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?

Every sly tactic being used to discredit the victims here, (bearing in mind posters are only doing this because they are fans of his very mediocre pop music and don’t want to stop listening to it) are exactly the tactics used against victims of sexual abuse, sex offences and domestic abuse within the CJS and beyond.

A key factor used against complainants especially in cases of historic abuse is discrepancies, inconsistencies and memory lapses in their testimony. All witness testimony is far more fallible than popularly believed. Indeed it’s part of police training to understand that fallibility does not discredit an account. One of my siblings is a psychologist and wrote a dissertation on the unreliability of witness testimony: the research on the subject is striking.

I agree.

As a surviver of sexual child abuse myself, no amount of money could pay me off if my child said someone had abused them, unlike the family of the boy who made the accusation in 1993. I'd want justice, not money, and there's no way as a parent I could be paid off.

So they took no payment for the film, put themselves and their families on the line, lied to their families about a significant aspect of their childhood, and are now taking the case to court where their testimonies will be examined in minute detail, all for the vague possibility of some cash at the end of it?

Perhaps you’re materialistic and it’s something you’d consider doing but it’s not really plausible.

There are so many details the accusers give that have been proven to not be possible. They claimed things happened at places that didn't exist when they claimed things happened etc. there are also countless people who were the same age who were there who said nothing untoward happened. People who have nothing to lose now that MJ is gone.
The accusers would benefit enormously from a guilty verdict. Those who don't need the money say nothing happened. It seems way too likely that the two people who need money and who kept getting details wrong are not telling the truth.

It hardly took the innocence of a child to see that JS was creepy.

Lmao 🤣 there was not two train stations 😆😅🤣😂

Tiddles is that you?

It needed a trigger warning for the content as well, that is a seriously bad painting! He has given her mad, staring eyes, and his own chipmunk grin.

I am not bothered by MJs music at all, I quite enjoy it from time to time, and I recognize it's musical importance. I don't know what really went on in his private life, or why, and I don't imagine I will ever be in a position to know. I'm not called to make a judgement. I also enjoy The Jackson Five, although I think the abuse that produced that music was quite terrible, and that is well documented.

I can't however abide hearing Aerosmith after a nasty story I read about Steven Tyler. There is no logical reason that one bothers me more, it just does, so I don't listen to them.

However - I don't try and tell anyone else what they should or should not listen to or view because I am bothered by it.

🙄

Well I’d think it’s not plausible myself, but clearly it is for them as they are doing it, they are hijacking the Metoo movement and frankly are an insult to legitimate victims. Yes that means people who have ACTUALLY suffered abuse.

totally sickening.

It wasn't until adulthood and having his own child that he started to see the abuse for what it was and even then, he still felt some misguided loyalty to him.

I thought it was after he didn't get the Cirque Du soleil MJ show?

All the posters worried about listening to MJ's music, I wouldn't worry about that-Wade himself was still dancing to him and wanting to participate in MJ shows up until a few years ago.

It's possible for MJ to have been abusing the other boys whilst not abusing MC.

Yes but most people's arguments for his guilt go back to "he had kids stay over, that's soo inappropriate, that's so wrong, open your eyes, he was a paedophile!", so people can't suddenly go "oh well maybe he didn't do anything to Macaulay"-either he had kids stay over to abuse them, or you admit it's possible he innocently enjoyed their company. You can't have it both ways. And yes they were often boys, but not always-I believe Macaulay's sister stayed over, and/or Gavin's sister, and the girl from the moonwalker film. Perhaps parents were more wary of letting girls stay over, or fewer girls wanted to, who knows.

There are no details the men got wrong. This is a lie that is repeated but has been debunked. Their claims have been shown to be credible.

Also there is the boy who accurately drew Jackson's penis including the splotches.

According to the official map of Neverland, there were indeed five train stations, these being:

1. The Main Train Station
2. The Electric Train Station
3. The Zoo Train Station
4. Flamingo Island Train Station
5. Movie Theatre and Amusement Park Train Station

And if the drawing and photos that matched were enabled to be used as evidence, the result would most likely have been different. But the judge not only didn't allow this evidence, he disallowed the BoyLove books that were tendered as evidence as well. The Jury really didn't and weren't allowed to have the full picture.

I don't think Jackson was in the habit of physically forcing himself onto children.

He corrupted / seduced / groomed them. Pick your adjective. They fell in love with him.

I imagine the longer you defended him for the harder it eventually would be to tell the world about it. Especially as you would then be accused of lying by his fans.

It's very clear what Jackson was.

Having read the responses on this thread I empathise with the op.

I am normally quite good at seeing both sides of an argument. However there's a mix of wilful blindness, conspiracy theory style picking at unimportant details and total disregard for the young boys who were the targets of Jackson's special and entirely unhealthy friendships that I find it hard to take.

As for the Me too movement. What me too movement? The victims of sexual abuse are usually not believed and rarely see justice. Powerful and wealthy men do what they want. And nothing has changed.

They did not match

Well u seem to like you edited to suit agenda

The full clips is available and was used in the 2005 trial which he was exonorated on

Which clearly stated "he sleep on the floor", and u have the bed. I always give the guests the bed. Sleep in it, its yours.

Let's look at the big picture

We have a famous pop star. He surrounds himself with children. He has special friendships with boys that end after puberty. Usually at any one time he has a special friend who goes everywhere with him. These boys repeatedly share a hotel room with him and there are public photos and vidoes of him hugging and kissing him. Several of the boys accuse him of sexual abuse. What is more plausible?

A) he was a paedophile
B) he was an innocent child in a man's body who just wanted to have sleepovers

Hint: he was an adult man in an adults body

Jackson was hardly at Neverland when they were there.
Wade mother testimonies stated and confirms this.

In 14 years they only saw MJ at neverland only an handful of times.

There was a thread here very recently about a row between a Mumsnetter and her boyfriend because he put Gary Glitter onto their Xmas playlist. GG was guilty of horrendous crimes and rightfully convicted, but the consensus seemed to be that having his Xmas song on a playlist that he couldn't profit from was okay. The boyfriend certainly never defended GG's behaviour, just liked his song.

As a pp has said, if we really researched the personal histories of many artists there wouldn't be many left to enjoy.

How can him saying he slept on the floor go in his favour at all when he's on record admitting he shares his bed with boys and sleeps in it with them?

Let’s be clear: you are the insult to legitimate victims. This line is used against genuine victims of abuse on a daily basis and you are simply perpetuating this.

Quite. MJ is on record in film and audio footage that we call all see for ourselves - of doing and saying completely inappropriate things with boys, and totally inappropriate relationships with them.

Yet fans tie themselves in knots either to deny the inappropriateness or to accept it but claim it went no further than the surface. Six of the boys are on record saying that the surface inappropriateness was a reflection of deeper abuse. What’s more likely that the surface reflected the reality or that it was divergent?

It’s reflective of the hold a very fucked up, damaged & self-destructive man had over his fans as much as his victims and their families. The abuse has always been staring them in the face.