Michael Jackson programme ..

[bundle]

..is on tonight, where he's being followed by Martin Bashir including around the infamous hanging the baby from the balcony incident (on Tonight..with Trevor MacDonald) - so don't forget to watch it should be a hoot
(I'm off out so I've just left an ansaphone message for dh to record it )

Must admit after looking at the programme I came away LESS sure that MJ is a practising paedophile. Like others here I think MJ has never grown up properly.

But disregarding the bed hopping and what goes on under the covers or not, I think there was enough open wierdness and lieing to warrent action on MJ keeping children as his 'pets'.

I hope that the parents of these children are invetigated as fully as Mj by the way. I cannot believe that they are blameless also.

Martin Bashir just missed so many opportunities to get MJ tripped up in his own lies. Like at the end when he was saying how he wants to 'save the world' kind of thing and make it a better place because so many children 'don't even eat dinner with their parents' ... hmmm ... would that be in the Jackson household we're talking about ? No evidence at all that he actually spends much time with his children that he loves so much. Popping off (without them ) to Las Vegas for no obvious reason, and needing gadgets and toys for when he's bored at night would suggest to me that he doesn't actually spend much time with them. How many single parents with 3 kids don't just collapse into bed as soon as possible once their children are asleep ? And that's only one of so many inconsistentcies (sp?) in his waffling. Don't think Louis would have got closer to the truth, just made the whole thing a bit weirder.

Tomps - I should imagine there are quite a few children around who see more of their nannies than they do their own parents, it's not just limited to MJ.

Who knows, he may well be a paedophile. But I just don't think so. Yes he lied about his face and his relationships, although he did confess later that he didn't have a relationship with the baby's mother. However those lies he told are really none of our business - how many women lie about whether or not they have had boob jobs? Or facelifts? It doesn't mean to say they lie about everything does it? And I am aware that just because he may not have sex with adults doesn't mean to say he is not a kiddie fiddler, but it doesn't mean to say he is either.

I know Mumsnet is great for debates. But there is a difference between bitching about celebs, and accusing someone of a really serious criminal offence. Social services, the police, the NSPCC have all seen that programme, MJ was honest in telling us that he lets kids sleep in his bed (though he did state that he did not invite them, they asked). I don't think a paedophile would be telling us all of this, they would be going out of their way to pretend they had nothing to do with children! My point is that if social services etc were suspicious, they can easily investigate him. But until that happens, we should be wary of throwing around such accusations. All we have to go on is a biased documentary and the tabloids, we simply cannot make a judgement on that.

I've discussed it with loads of people offline. My mum even asked me what I thought during one of our rare phone calls! With war looming, it's a relief to focus on something like this.

The whole thing is just horribly fascinating, like a car crash - you don't want to look and you know you shouldn't but you can't help peeking (and talking about it afterwards).

I saw yesterday's Mail today - at someone else's house, honest - and there was a piece by a psychiatrist who doubted he is a practising paedophile (I think that was the word he used). So it's not just us gullible mums.

Lynda Lee-Potter put the boot in as usual though.

I didn't see the programme, but I think whoever said that MJ was trying to recover his lost childhood is probably right. He started performing at 8, and historically, child prodigys, or people thrust into the limelight at an early age have had tremendous problems.

As far as being a paedophile, I have no idea - I am sure he is, in the literal sense of the word - in the same way a bibliophile loves books, and a francophile loves France, I'm sure he loves children very much. That doesn't necessarily lead to him abusing them though. It seems to me that we are very quick to condemn people - Matthew Kelly for example, who still hasn't been charged, and now someone who has not even been arrested by anybody, but has given an open account of how he is with children. Most paedophiles aren't obviously so - they seem like just normal people to the outside eye, and people are often surprised to learn the truth about them. Who knows, I may be proved wrong, but maybe we shouldn't condemn him yet.

I saw an interview with Debbie whatsherface, his first wife, on GMTV this morning, and she seemed as mad, if not worse, than he is. One minute she is saying that they have a normal family situation, and still do things together as a family and in the next breath she was saying that she doesn't allow the children to call her 'Mum' and that she had them as 'gifts' to Michael!!!!!

I thought in the programme he said the mothers don't see the children or was that my imagination? He contradicted himself so many times I think I may have lost the thread.

I expect not allowing the children to call her mum is one of the things she was paid hard cash for, along with the rental of her womb and the bodies of her kids. No, I don't know he's a paedophile, he just fits every single definition of the classic preferential abuser, he sleeps with children in his bed, has a real passion for pubertal boys (the classic preferential abuser's 'victim', has no sexual orientation to adults at all, loves children and has an extraordinary knack with them, thinks they put him in touch with 'the lost innocent part' of him, fills his home with things that are attractive to children and encourages them to have a really strange touchy-feely relationship with him. An abuser wouldn't think he was being a monster or that he was being cruel. He sees his preference as as a loving, tender, helpful thing so the fact that a child was sick would make him more likely to choose him rather than less IYKWIM. I suppose that if it was possible to tell a paedophile by looking at him then the average one wouldn't notch up hundreds of victims nor hold down jobs as priests or scoutmasters etc. But hey, I could be wrong. But frankly, even if I was wrong I still think that melty-faced freak is a monster who should be kept away from all children, particularly 'his' kids who are being brought up in such a horrible, destructive way. And I would think that if he was famous or not.

I wish those winky faces didn't pop up where you least expect them.

Yes, he did say the mothers didn't see the children because 'they couldn't handle it'. Then Mrs Bonkers says they have a 'family situation'. They make the Addams family look like The Waltons.

I tend to agree with Aloha and the points she has made.

Yes Lou33, I agree with Aloha too. Aloha, your postings are always spot on!

Tomps, another lie he told was when Martin Bashir first asked him about "Blanket's" mother - MJ said that she was someone that he had had a relationship with. Then later in the programme he said that he'd never met her, that she was just a surrogate mother who'd been chosen because of certain qualities that she possessed. Can't believe Bashir missed out on that one either.

Not only had he never met her... he was present at the birth. So how he quite managed that one I will never know.

Aloha - absolutely spot on.

Rhubarb - fair comment about nannies, but with all due respect, I think you over estimate the influence of mumsnet if you think it matters to anyone (apart from to ourselves) what gets written on here. But, as Aloha so eloquently calls him, the 'melty-faced freak' didn't oughta put himself on the telly if he didn't want to get talked / bitched / gossiped about. According to today's news, he's upset about the broadcast and feels betrayed by 'Marty'. Aaaah shame.

I personally think it's terrible that MJ has been subjected to this snide and indeed dangerous fallout after being so open and honest about his life. Some of the questions Bashir was asking...I mean, I know it's all great publicity for MJ but to be asked personal questions about your sex life, plastic surgery, family situation in an often aggressive and insinuating manner...I thought it was awful and was amazed MJ didn't call the whole thing off early on.

The interview has been the subject of conversation in just about every news programme and magazine programme I've seen since it was on, and many of the comments made about MJ have been slanderous. It's quite clearly implied in much of the press that he interferes with children in some way, and that's basically what you're saying if you disbelieve what he said himself about sharing his bed. He didn't say that he sleeps with children, that he watches them undress or that he rolls round naked with them. He says that they want to sleep where he sleeps and he lets them: HE sleeps elsewhere! The kids don't understand our twisted modern social mores about 'proper' degrees of contact between adults and children: the same mores that have led to fathers being afraid of hugging their children in public, and that have led to parents who take photos of heir kids in the bath being questioned by police on suspicion of abuse. All the kids want is to make the most of their few days spent with their idol, MJ is open and generous towards them and they respond to that.

I think MJ is naive but that's his only crime. Yes his lifestyle is fascinating in a tabloid kind of a way, but I don't see that he's done anything wrong. He wasn't convicted of abusing Jordan Chandler and, again because of our modern society, it was only a matter of time before someone made accusations against MJ of this kind, he's an easy target because he can never turn away from a child he perceives is suffering, unhappy or lacking in some respect.

As for his own kids...let the man get on with it!! So their mothers "gave them" to him, isn't that what surrogates do for 'normal' parents? The baby wasn't being hurt by wearing a veil for ten minutes while he was being filmed, and the older kids only wear masks when they're being chased by paparazzi. They didn't seem tomake too much of a fuss and they certainly seemed to love their dad. I guess it's fine for kids like Brooklyn Beckham to be sent to school with a team of eight bodyguards everyday...that's not going to mess them up...but having a dad who has plastic surgery and lives on a funfair is such a terrible thing??

Spot on Tamz77.

The person who came off worst IMO is Martin Bashir and the programme makers.

The programme confirmed to me never to let journalists/the media within a mile of myself or my family.
I have several friends who have been torn apart by truth twisting by journalists whom they trusted.

All that sucking up followed by putting the boot in was as disgraceful as it was predictable.

I am saddened at the nature of some of these contributions, the quickness to jump to unproven conclusions, and some of the deeply personal name calling. This forum is the only place I have witnessed this vindictive hate filled response.

Callington & Tamz77, I agree that the media are basically untrustworthy and I also wouldn't want them coming anywhere near me, but you have to wonder why Michael Jackson puts himself out there in the first place. He willingly goes on camera and talks about intimate details of his life, and then gets irate and upset when he gets taken the wrong way. He contradicted himself a few times during the programme so I don't believe he is being perfectly honest either, rather he is trying to manipulate the public in the same way the media is. I heard a report from the U.S. today that MJ was paid millions of dollars to do this programme, so it seems pretty obvious what the motivating factor behind it was. If Michael Jackson doesn't want to be held up for ridicule then he should make sure he doesn't put himself so blatantly in the spotlight to begin with. He should know the media well enough after all these years to conclude that perhaps the best thing to do is to keep his mouth shut.

message withdrawn

Just read the MJ has put in a complaint to the itc about the programme.

If he didn't want shots of his children shown then why allow them to film in the first place, i feel the MJ is now panicing because what he thought would be a good PR episode has gone horribly wrong.

If indeed he had been paid millions for doing this show (a mere drop in the ocean), they i think he can't really complain, he invited the camera's into his house, and i know they can do fancy things while editing, but what has affected most people is the scene with him and those kids.

Since the programme was showed this has been discussed if great length with lots of people outside of mumsnet, and as this is a network for people with their own children we feel even more for those kids IMO.

Celebrities ARE still people, and therefore should be subject to the same laws, ethics and codes of basic decency (such as not telling lies) and NOT excused because of the amount of cash they have. Eg by buying their way out of an unpleasant court case in case the truth has to be told.

I have never seen David or Victoria Beckham dangling their children over 8 storey balconies either, nor making Brooklyn walk about in a mask, put towels/scarves over Romeo's head, or take them out in the middle of a media scrum for the sake of publicity.

Courting publicity is one thing, but I'm damn sure that MJ didn't think that people would be accusing him of paedophilia because of it. I will say once again, that it is a very serious accusation to make and these days, the media in particular, seem to fling the word about at whoever takes their fancy. All of a sudden all these celebs are branded paedos and lose their jobs, reputation etc, before the police have even had a look in! It's the same with rape and John Leslie, he still hasn't been charged, but the media have branded him guilty and that's enough.

We are entering a world where our children will not even be allowed sleepovers in case the friend's parents are paedos, if a dad is caught taking a photo of his kids in the nude he will be branded a paedo and so on. It's ridiculous!