Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Michael Jackson is dead

786 replies

QOD · 25/06/2009 22:49

sad

OP posts:
dittany · 28/06/2009 18:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 28/06/2009 18:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bobbysmum07 · 28/06/2009 19:28

I see no similarity at all.

monkeytrousers · 28/06/2009 19:28

they were a band in the 90s

violethill · 28/06/2009 19:31

Me neither bobbysmum, but then hey, we're in denial

policywonk · 28/06/2009 19:32

The Abusive Catholic Priests were a band?

spokette · 28/06/2009 19:35

Dittany

If you have proof for your claims, you really should have let the authorities know.

I seem to remember that in a civilised society, one is innocent until proven guilty.

I hope that if a child of yours is ever accused of something, that they will be afforded the right of being innocent until proven guilty, even though you are incapable and unwilling to extend that right to others.

BTW, MJ is dominating the album and single charts.

RIP MJ

Quattrocento · 28/06/2009 19:37

at Policy

Oh yes, they had quite a following in certain circles

policywonk · 28/06/2009 19:40

I bet you were there, Quattro. Gobbing, probably.

What d'you think then? Would you say MJ dunnit? (I don't see how anyone can be sure on the evidence that's currently available.)

violethill · 28/06/2009 19:44

I think all the available evidence was put before the jury policy, and they considered it and gave their verdict. They know far more than the rest of us ever will.

dittany · 28/06/2009 19:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

spokette · 28/06/2009 19:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

violethill · 28/06/2009 19:51

Anyway he's topping the album charts and that's a fact!

Quattrocento · 28/06/2009 19:52

Agree with you that no-one can know for certain. My take is that he was badly advised on the first case. He didn't defend it, despite the character of the family behind it. He just paid them a fortune to go away.

Which then bred the second case and it would have been never ending. He'd have been prey to any unscrupulous parent if he caved again so he had to defend. And was found innocent.

violethill · 28/06/2009 19:56

Very succintly and clearly put quattro. I agree. He would have been better to defend first time around, but was no doubt very badly advised. And let's face it, with the sort of shite he had around him as role models, I doubt he'd have known good advice if it hit him in the face. If there had been genuine child abuse in the first case, you'd think the parents might be more interested in justice than making a fast buck too wouldn't you.....

Having got himself into a corner, he then had to take the stand and defend the second case and was found not guilty of the charges.

policywonk · 28/06/2009 20:03

That's interesting Quatt, thank you.

Jumente · 28/06/2009 20:07

Dittany, you really discredit yourself by defending what is surely clear to you as well as the rest of us, prejudiced waffle.

Previously I've been of the opinion that you were pretty clever but now it just sounds like you have a fixed rule for every situation and will resort to low level attacks on others' opinions just to 'win' an argument. It would look far better if you occasionally admitted you might be wrong about, well, anything really.

It seems a shame to let a good brain fall victim to a dogma of quite silly proportions.

But as you suggested I needn't read your posts - I just wish I could enjoy them as I used to.

spokette · 28/06/2009 20:10

Quattro

You echo my sentiments perfectly.

SolidGoldBrass · 28/06/2009 20:20

Thing is, just because one of the families who accused Jackson of child abuse turned out to be a bunch of dubious lightfingered extortionists doesn't actually make him not a nonce.

bobbysmum07 · 28/06/2009 20:22

No, actually, it was both families.

policywonk · 28/06/2009 20:23

That's true, of course, SGB. Aren't we left, though, in the simple position of having no fucking clue what happened?

monkeytrousers · 28/06/2009 20:23

'Tis is the mystery of the sphynx..

violethill · 28/06/2009 20:24

I assume by 'nonce' you mean child sex offender? (Let's call it what it is)

Of course, what you say is entirely correct SGB. But it doesn't make him a sex offender either. Which is what the more intelligent posts on the thread have been repeatedly pointing out.

bobbysmum07 · 28/06/2009 20:36

He was an easy target, let's face it.

In his desperation to be liked, or loved, or to make a genuine human connection, he put himself in a vulnerable position.

He wasn't a normal person, but how could he be? He'd never had a normal life.

And because he looked weird, it was easy to believe he was a predator.

thegingerwhinger · 28/06/2009 20:45

I don't know the truth, and I doubt any of us ever will.

I was a bit when I read this in the paper today (ok, it's the NOTW, I think it's an extract from a book...may not be credible but it apparently a 'quote' from Jordy Chandler's father)

"...one night Evan went into the bedroom and found [Jackson] and Jordy under the same blanket.

"Jordan was in the foetal position with Michael hugging him from behind with his hand in my son's crotch," said Evan.

"I was extremely confused. I thought that my son was a homosexual. I left them and decided to speak later when I'd calmed down."

I would question that reaction of a father finding his son in bed with a grown man having his crotch fondled. I'm quite sure I'd rip the said man's arm off.

Having thankfully never been in that situation (and hopefully never will be), I obviously don't know for sure how I'd react.