Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

adam cool dude · 9 Mar 2019 at 18:36

SexyGreyFox said:
Who has been convicted of a crime based on a documentary without any evidence?
If you're on about MJ he hasn't been.

Trial by media.

MikeTimbers · 10 Mar 2019 at 10:20

The makers of the Simpsons have decided to pull the episode "Stark Raving Dad" that featured MJ. Radio stations around the world are removing his music from playlists. I find this sad.

I saw a 70s documentary recently and there was a brief clip of Gary Glitter on TOTP. I was surprised because I'd assumed he'd already been completely erased but the clip didn't offend me. Why should it?

SexyGreyFox · 10 Mar 2019 at 11:14

MikeTimbers said:
The makers of the Simpsons have decided to pull the episode "Stark Raving Dad" that featured MJ. Radio stations around the world are removing his music from playlists. I find this sad.

I saw a 70s documentary recently and there was a brief clip of Gary Glitter on TOTP. I was surprised because I'd assumed he'd already been completely erased but the clip didn't offend me. Why should it?

100%
As much as I have always believed Jackson is a paedo it hasn't stopped me from enjoying his music, one of my bands has just gone through The Way You Make Me Feel so it will be interesting to see how it goes down.
I've also got Gary Glitters music on my phone.

jpaul · 10 Mar 2019 at 14:04

[
(apart from Israel, google just told me) we can still listen to Wagner, too.
had to look - Jeremy_Corbyn_s_Desert_Island_Discs
]

I would still be interested to know what are the most objective interviews conducted with the accusors .. so I can educate myself (ie not Opra, or the 4hr documentary)

Tephnos · 10 Mar 2019 at 15:48

Personally, his guilt is not for me to judge. The courts never seemed to find him guilty and I find it preposterous that after all these years a single documentary is now cold hard proof.

Of course, we all know why people seem to care more and are pulling his stuff when they didn't before - the era of the spineless. Gotta avoid that Twitter controversy, after all. Sad, sad.

builder22 · 10 Mar 2019 at 16:06

I saw a bit of the documentary last night - was shocked at the detail the two guys were going in to, although they didn't really look like traumatised people who have been bottling this stuff up all their lives!

The whole Neverland thing is just so OTT tho - it's hard to make any judgement on what did/didn't happen when they're showing clips of someones house that looks like a movie scene/Adventure Park etc etc

deusexlumina · 10 Mar 2019 at 16:18

Tephnos said:
Personally, his guilt is not for me to judge. The courts never seemed to find him guilty and I find it preposterous that after all these years a single documentary is now cold hard proof.

I think this sums it up nicely for me. I've watched the documentary and will admit it puts forward a very convincing case, however it was by no means objective and for that reason I have no right to make a judgement based upon my still-limited knowledge of the subject matter.

He may be guilty, he may not, but the fact remains it's for the courts to decide. We are allowed to have our own judgements and opinions on the matter if we so wish, but my opinion is that people in positions of power such as record labels etc. should not be making decisions such as these without observing due process. It immediately gives validation to the claims and sets a worrying precedent on how people are judged based upon allegations alone.

VortexA1 · 10 Mar 2019 at 16:36

I fancy boys said:
I think this sums it up nicely for me. I've watched the documentary and will admit it puts forward a very convincing case, however it was by no means objective and for that reason I have no right to make a judgement based upon my still-limited knowledge of the subject matter.

He may be guilty, he may not, but the fact remains it's for the courts to decide. We are allowed to have our own judgements and opinions on the matter if we so wish, but my opinion is that people in positions of power such as record labels etc. should not be making decisions such as these without observing due process. It immediately gives validation to the claims and sets a worrying precedent on how people are judged based upon allegations alone.

Yep, my thoughts too!

StriderX · 10 Mar 2019 at 17:12

I fancy boys said:
I think this sums it up nicely for me. I've watched the documentary and will admit it puts forward a very convincing case, however it was by no means objective and for that reason I have no right to make a judgement based upon my still-limited knowledge of the subject matter.

He may be guilty, he may not, but the fact remains it's for the courts to decide. We are allowed to have our own judgements and opinions on the matter if we so wish, but my opinion is that people in positions of power such as record labels etc. should not be making decisions such as these without observing due process. It immediately gives validation to the claims and sets a worrying precedent on how people are judged based upon allegations alone.

The username makes this weird to me.

deusexlumina · 10 Mar 2019 at 17:46

StriderX said:
The username makes this weird to me.

hadn't thought of that...

Dirk Diggler · 10 Mar 2019 at 17:46

Why does anyone need a documentary to convince them that Jackson was an abuser? I mean honestly, people spoke of their horror that Saville did what he did "in plain sight", how did it happen etc.. just look at the Jackson situation, it's pretty much carbon copy. Everyone knows but no one seems to be able to act.

I saw a guy getting interviewed on Lorraine Kelly last week and she says, "Was there ever anything over the years that made you think to yourself, something's not quite right here".

I mean seriously!?

1m 30s....

StriderX · 10 Mar 2019 at 17:50

String said:
Why does anyone need a documentary to convince them that Jackson was an abuser? I mean honestly, people spoke of their horror that Saville did what he did "in plain sight", how did it happen etc.. just look at the Jackson situation, it's pretty much carbon copy. Everyone knows but no one seems to be able to act.

I saw a guy getting interviewed on Lorraine Kelly last week and she says, "Was there ever anything over the years that made you think to yourself, something's not quite right here".

I mean seriously!?

1m 30s....

It’s the entertainment industry, they’re constantly aware of their huge public image and will do anything to keep it from being tarnished.

Also there’s a huge problem with the people at the top of said industry, the agents-managers-trainers etc, who you don’t want to upset, because it would ruin your future.

For some I’m sure it just gets... normalised.

jpaul · 10 Mar 2019 at 18:11

String said:
it's pretty much carbon copy

The horrific credibility/consistancy of victims/'witnesses' in the savile investigation, was another level versus MJ ?

commonality - yes - the BBC are aware of their public image though.

SexyGreyFox · 10 Mar 2019 at 18:53

Tephnos said:
The courts never seemed to find him guilty

of that one trial

V F · 10 Mar 2019 at 20:02

MikeTimbers said:
The makers of the Simpsons have decided to pull the episode "Stark Raving Dad" that featured MJ. Radio stations around the world are removing his music from playlists. I find this sad.

I saw a 70s documentary recently and there was a brief clip of Gary Glitter on TOTP. I was surprised because I'd assumed he'd already been completely erased but the clip didn't offend me. Why should it?

It's all about trending. The exact same thing that happened with The Dukes of Hazzard.

Tephnos · 10 Mar 2019 at 20:57

SexyGreyFox said:
of that one trial

Still waiting for where you have the right to judge him guilty (beyond a personal opinion of course). The police never seemed to think they had enough to charge him with anything either, and I'm sure they were quite thorough in their investigations.

Trial by media is no way to indict a man.

VortexA1 · 10 Mar 2019 at 20:58

StriderX said:
The username makes this weird to me.

I didn't notice..yeah definitely :/

the_r_sole · 10 Mar 2019 at 21:03

Tephnos said:
Still waiting for where you have the right to judge him guilty (beyond a personal opinion of course). The police never seemed to think they had enough to charge him with anything either, and I'm sure they were quite thorough in their investigations.

Trial by media is no way to indict a man.

I'm convinced that even without a police charge that savile was a predator, guess if you have a strict line that it has to be something proven in court as the only measure then it's pretty straight forward, but I wouldn't send my kid on holiday to neverland with unkle mike after seeing that documentary anyway!

Tephnos · 10 Mar 2019 at 21:46

the_r_sole said:
I'm convinced that even without a police charge that savile was a predator, guess if you have a strict line that it has to be something proven in court as the only measure then it's pretty straight forward, but I wouldn't send my kid on holiday to neverland with unkle mike after seeing that documentary anyway!

Wasn't Savile's case never investigated back then but an inquiry now has shown fairly damming evidence? Haven't looked into it too much. MJ survived inquiries back when he was alive and was never found guilty of anything. I don't think it is right to compare them.

SexyGreyFox · 10 Mar 2019 at 21:53

Tephnos said:
Wasn't Savile's case never investigated back then but an inquiry now has shown fairly damming evidence? Haven't looked into it too much. MJ survived inquiries back when he was alive and was never found guilty of anything. I don't think it is right to compare them.

I can't remember any inquiries on Jackson, I remember a trial where he was found innocent of those particular allegations.