Michael Jackson

[C4tintherug]

Why has Michael Jackson not been cancelled?

I don’t understand why a musical has been made out of his music, and why his music is played at school discos and is still everywhere.

After I watched the documentary where the men described how he raped them, I won’t listen to his music at all, in fact, I feel a sense of disgust when it is played publicly.

I don’t understand why we seem to have cancelled everyone else except him. Is it because he died before he was officially found guilty?

Of course you can say that child abuse, irrespective of the circumstances, was wrong.

I don't believe Cheryl dated him when he was 14. I believe they met when he was 14. Presley dated Presilla when she was 14 and he was 24. It's well documented. Years later, Bill Wyman dated 13 year old Mandy Smith, that was also wrong.

Abusing kids is bad - hope that's clear, dearest.

Also Are you a teacher?? Shouldn’t you be safeguarding teenage girls not making excuses for nonces.

No you didn’t answer it, you merely said you would “abide” by the law.

That doesn’t answer the question, if your child was abused, whether you would stop believing them if the protagonist was found innocent.

Why on earth would you think of anyone doubting he was guilty as being unintelligent ? We all have the facts, we all interpret them differently. Some - as evidenced here - prefer to go on their own gut feeling and try to wrap that up as ‘proof innit’. I know which I would consider the more unintelligent approach.

It’s not merely opinion that MJ has a face very disfigure by plastic surgery.

I don’t think everyone does have the facts.

I work on facts - direct evidence from the complainants, direct evidence from MJ himself who admitted he slept in beds with children, and from multiple items found in the police search.

I don’t go on feelz and fandom.

No I’m saying he is exactly the same as Michael Jackson, he isn’t a convicted sexual abuser just as you say, Michael wasn’t convicted either

That doesn’t answer the question, if your child was abused, whether you would stop believing them if the protagonist was found innocent.

Surely you mean if my child alleged that they had been abused. I’ve answered this twice now. Whether I believed or disbelieved my child would be irrelevant after a verdict of not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And whether I continued to believe them after the verdict would depend on many things, including whether my child was always truthful, whether I had any doubts about the veracity of their allegations myself, and the strength of the evidence behind the verdict. I would have to accept the verdict of a jury who were in possession of the full facts and made that determination, so as I say, whether I believed the child or not is irrelevant in the end.

The rule of law shouldn’t be down to a gut feeling or familial bias - that’s why family members are not allowed to sit on juries. They can’t be objective.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In any case, it was a civil case, MJ could have fought til the end but he chose to settle.

For the people who claim JC’s allegations were invented by his father, the second case, was initially brought by JC alone, in which he summarised the abuse, showing that his allegations did not come from his father.

I know MJ fans are weird but claiming that anyone wants someone to be a paedophile is particularly twisted. It’s terrible, terrible shame for all his victims.

I’m inferring you don’t actually have kids as this approach is very strange.

You either believe your kid of you don’t. If you do, you know they’re telling the truth about abuse and the perpetrator is found not guilty - if you took the approach you outlined above you would simply lose your child’s respect and trust for good.

You are not wrong op. Any other man would be ‘cancelled’ for regularly inviting other people’s young children into their bed regardless if anything sexual took place because it is entirely inappropriate and grooming behaviour. But because MJ was briefly the most famous person on the planet he gets ‘a pass’ from way too many people.

Most reasonable reasonable people, including MJ fans, who watched the doc you mentioned would be disgusted at his music still being celebrated at public events too.

For context, my DP was a massive MJ fan, had tickets to his tour and was devastated when he died but he will not listen to MJ again.

Personally I think he's music is fantastic. Magnastorm

It still doesn’t prove guilt or innocence, wherever the allegations came from. And there are some here who appear to be prepared to go to any lengths to brand MJ as a paedophile, including presenting their own opinions and ‘research’ as well as random documentaries as fact and proof of guilt, and asserting that there were ‘victims’ when the case wasn’t proven. Not to mention showing their own bias as branding MJ fans ‘weird’. That’s what’s twisted.

What is twisted is grooming children, sleeping in bed with them, taking them oit in public like a teddy bear and owning a lot of paedophilic literature.

The last time I looked a documentary wasn’t a court of law. That’s trial by media. And how is your DP’s attitude to MJ ‘context’ ? It doesn’t support anything but his own opinion.

None of which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I was never particularly a fan of MJ and I agree, a lot of what came out at the trial spoke to the fact that he was definitely odd, but the fact remains that he was found not guilty on all charges. That’s the rule of law. Mob rule, which I get the impression some here would like applied to MJ, is an entirely different beast.

He admitted to sleeping with those little boys, there are photo's of him in public with the little boys and all the stuff that was found in his house is available for all to see online. Innocent in court does not mean he actually was innocent either!

I give up. And yes I do have children. I just don’t believe in standing by a family member if there is any doubt as to the veracity of their accusations against someone, and that, as I’ve explained several times, would depend on the circumstance - whether they were a truthful person, whether their evidence had been adequately weighed during the trial, and whether I had any reason to doubt them even before the verdict had been returned. It’s not black and white.

Let me ask you a question. If your adult child was accused of being a paedophile and they were adamant that they were innocent, would you continue to believe them even if they were convicted ?

When a man is not charged with sexual assault but we all know he did it- because there’s no proof- it’s always his word against her word and to convict somebody you need solid evidence.
Is this not the same thing with MJ…. his word against their words…. And he was lawyered up to the max, I wouldn’t have expected any other outcome.

Isnt sexual assault one of the hardest crimes to get a conviction from?

if my child said similar I would always believe them and I am saddened for the poster who is saying that if a jury finds them not guilty then that’s the end of it.. 😔

Of course it doesn’t. But the jury were in possession of all the facts when they made their decision. They still found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He was accused of abusing children. Inviting them to sleep in his bed - although really odd and disturbing - doesn’t prove he actually abused them. The charges were specific, the evidence didn’t support a conviction. And that’s my only point. If the charges had been inviting children into his bed and spending more time in their company than others thought reasonable, then he would have been bang to rights. Doesn’t mean he abused them.

Didn't his defense hand pick that jury though? And even if they didn't how do we know they weren't either fans/starstruck or paid off on the sly?

Then I’ll ask you the same question. If your own child was accused of being a paedophile and maintained their innocence, would you still believe them innocent if a jury found them guilty ? Whether or not you believe in either instance isn’t black and white, as I’ve explained until I’m exhausted, it depends on a lot of things and it’s not black and white. And once more, this is why family members don’t serve on juries. None of these arguments allow for objectivity.

Cancelling an abuser is about not enabling them to profit from a position which they have held during times when they were abusers and may have used, directly or indirectly to procure victims. If Gary Glitter, like Jackson, had died without being brought to justice, chances are his music might still be played. But whilst he is still alive and could still use any profit/status from the sale of his records to continue abusing, there is purpose to cancelling.
There's no point cancelling Jackson. It wouldn't serve any purpose. I still wouldn't be interested in the musical of his life, but since he won't benefit in any way shape or form, I don't have a problem with it existing.

Wow, you’re really reaching on this one. We don’t, just as we don’t know that they were. But there is a jury selection process in which the jurors are questioned as to their suitability to serve and to uncover any bias either way. And defence lawyers don’t ’hand pick’ juries. During jury selection in the US, it’s the judge who decides what questions should be posed to potential jurors to decide their suitability to serve. And the list of questions is drawn up after consultation with all parties, not just the defence.