Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To find it weird that people still give Michael Jackson Godlike status??

118 replies

happyend · 17/07/2016 20:43

Is it just me? They have now found pornographic images of young boys at his home yet people still talk about him as if he is so great. One particular person I know gets her son to do his MJ dancing and he wears his hat everywhere and it makes me feel ill. I don't think people would find this acceptable if it was about Gary Glitter, would they?? I don't get it, can anyone enlighten me?

OP posts:
Becles · 17/07/2016 22:47

It's been formally confirmed that the stash of alleged child porn was a mix of legally available proper art books and consenting adult porn. The majority of which were seized and examined during his lifetime and returned / not used in any trial or charges.

The judge even authorised a statement before trial which confirmed no child porn was found.

The story was dusted off again by a dodgy news site around the anniversary of his death for click bait and was picked up again by other lazy news outlets.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_576ad5d1e4b09926ce5d611b

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 22:49

I hate to be a pain but there is no such thing as 'child porn'

It's images of child abuse so that's what we should call it.

mzS1990 · 17/07/2016 22:52

We 'have to assume' really?

Sorry but he was trialled and proven to be innocent

MollyTwo · 17/07/2016 22:54

I don't have to like him as a person, but I love his music. That's all really.

StickTheDMWhereTheSunDontShine · 17/07/2016 22:57

I couldn't agree more. Fantastic music. You couldn't take that away from him, but. That's it.

Thriller, maybe. Earthsong, notsomuch.

User8530 · 17/07/2016 22:59

There is absolutely no proof that he was guilty- as Becles as said above what they actually found was consenting adult pornography and some art photography books that happened to have children in parts of them. The media blew it out of proportion for clickbait on the anniversary of his death.

He was found innocent because there was not one shred of evidence to suggest that he did anything untoward with any of those children. The prosecuting lawyer was out for blood so had they found images of child abuse in his house during the investigation they'd have thrown away the key.

As for payouts, as another poster has said- what parent would take a payout over justice? Nevermind the fact that all accusers have come out since his death and admitted they made it all up.

He was a very troubled man who was used by everyone around him till the day he died. He had a lost childhood which is why he enjoyed the company of children, but the fact that he spent time with kids, had some dodgy nose jobs and was a bit of a recluse does not mean he was an abuser.

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 23:02

Oh please.
If a 40 something bloke on some council estate was having 10 year olds over for sleepovers there would not be a question in anyone's mind about his intent. And anyone saying 'oh he's just childlike' would be considered a fucking idiot.

Why people lose any common sense around celebrity eludes me totally.

Arfarfanarf · 17/07/2016 23:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VestalVirgin · 17/07/2016 23:05

It's difficult, boycotting artists who are shit as individuals. I am very conflicted about the Hobbit movies because of that. Felt bad about watching the last one and am not sure I should buy them on DVD.

Fortunately I never was a fan of Michael Jackson, but will admit that I, too, thought he just had a messed up sense of boundaries, because what kind of parent takes money in exchange for letting a man get away with abusing their child?

It's images of child abuse so that's what we should call it.

But that's what "child porn" means. Confused

I don't get why people think "porn" has any implications of consent. It doesn't. It literally means "depictions of prostitutes". It is not a positive term in any way, and how the porn industry treats adult women certainly isn't positive either.

The fact that it seems to have positive implications is due to how acceptable it is in patriarchy. You can, of course, rename it, but that won't fix the underlying problem.

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 23:07

I think most people do infer consent from the phrase 'child porn'
But you carry on.

User8530 · 17/07/2016 23:07

Having a child sleep in your bedroom is a world away from abusing one. I can't imagine parents being star struck enough by a 40 year old bloke on a council estate to allow their kids to have a sleepover with him.

frenchielala · 17/07/2016 23:08

Absolute perv. Don't get it at all

SarcasmMode · 17/07/2016 23:09

I don't see too many pepople treating him god like.

Clearly if he's done the things he has then he's a vile person.

But that doesn't mean his voice for singing isn't good.

Just like I'd hate a killer but couldn't say that their artwork was no good if it was if that makes sense.

Separating the pEdson from the music. That's what people are doing I assume?

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 23:10

No it's not.
Being a 40 something year old man and wanting a child who is not a relative to sleep in with you is absoloutely not a world away from abusing one.

How many times have you know that to happen ?

80schild · 17/07/2016 23:10

I always assumed he was a paedophile until recently. I started listening to his music again and became quite fascinated by the individual.

Regarding the allegations.

The first one, the child retracted the allegations as an adult and said his father made him do it.

Allegation number 2 - (the Martin Bashir kid) it never even went to court. They settled outside and apparently lived quite an extravagant lifestyle. Apparently, his mother had written to MJ when her son was sick asking him to visit. Highly dubious IMO.

The last one - Wade Robson. Made many years after his death. Wade was a broke dancer who needed money. When it came down to it, he was told he couldn't pursue his case by the Court because statue of limitations had been exceeded he dropped the complaint.

Was he a paedophile? Answer to the above is that there was never enough evidence. All his friends and ex wife have always staunchly defended him (even now). As mentioned up thread, if someone had done that to my kid I wouldn't be happy to be paid off out of court.

ABloodyDifficultWoman · 17/07/2016 23:12

"Child porn" is wrong on so many levels. Porn, for the most part, is legal for a start. Child abuse is not and to call it anything else is either naive, stupid or the opinion of an apologist - possibly all three. Please never refer to child abuse or images thereof a "porn"

SylviaFuckingPlath · 17/07/2016 23:12

Vestal, what's wrong with The Hobbit films? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 23:12

User8530
And if having a child for a sleepover is completely innocent why would a parent need to be star struck to permit it? It's innocent isn't it?

User8530 · 17/07/2016 23:16

If you enjoy the company of children then that does not automatically mean you are abusing them, no. Clearly MJ was troubled and had a confusing upbringing and a lost childhood, and this manifested itself with him wanting to spend time with kids when he was an adult. Unfortunately because he wasn't just some bloke down a council estate there were plenty of parents willing to let their children be in his company because of who he was, and as he was surrounded by yes men who didn't have his interests at heart nobody stepped in and told him that it wasn't a good idea to have children sleep in his room. It is sad and never should have happened but it still doesn't mean he abused them- and two court cases proved that he didn't. Just because someone gives you the creeps that doesn't mean they're a paedophile.

User8530 · 17/07/2016 23:17

Where exactly did I say it was innocent? It was a terrible idea and never should have happened but it doesn't mean he was abusing them.

Pagwatch · 17/07/2016 23:17

Nope. Wanting to share your room and your bed with children who are not related to you has nothing to do with being childlike.

And OJ was apparently innocent

LilacSpunkMonkey · 17/07/2016 23:18

Two court case found him not guilty. That means the jurors didn't believe he had done it.

Not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it, it just means the jury at that time didn't believe you didn't do it.

And welcome to MN User Hmm

User8530 · 17/07/2016 23:19

OJ obviously wasn't innocent, there is a stack of evidence that proves he wasn't. There is no evidence against MJ.

StickTheDMWhereTheSunDontShine · 17/07/2016 23:20

Having a child sleep in your bedroom is a world away from abusing one. I can't imagine parents being star struck enough by a 40 year old bloke on a council estate to allow their kids to have a sleepover with him.

So you'd be fine with your child sleeping in some guy's bedroom, then?

The only 40 something I'd be fine with sharing a bedroom with my kids without me around is their father. Even that's a YMMV situation.

80schild · 17/07/2016 23:21

Actually - I wonder if what happened the other week makes me a paedophile. The other week I has a friend's child stay over. She threw up in the middle of the night and was really upset. Her mum wasn't answering her phone. I did what I would do with my own children. I let her smuggle up in my bed. She was really happy. I think most people would do this. Maybe I am wrong though?