Mute R Kelly

You've clearly convinced yourself of his guilt, but not everyone agrees with the things you find to be completely obvious.

As has been said, he was weird. A genuinely tragic and one-of-a-kind individual. It would be very, very hard for most of us to comprehend his mindset.

But it was not proven that he ever abused children. And there are in fact reasons to settle out of court beyond him being a guilty. It's not so cut and dried.

Has it been proven that Jimmy Saville ever abused children? Presumably you'd give him the same crazy benefit of the doubt you seem to be throwing Jacko's way.

The people he settled out of court with are in the Leaving Neverland documentary on netfliix - watch that then make your own mind up before you start giving the benefit of the doubt to paedophiles. And be prepared to be equally shocked that the parents of these kids seemingly happy for it to happen, as they got to travel around to all these nice places with him.
 
Has it been proven that Jimmy Saville ever abused children? Presumably you'd give him the same crazy benefit of the doubt you seem to be throwing Jacko's way.

The people he settled out of court with are in the Leaving Neverland documentary on netfliix - watch that then make your own mind up before you start giving the benefit of the doubt to paedophiles. And be prepared to be equally shocked that the parents of these kids seemingly happy for it to happen, as they got to travel around to all these nice places with him.

Definitely this.

I've seen leaving never land and it was pretty convincing.
 
As FoxEye rightly points out - Jackson, Saville or Epstein were never proven to have abused anyone, so its play on.
For the record, I only talked about Jackson. I will make no comment on Saville or Epstein - I haven't actually paid much attention to them. I could denounce them as paedos, but since I haven't actually looked into it, I'd just be repeating what others have said for fear of recrimination.

Which is something I'm not interested in doing. If people want to paint me as a paedo because of what I said about Jackson, that's up to them. But I'd suggest it's very poor form.
 
They've waited a long time for someone to speak up for them. Chapeau to you for what most would consider a ballsy move.
Who is "they"? I only made comment about Jackson, having read articles about him, specifically.

I am not the one asserting that Jackson's situation is the same as Saville and Epsteins's situation. I specifically make no comment about those other two. Neither really interest me, nor am I likely to spend any time reading or thinking about them.

Additionally, if those other two were child abusers, again that does not in any way strengthen the case against Jackson. How could it? They are totally unrelated.
 
I don't tend to listen to R Kelly regularly but I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid it. After all, there were some very talented and decent people involved in the production of it, and they don't deserve their legacy smeared, despite how the main artist is a complete POS.

I still listen to lostprophets from time to time.
 
It must be tough having to ask society any time you need to make a decision, such as whether or not you should listen to an artist's music. Listen to him if you want. Or don't, if you don't.
 
It must be tough having to ask society any time you need to make a decision, such as whether or not you should listen to an artist's music. Listen to him if you want. Or don't, if you don't.
Not often a big backer of R.P.L's take on things and I know he pre-weighted the first part of the sentence intentionally but the last part stacks up for me. Just do it or don't do it. It's Zammo's Schrodinger's Cat.
 
Why should anyone tell anyone else what they can and can't listen to? If you don't want to listen to something that's fine , but you shouldn't try and stop others from choosing to listen to anything they like.
 
Back
Top Bottom