Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Blazing row about Michael Jackson

644 replies

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 12:44

I know it sounds ridiculous on the face of it but hear me out.

I was in a shop with DP last night and they were playing Michael Jackson music. I commented that I don't like hearing his music as I can't get past everything he did. Yes, I know he wasn't convicted but he openly admitted to sleeping in bed with random children, showering together and whatever else.

DP said "we have different opinions on that, he's a really good artist" to which I replied something about Rolph Harris being a good artist and Jimmy Saville being a good fund raiser.

DP then goes on to say he doesn't think MJ did anything untoward with the children and he thinks it's all innocent and because he had a "childlike mind" due to not having a proper childhood.

I said that was no excuse and plenty of people have bad or unusual childhoods and don't groom children.

He was getting defensive and talking about how he was found not guilty in court, to which I pointed out how few rape and sexual abuse cases even make it to court let alone conviction.

I asked whether he'd listened to anything the men on Leaving Neverland said before he formed his opinion that MJ wasn't guilty of anything. He said no, and refused to look it up.

It descended into a row and I was very hurt by some of the things he said, as I have a history of child sexual abuse and rape - which he knows all about.

I asked him whether he would have gladly left our DS in the company of someone like MJ unsupervised and he took a while to answer before saying "I don't know"

I said how that concerned me from a safeguarding perspective to which he took huge offence, started shouting and told me to return all of the presents i'd bought him as he doesnt want them anymore, the immature dickhead.

Now we're not talking.

Was I being unreasonable here?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
DC1888 · 08/12/2023 13:39

Alligator456 · 08/12/2023 07:39

Six boys have accused him of sexual abuse publicly

Someone above said that he couldn't be proven by a court to have done anything wrong.

Jackson can be proven by his own admission to have done things that were wrong. His behaviour was indefensible. Seeking out boys of a certain age and starting these totally inappropriate relationships in which they went everywhere with him and slept in his bed with him night after night while he bought their parents expensive gifts. Then dumping them when they hit puberty. He's in many pictures hugging them and holding their hands. What 12 year old boy wants to do that?

Not sure why people don't want to believe the boys about the physical abuse. Seems overwhelmingly obvious to me. But just think of the emotional fallout of being singled out by this famous star, taken every where with him, made to feel special and then dropped.

I don't think the court system works at all well for victims of sexual abuse. Because normally these acts are not committed in front of cctv cameras. I think this is what upset the OP so much in the first place.

I mean Iisten to his music if you want. But at least try to do separate the man from the music thing and don't idolise Jackson himself.

You quoted me here...I said "anything wrong" in regards to illegality, that couldn't be proven hence he wasn't imprisoned. Was he wrong in having boys sleep in his bed? Of course he was, but however wrong that was it's not illegal.

None of us, bar Jackson and the boys involved, know if he did anything illegal that warranted a prison sentence. As I said though regardless of not being convicted there will always be that shadow of suspicion hanging over him.

hydriotaphia · 08/12/2023 13:59

Going from your husband liking MJ to having safeguarding concerns about him was massively unreasonable. I personally think it's ok to continue to enjoy artists from the past who have done bad things and MJ is one of the great pop talents of the last century. Your husband was insensitive about the topic given your own personal history, but I think that making this the hill to die on is not good.

Statementdress · 08/12/2023 16:47

Dogknowsbest · 07/12/2023 20:07

I don't think it was that clear. Why were the parents so happy to allow their young, naive children to sleep at his house?

I have boys around the age the he would be interested in and if either of them asked to stay in a middle aged man's house by themselves, who isn't family and who essentially I have no clue about, it would be absolutely not. No matter who that person was. I'm sure 99% of parents on here would think the same. Either they really were that stupid or were deliberately doing it for the money.

Show quote history

If your doubts that this happened come from your assumption that all parents behave like you, then you’re being very naive. Just because you’re a loving parent doesn’t mean everyone is.

you only need to look at the various stories of child murder, cruelty, abuse and neglect to see that there are parents unfit to have children.

Then look on mumsnet threads on narcissistic parents- some of the crap that people are subjected to by some parents is awful- and that stuff never makes the newspaper. In fact, many people don’t share their traumatic childhoods even with close friends.

did you hear the testimonies of the boy’s affected? Very compelling. And their stories corroborate each other.

Catsmere · 08/12/2023 21:07

Aprilx · 08/12/2023 09:34

I think you were really out of order to tell your partner you had a safe guarding issue about him. If you really do, then you need to spilt up to protect your child, but I am going to assume you don’t mean it which case you should not have said it, that was below the belt.

Have you read OP’s updates? Her DP allowed his children near a convicted paedophile he knew because he considered it all nasty rumours.

HRTQueen · 08/12/2023 21:13

Why is the op still with a man who she knows has and thinks would again make extremely poor judgements

the issue is not Michael Jackson or believing he was guilty or not it is that she doesn’t feel her child is safe

so there is only one answer to that why make a deal out of someone who is irrelevant to you

Firefly1987 · 08/12/2023 22:21

Mirabai · 08/12/2023 09:43

It’s a simple question.

It’s possible to be sceptical of so-called “scepticism” when the proponents are victim blaming children and defending an adult’s inappropriate behaviour. There’s nothing intelligent about that.

Show quote history

There's no point even having a rational discussion about this when people have made up their minds and want to call anyone who merely has doubts victim blaming, or worse. You and OP are coming at this from a place of emotion, which is fine but don't expect people to not defend themselves after being called all sorts just for not being 100% on someone's guilt like you obviously are. I desperately want him to be not guilty for the simple fact it means no kids got abused.

I never blamed the kids for wanting to be friends with him I said it was a possible reason they stayed over, rather than him inviting them. He was crazy to let it happen, and I said it's very possible he took advantage of the situation. He has been quoted as never inviting kids into his room, he has not as far as I know been quoted as admitting to showering with kids so that's wrong for a start, unless OP has a source for that. Macualay Culkin and Corey Feldman have always vehemently denied Michael doing anything to them. OPs partner was in an impossible situation, he is apparently not allowed to express his views, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that.

Mirabai · 08/12/2023 22:29

Firefly1987 · 08/12/2023 22:21

There's no point even having a rational discussion about this when people have made up their minds and want to call anyone who merely has doubts victim blaming, or worse. You and OP are coming at this from a place of emotion, which is fine but don't expect people to not defend themselves after being called all sorts just for not being 100% on someone's guilt like you obviously are. I desperately want him to be not guilty for the simple fact it means no kids got abused.

I never blamed the kids for wanting to be friends with him I said it was a possible reason they stayed over, rather than him inviting them. He was crazy to let it happen, and I said it's very possible he took advantage of the situation. He has been quoted as never inviting kids into his room, he has not as far as I know been quoted as admitting to showering with kids so that's wrong for a start, unless OP has a source for that. Macualay Culkin and Corey Feldman have always vehemently denied Michael doing anything to them. OPs partner was in an impossible situation, he is apparently not allowed to express his views, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that.

Show quote history

Oh the old “emotion” line <rolls eyes> No I’m coming from a place of weight of evidence, having done my own research which you clearly haven’t bothered.

What adult has a 5 year old to stay because they invited themselves???

You’re just embarrassing yourself.

Original poster
PLP432 · 08/12/2023 22:41

It's crazy how much people will tie themselves in knots to try to explain away such deplorable behaviour when it comes to that man, as though being a global mega star somehow makes sleeping in bed with random 7 year olds ok.

A question for those who think he isn't guilty:

Why do these 'special friends' find themselves disposed of once they approach puberty? Why was there a continuous stream of small children, one replacing the other as soon as the flavour of the month got to a certain age? If MJ's intention was to simply be a true friend then why did that friendship have a shelf life?

I'll wait.

OP posts:
Original poster
PLP432 · 08/12/2023 22:45

I have an update of sorts. He begrudgingly watched Leaving Neverland and was so certain that his opinion wouldn't change as of course he's right about everything.

He got to the end of part 1 and couldn't watch the rest. His new verdict is that he's "definitely guilty" 🙄

OP posts:
Catsmere · 08/12/2023 22:48

🤦🏼‍♀️

Mirabai · 08/12/2023 23:07

🤦🏻‍♀️

Tourmalines · 08/12/2023 23:35

PLP432 · 08/12/2023 22:45

I have an update of sorts. He begrudgingly watched Leaving Neverland and was so certain that his opinion wouldn't change as of course he's right about everything.

He got to the end of part 1 and couldn't watch the rest. His new verdict is that he's "definitely guilty" 🙄

Yes , it’s quite compelling . Definitely guilty in my book . Blind stardom can block people’s minds .

Firefly1987 · 08/12/2023 23:47

Oh the old “emotion” line <rolls eyes> No I’m coming from a place of weight of evidence, having done my own research which you clearly haven’t bothered.

Yes I have although admit it's been at least a couple years since I went down that rabbit hole, and have no wish to go over it again unless something new comes out.

What adult has a 5 year old to stay because they invited themselves???

I mean, are you gonna provide sources for any of this? You said he invited him and his mother to his hotel room when he was five. It's not the same as inviting someone to stay at Neverland alone at that age. And I already said he was crazy for allowing it, and very possibly took advantage of the situation (if not engineered it) but just like OP all you want is to have an argument.

Well done OP, you won. Guess peace is finally restored now?

Firefly1987 · 08/12/2023 23:48

Oh the old “emotion” line <rolls eyes> No I’m coming from a place of weight of evidence, having done my own research which you clearly haven’t bothered.

Did you send your evidence to the police?

Mirabai · 08/12/2023 23:52

@Firefly1987 I’m sorry I cba to engage with you further.

Firefly1987 · 09/12/2023 00:22

@Mirabai the feelings mutual

SoreAndTired1 · 09/12/2023 01:02

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 15:33

Why would a grown man want to sleep in bed with pre pubescent children to which he is no relation?

The fame and star power blinds people. If MJ was a scruffy bloke from down the road having kids round for sleep overs there would be mobs with pitch forks.

But to answer your question about why do abuse victims conflate their experiences with other people's, because we know the importance of children being believed.

What do we say nowadays? I see it on here constantly. If a child tells you something has happened, BELIEVE THEM just not if the accused has fame and money

Show quote history

I agree with everything you have said but you keep saying "children". He was only interested in BOYS. Pre pubescent boys. Paedophiles almost always have a preference for one sex exclusively over another. And Jackson's interest was boys.

SoreAndTired1 · 09/12/2023 01:21

PLP432 · 08/12/2023 22:45

I have an update of sorts. He begrudgingly watched Leaving Neverland and was so certain that his opinion wouldn't change as of course he's right about everything.

He got to the end of part 1 and couldn't watch the rest. His new verdict is that he's "definitely guilty" 🙄

Did he apologise to you, OP? For being so ignorant, rude and thoughtless and insensitive?

I regardless could not stay with someone like that. I couldn't. He doesn't seem to have any paternal regard or care, or thought to safeguarding. He seems to think children lie about sexual abuse. Have you ever asked him why he chooses not to believe children and why he thinks they would make it up? Adults are the ones with scheming and manipulative minds, not children.

I also think a reason it affected you so much is because subconsciously you feel he doesn't believe you, either. If he doesn't believe those 2 men or the niece, then you feel he genuinely doesn't believe you either. And that would clearly hurt you.

Aprilx · 09/12/2023 10:21

Catsmere · 08/12/2023 21:07

Have you read OP’s updates? Her DP allowed his children near a convicted paedophile he knew because he considered it all nasty rumours.

Show quote history

Did you read my post that you quoted? I said if she has genuine concerns then she should have left him. However I assume she does not have genuine concerns as she has not done so.

Alligator456 · 09/12/2023 10:30

OP I think it is to your partner's credit that he changed his mind after watching the documentary and becoming better informed.

Honestly I don't understand people who hear that Jackson spent night after night sleeping alone with young boys and that some of these boys have given detailed accounts of what he did to them and yet they still say, where's the evidence? There's loads of evidence.

Martinii · 09/12/2023 10:40

There's another documentary (but I can not for the life of me remember what it's called), which looks at all the "evidence" claims in Leaving Neverland and basically squashes it. I'll have a look to try and see what it was called.

Martinii · 09/12/2023 10:44

It's called Square One and available on Prime

Catsmere · 09/12/2023 13:06

Aprilx · 09/12/2023 10:21

Did you read my post that you quoted? I said if she has genuine concerns then she should have left him. However I assume she does not have genuine concerns as she has not done so.

Show quote history

It wasn’t apparent in your post that you knew there’s more to this than MJ. I agree she should leave, he sounds godawful in many ways.

Mirabai · 09/12/2023 13:28

Martinii · 09/12/2023 10:40

There's another documentary (but I can not for the life of me remember what it's called), which looks at all the "evidence" claims in Leaving Neverland and basically squashes it. I'll have a look to try and see what it was called.

Who owns the production company Maple Road Pictures who made that film? That would be Entertainment One. Who distributes Entertainment One movies? That would be Sony Home Pictures owned by Sony Corporation. Who paid $750 Million for MJ’s back catalogue? That would be Sony Corporation.

Just protecting their business.

SoreAndTired1 · 09/12/2023 15:36

Martinii · 09/12/2023 10:40

There's another documentary (but I can not for the life of me remember what it's called), which looks at all the "evidence" claims in Leaving Neverland and basically squashes it. I'll have a look to try and see what it was called.

There has never been any documentary that "squashes" the claims the men made. Not one. The only one was made by the Jackson family which didn't address anything the men claimed. It was a Sony/Jackson family concocted flop. That disputed nothing.

In LN you could see one of the men showing rings which Jackson bought him (and tv stations later showed footage as evidence that him and the boy were looking at rings, backing the boy's story up) rings, and his fingers were shaking. It's clear that you couldn't fake that reaction.