Music Michael Jackson is Dead (All general comment)

fecking hell, what a thread. It's just taken me 30 minutes to read through it all.

In my lifetime I think it's fair to say Michael Jackson has probably been the biggest name on the planet, his life is a complicated one and as with everything peoples opinions will differ hugely. That said I think some of the 'jokes' made within an hour or so of his death we're particularly ill timed and it's no surprise that those genuinely morning his death decided to turn this into a bit of an arguement.

I rarely feel affected when a celeb passes away but on this occasion I feel a sense of sadness. It was a strange feeling hearing the news, was shocked - I can probably only compare it to Diana passing away. Shock but not instant sadness, if that makes sense. Jacksons death in my opinion is on a par with Diana's in terms of how it has and will affect so many people. I'd struggle to name many other people alive today that would generate this level of 'interest' by passing away.

Only a month or two ago I had a conversation with a mate and I actually said that I hoped this upcoming tour would allow Jackson to give people a chance to remember him for his music rather than his sad life, however he'll not get that chance now and will always have those who will only judge him on the negative things that surround his life. He was troubled, there's no doubting that - but as has been said, all geniuses seem to be flawed in someway.

RIP Michael Jackson
 
Eyepopper said:
RIP... no doubt a massive figure of the twentieth century, wrote some iconic music, a very important figure in music and personally for a lot of people.

Aside from the murky side of his life I've always just felt a bit sorry for him, he never really had a chance. Abused and driven as a kid and it seems to me, that aside from his equally damaged family members, all he ever had around him were people there for the gravy train and nothing else. He was obviously a severely damaged individual.
Click to expand...
well done popper, exactly how i feel too.

i really can't imagine how his upbringing affected him but for all the so-called paedophilia talk, maybe he really was just a child trapped in a man's body.
i prefer to think of him that way anyway. actually i'm surprised how much his death has saddened me, it's very very sad.
 
chris2403 said:
whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty :rolleyes:

he was a legend within the music industry and will be missed
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much sums it up... we could argue and debate all day about the child abuse element, I dont know whether he did it or not, I genuinely dont.... none of us do beyond opinions. I do think its more complicated than people make out.

What is clear is the impact he had on the music industry and that cant really be seriously debated.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Oh do feck off. All he's said is that he's not sad and he's entitled to express hid opinion.

How are you coping, by the way? Two heroes gone in quick succession, eh?
Click to expand...

I think more and more of us have started to have enough of you. If you have nothing better to say on this subject than the totally pathetic attempts at attention-whoring you've shown here I suggest you bugger off back to the United forum and continue being an idiot there.
 
A bit nuts as a person but an incredible musician. Thanks for the music, RIP.
 
Eyepopper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's true about one of the cases but I'm fairly sure a separate case was settled out of court.

Obviously, it's shocking to think a parent could be bought off when they're pursuing someone for sexually abusing their child but - as you quite rightly point out - any parent who would willingly put their child in that position in the first place is not behaving normally.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
I think more and more of us have started to have enough of you. If you have nothing better to say on this subject than the totally pathetic attempts at attention-whoring you've shown here I suggest you bugger off back to the United forum and continue being an idiot there.
Click to expand...

Hehe. Was wondering when you would show up.

Oh and feck off you silly cnut. You're wasting your time. It'll be a cold day in hell when I let you dictate what I can and can't say on here.
 
gaffs said:
I saw a girl this morning in her mid 20's, pick up a paper at the news kiosk and she looked to be in shock.

A couple of mins later, i saw her on the platform at the station weeping.

Get a fecking grip.

I hate this outpouring of faux grief.
Click to expand...

total rubbish - how on earth could you know how we are all affected?

i'll admit to tears this morning - especially when i listened to " one day in your life " which he recorded before thriller, and his world went even more mental.

i called in at the petrol station this morning, and the young girl there on the desk was exactly the same as me - total shock, and very saddened, and there are thirty years beween us.

sometimes an individual touches all in different ways ( no puerile jokes from some of you please, show a bit of class )
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think that's true about one of the cases but I'm fairly sure a separate case was settled out of court.

Obviously, it's shocking to think a parent could be bought off when they're pursuing someone for sexually abusing their child but - as you quite rightly point out - any parent who would willingly put their child in that position in the first place is not behaving normally.
Click to expand...

but we don't know if they were settled out of court to protect michael's name too - in that he didn't do it but was advised by his lawyers to settle with damage limitation in mind.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think that's true about one of the cases but I'm fairly sure a separate case was settled out of court.

Obviously, it's shocking to think a parent could be bought off when they're pursuing someone for sexually abusing their child but - as you quite rightly point out - any parent who would willingly put their child in that position in the first place is not behaving normally.
Click to expand...

Do you even have a clue what you're on about?

Maybe all the parents of the child were ever after was money- since you've precisely feck all evidence either way, it's just as likely.

You are aware that rich public figures are often targeted in that way?

Or do you believe Jonny Evans is a rapist?
 
Never really been a jacko fan even before all the kiddie stuff.
On local radio I'm hearing lots of stuff I have not for a long time and it is good,there is no doubt that in his day he was a talented singer and dancer and writer,but he was also deeply disturb man who like to like in a peter pan world.
I suspect that 99% of the kids that said he touched them are full of shit and there parents just wanted to make some money.
But there will always be that doubt there,if he was innocent why did he pay millions of pounds out to the family who accused him.
Any artist that can make a single that stays in the top 10 for 80 consecutive weeks is doing something right.
Right or wrong he will always be associated with the child abuse allegation and sadly in years to come maybe more so than his music.his music is fantastic and that does not change even if has a person you thing he is a vile monster.
Paul Gambaccini is quoted has saying ,Jacksons death us a world event with greater impact that the death of Elvis Presley.
Personally iam not sure about that ,that is for fans of both the argue about,I would have to say both deaths affected many many people and both Jacko and Elvis moulded many many stars
 
BaldwinLegend said:
Do you even have a clue what you're on about?

Maybe all the parents of the child were ever after was money- since you've precisely feck all evidence either way, it's just as likely.

You are aware that rich public figures are often targeted in that way?

Or do you believe Jonny Evans is a rapist?
Click to expand...

Erm... No. Crap analogy.

If Jonny Evans admitted to regularly sleeping with young children I'd have fairly serious suspicions that he might be a paedophile. If he then got formally accused, twice, of child sexual abuse my suspicions would increase. If his own sister then claimed he was a paedophile I would be almost certain he was a nonce.

And that's without a massive fecking funfair in his garden.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Erm... No. Crap analogy.

If Jonny Evans admitted to regularly sleeping with young children I'd have fairly serious suspicions that he might be a paedophile. If he then got formally accused, twice, of child sexual abuse my suspicions would increase. If his own sister then claimed he was a paedophile I would be almost certain he was a nonce.

And that's without a massive fecking funfair in his garden.
Click to expand...
i thought it was latoya's husband who said he thought michael was a paedophile?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Erm... No. Crap analogy.

If Jonny Evans admitted to regularly sleeping with young children I'd have fairly serious suspicions that he might be a paedophile. If he then got taken to court, twice, on allegations of child sexual abuse my suspicions would increase. If his own sister then claimed he was a paedophile I would be almost certain he was a nonce.

And that's without a massive fecking funfair in his garden.
Click to expand...
It's not a 'crap analogy'. I suspect it sailed over your head...

Anyway, feel free to continue using this thread for your daily ego wank.

You clearly haven't the foggiest about what you're on about but I guess as long as you get your 25 posts in today and act like an insensitive muppet in the process you'll consider your day's work done.
 
He could have opened a properly run theme park and sent out complimentary tickets. He could have financed a string of summer camps. He could have given money to hospitals, schools, community programmes, help-lines...the possibilities are endless

But no. What he had reminds me of the child catcher's incentives in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. A private fun-park with hardly any staff or chaperones where he had say of who came and who didn't.

It sounds like selective grooming on a grand scale.
 
Pablo76 said:
vanthaman said:
used to love jacko back in the day, would have been better if he had died early 90s

:nono: cnut
Click to expand...

I think his point is his legacy wouldn't be tarnished for all the crazy ass shit he did.

People like Kobain, Hendrix etc are immortalized at the peak of their careers. We never had to watch Kobain get fat and start to suck.

I don't think he was wishing death on him ;p
Click to expand...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think that's true about one of the cases but I'm fairly sure a separate case was settled out of court.

.
Click to expand...

Again Pogue, I think there's more to that one... If the case had been pursued and he found guilty of the criminal charge it would only serve to increase the damages the family would've received in a civil case.

Why settle a case like that out of court? From the parents point of view I'd imagine the motivation would be to either protect the child, which they didnt seem to interested in, or if they feared the criminal case wasn't strong enough to secure a prosecution which may damage a civil suit.

Everyone points to the settlement as some sort of proof of guilt on his part but it could just as easily be viewed from the other perspective. If you were wrongly accused of something like that (knowing that mud in these cases stick) and then offered the chance to settle out of court and avoid a trial (even if you were confident you'd win it but have your life laid bare) would you take it?

I'm not saying one way or another he did or didn't do it, just that there's many angles these episodes can be viewed from, that presented in the press is only one.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
It's not a 'crap analogy'. I suspect it sailed over your head...

Anyway, feel free to continue using this thread for your daily ego wank.

You clearly haven't the foggiest about what you're on about but I guess along as you get your 25 posts in today and act like an insensitive muppet in the process you'll consider your day's work done.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was a crap analogy - and you know it - but it was easily understood so I can assure you it didn't sail over my head.

As for my day's work on here, it usually involves having a bit of banter with a bunch of United fans about all sorts of random stuff. Mind you, winding you up seems to also be a fairly frequent occurence these days. Thankfully the latter is easily done and kind of enjoyable too.
 
Eyepopper said:
Again Pogue, I think there's more to that one... If the case had been pursued and he found guilty of the criminal charge it would only serve to increase the damages the family would've received in a civil case.
Click to expand...

You think they would have got more than the $22 million they got from Jacko settling out of court?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Erm... No. Crap analogy.

If Jonny Evans admitted to regularly sleeping with young children I'd have fairly serious suspicions that he might be a paedophile. If he then got formally accused, twice, of child sexual abuse my suspicions would increase. If his own sister then claimed he was a paedophile I would be almost certain he was a nonce.

And that's without a massive fecking funfair in his garden.
Click to expand...

why don't you just give it a break and stop being an attention whore....millions of people are/were affected by MJ, just let it go mate....
 
Settlement out of court is in no way a signal of guilt or innocence.

There can be reasons for both sides to want it done quickly. For Michael Jackson it could be a) fear of being found guilty b) a way out of a bad situation. I study and work in the legal business and we often advise our clients to settle out of court even though they have a strong case. There will always be a risk in legal proceedings and sometimes you want to settle so you yourself can control the process.

It doesn`t mean that someone is guilty though.
 
Honestly, a friend of mine texted me this afternoon (I am west coast USA) that MJ died.

I just about shit a brick, I thought he meant Micheal Jordan. Then I heard it was Jackson and I sort of didn't care.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Erm... No. Crap analogy.

If Jonny Evans admitted to regularly sleeping with young children I'd have fairly serious suspicions that he might be a paedophile. If he then got formally accused, twice, of child sexual abuse my suspicions would increase. If his own sister then claimed he was a paedophile I would be almost certain he was a nonce.

And that's without a massive fecking funfair in his garden.
Click to expand...

I guess it's fair point. Even though he was found not guilty of kiddy fiddling, what did come out and what was admitted too was pretty crazy and possibly sick. Part of me thinks that sure the guy invited these kids to his ranch and into his bed, but that he didn't do anything to them. He did always seem to have that kind of naive innocence about him from what I saw in the media. But at the same time, who knows. As Pogue said, not easy to successfully prosecute these types of crime, and some of the excuse being made are the same as convicted offenders

If I genuinely though he did it, I wouldn't be that nice about him in a thread on his death either. Imagine when Glitter passes...

Maybe some more will come out now, we'll see. Would be nice to know the truth once and for all but I doubt it. And probably doubt folk would believe it anyway if it clashed with their current view
 
Ruben said:
Settlement out of court is in no way a signal of guilt or innocence.

There can be reasons for both sides to want it done quickly. For Michael Jackson it could be a) fear of being found guilty b) a way out of a bad situation. I study and work in the legal business and we often advise our clients to settle out of court even though they have a strong case. There will always be a risk in legal proceedings and sometimes you want to settle so you yourself can control the process.

It doesn`t mean that someone is guilty though.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick.
 
Eyepopper said:
Again Pogue, I think there's more to that one... If the case had been pursued and he found guilty of the criminal charge it would only serve to increase the damages the family would've received in a civil case.

Why settle a case like that out of court? From the parents point of view I'd imagine the motivation would be to either protect the child, which they didnt seem to interested in, or if they feared the criminal case wasn't strong enough to secure a prosecution which may damage a civil suit.

Everyone points to the settlement as some sort of proof of guilt on his part but it could just as easily be viewed from the other perspective. If you were wrongly accused of something like that (knowing that mud in these cases stick) and then offered the chance to settle out of court and avoid a trial (even if you were confident you'd win it but have your life laid bare) would you take it?

I'm not saying one way or another he did or didn't do it, just that there's many angles these episodes can be viewed from, that presented in the press is only one.
Click to expand...

That's fair comment, Popper, but all I can do is base my opinion on the overall pattern of his behaviour and lifestyle. You've got these two accusations of abuse, the comments from La Toya, the funfair, his almost complete lack of any normal adult sexual relationships, the incredibly bizarre circunstances surrounding the birth and upbringing of "his" kids etc. etc.

I don't think my opinion that he abused the trust of children is a definite fact any more than anyone can say with absolute certaintly that he did nothing wrong but the balance of evidence would imply that there was something fairly unpleasant going on.
 
Looks like the BBC are covering all the angles on this one...

bbcjackson.jpg
 
Brad said:
I guess it's fair point. Even though he was found not guilty of kiddy fiddling, what did come out and what was admitted too was pretty crazy and possibly sick. Part of me thinks that sure the guy invited these kids to his ranch and into his bed, but that he didn't do anything to them. He did always seem to have that kind of naive innocence about him from what I saw in the media. But at the same time, who knows. As Pogue said, not easy to successfully prosecute these types of crime, and some of the excuse being made are the same as convicted offenders

If I genuinely though he did it, I wouldn't be that nice about him in a thread on his death either. Imagine when Glitter passes...

Maybe some more will come out now, we'll see. Would be nice to know the truth once and for all but I doubt it. And probably doubt folk would believe it anyway if it clashed with their current view
Click to expand...

Very well put Brad.
 
Still can't seem to get my head round it. I keep thinking to myself 'Michael Jackson is dead'. It's weird.
 
gaffs said:
You think they would have got more than the $22 million they got from Jacko settling out of court?
Click to expand...

Who knows, OJ Simpson was hit with $33million... the point is that it could have been as much the family's idea to push for out of court settlement as Jacksons.
 
Ruben said:
Settlement out of court is in no way a signal of guilt or innocence.

There can be reasons for both sides to want it done quickly. For Michael Jackson it could be a) fear of being found guilty b) a way out of a bad situation. I study and work in the legal business and we often advise our clients to settle out of court even though they have a strong case. There will always be a risk in legal proceedings and sometimes you want to settle so you yourself can control the process.

It doesn`t mean that someone is guilty though.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. The fact he settled one case out of court could not be considered evidence of guilt.

But when you add it to all the other stuff...
 
Brad said:
Would you settle with someone who falsely accused you of kiddy fiddling though?

I'd have thought this was definitely one of those 'I will not settle' type things

I'd fiercely protest my innocence
Click to expand...

OR, you'd want to just pay the money and ensure all of the circus just goes away once and for all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.