Blazing row about Michael Jackson

[PLP432]

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 tell your DH that emotional congruence with children is a known risk factor to sexual offending against children and repeat offending of a similar nature. So his argument actually supports yours.
I do believe though that some people can separate art from artist, so wouldn't judge him for listening to the music in itself.
Boy George still gets work, the rolling stones, Christ look at Woody Allen.

Just wanted to send solidarity waves @PLP432. I had a recent falling out with my sister in law after she posted about Russell Brand on Facebook, essentially saying he's innocent, the girls are clearly lying and even if he did do it then he's not really to blame due to his own mental health and addiction issues. She even went as far as to say if a "path is littered with warning signs then the person who walks down that path is accountable if things go wrong". She knows I was sexually assaulted multiple times whilst in an abusive relationship, and yet when I spoke up and said I found her views upsetting she went absolutely mental at me and can't seem to understand why I no longer want anything to do with her.

I'm sorry you're in this position x

Why do people hate adult gamers so much? I don't think there's anything wrong with spending a couple of hours immersing yourself in a fun game, providing you're not using it to procrastinate and ignore other responsibilities.

I'm 29 and I love the sims 😁

As for whether he apologised to me, not properly no. I had to ask him if he was going to apologise for him to respond "i apologise" but there was nothing genuine about it.

He can't stand being wrong.

She sounds horrid mummabubs I'm sorry you're lumbered with somebody like that as a SIL 😔 I don't blame you one bit for having nothing further to do with her.

I wouldn’t play any of their music, because it’s obvious what they were, convicted or not.

But, neither would I get into any sort of row with a partner about people neither of us knew/know - whatever the subject.😗

emotional congruence with children is a known risk factor to sexual offending against children

Yes. I knew of a wonderful, charismatic youth leader who got on so well with the 12 to 15 year olds he could almost have been one himself. Nobody would hear a word against him right up to the time he was accused of raping a 13 year old and later jailed.

@ButterCupPie a friend of mine works in a safeguarding role for the scouts, she's busy!

Some people are really weird when it comes to MJ he was a total weirdo

‘emotional congruence with children is a known risk factor to sexual offending against children’

yup.

I separate Michael Jackson's musical legacy from what he eventually became, I always think that s/a happened to him as a child musician and that made him behave like he did later in life, Jimmy Saville was just a predator.

Documentary 'Square One ' certainly gave a counter argument, it was a while ago when I watched it but remember them saying the boy was referring to a something that wouldn't have been built for another 2 years from when his account was allegedly from.

It's certainly worth a watch.

It still gave some good counter argument points though.

I think you are being unreasonable. Being a survivor of abuse is terribly difficult but we have to remember Jackson was accused of molesting kids in multiple buildings six years before they were built, at events we now know he didn't attend, in continents we now know he hadn't travelled to and of kidnapping families in hot air balloons so it's very unjust and unrealistic to call him a child abuser and expect his music not to be played.
People crumbled in court when it was found the stories of showering together etc were made up to sell to tabloids so I find these accusers to be an actual insult to REAL survivors. The legal documentation and reality of his cases paint a very different picture to that of the media portrayal so I'd be careful using stories from it justify an opinion.

MNHQ can you check @Tiredofinjustice Harddrive whilst you're about? 😬

OP I wouldn’t describe myself as an adult gamer but I do enjoy a bit of the sims! I think people look down on it as infantile and pointless but it’s no different to, say, football, and my DP who does game a lot told me people can win millions in professional tournaments.

Not really the same thing though. Saville died before his crimes came to light. Had he been alive when they were revealed I don’t think there’s much doubt but that he would have been convicted. Whereas MJ was tried and acquitted.

So was OJ Simpson.

Are we really giving that much credit to the US justice system?

I can think of plenty of cases of sex crimes that weren't successfully prosecuted here too, doesn't mean they weren't sex crimes.

Its depressing being partnered to someone you think is an idiot.

Are either of you aware that leaving neverland is version 9 of a total 12 so far? Or that the versions of events told in leaving neverland are actually the polar opposite to what they told in their own legal filings which were running at the exact same time?? Why is that??

And of course that is before we get to the stories I mentioned previously such as abuse in buildings six years before they were constructed, at events we now know he didn't attend and in continents we now know he hadn't travelled to.

Who else would have such stories created about them and people would bened over backwards to believe such impossibilities??

With respect to the last poster, memories don’t just fade over time, they actively change a little bit every time we retrieve them. That’s why statements are taken ASAP from victims after crimes and put down in writing. Memory is also just much more unreliable than we think overall. I err on the side of thinking MJ was guilty and his victims were taken advantage of and damaged for life. Also, especially in the American court system, acquittal isn’t the world’s highest bar. Remember, you need to have a judge or jury convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt, and the main evidence they had was from scared young complainants having to face their accuser, one of the most famous men alive, probably still with mixed feelings about him because that what (especially) sexual abusers do.

I think in the case of Jackson specifically you are wrong. There is way too much exculpatory evidence that outs the accusers as down right lying as apposed to getting dates etc wrong.
They spent soo much time going into too much checkable detail in the likes of leaving neverland telling us that is exactly what happened and when and was why we must believe them.
All they do is change their story every time they're rejected for a payday which isn't what happens in the real world. 11 times now!
We didn't have this with Weinstein, R Kelly, Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Karl Logan, Ian Watkins, Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby. And also there wasn't the concern of just so happening to be hit with $25m fines and job rejection 6 days before abuse was 'remembered' by the accusers. Too much sides with Jacko and against the accusers in this one.

You’re welcome to disagree. Everyone can view the evidence and make a decision.

Yes, it referred to a train station (at Neverland) and they were wrong. The station existed and even an old tv ad was found that proved it existed at the time, as well as Neverland building plans. 'Square One' was proven wrong.

I'm not sure how closely you've followed this, but it was proven the train station existed, via actual building plans AND a tv ad for Neverland that showed the train station! There has never been any occasion were he's "at events we now know he didn't attend, in continents we now know he hadn't travelled to and of kidnapping families in hot air balloons".
And what that image you posted proves I don't know. It most certainly doesn't prove anything. Around 22 payouts have been made to accusers. You don't have that amount of accusers by accident. Where there is smoke there is fire. And if you saw LN, there is absolutely no way you could not have believed those 2 kids. The trauma in one of them recounting how he and Michael looked at rings (and subsequently a tv station went to the archives and guess what? It showed and proved Jackson WAS there with the boy and showed them looking at rings) and the way the man shook as he held the rings was genuine.