Music Michael Jackson is Dead (All general comment)

Pogue Mahone said:
I'm sorry but there's absolutely no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a fully-grown man to regularly share his bed with children who are not his own. Building a fecking fun-fair in his gaff is just taking the piss. People keep talking about his need to relive his own childhood or only feeling comfortable around kids but that's a fairly standard paedo excuse.

When that same man is clearly incapable/unwilling of having any kind of normal sexual relationship with adults then you don't need to be a forensic psychiatrist to work out that he's a nonce. The lack of evidence needed to prove this in a court of law is neither here nor there.

Talented dude but a seriously creepy individual.
Click to expand...

Theres just no excuse for it. You cant go inviting kids into your bedroom.

There was obviously something wrong with the guy, but those around him should have put a stop to it.

Though i guess if they are on his payroll, then they may have turned a blind eye to it.
 
Look at Britney Spears situation....

Her father had to get a court order taken out to stop her former manager and ex boyfriend (a paparazzi photographer) going anywhere near her.... He suspected them of facilitating her drug abuse and keeping her in the state she was in, obviously totally off the rails. They were obviously keeping her that way and milking it for everything it was worth until her father stepped in and, in her own interests, had her committed and obtained a court order putting him in charge of her finances.

Ask yourself what would have happened to her if she didn't have her parents around her in that circumstance.
 
Eyepopper said:
Hugely simplistic view of things. One of the most important things someone suffering from mental illness needs is genuine support around him. There is the real possibility that all Jackson had around him were people with a vested interest in keeping him the way he was.

I reserve my judgement on him as a person, but far too many people here think they know the in's and out's of his life, what he did and what he should have done, when in reality they have no idea about the details aside from what they've read in tabloids and gossip columns.
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
Livvie said:
No amount of money can buy you health, either physical or mental.

And I'm no fan of MJ, but to compare him to Gary Glitter is a bit like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Skoda.
Click to expand...

No, I know there is probably no comparison in terms of talent.

But Rollers and Skodas are both cars Livvie.

They perform the same function.

The only difference is that people with Rollers can usually pay people off when they crash into them.

As for money buying health you're right about that too.

But money does give you choice and Jackson definitely had that in buckets.

Thousands of ordinary people with far greater problems than Jacko have absolutely no choice at all.
 
Eyepopper said:
Look at Britney Spears situation....

Her father had to get a court order taken out to stop her former manager and ex boyfriend (a paparazzi photographer) going anywhere near her.... He suspected them of facilitating her drug abuse and keeping her in the state she was in, obviously totally off the rails. They were obviously keeping her that way and milking it for everything it was worth until her father stepped in and, in her own interests, had her committed and obtained a court order putting him in charge of her finances.

Ask yourself what would have happened to her if she didn't have her parents around her in that circumstance.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that
 
Honest John said:
But money does give you choice and Jackson definitely had that in buckets.

.
Click to expand...

Sorry but its just not that simple. I'm no fan of MJ either but the fact is that with mental illness it often falls to those around the person suffering the make the right decisions for them..... whether or not he abused those kids, his decent was slow and steady and there for the whole world to watch over the past twenty years and, on the face of it, no one did anything to help him.

There's no doubt in my mind that he was severely mentally ill and surrounded, by and large, by people who had vested interests in keeping him that way.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I do appreciate that but, as Merman pointed out, nobody made that point when we were all having a chuckle about this year's Darwin Awards.

Well, apart from Merman anyway.
Click to expand...

What are the Darwin Awards?
 
your childhood years shouldn't be underestimated. They mold your character like no other years

Now if your environment is illogical - it stands to reason you will grow up an illogical person

He was certainly a victim of his success and ability.

But the fact is he grew up in a bubble - and it's hard enough when you live a normal life not to meet lots of absolute c*nts so if your well known and have money?

no one can say any certainties - all we know is he was a talented guy who was odd because of a messed up childhood. If no one protected michael, then maybe in years to come he everyone will think he was guilty - so the accused becomes he was guilty - that can't be right

I don't care how prejudiced and fecked up the american legal system is - it does not prove that anything dodgy went on so he gets the benefit of the doubt from me

But really this is celebrity bullshit. As some who made music, which is what it should all be about anyway - he was a legend and I can understand the people upset because at 50 - you never know if there was any great material left in him.
 
Shame he's been shit for so many years, he was once fecking ace.

Still, R.I.P.
 
What I forgot to say was it'll be interesting to see what happens to his 100's + recorded unreleased songs and 1000's of supposedly written songs.
 
Eyepopper said:
Sorry but its just not that simple. I'm no fan of MJ either but the fact is that with mental illness it often falls to those around the person suffering the make the right decisions for them..... whether or not he abused those kids, his decent was slow and steady and there for the whole world to watch over the past twenty years and, on the face of it, no one did anything to help him.

There's no doubt in my mind that he was severely mentally ill and surrounded, by and large, by people who had vested interests in keeping him that way.
Click to expand...

That well may be the case pops. But I cannot believe that someone did not advise him about his behaviour towards kids. He knew right from wrong in its purest sense. He may have lacked integrity or been a bit of a loon. He may well have been a life depressive and felt alone and rejected.

But he was savvy enough to make millions from his records so in my view he had a sense of what people liked to hear, and by extension what they would not like to hear. Whether he was guilty is a matter of opinion but he did very little to change the perception that people had of him.

Bottom line is that it is complicated if you are trying to 'explain' or mitigate his behaviour.

Justifying it is a different matter because the arguments are necessarily clear and simplistic.
 
Honest John said:
That well may be the case pops. But I cannot believe that someone did not advise him about his behaviour towards kids. He knew right from wrong in its purest sense. He may have lacked integrity or been a bit of a loon. He may well have been a life depressive and felt alone and rejected.

But he was savvy enough to make millions from his records so in my view he had a sense of what people liked to hear, and by extension what they would not like to hear. Whether he was guilty is a matter of opinion but he did very little to change the perception that people had of him.

Bottom line is that it is complicated if you are trying to 'explain' or mitigate his behaviour.

Justifying it is a different matter because the arguments are necessarily clear and simplistic.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to justify it, just to be clear but your points about him knowing ' right from wrong in its purest sense', people advising him on his behaviour around kids and being savvy as to what people want to hear are all pure speculation and my opinion on him would be the exact opposite on all those points.
 
Honest John said:
Whether he was guilty is a matter of opinion but he did very little to change the perception that people had of him.

Bottom line is that it is complicated if you are trying to 'explain' or mitigate his behaviour.

Justifying it is a different matter because the arguments are necessarily clear and simplistic.
Click to expand...

Surely whether he was guilty or not was a matter settled in a court of law & how can you justify his behaviour if you fail to understand it?

Seems to me the only thing he was guilty of, is being a complicated individual and our only 'knowledge' of him comes from a media whose sole purpose is to make money.
 
I know that "mental illness" is a pretty broad church these days but an overwhelming desire to stick your dinkle in a kid's bum-hole isn't a treatable disease, as such.

Obviously he's a seriously damaged individual who had, by all accounts, a very unpleasant upbringing but in my experience this is common to most paedophiles (and I've talked to a few of them) It doesn't change the fact that he has contributed, in his own way, to fecking up the childhood of others. I think that's unforgivable, irrespective of the circumstances.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I know that "mental illness" is a pretty broad church these days but an overwhelming desire to stick your dinkle in a kid's bum-hole isn't a treatable disease, as such.

Obviously he's a seriously damaged individual who had, by all accounts, a very unpleasant upbringing but in my experience this is common to most paedophiles (and I've talked to a few of them) It doesn't change the fact that he has contributed, in his own way, to fecking up the childhood of others. I think that's unforgivable, irrespective of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

To be fair there was never anything concrete, he put himself in a vulnerable position where greedy parents could take advantage. I don't know exactly what happened in his childhood or with these allegations, but I frankly couldn't see him forcing himself on anyone.
I pay my condolences to Micheal Jackson the entertainer, not the accused.


RIP
 
I'm not saying he's innocent of that pogue, but again, saying he's 100% guilty is assumption.
 
Zen86 said:
To be fair there was never anything concrete, he put himself in a vulnerable position where greedy parents could take advantage. I don't know exactly what happened in his childhood or with these allegations, but I frankly couldn't see him forcing himself on anyone.
I pay my condolences to Micheal Jackson the entertainer, not the accused.


RIP
Click to expand...

Not half as vulnerable as the position he put those kids in.
 
Eyepopper said:
I'm not saying he's innocent of that pogue, but again, saying he's 100% guilty is assumption.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. I shouldn't state as fact that he's definitely a paedophile.

It's my very firmly held opinion that he is one. Without actually being there, I would be as certain as it is possible to be that his relationship with those kids was damaging to them, at the very least, and most likely involved some degree of sexual abuse.

But hey, I could be wrong.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, ok. I shouldn't state as fact that he's definitely a paedophile.

It's my very firmly held opinion that he is one. Without actually being there, I would be as certain as it is possible to be that his relationship with those kids was damaging to them, at the very least, and most likely involved some degree of sexual abuse.

But hey, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


I could never trust the word of the parents who tried pressing charges, they were more often than not rednecks and yokels, some of which actually had a history of attempting to sue various celebrities.
 
Eyepopper said:
But what was their motivation for allowing it?
Click to expand...

A chance for their kid to meet MJ.
A chance for them to meet MJ and somehow be involved in his life.
Money.

However inocent it may have all been, you dont let your kids stay over at a "strangers" house. You wouldnt lets them sleep over at a nice guys house down the street, so why let them sleep over at MJ's?

Would you let a child of yours stay over at Neverland?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Not half as vulnerable as the position he put those kids in.
Click to expand...

Surely you mean the parents?

It's quite interesting the way that Michael Jackson polarises opinions. This thead is pretty much a replay of a lot of what went down in the pub last night when the news broke.

To one side Jackson is a kiddly fiddler and always will be despite being found innocent in a court of law.

To the other side he's a misunderstood genius, a child trapped in a man's body that had no sexual interest in children whatsoever.
 
whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty :rolleyes:

he was a legend within the music industry and will be missed
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, ok. I shouldn't state as fact that he's definitely a paedophile.

It's my very firmly held opinion that he is one. Without actually being there, I would be as certain as it is possible to be that his relationship with those kids was damaging to them, at the very least, and most likely involved some degree of sexual abuse.

But hey, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not excusing his relationship with kids, whether he abused them or not but I'm not informed enough to argue his guilt one way or another. But what I do know seems, in my opinion, to stink a bit. There are massive questions around the parent motivation for me.

Plus you cant really discount the fact that he was actually found not guilty when it went to trial.

Honest John said:
I am mad therefore I am justified.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying, well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.