Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To wonder why the still play Michael Jackson songs?

150 replies

stellenbosch · 29/06/2018 15:40

What with the #metoo movement and so many actors, entertainers, directors, singers and comedians being (rightly in most cases) shutdown, why do they still play Michael Jackson songs on the radio?

I automatically turn it over. Why does he get a free pass? Because he's dead? I thought though all the allegations were proven? I don't get it?

OP posts:
Banana8080 · 30/06/2018 08:40

Saville dead with no guilty charges on his record.... doesn’t make him innocent.

MJ clearly massive abuser - his multiply victims should be believed and he should not have been allowed to pay his way out of situations.

pollysproggle · 30/06/2018 08:47

MJ not guilty!

Rolph Harris music is still on Spotify and up until recently so was Gary Glitters along with a monologue about his 'glittering' career!

The film Lolita is on Netflix- always think that's a bit of a weirdly celebrated film.

CaptainKirkssparetupee · 30/06/2018 08:50

Rolph Harris music is still on Spotify and up until recently so was Gary Glitters along with a monologue about his 'glittering' career!

This was my point above.

Gary Glitter also still gets roalities as producer on loads of tracks under the name Paul Gadd.

There are loads of peopel who were actually found Guilty under law but are still getting their music played.

CaptainKirkssparetupee · 30/06/2018 08:53

Saville dead with no guilty charges on his record.... doesn’t make him innocent.

It doesn't, The massive coverup with the BBC peadophiles helped him die a free man even though during his life time many high up people, even the police knew of his activities.

SickOfSitting · 30/06/2018 08:57

It would have definitely come out by now since his death if there were victims of abuse by him. Plus if there was an inch of truth in any of it it would have been found during the trials.

McCauley culking never said there was any abuse going on.

He wasn't just "joe bloggs down the road inviting kids into his house..". He was Michael Jackson who had a very rare, extraordinary life from a young age. I imagine the strict upbringing from his father mixed with the usual pressures from adults in the music industry to constantly create the "next big hit.." and perform took its toll and he almost went childlike himself, perhaps wanting to create a more simple, innocent life. To him that meant hanging around with children where he probably adored their pure spirit for innocent fun rather than them having an agenda towards him like adults did to "make money for the record label" and perform. Unfortunately people naturally see that as sinister and assume it must be for sexual pleasures.

People with that level of fame, especially child stars, usually do go to extremes in one way or another with Drugs, alcohol and having inappropriate relationships being common.

Look at Britney Spears shaving her head. She also converts to using a "British " accent at times. Whitney Houston being a major drug addict.
Amy Whinehouse being a Herion addict.

The level of fame those stars had was insane and it was same for MJ. So his way of tuning out was to hang out with kids because to him that was an innocent life, an escape almost. He was almost like a child himself. Unfortunately some saw it as an opportunity to make money because like I said before, if your child was abused by an adult, no amount of money would compensate for that adult being able to walk around freely.

Babdoc · 30/06/2018 09:01

I think you need to separate the person from their creative output.
Throughout history, great art and music have been produced by some
very unsavoury individuals with horrible personal lives, but if we exclude all their creations we would be very culturally impoverished.

SickOfSitting · 30/06/2018 09:05

Saville died not guilty of anything yes, but you cannot compare it to MJ.

Savills abuse was covered up by the people at the BBC and hundreds of victims have come out where all the evidence coincides with what they are claiming (times/places) and people have since come out and said they knew but was either not believed or told to hush.

MJ was accused when he was alive, went through a massive high profile trial where all the allegations were investigated with a fine tooth comb and found innocent whilst he was alive.

lynmilne65 · 30/06/2018 09:08

Reporting hasn't worked has it !

BartholinsSister · 30/06/2018 09:21

Why start a thread rehashing an old story?
You'd think there was an exhibition of his art going on, or something.

littlemissdynamite · 30/06/2018 09:23

@lazypoolday

He was found 'not guilty' that is not the same as innocent.

ODFOD Hmm

So every person who has been acquitted, found to have not done the crime, found innocent by a court of law, and been exonerated completely, are all guilty really, they just couldn't find suitable evidence to jail them?!

What a crock of shit. Hmm

By that token you may as well say some people in jail are innocent. Just because they have been found guilty that doesn't mean they are not innocent. Anyone can falsify statements and make stuff up that never happened. I think there are at least a couple of very famous people in jail right now who are in there because of witch-hunts, and aren't necessarily guilty of what they have been accused of.

Regarding MJ, when one lad was accusing him of things (some 2 decades back) it was discovered that his mother was coaching him in what to say. Then all kinds of discrepancies kept popping up, and holes in the case. So the case fell through. Then the next case (a few years later) fell through for similar reasons.

strawberrypenguin · 30/06/2018 09:27

I don't know if he was guilty or not but I do know I wouldn't have let my kids hang out with him.

It is odd how some artists survive 'trial by media' and others careers are ended even if they are found 'not guilty' - John Leslie anyone? Whatever you think out the accusations against him he was found not guilty but never worked on TV again. Whereas MJ never seemed to suffer that backlash even at the time this was high profile. Woody Allen is another most people agree he at best acted inappropriately but he's still working successfully.

Tistheseason17 · 30/06/2018 09:28

MJ was a money making machine for his awful family. Way richer than Saville. If Saville could be covered up for decades so could MJ.

SickOfSitting · 30/06/2018 09:46

But when saville died, hundreds are victims, some of which were silenced whilst he was alive, spoke out and found to be telling the truth via the evidence.

When MJ died there weren't hundreds of people coming out to accuse him let alone having evidence.

MissionItsPossible · 30/06/2018 10:04

@AgathaRaisonDetra I copied and pasted from Wiki! Was called The Pope Must Die but in the US The Pope Must Diet!? Confused. I’ve never seen the film, have no idea if it’s any good.

hotsouple · 02/07/2018 19:21

Ok fine, if not Savillle then he is more like OJ. A very particular group of people will defend his innocence forever regardless of any evidence, etc., but the majority of people think he killed Nicole, while acknowledging there might not be enough evidence/it wasn't proved at trial.

Branleuse · 02/07/2018 20:20

what bothers me about the michael jackson thing is the absolute glee some people seem to have in assuming hes guilty. Im assuming this is because he comes across as a bit weird.

There are lots of reasons somebody can come across as weird or unusual in mannerisms, can be to do with neurodiversity, can be because of their past.
What i dont think is fair, is using that weirdness as a reason to write someone off as an abuser with no other proof

PrettyLovely · 02/07/2018 23:00

I totally agree @Branleuse

minifingerz · 02/07/2018 23:04

Because his music is brilliant, even if he was beelzebub himself.

He doesn’t benefit from having his music played. He’s dead.

minifingerz · 02/07/2018 23:06

“If you are not going to listen/read/watch art made by people who have done things you think are morally wrong where will you stop?
I think Dickens treated his first wife absolutely appallingly - should Dickens no longer be part of our reading?“

^^This
By all accounts Dickens was fixated on very young women.

MistressDeeCee · 03/07/2018 03:14

People are too invested!

Says someone who actually took out time to do a poll at work😂

10 years almost since his death, no victims crawling out of the woodwork, added to the fact (not hearsay or gossip) that he was found not guilty by the court, I don't think he was guilty at all.

It would've helped of you'd put up at least something proving his guilt, O P. You haven't, because you can't

Are you the same about other celebs accused of paedophilia or is it specifically MJ you're bothered about?

Monty27 · 03/07/2018 03:23

OP, oddly enough one of his songs came on the other day while I was driving and I was thinking about the whole episode and how he paid huge silencing money.
And yes TringDingDing we all know how just the system in USA is, not!

MistressDeeCee · 03/07/2018 03:33

Ghandi slept naked with little girls aged under 10.

Bill Wyman had sex with a 13 year old. Ditto Elvis

Ivan sense a ban list growing here. Factual being taken into account, of course m

But I don't think you have answers or have thought this out OP as your observations seem a bit flat
You just want others to talk and articulate for you.

A bit Daily Mailish really

smashyourglasses · 03/07/2018 06:45

No. No one said they'd done research and formed an opinion. They read the full and complete trial transcripts, which are freely available online. They looked at all the evidence provided by the prosecution, including the evidence found, in court, to be made up. Regardless of your bonkers, lazy opinion, you do not know more than a judge. Are you a judge? No. So sit down and STFU.

taxicum · 03/07/2018 16:49

OP it is a horrific human truth that the most talented, gifted humans we have could also be the most vile.

If someone disgusts us but they happen to be a genius, our feelings don't change the fact they are still a genius.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread