kearney19 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Wife beater. Great example! Has that been proven? Chris Brown was still inspired by him and anyway Rihanna wasnt his wife so how is he a wife beater? And so why does Rihanna still keep in contact with him and want him back. RIP MJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 He is the greatest musician of our time. Thats a clear and utter fact, How is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupid Sexy Flanders Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Has that been proven? Chris Brown was still inspired by him and anyway Rihanna wasnt his wife so how is he a wife beater? And so why does Rihanna still keep in contact with him and want him back. RIP MJ. I'm pretty sure Brown was convicted of attacking Rhianna, yes. I think you're being slightly pedantic by pointing out she's not his wife, as if that's the important part of my point! Jackson was a beast, Brown beats up women. Are these the kind of people you idolise and hope to emulate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 And how is he a beast? Was he convicted of it? Id like some facts that say he was convicted because he never was and always was innocent. He is the greatest musician of our time. Thats a clear and utter fact, everyone has their own opinion but most will agree he is the greatest entertainer of our time and everyone has a personal side to them and I respect everything he has done. RIP. Paid a young boy millions of dollars not to bring him to court on child abuse charges. If innocent, he would have told said boy to 'naff off' and 'see you in court son'. If I'd been accused of something so horrific, I wouldn't hand over a penny let alone millions of bucks. And if this is not grooming then I don't know what is (and spare the forgiveness routine - abusers tend to manipulate children into forgiving them) http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/06/28/first-target-of-jackson-s-obsession-with-boys-says-what-he-did-was-wrong-but-i-forgive-him-115875-21476871/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 1- Chris Brown2- Usher 3- Neyo 4- Justin Timberlake 5- P Diddy. Theres 5 for you. Crimes against music as well as children!!? At least Elvis and Buddy Holly inspired decent artists like the Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 1- Chris Brown2- Usher 3- Neyo 4- Justin Timberlake 5- P Diddy. Theres 5 for you. rofl. They are all garbage as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I'm surprised Randy Newman isn't on Kearney's list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 It is a shame to see grown men whimper and call a fellow human being something as extreme as a Paedophile when there is not a drop of evidence to support their opinion. Out of curiosity though, was it the parents who forced the charges upon him as opposed to the actual kids? I ask as only 2% of allegations regarding sexual abuse are thought to be completely made up. Parents forcing it seems logical as they know a court case would be damaging to a multi-millionairre. Chasing them for cash would be very likely. As said previously, had a Paedo touched up your kid, would you settle for his freedom at the cost of millions of ?'s? If yes then I worry for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 It is a shame to see grown men whimper and call a fellow human being something as extreme as a Paedophile when there is not a drop of evidence to support their opinion. Out of curiosity though, was it the parents who forced the charges upon him as opposed to the actual kids? I ask as only 2% of allegations regarding sexual abuse are thought to be completely made up. Parents forcing it seems logical as they know a court case would be damaging to a multi-millionairre. Chasing them for cash would be very likely. As said previously, had a Paedo touched up your kid, would you settle for his freedom at the cost of millions of ?'s? If yes then I worry for them. Let's assume he was innocent with regard to the Chandler affair and that money was that boy's parents' prime motive. By paying out, he sent the wrong message that the stars were fair game for blackmail and would pay to hush it up regardless of whether they were guilty or not. The pay-off also meant that there would be a cloud of suspicion that would hang over him to this very day. If he was innocent, he should have called their bluff and had his day in court. All those millions to buy someone's silence could have been put to better use in clearing his name and showing any would-be blackmailers for what they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 It is a shame to see grown men whimper and call a fellow human being something as extreme as a Paedophile when there is not a drop of evidence to support their opinion. I think it's "a shame" that people try to defend what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 True however that was the choice that faced him and at the time he was in megabucks and obviuosly felt he could afford this. It would have been a thought out action and not so much 'throwing money' at the problem. I'm sure he could have done the same again in the second court case but possibly learned from his mistake previously? Thus following through with the case he knew he was innocent in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I think it's "a shame" that people try to defend what he did. Which was...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Which was...? Molested several children. I'm stunned you didn't know actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Molested several children. I'm stunned you didn't know actually. Dare I ask for the proof then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I wasn't there Hughsie. I'm not sure what type of a person you take me for. No, I'm happy enough with the testimonies of several (and we're not just talking one solitary kid here are we?) accusers. Or let me guess - THEY'RE ALL LIARS. WE LUV YOU MICHAEL!!!! xoxoxox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I wasn't there Hughsie. I'm not sure what type of a person you take me for. No, I'm happy enough with the testimonies of several (and we're not just talking one solitary kid here are we?) accusers. Or let me guess - THEY'RE ALL LIARS. WE LUV YOU MICHAEL!!!! xoxoxox Ah okay then. We will jsut take their word for it then. Hang him. I'm sure you would understand had this situation been reflected on you. That won't happen, you are not an 'international superstar'. Lets not forget that it isn't as if he was accused and that was it. He went through the full judicial system. As far as the bit in bold, I'm no MJ fan. Don't particularly dislike his songs though. However this is irrelevant to our particular debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Hang him. What's the point?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I'm sure you would understand had this situation been reflected on you. That won't happen, you are not an 'international superstar'. Correct, it won't happen. a) Because the thought of fondling bairns sickens me and Because I don't have the money to buy my innocence, I'd actually have to go to court to prove it. Toodle pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Correct, it won't happen. a) Because the thought of fondling bairns sickens me and Because I don't have the money to buy my innocence, I'd actually have to go to court to prove it. Toodle pip. Thanks for ignoring my points. I win. Toodles. AP, I laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Keep going guys. This is keeping me highly amused at work We all know he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 True however that was the choice that faced him and at the time he was in megabucks and obviuosly felt he could afford this. It would have been a thought out action and not so much 'throwing money' at the problem. I'm sure he could have done the same again in the second court case but possibly learned from his mistake previously? Thus following through with the case he knew he was innocent in. Listen. If someone accuses me of something like that and I was innocent, I would not hand them a penny regardless of whether I had millions or not. You cannot put a price on a good name. It absolutely amazes me the amount of excuses some people have for Jackson carrying out this usual action whilst claiming to be innocent. Would it have cost him more financially to see his accuser(s) in court? I suspect not. At best he sent out a wrong message to would-be blackmailers by paying off Chandler, at worst he covered something sinister up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 So how do you guys feel about othe cases that are settled outside of court? Are they too guilty (cannot think of any examples) or are you happy to accept that they are just wanting to get rid of the issue asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 So how do you guys feel about othe cases that are settled outside of court? Are they too guilty (cannot think of any examples) or are you happy to accept that they are just wanting to get rid of the issue asap. Find an example.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Find an example.... Clearly your contributions to this thread is to provide you with more reading material to skive off work. So no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Clearly your contributions to this thread is to provide you with more reading material to skive off work. So no. Nothing to do with the fact that there isn't many other examples because anyone that really would be innocent would fight their case? It's extremely dodgy and on top if that its not as if he's just been accused once. Of course none of this really matters as he's soon to be 6 feet under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aitcheeayartees Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Just back from a weekend trip to London. Various places were mobbed with the "we love you Michael" brigade all creating wee shrines and having big sing songs....there were about 1000, i would estimate, round the bottom of Nelsons column alone!(no pun intended) they were also writing over the walls in Trafalger square and leaving candles and photos. I fail to comprehend this type of behaviour towards someone you dont even know......maybe thats just me?? I realise that kickback has had a weekend of debate on this subject, and i cant be bothered reading it all, but has anything been said about when he was first investigated and the photos of nude children that were removed from his house? My way of thinking wont accept that he was innocent! He was definately talented but his behaviour or alledged behaviour, made me never like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geddy Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I live in a rough council estate in the west of Edinburgh. If some bloke was found to regularly have young children staying over, and word got out that at least 1 of them said they had been "touched" by that person, this estate would go into meltdown. I could stand up and say "he is quite childlike and had a terrible time as a child, he is just friendly with kids", and after I have picked up what teeth I could find watch while they torch his house!! The same people who are backing Jackson, with the same poor excuses as I would be kicked in for. Every person who has ever had allegations about them have been made "guilty" by folk, as most believe (quite rightly) that really young kids could not come up with these types of allegations, unless it happened....well unless their perpetrator is an international pop idol, then the kids are lying wee bas***s. What a sad two faced shower of fan boys we are having to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 My question has still been unanswered, Was it the parents or the kids who forced the allegations? As I said, only 2% of kids lie about this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I live in a rough council estate in the west of Edinburgh.If some bloke was found to regularly have young children staying over, and word got out that at least 1 of them said they had been "touched" by that person, this estate would go into meltdown. I could stand up and say "he is quite childlike and had a terrible time as a child, he is just friendly with kids", and after I have picked up what teeth I could find watch while they torch his house!! The same people who are backing Jackson, with the same poor excuses as I would be kicked in for. Every person who has ever had allegations about them have been made "guilty" by folk, as most believe (quite rightly) that really young kids could not come up with these types of allegations, unless it happened....well unless their perpetrator is an international pop idol, then the kids are lying wee bas***s. What a sad two faced shower of fan boys we are having to listen to. Yeah, but they would probably have attacked a pediatricians house first, like has happened before. They would have probably have elected someone like Mags Haney as their leader, you know the pillar of the community who protects all their kids by being the biggest drug dealer in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Winchester Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 My question has still been unanswered, Was it the parents or the kids who forced the allegations?As I said, only 2% of kids lie about this sort of thing. You can't be sure if it was one or the other so therefore a bit of a pointless question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
this_is_my_story Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah, but they would probably have attacked a pediatricians house first, like has happened before. They would have probably have elected someone like Mags Haney as their leader, you know the pillar of the community who protects all their kids by being the biggest drug dealer in the area. Very good point, and well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 For anybody late in joining this thread, here is a quick summary: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/29/michael-jackson-glastonbury-charlie-brooker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah, but they would probably have attacked a pediatricians house first, like has happened before. Why would they attack a doctor's house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yeah' date=' but they would probably have attacked a [b']pediatricians [/b]house first, like has happened before. Why would they attack a doctor's house? You may have missed the stories from a few years back when Rebekah Wade's News of the World kicked of a vigilante campaign against paedophiles and, if memory serves me well, published a list of known paedophiles so that their "readership" could harangue those folk out of the village with pitchforks and bricks. In among all the furore, it was claimed that one of the NotW "readers" decided that "paediatrician" and "paedophile" were indistinct from one another (had presumably crayoned "paed" onto the palm of his hand) and attacked a paediatrician's office. As if paedophiles advertise with a brass plate on their doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Claws Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Some stories coming out about his autopsy report being leaked - he only weighed 8st, was completely bald, had syringe marks all over him, nothing in his stomach other than pills. Brutal stuff sounds like he was in a major state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab87 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Some stories coming out about his autopsy report being leaked - he only weighed 8st, was completely bald, had syringe marks all over him, nothing in his stomach other than pills. Brutal stuff sounds like he was in a major state. Pics from rehearsals Looks ok. http://www.thewrap.com/article/michael-jackson-rehearsed-night-his-death_3960?page=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196373/LITTLEJOHN-Mob-grief-proves-Britain-wacko-Jacko.html Dick Littlenob is not everyone's cup of tea but he's bang on the money here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196373/LITTLEJOHN-Mob-grief-proves-Britain-wacko-Jacko.html Dick Littlenob is not everyone's cup of tea but he's bang on the money here. "Kill the Paediatrician!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Some stories coming out about his autopsy report being leaked - he only weighed 8st, was completely bald, had syringe marks all over him, nothing in his stomach other than pills. Brutal stuff sounds like he was in a major state. No surprise. Plastic is lighter than muscle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
16
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.