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
housethatbuiltme · 07/12/2023 14:37

I find it weird how many people are 'cancelled' but he wasn't.

Like I feel from the other members of lost profits for having their achievements cancelled all for the one persons actions but then you see MJ not getting cancelled at all but still being held as 'a hero' by many.

Its weird that a knock on effect punished innocent people in one case and does even punish the main person in the other.

Mirabai · 07/12/2023 14:39

Raindancer411 · 07/12/2023 13:03

Personally I side with husband and like another poster said he was never convicted, and is no longer with us. I think let him rest and if his music plays, turn a deaf ear and let those who enjoy it, just enjoy it.

We all have different views, and we do not have to agree.

You need to watch Leaving Neverland with OP’s DP.

monsteramunch · 07/12/2023 14:41

@Raindancer411

One of the richest artists of all time, who could have paid for any lawyer he wanted, chose to pay off an accuser rather than refuse to do so and instead clear his name in court.

Have a think about why that might be...

Shakeylegs · 07/12/2023 14:41

mantyzer · 07/12/2023 14:11

@Shakeylegs the examples you are giving are miles away from child abuse and rape.
For example the Beatles lyric is yucky, but the Beatles themselves at the time were aged 20 to 23 years old, so not that much older than a 17 year old.

One of my two examples was Bill Wyman, who was 52 when he married an 18 year old he’d been in a relationship with since she was 14. Is that not child abuse?

As for the Beatles, I’m with you, although plenty would scream bloody murder on here if a rich and famous 23 year old was dating a 17 year old (or indeed if their 17 year old child was dating a random 23 year old).

My point is that if we start hating the art of dodgy artists, we might end up hating a lot of art!

Mirabai · 07/12/2023 14:41

housethatbuiltme · 07/12/2023 14:37

I find it weird how many people are 'cancelled' but he wasn't.

Like I feel from the other members of lost profits for having their achievements cancelled all for the one persons actions but then you see MJ not getting cancelled at all but still being held as 'a hero' by many.

Its weird that a knock on effect punished innocent people in one case and does even punish the main person in the other.

He’s too powerful even after death - record company and his family rely on his $$$$$ royalties.

It is absolutely disgraceful that the US has not has its Jimmy Savile moment regarding MJ.

Mirabai · 07/12/2023 14:41

Shakeylegs · 07/12/2023 14:41

One of my two examples was Bill Wyman, who was 52 when he married an 18 year old he’d been in a relationship with since she was 14. Is that not child abuse?

As for the Beatles, I’m with you, although plenty would scream bloody murder on here if a rich and famous 23 year old was dating a 17 year old (or indeed if their 17 year old child was dating a random 23 year old).

My point is that if we start hating the art of dodgy artists, we might end up hating a lot of art!

Show quote history

She was 13.

Mirabai · 07/12/2023 14:42

VanityDiesHard · 07/12/2023 13:59

I watched Leaving Neverland and I don't believe the men. I don't really think you can compare MJ to Savile.

Jesus Christ.

ellie09 · 07/12/2023 14:44

To be honest, none of us will really know the truth about MJ now.

I have my doubts either way to be honest. His kids defend him, especially Paris.

I still listen to his music and I certainly wouldn't start a row with someone for listening to it as it was very popular in peoples childhoods growing up.

Dappy55 · 07/12/2023 14:45

OP I fully agree with you and sadly people DID leave their kids with MJ! He groomed the parents as well and they were blinded by fame or money or whatever. Absolutely horrific

FrippEnos · 07/12/2023 14:46

PLP432

There must be a whole host of music, film and TV shows that you don't watch or listen to if you are going to go down this road.

When you look at various artists today they are either DV perpetrators, thieves, racists or active in glorifying crime.

Not ot mention the content of the "art" that they produce.

Also, YABU for pushing this to a ridiculous level and then calling your DH immature.

TommyNever · 07/12/2023 14:50

Michael Jackson was a very obvious paedophile, so I don't think you need to be defensive here. The quality of his music is not at all relevant, and it was laughable rubbish anyway.

Verv · 07/12/2023 14:50

Having a blazing row about a dead pop star is BU.
Red flagging your DP's ability to keep your children safe because he said "he didnt know" re MJ (and clearly hasnt researched him) is BVFU.

Most people can separate the art from the artists, and his music was game changing.

Hattie89 · 07/12/2023 14:51

InTheRainOnATrain · 07/12/2023 13:11

People want to ignore who he was because they really like the music and want to listen to it. It’s that simple. Yes he was monster but he was also incredibly talented and the songs were good. I don’t think anyone really wants to look at RH’s paintings (can’t recall ever having seen one) or watch old JS TV shows (well before my time) in the same way. Then it’s also easier to justify because he was found Not Guilty at trial. JS never stood trial, RH was found guilty. I don’t think they’re good comparisons because MJ is a particularly unique case. But I do agree with you and think it’s not appropriate to play in a shop. You should get your DH to watch Finding Neverland.

Yes, I think many separate the person from their art as they always say. I loved his music but find it uncomfortable to listen to now so don’t really since the documentary I suppose. We avoided it at our wedding because we know many will have strong views about it. I have another friend who was ok with Jackson Five stuff but avoided his own music. My husband’s cousin though recently had an MJ song as her first dance… grits teeth

VanityDiesHard · 07/12/2023 14:53

Mirabai · 07/12/2023 14:41

She was 13.

Show quote history

Correct. She was 13 when they started the 'relationship' (abuse) and 18 when they married.

Mumof2teens79 · 07/12/2023 14:56

CurlewKate · 07/12/2023 13:28

"t's really controlling to expect people to have the same opinion as you"

Not about paedophiles it isn't.

Disagree
We can reasonably expect to all agree paedophilia is wrong. We don't all have to agree if someone is guilty.
Neither OP or her DP, or anyone on this thread has direct knowledge either way....in fact no-one except the (alledged) victims and jackson know.

We can agree murder is wrong. It would controlling to expect everyone to agree that OJ Simpson was a murderer.
It's not even about the conviction or not. There are many wrongly convicted who got convictions overturned because someone refused to just accept there was no doubt.

The DP in this case wasn't even trying to claim he was definitely innocent....just that there is room for doubt each way.

Original poster
PLP432 · 07/12/2023 14:56

FrippEnos · 07/12/2023 14:46

PLP432

There must be a whole host of music, film and TV shows that you don't watch or listen to if you are going to go down this road.

When you look at various artists today they are either DV perpetrators, thieves, racists or active in glorifying crime.

Not ot mention the content of the "art" that they produce.

Also, YABU for pushing this to a ridiculous level and then calling your DH immature.

But he is immature.

Who starts shouting about returning Christmas presents somebody had bought for them? How was that at all relevant to the disagreement? Three Christmases in a row he has span that one if there's any sort of disagreement, it's so ungrateful and childish.

That wasn't all he said anyway, he was coming out with some right bollocks about knowing how i "really" feel about him.

For me the argument took hold when he announced that the man is innocent, all smug and cocky, as though he knows the ins and outs. He has never even bothered to listen to the victims version of events before reaching his foregone conclusion.

How ignorant must you be to reach a verdict based on one side of the story?

I've had enough of him and his bullshit. He's always thinking he knows everything and that he's right, when in actuality he's as thick as mince half of the time and doesn't bother to educate himself on anything he tries to talk about.

OP posts:
StrictlyComeSnoozing · 07/12/2023 14:57

I think its fucking weird that you're arguing with your husband because he's not interested in playing armchair detective. I wouldn't appreciate anybody preaching at me, regardless of the supposed issue.

You both need to grow up.

MooseAndSquirrelLoveFlannel · 07/12/2023 14:59

I enjoy the music, for he was an excellent and talented musician. I can also loathe and detest what he did, but throughout history there are examples of absolutely awful acts committed by very talented people and celebrities. If we shut ourselves away from all they did, there would ve very little left. Or is it just MJ you have an issue with? In which case you have no leg to stand on..

What's worse though, is you essentially told your husband that you thought he was a danger to your children and couldn't be alone with them. All because he didn't back you up on MJ music playing. Seriously melodramatic!!!

DownNative · 07/12/2023 15:00

@PLP432 your husband spot on regarding the 2005 court case based on the allegations of the Arvizos.

The Arvizos have a history of grifting celebrities as well as lying under oath in previous court cases, e.g. J.C. Penney case.

The long and short of it was all the Arvizos were caught lying on the stand. The jury didn't believe a word from any of them, especially not Gavin and his brother Star. Prosecutor Sneddon had his head in his hands when the mother proved to be a spectacularly bad prosecution witness on the stand.

The only clear conclusion in that trial could only be not guilty.

Showering?! Michael Jackson never did admit to Showering with minors at all which is what you suggested! That allegation came from disgruntled ex-employees who were discredited on the stand also.

You're clearly not as well informed on the allegations levelled against Michael Jackson as you like to believe you are.

Original poster
PLP432 · 07/12/2023 15:00

Mumof2teens79 · 07/12/2023 14:56

Disagree
We can reasonably expect to all agree paedophilia is wrong. We don't all have to agree if someone is guilty.
Neither OP or her DP, or anyone on this thread has direct knowledge either way....in fact no-one except the (alledged) victims and jackson know.

We can agree murder is wrong. It would controlling to expect everyone to agree that OJ Simpson was a murderer.
It's not even about the conviction or not. There are many wrongly convicted who got convictions overturned because someone refused to just accept there was no doubt.

The DP in this case wasn't even trying to claim he was definitely innocent....just that there is room for doubt each way.

Show quote history

He most definitely was claiming MJ was innocent.

I've summarised in my OP so as not to make the post so long it's unreadable but over the course of 10 minutes he gave two completely different justifications as to why MJ was innocent.

The first that he was just harmless and childlike and the second that he was found not guilty in court so therefore he couldn't have done anything.

OP posts:
FrippEnos · 07/12/2023 15:01

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 14:56

But he is immature.

Who starts shouting about returning Christmas presents somebody had bought for them? How was that at all relevant to the disagreement? Three Christmases in a row he has span that one if there's any sort of disagreement, it's so ungrateful and childish.

That wasn't all he said anyway, he was coming out with some right bollocks about knowing how i "really" feel about him.

For me the argument took hold when he announced that the man is innocent, all smug and cocky, as though he knows the ins and outs. He has never even bothered to listen to the victims version of events before reaching his foregone conclusion.

How ignorant must you be to reach a verdict based on one side of the story?

I've had enough of him and his bullshit. He's always thinking he knows everything and that he's right, when in actuality he's as thick as mince half of the time and doesn't bother to educate himself on anything he tries to talk about.

Show quote history

Almost as immature as starting a fight over a dead pop start and then calling your DH a safeguarding worry over it.

Mumof2teens79 · 07/12/2023 15:02

Shakeylegs · 07/12/2023 14:41

One of my two examples was Bill Wyman, who was 52 when he married an 18 year old he’d been in a relationship with since she was 14. Is that not child abuse?

As for the Beatles, I’m with you, although plenty would scream bloody murder on here if a rich and famous 23 year old was dating a 17 year old (or indeed if their 17 year old child was dating a random 23 year old).

My point is that if we start hating the art of dodgy artists, we might end up hating a lot of art!

Show quote history

It's illegal under current UK law as she was a minor....and most people would agree 14 is too young (and 52 old enough to be ashamed) but it's not the same as paedophilia which is technically attraction to pre-pubescent children
Please don't interpret this as justification, but it is an important distinction and becomes relevant when different countries do have different laws
(And scarily may become relevant again if some sontinue continue to argue young teens and children are able to make other decisions )

I personally don't see a huge problem with 17-23 age gap. It does depend on the people involved but I wouldn't want to make it illegal.

VanityDiesHard · 07/12/2023 15:03

DownNative · 07/12/2023 15:00

@PLP432 your husband spot on regarding the 2005 court case based on the allegations of the Arvizos.

The Arvizos have a history of grifting celebrities as well as lying under oath in previous court cases, e.g. J.C. Penney case.

The long and short of it was all the Arvizos were caught lying on the stand. The jury didn't believe a word from any of them, especially not Gavin and his brother Star. Prosecutor Sneddon had his head in his hands when the mother proved to be a spectacularly bad prosecution witness on the stand.

The only clear conclusion in that trial could only be not guilty.

Showering?! Michael Jackson never did admit to Showering with minors at all which is what you suggested! That allegation came from disgruntled ex-employees who were discredited on the stand also.

You're clearly not as well informed on the allegations levelled against Michael Jackson as you like to believe you are.

This exactly. This is why I get so frustrated when people put MJ in the same league as Savile and Harris and R Kelly etc. The case against him is not nearly as clear cut as his detractors seem to assume, he was the victim of various grifters and attempted shakedowns.

MooseAndSquirrelLoveFlannel · 07/12/2023 15:04

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 15:00

He most definitely was claiming MJ was innocent.

I've summarised in my OP so as not to make the post so long it's unreadable but over the course of 10 minutes he gave two completely different justifications as to why MJ was innocent.

The first that he was just harmless and childlike and the second that he was found not guilty in court so therefore he couldn't have done anything.

Show quote history

And he may be right! We don't know, we have people on one side saying he did it, we have people on the other side saying he didn't. We have MJ who denied it all and then died.

We have no PROOF! No CONVICTION.

I get what you're saying, but you don't know 100% for sure any more than DH does.

gannett · 07/12/2023 15:04

PLP432 · 07/12/2023 14:56

But he is immature.

Who starts shouting about returning Christmas presents somebody had bought for them? How was that at all relevant to the disagreement? Three Christmases in a row he has span that one if there's any sort of disagreement, it's so ungrateful and childish.

That wasn't all he said anyway, he was coming out with some right bollocks about knowing how i "really" feel about him.

For me the argument took hold when he announced that the man is innocent, all smug and cocky, as though he knows the ins and outs. He has never even bothered to listen to the victims version of events before reaching his foregone conclusion.

How ignorant must you be to reach a verdict based on one side of the story?

I've had enough of him and his bullshit. He's always thinking he knows everything and that he's right, when in actuality he's as thick as mince half of the time and doesn't bother to educate himself on anything he tries to talk about.

Show quote history

Why are you with someone you think is thick as mince?