Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Michael Jackson programme ..

261 replies

bundle · 03/02/2003 17:06

..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 )

OP posts:
Clarinet60 · 07/02/2003 11:15

Whether he is a paedophile or not remains to be seen. I think we are upset enough at merely witnessing those motherless children being brought up by nannies in an abnormal environment and occasionally looked after by someone who hasn't the least clue how to handle children. Did that dangling episode look like someone who has ever carried a baby? How many bottles did he look like he'd ever given the child before? The poor baby looked terrified. Isn't that cause enough for our disgust?

willow2 · 07/02/2003 11:27

Oh FFS! If Granada had agreed not to feature the children do you not think it a bit odd that MJ allowed them to be filmed so willingly? If there was a piece of paper agreeing to this you can bet that a)MJ would not have allowed the cameras near them and b) Granada would not have done it - because they would undoubtedly have their pants sued off them as a result. Not only that, but the Producer and Director, who I used to work with, could have been sued too - for millions. She has overcome great adversity to do incredibly well in her chosen career and is incredibly upfront in her dealings with whoever she is filming. She is not the sort of person to say one thing and do another, so I can't believe that she would have behaved in such an underhand manner and taken such a risk. If there is a liar in the camp my money's on Jackson.

oxocube · 07/02/2003 11:28

I'm with Rhubarb on this one. I didn't see the programme although I admit to finding MJ very bizzare to say the least, but I don't think that gives me the right to label him as a child molestor. I simply don't know the facts and think that there seems to have been a great deal of sensationalising (sp?) by the media. Okay, common sense tells me he is bonkers but that does not necessarily make him an evil person. And no, I wouldn't let my children stay at his house, but neither would I let them stay anywhere unless I knew the parents pretty well and trusted them completely.

Clarinet60 · 07/02/2003 12:38

My thoughts echo yours, willow2. The cameras were rolling - he had the childrens heads covered. What did he think the filming was for - a keepsake for Martin's own video collection? As you say, FFS, with knobs on!

musica · 07/02/2003 13:04

One of the 'classic' things a paedophile does though, is the element of secrecy - telling the children 'not to tell anyone', 'it's our secret' and 'you'll be in trouble if you tell anyone' - the police said this only this week on the BBC website. So I would be surprised if a child molester invited cameras in and invited such suspicion.

I'm not referring to his parenting skills or lack of them, just to the allegations of molesting children.

hmb · 07/02/2003 13:14

It seems to me that stars who want to keep their children out of the limelight do it very well. Mel Gibson spings to mind. His children are left alone by the press, and he does not parade them, he guards their privacy. I realise that the press can be dreadful at invading the privacy of celebs, but MJ seems to want to play the system. He displays the children and then does all those wierd things with mask, and veils. He needs to make his mind up.

aloha · 07/02/2003 13:20

Absolutely agree- you can live in privacy and still be a big star if you really want to. He clearly doesn't. How did everyone know he was going to the zoo that day? Does he look like he dislikes crowds of fans and cameras. nooo... Also the masks are terrible. I've not seen one convincing explantion for them and he says the kids have to wear them whenever they leave Neverland. Babies in particular have a very strong instinctive horror of anything covering their faces, it is a primitive reflex that goes deep,

Finally, we all using the term 'children' very generally here. Michael Jackson claimes to love 'children'. What he seems to mean by that is a very specific child - invariably male, and aged between 11 and 13. They are his travelling companions (remember, he took one on his 'honeymoon' with Lisa Marie Presley) and his companions at endless events through the years. By complete coincidence, no doubt this is exactly the same age as the perfect child sought by a preferential paedophile.

zebra · 07/02/2003 14:14

Ok, I stand corrected that Brooke Shields & Liz Taylor had/will have kids -- but that's the point, isn't it? Celebs can hide their kids if they choose to; it's like Jacko thinks the media is really a friendly pussy cat that would cuddle up to him if only he fed it the right tidbits (instead of a pack of lean mean rabid psycho-cannibalistic hyenas that better characterises journos). How many of you know what Harrison Ford's kids look like? Even Madonna manages to keep hers pretty well hidden away.

I guess I'm fascinated by Jacko because of his denial about self-mutilation and other flagrant patterns of irrational behaviour; i can't imagine anybody fancying him enough to have his kids, either.

thumper · 07/02/2003 14:20

Tamz77, he wasn't convicted of abusing Jordan Chandler because he reached an out of court settlement with him and his family for around $20 million before it got to court. Now why did he do that?

breeze · 07/02/2003 14:25

I am not saying that Mj is guilty of anything, but if he paid off jordan chandler and he was innocent, why put himself in the position of allowing further children in his room and therefore putting himself at risk from further lawsuits.

SRM · 07/02/2003 14:30

Whatever else the MJ programme showed, it must be that he is incredibly disturbed and that his poor children which he thinks were given to him as presents from their mothers (!!), are caught in his biazzare version of reality. You try to feel sorry for him, but then realise he uses money to allow him to behave in anyway he choses which can't be right........
I also loved the shopping manager rubbing his hands though........

Demented · 07/02/2003 17:50

Totally agree that if MJ didn't want the kids on TV he shouldn't have allowed them to be filmed in the first place. I have heard that sales of MJ's albums since he was on TV are up significantly so the programme must have done him some good!

breeze · 07/02/2003 17:58

Don't know why some people are complaining about Martin Bashir. I mean he did spend 8 months with MJ, so what do you expect

Lucy123 · 07/02/2003 18:30

they should have got Louis theroux to film it!

But even though I was totally disturbed by the programme and think they should send social services in right now, I don't think that the fact that MJ paid of his accusers makes him guilty. A court case would have been a complete circus.

aloha · 07/02/2003 18:56

He agreed to do the interview with Bashir because he has an obsession with Princess Diana - I don't think he would have done Theroux after seeing the tapes of his previous programmes! He may be mad but he's not that stupid. I think the reason Diana chose him was because she had a real thing for Asian men at the time and he reminded her of Hasnat Khan. She was very pleased with the 'there are three of us in this marriage' interview, though at the time I thought it made her look as mad as a snake.

Lara2 · 07/02/2003 18:59

But what I can't imagine is that he has ever had sex with a woman in his life! So the children ( poor things !!) may be his, but there's atificial insemination isn't there? He's almost asexual - if it wasn't staring you in the face that he has all the traits of a preferential paedophile! Did anyone see Mark Lester( he of Oliver fame )on TV last night spouting such crap as ".. But I've held Michael's children until they fell asleep!" And that has exactly what to do with the fact that 12 year old boys sleep in his room??

aloha · 07/02/2003 19:15

I suppose the only explanation I can think of that would account for his having no sex drive at all is that he has some low testosterone syndrome or female hormone treatment, which would explain the 'breasts' and voice. However these usually result in sterility...

aloha · 07/02/2003 19:15

BTW this thread may be mean, but not half as mean as keeping children isolated, masked and motherless...

Moomin · 07/02/2003 19:22

Anyone wonder why he'd want Mark Lester as one of his close celebrity friends? i.e. cute blond child star. Bet he wouldn't want Johnny Vegas as his bezzie mate!

Tinker · 07/02/2003 19:24

When my brother was about 11, he had a bit of a crush on Mark Lester - kept going to see Oliver on his own.

breeze · 07/02/2003 20:28

Just watched the follow up programme and can't believe that only 86% of people though it was wrong for him to share his room with other children.

tomps · 07/02/2003 20:32

cheers moomin - you've just reminded me of my weird celebrity crush

musica · 07/02/2003 21:07

Presumably Mark Lester isn't now a cute blond child star...unless he's discovered some eternal youth potion!

hmb · 07/02/2003 21:23

Isn't he an osteopath, or something similar??

musica · 07/02/2003 21:50

I don't know - I thought he was on Trisha or something like it recently talking about how bad it is for children to be 'child stars'.