either making it up for the sake of having an argument, or misremembering it.

People have suggested that you are - quite reasonably - confusing what you think happened with an episode of the show where Jack pretended to kill the family dog, before revealing that it was a hoax.

If this hoax is what has stuck with you for years - I don't know what to tell you. It was obviously not real in the first instance, and part way through the episode they literally yell "CUT", walk the entire family (including the 'dead' dog) into the shot and reveal that the the whole episode was scripted as part of a running joke.

To answer your question - yes, I watched the show The Osbournes (not 'At Home with The Osbournes' as you previously misremembered) when it first aired on MTV in 2002 (not on Channel 4 in the late 90s as you also previously misremembered). I also have the original box sets of the first couple of series, which were all that were released on physical media.

Disregarding all of the above, as I have already explained, neither MTV, Channel 4 or anyone else would have been able to air footage of someone breaking a real dog's neck on a light entertainment show in the UK. It simply would not have been allowed to be broadcast as you claim, due to strict guidelines around presenting footage of animal cruelty.

And disregarding that, just use a bit of common sense. You claim that the act was caught on camera, that the camera then abruptly shifted away, and the entire incident was subsequently covered up... apparently so well that only you can remember it.

The show was not aired live. It was scripted and storyboarded, hundreds of hours were shot over a period of months and edited together into individual episodes. Each episode went through multiple layers of edits and cuts by directors, producers, censors, studio execs, network execs, lawyers and the family themselves. Every single shot specifically selected and approved by multiple people. Aired to test audiences. Sent to thousands of journalists for review.

If someone had broken a dog's neck as you claim, the footage would never have made even the first rough cut. Even if it had somehow been left in the rough cut by accident, it would have been removed the second the next person saw it. Or the next. Or the next.

If someone had genuinely broken a dog's neck as you claim and wanted to cover it up, they'd hardly have scripted, shot, produced and aired another episode where they pretend to kill the family dog as a joke.

What you're suggesting is that literally hundreds of people (including the family themselves) saw and approved footage of the dog's neck being broken for broadcast, multiple networks broadcasted it illegally, repeatedly, every day, for years, sold it to other networks all around the world, then at some point decided that they didn't want any to see it anymore orchestrated a cover-up so thorough that there isn't a single mention of it anywhere on the internet.

Surely you don't believe that? And if you do...as I say, post a clip/link/screenshot... literally any evidence whatsoever of it happening, and I will apologize and make a sizable donation to an animal charity on your behalf.

Also, nobody is bullying you on this thread, don't be a silly goose.