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?

I’m obsessed 😂

Im not the deluded nonce lover here

Why won’t anyone answer the Dave from Asda question? It’s not a complex question

About as much as Jimmy Saville can do from the grave. But you aren’t decrying the (unfounded, by YOUR standards) accusations against him. Why not?

Ill never stop worrying about pedophile apologists or people who don’t want to teach children about safeguarding

you start saying anyone in authority is a potential groomer, you have issues

I really can’t decide if you have poor reading comprehension or if you’re being obtuse. When did I say this? Or anything like it? It’s teaching children about the power of, well, power. I’m VERY concerned as to why teaching children that authority figures and powerful people can be abusers makes you so cagey. What do you do for a living?

I remember the Martin B interview and being appalled others watched it and said he was innocent childlike and just a kind man. I couldn't listen to his songs after that.
You're right op.

Yes and Bashir had the measure of him. I remember him talking in his fake voice about sleeping with Kieran and Macaulay Culkin about how they were so sweet sharing a bed and watching popcorn and playing games. You could tell he used this tactic to manipulate people before and that he wasn’t used to dealing with intelligent people like Bashir who could see through the act. It gave me the creeps.

On that note - to the MJ lovers…he’s a liar. He lied in that documentary about never having had plastic surgery. His story over Blanket’s mum kept changing too. It you STILL think the man who is a serial liar, who has had 8 compelling accusations of CSA, who has had charges brought against him, who shares his bed with little boys and who had a revolving door of friendships with little boys (who he dumps when they get too old) is actually NOT a nonce and is, indeed, a perpetual victim.

I can’t even begin to imagine how a person can be so wilfully stupid to believe this man has never sexually touched a child. I hope you don’t have children and never do,, your safeguarding abilities are seriously questionable

Yes Bashir that bastion of truth that manipulated Princess Diana into an interview for his own gain. Why would MJ risk telling people he has kids in his bed if he was actually doing something to them? Is that normal paedophile behaviour (genuinely asking as I don't know) are there loads of Dave's from Asda admitting to that? It's unique to MJ isn't it? His behaviour around practically everything was weird!

Well yes Bashir is a POS after what he did to Diana but it doesn’t mean he didn’t have the measure of Jackson the pedophile. I was pleased he called it out too. Some of the footage was used in the 2005 trial.

Have you never heard of the term ‘hiding in plain sight’? Watch the Louis Theroux documentary with Saville. He does the same thing. Confesses to assaulting women and downplays it under the guise of being a bit of a cheeky chappy. People excuse odd behaviour and pass it off as eccentricity - especially when it comes to people in power. Dave from Asda might do that - and I imagine people would raise the alarm. So why not with Jackson? Why is Jackson’s ‘weirdness’ excused?

I thought the bbc wasn't going to play his music any more but I still hear it on radio 2.

If this was Dave, an adult man, who worked at morrisons and lived down your road and was "childlike" and innocent and invited kids for sleepovers, people would (quite reasonably) question his intentions and very likely not send their pre-pubescent (or teenage) kids to his house ....I'm not sure why people make all sorts of excuses for Michael Jackson.

Oh I don’t remember the BBC saying they wouldn’t play his music.

If this was Dave, an adult man, who worked at morrisons and lived down your road and was "childlike" and innocent and invited kids for sleepovers, people would (quite reasonably) question his intentions and very likely not send their pre-pubescent (or teenage) kids to his house ....I'm not sure why people make all sorts of excuses for Michael Jackson.

Yep! If Dave also had 3 children who clearly weren’t his, with no sign of a mother, these kids just turned up, people would call the police - not talk about what an excellent shelf stacker he is.

What is it with Jackson? Why won’t people confront the truth? Is it some sort of inner denial or just plain stupidity? I’m quite fascinated around the psychology of it all. Is it because he is such a big part of people’s childhoods that the shattered illusion would be too much if they admitted the truth. SURELY people don’t actually believe he’s the victim of a load of false allegations of the same nature?

He gave minors alcohol in pop cans and called it Jesus juice. He had children in his bed. He's a pedo through and through. No idea why his music is still played. But then powerful people usually get away with ur don't they?

Well Dave wouldn't be able to blame it on not having a childhood would he because he wasn't a performer from the age of five and megastar from ten years old. I mean how lucky for Michael that his childhood was robbed from him so he could use that as an excuse to be a child molester. Bit of a coincidence though.

Aaah so it’s ok to sexually abuse little boys if you were famous as a child. And that’s the fundamental difference between why Asda Dave displaying exactly the same behaviour is a huge red flag and why Jackson is given the green light to sexually abuse (or at the very least to even the most staunch MJ lovers, groom boys into a disturbing friendship, Cart them around fit a good year and then dump them like a sack of spuds when their bodies change) at will. Plenty of other people are child stars, including the other Jackson 4 - can they rape children as they see fit too?

I mean, I’ve seen some MJ loon grasp at some very dodgy straws but this is such a ridiculous straw it would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking depressing.

Anyway what if Asda Dave DID have his childhood robbed - what if he WAS a child star that didn’t make it as an adult? Happens to lots of child stars. Would Asda Dave be OK to have a load of little boys in his bed for sleepovers, rotate them as friends until they’re a teen and procure sons and daughters by dodgy means?

Just trying to understand the rules here

That's NOT in any way what I meant. I meant he could blame the sleep-overs and hanging out with kids on not having a childhood not that it excuses abuse! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I wasn't crystal clear on what I meant and not that you're intentionally twisting my words.

Anyway what if Asda Dave DID have his childhood robbed - what if he WAS a child star that didn’t make it as an adult?

Then he probably wouldn't be in the situation MJ was, you can come up with as many hypotheticals as you like-only MJ lived the life MJ had. He wasn't Dave from Asda. Most famous star in the world bar none and most famous 10 year old who carried the band unlike his much older brothers bar Marlon who was close in age.

So you accept that it IS dodgy behaviour to share your bed with little boys, to have them be your best friends and companions (until they grow too old ie turn into a teenager or younger) and behave like a little boy to life their friendship in. You accept that’s weird, and that it’s weird if Asda Dave does it. And it’s weird presumably because that’s not appropriate or safe behavior, yes?

Yet Jackson is the only man in the world who it’s not weird but understandable? That this means the behaviour is not actually unsafe of inappropriate because he is the only person in the world to experience a very specific set of circumstances. This man - who is NOT a child, or childlike in anyway - is at the other end of the scale to Dangerous Asda Dave. And the children who’d be victims under Asda Dave are the exact opposite under Michael Jackson?

Have I got that right?

Can I ask - why do you think he ditched these little boys as is best friend around the age of 12? Because he is apparently a child at heart? Funny - I don’t know many man children who achiever what he did, who wrote music and perform and run businesses and a brand. Who drink and ply children with alcohol. That doesn’t normally go hand in hand.

Funnily enough? The psychology points to those with no childhoods - abused, feral, and isolated children - to actually be loners in adult life. Not eccentric ‘children at heart’.

I do wonder why the thousands of other child actors who had ‘no childhood’ - Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, Britney Spears, Shirley Temple, the whole do the Royal Family - have never had grossly inappropriate relationships with little boys.

The fact is Jackson DID have a childhood. He just didn’t have a typical one - and this is the straw the deluded sycophants cling onto in their desperation to excuse what they know is his revolting and dangerous behaviour. Yet it is never used for other people and it is never, ever an acceptable excuse to be a walking safeguarding issue.

So you accept that it IS dodgy behaviour to share your bed with little boys, to have them be your best friends and companions (until they grow too old ie turn into a teenager or younger) and behave like a little boy to life their friendship in. You accept that’s weird, and that it’s weird if Asda Dave does it. And it’s weird presumably because that’s not appropriate or safe behavior, yes?

I think it's VERY weird, as I said everything he did was weird, inappropriate too-we can all agree on that. I just think the allegations should be what is focused on not that he had boys stay over-it's not illegal in and of itself. If it was he would've been convicted. I mean why are you telling me all this-go tell the police or the courts he had boys stay over and how this is 100% proof he abused them!

I don't know that he dropped the kids-he stayed friendly with Macaulay into adulthood, Jordy and Gavin were obviously removed from his company after the allegations. Someone said Wade had his wedding or something at Neverland-doesn't seem like he dropped him. Maybe they dropped him? Did you stay best friends with everyone you knew from childhood? Or maybe he realised he couldn't trust them anymore once they got older-he was stabbed in the back by too many people. Kids don't care about money or fame, adults do. Once people are hard up for money, they can turn on you a la Wade.

@Firefly1987 he kept up with MC because he never went as far with MC; he wouldn't have gotten away with abusing him because he used money and fame and influence to groom and control the families... the Culkins had that by themselves. As for Wade being in his life, that's explained in Finding Neverland as I recall... Wade wants to keep up a relationship to continue to convince himself that what happened wasn't just run-of-the-mill paedophile/victim but something less awful.

You dont seem to understand that oeople are allowed to have a different opinion to you. You sound extremely controlling

Some non famous people will have had traumatic or abusive childhoods, some adults will be childlike because of learning disabilities or SEN. This might make it understandable why someone might behave a certain way but that wouldn't make it acceptable or excusable to have non related children in their bed, or invite children for sleepovers.
Of course MJ had a pretty unique childhood...and he might have felt he missed out on lots of things ....some could potentially be re-lived in adulthood without harm to others, but creating "friendships" with young boys and having them stay in your bedroom is not appropriate whatever the circumstances imo

The whole thing with MJ aside you don’t seem to actually like your DP at all, OP.

Why are you with him? What are you gaining from this relationship?

Well that's bollocks for a start, I've felt that way since before his interview in 2003 or whenever it was when he admitted it himself . It certainly wasn't invited during any trial.

And yes, sleeping in a bed with young boys is enough for me to know there was something seriously wrong with the guy. Its probably enough for the majority of people

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!

I've followed everything which by reading your comments on here you clearly haven't outside of watching long debunked doco's like lying neverends and reading the tabloid stories. If you had you would have spotted all the things I've listed like the rest of the world has. We know the station didn't exist because of the ariel footage of the ranch during the early to mid 90's, Liz Taylor's wedding, the company that built the bloody thing, the guy that run the ranch and the permits. Even Dan Reed the director of Lying Neverends has conceded that it's not true.

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".

There absolutely has. In leaving neverland. You should know if you had seen it about these events such as the Grammy's in LA in 1989 where Safechuck specifically talks about in great detail how he was molested after MJ's performance....only it's easy to prove that 1) the Grammy's wasn't in LA in 1989, 2) Michael didn't perform at them and 3) Michael wasn't even in attendance at the Grammy's in 1989. This is something easy to believe if you don't know facts and details so I can understand why people such as yourself take it as gospel. What I don't understand is the insistence of arguing it anyway once you have found out.
You would also know that MJ would not have been able to molest anybody at Thanks Giving dinner at Simi Valley in 1987. Again, which he went into great detail to explain to sound plausible and again it would be easy enough to believe on the face of things until the most basic of fact checking uncovers that Jackson was actually 11,500km away in Austrailia performing on the Bad Tour - whoops. California is in North America. Australia is in Oceania which as I stated are 2 entirely different continents. Following now? Ironically when MJ was in Australia as you have now discovered is when MJ met Wade - so which of them is lying 🤔🤔😂🤣
The next thing you seem to have no clue about dispite following this all so closely is the hot air balloon story. This is part of what the Arvizo's actually went to court with after radically changing their original sworn statements when it was discovered that the period of time they set their abuse in was actually again when Jackson was not even in the country. This was discovered after a file for the defense was found in an area not on the warrant and was taken anyway. Alarmingly the judge still allowed it, but even that didn't manage to make their story any more believable.

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.

Again, there haven't been 22 payouts and again we know that from the prosecutions side. They the people against Jackson incase you are unaware. They tried to prove the pattern of behaviour of molesting boys, getting caught and then paying them off - perfectly reasonable in my opinion to do so as that is the common thought of Jackson among the uneducated and not interested as that would be quite damaging. Unfortunately for them no such things were ever found from Jackson personally or among any of his companies or insurances outside of the 1993 civil settlement. You are lying.

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.

There aren't many acusers at all. 5 out of the thousands upon thousands of kids that Jackson had access to over the years and all with their own issues that keep tripping them up. "Where there is smoke there is fire" is meaningless word salad in the reality. We know this because he was accused more often of being the baby daddy and of plagiarism than of child abuse so by your own line of thought he was more more likely to be a womanising thief than a child molester.
I have seen leaving neverland and these few points among many, many, many others which I am happy to go through are the reason why I don't believe them. And by the way they are not kids, they are fully grown adults in their 40's with financial problemsa and families of their own. If you had seen leaving neverland, you would know that also.

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.

All the footage shows is MJ shopping with somebody. In no way does it prove either who the other people there are or what was bought. What is more damaging evidence however is this:
It was noticed that this particular scene didn't look right. It was noticed how his clothes kept changing in an edit. This was denied for months and months and months as they were accused of filming it like a scripted scene. It was then pointed out the seasons outside of the window also changed. The original Air B&B thank you messages from the director were then made public and were 18 months apart. It was then conceded that this scene was refiilmed during puck-ups 18 months later which then lead to asking why the lies about doing something so simple for so long. It was then discovered that James's Etsy account had been shopping for the exact same ring he then showed in the new scenes 18 months later. It even had the same handle as his Twitter account to condemn him further. I personally noted how a ring supposedly given to a little kid almost fit the finger of a fully grown adult and then there was mere issue of this ring being given to him in 1988 when it wasn't designed until 2009, 21 years later by Rolex if I remember correctly.
The main issue with this story however is that is was recognised as being heard before. Indeed it had. There were 2 or 3 versions where the recipient of the ring changed and was scrapped when the named recipient came out fighting and denied it ever happened and threatened to sue. It was then found as being lifted word by word from page 79 of a Nambla peado fantasy book by Victor Guttierez named Michael Jackson Was My Lover which was sued for $3m.
And just as a final thought, the man as you rightly say here as apposed to boy as you have said previously was actually an actor once so you'd expect a better performance. I especially liked the long hard blink he does which is a technique to try and bring on a tear when performing. Go watch it again 👍

He gave minors alcohol in pop cans and called it Jesus juice. He had children in his bed. He's a pedo through and through. No idea why his music is still played. But then powerful people usually get away with ur don't they?

This tale of Jesus juice was debunked in court, how do you not know this? It was even reinacted in the show that was put on as the trial was running to show what happened that day. Plus the entire transcripts have been available for years.

If anybody was asleep in your bed would you struggle to not molest them? If yes, stay away from woman and children. If no you have just refuted your own point.
I'm assuming only MJ is a paeod for having kids in his bed, and Liz Taylor, Oprah, Miko Brando, Kit Culkin, Joy Robson and many African and travelling families who do it are not, yeah?

His music is still played because leaving neverland decimated the whole narrative that have been crafted the previous 30 years and the world decided it was bollocks. After all, you can't molest kids in multiple buildings 6 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.

Being powerful hasn't helped Epstein, Maxwell, Harris, Saville, R Kelly, Weinstein, Karl Logan, Ian Watkins, OJ Simpson or tons of people. So your comment is not only inaccurate it is well and truly sunk.

The Gynoids is one of the books taken in the police raid. They used it in his trial. If you knew what you were talking about you would be aware of this as it's a pretty big (and hilariously embarrassing for them) point.
Maybe the fact that Aerosmith and Beyoncé have used it recently for their own careers has something to do with it 🤔🤣

My responses are actually the long recorded legal facts and evidence from over the past 30 years. Calling it 'tosh' will never change history or legal facts and just goes to show your complete inability to challenge a word of it with your knowledge or what would be better, actual evidence.

FACTS TRUMP OPINION 100% OF THE TIME 😉

Yet they have been named by the accusers you say you do believe as victims.

They have also been named by staff such as the maid and bodyguards who people always cite as concrete proof and believable.
(Of course they will ignore the fact they admitted to making these stories up on the stand to sell to the media because they were offered so much money - but still) 🤣🤦🏻‍♂️