Nelly Terraces Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Yep, and OJ didn't murder his wife. No, he did, that was proved in a civil court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Grant Stott now on Sky News giving us his view. I wish they would ask him about his brothers lack of work on the TV and why that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaman2002 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 People go on about why Michael Jackson paid off Jodi Chandler's dad and how that proves he was guilty. But if you were the father and you thought someone had molested your kid, wouldn't you want to take it to court and see the ******* get sent down???? Just a thought! I think it shows how naive MJ was and how greedy the Chandler family were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 What's the difference between Alex Ferguson and Michael Jackson? One's a horrible *******. The other's a dead "pop star". © Altered Images 1982 What's the difference between Alex Ferguson and Michael Jackson? Michael Jackson paid a plastic surgeon to **** his nose up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 A lot more important people will die today without a single word being broadcasted all over our air waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex plode Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 To quote our great ex PM ' Just rejoice at that news' Post 233 says it all. I hated him and always turned off the radio if his songs came on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Grant Stott now on Sky News giving us his view. I wish they would ask him about his brothers lack of work on the TV and why that is. His brother was trotting around the Highland Show yesterday with a tweed jacket on as if he is some sort of country gent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 My tuppence worth is that I believe you can separate someone's obvious talent from whatever flaws in their character they have. Lord knows there have been countless flawed geniuses whose talent and work remains venerated notwithstanding their other problems. Jackson's contribution to music as a writer performer and inspiration to those who followed cannot, in my view, be seriously doubted. You may not like his music (and some of the later stuff is self-indulgent rubbish) but you surely cant deny his impact on music in the late nineteenth century. The comparisons with Elvis are not misplaced in my view. However, there is also little doubt that he was a flawed character and was somewhat strange. His obvious desire to appear more white was understandably taken as a slight by the black community and his somewhat disingenuous attempts to deny that he hasd had surgery didnt endear him to many. As for the other allegations, the truth is that we will never know. In civilised societies, we rely on the legal system which we have to work correctly. We all know that it is not perfect and that decisions are made which are wrong but very often, identifying WHICH are wrong is almost impossible which is why proven miscarriages of justice still tend to be big news. To an extent, we must trust the legal systems which we have and it is a fundamental thread of those systems that someone should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty - some of those on this thread branding Jackson as guilty should reconsider their indignation at the allegations of "pavement dancing" at the recent Edinburgh derby. However, Jackson did stand trial in a criminal court and was acquitted. He was also sued in the civil courts and settled out of court without, as I understand it, any admission of liability. If we respect the civilisations in which we live and the rule of law which exists for our protection in them, we may not like certain individual verdicts but we must live with them and it is wrong to condemn Jackson or anyone else on the basis of speculation. So, I am not upset at his passing because I'm not his greatest fan but it is always sad when someone so influential on music passes away. GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaman2002 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 most sensible thing said on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 His brother was trotting around the Highland Show yesterday with a tweed jacket on as if he is some sort of country gent That laddie really is a spanner. Quite a lot of folk speaking now about how there was major concerns that the upcoming gigs would not go ahead due to the physical state. Some saying that it was written in his contract that he would only be on stage for 14 mins of each gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 .....but you surely cant deny his impact on music in the late nineteenth century. I believe that Rossini was extremely influenced by the self-proclaimed "Prince of Pop".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I believe that Rossini was extremely influenced by the self-proclaimed "Prince of Pop".... Oops you know what I meant and too late to edit now. If I didnt know better, I'd swear you waited 10 mins to post that so I wouldnt be able to edit, dagnabbit. GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 See below post below yours for thoughts on civil settlement. It's litigation 101. No lawyer on the face of the planet would advise a massively public trial in a "he said v. he said situation" when your client is an...unique...individual when one could settle the claim for next to nothing. Or does basic litigation resolution strategy only apply in America? Last time I checked, Australia was a common law country, as well. It's not that different. Absolutely. Don't need to add to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Oops you know what I meant and too late to edit now. If I didnt know better, I'd swear you waited 10 mins to post that so I wouldnt be able to edit, dagnabbit. GC Sorry....I couldn't resist it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 People go on about why Michael Jackson paid off Jodi Chandler's dad and how that proves he was guilty. But if you were the father and you thought someone had molested your kid, wouldn't you want to take it to court and see the ******* get sent down???? Just a thought! I think it shows how naive MJ was and how greedy the Chandler family were! Don't get me wrong. I have no time for that family either. They prostituted their son, in effect, in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As someone who works in a field that includes supporting Paedo's I can tell you that once there is an unhealthy interest in kids, it never goes away. Also, in most cases as someone who supports those that have been abused, the scars rarely heal, meaning that a normal life/relationship is almost impossible. In extreme cases it can result in self-harm and severe heroin addiction. Further, the arguement that those who are abused as kids should be forgiven for abusing, as it is learned behaviour, should bare in mind that all those who are abused DO NOT go on to abuse. So those who are on here espousing as to his legendary status, should perhaps bare in mind the untold damage he will have caused to children. Jackson bought his way out of prosecution and the childrens family were just as bad for taking the money. The real horrific damage caused by Paedo's does not really hit home until it happens to someone you know, so bare that in mind. To conclude, as someone who works in this area my final thoughts are 'Good Riddance' and to those who will flock to make him number 1 in the charts next week, maybe a bit of reflection on his crimes and their effects are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 To conclude, as someone who works in this area my final thoughts are 'Good Riddance' and to those who will flock to make him number 1 in the charts next week, maybe a bit of reflection on his crimes and their effects are needed. I understand the whole 'no smoke without fire' thing, but what's he actually been convicted of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I understand the whole 'no smoke without fire' thing, but what's he actually been convicted of? I think we have seen that the judicial system in most countries is not fool proof. If you read the facts of the allegations would you have convicted him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I think we have seen that the judicial system in most countries is not fool proof. If you read the facts of the allegations would you have convicted him? Maybe. Depends what was said in court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As I recall, the prosecution case in the states was flawed and full of inconsistencies from the accuser and his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's good to see that people think it's ok to abuse kids as long as you don't get convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's good to see that people think it's ok to abuse kids as long as you don't get convicted. Is that aimed at me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's good to see that people think it's ok to abuse kids as long as you don't get convicted. Poor comment, IMO Where has anyone said that or even said anything consistent with that approach? Is it OK to convict people that havent committed crimes on the basis that there's no smoke without fire ? GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I should state that was the 2005 trial. The Chandler case was a whole horse of a different colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 If you read the facts of the allegations would you have convicted him? It's a good thing that no legal system that I can think of convicts on allegations alone, as opposed to, you know, proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Wee Burney would be turning in his grave at some of what's been written in this thread. RIP Burney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Maybe. Depends what was said in court What WASN'T said was that he'd paid of the family of a child between ?1 million and ?27 million dollars a decade earlier for allegations of Sexual Molestation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's a good thing that no legal system that I can think of convicts on allegations alone, as opposed to, you know, proof. 'Facts Of The Allegations' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Just hearing that the heart disease comes from his protestant fathers side of the family. It's known as the 'billy gene'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonjambo Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 What WASN'T said was that he'd paid of the family of a child between ?1 million and ?27 million dollars a decade earlier for allegations of Sexual Molestation. He's got you there, Acey. That pretty much proves it. GC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Final comments on this subject - jackson was a paedophile, and the world is a better place without him. If people think that a legal system which allowed him to buy his innocence is justice, then fair enough. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 You'll Never Moonwalk Alone. West Ham fans are also going to perform a tribute rendition of I'm forever blowing bubbles in respect to Jacko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Poor comment, IMO Where has anyone said that or even said anything consistent with that approach? Is it OK to convict people that havent committed crimes on the basis that there's no smoke without fire ? GC Whilst I agree with you, any adult that regularly hangs out with kids in the manner Jackson did are going to leave themselves open to scrutiny. Stick a global crazy celeb into the mix, with countless millions and it's only natural the media et al are going to get their pound of flesh sooner rather than later. He did himself no favours whatsoever continuing to socialise with children, then hanging out with them in his room after the first set of allegations. I defy anyone with kids to say they would feel comfortable with their kids being put in a similar position, with someone with the same mindset as Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Final comments on this subject - jackson was a paedophile, and the world is a better place without him. If people think that a legal system which allowed him to buy his innocence is justice, then fair enough. I don't. Nobody on here's said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's just so very sad. To be such a world famous star and to have the sort of life he did is just a bit tragic really. Unbelievably talented and rightly considered to be a musical genius, but with a personal life that suggests he might never really have enjoyed any of it....and then to die at 50. Jings. The court case stuff was just a media circus and given that he was never found guilty and there were more than a few inconsistencies in the stories and approach taken by the accusers, I'd be more tempted to err on the same side of the fence as Shaun. His tale is a sad one and I have no doubt whatsoever that he's a bit of an oddball, but he was always fair game for a salivating media and cynical types who looked to benefit from his generosity and wealth. It would seem that he might well have been really quite mentally ill but being inappropriate in your behaviour doesn't always mean you've done something morally or criminally wrong. It's just all a really sad story, from start to finish. As for the kiddy stuff on this thread, it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that some JKB'ers have stayed well and truly in character and focused on any available 'dirt' or inappropriate humour in order to get a smirk from their peers. Whatever. Honestly, it's like we've been invaded by a host of chortling, ignorant and slightly grubby fourteen year olds lately.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 If some people are happy to entrust vulnerable kids with an adult who has been accused of inappropriateness with kids on a number of occassions, and used his considerable wealth to avoid a court date, then I suppose they alone are responsible for any consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginger jambo98 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 In tribute to his hero, Hibernian Goalkeeping legend Yves Ma-Kalamity has promised to continue wearing white gloves for no apparent reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergio Garcia Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 The question is all those who think he is innocent of the stuff with kids, Question would you have left your child with him and allowed sleepovers? I certainly wouldnt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 As for the kiddy stuff on this thread, it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that some JKB'ers have stayed well and truly in character and focused on any available 'dirt' or inappropriate humour in order to get a smirk from their peers. Whatever. Honestly, it's like we've been invaded by a host of chortling, ignorant and slightly grubby fourteen year olds lately.... Come on RedM, let's get real for a minute. I bet even your goodself has had a few of the jokes texted/emailed to you this morning. It's a natural reaction to make light of big events. Inappropriate humour? Maybe. Funny? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 The question is all those who think he is innocent of the stuff with kids, Question would you have left your child with him and allowed sleepovers? I certainly wouldnt! How ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 The question is all those who think he is innocent of the stuff with kids, Question would you have left your child with him and allowed sleepovers? I certainly wouldnt! One night with Jacko for ?20m? Tempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 It's just so very sad. To be such a world famous star and to have the sort of life he did is just a bit tragic really. Unbelievably talented and rightly considered to be a musical genius, but with a personal life that suggests he might never really have enjoyed any of it....and then to die at 50. Jings. The court case stuff was just a media circus and given that he was never found guilty and there were more than a few inconsistencies in the stories and approach taken by the accusers, I'd be more tempted to err on the same side of the fence as Shaun. His tale is a sad one and I have no doubt whatsoever that he's a bit of an oddball, but he was always fair game for a salivating media and cynical types who looked to benefit from his generosity and wealth. It would seem that he might well have been really quite mentally ill but being inappropriate in your behaviour doesn't always mean you've done something morally or criminally wrong. It's just all a really sad story, from start to finish. As for the kiddy stuff on this thread, it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that some JKB'ers have stayed well and truly in character and focused on any available 'dirt' or inappropriate humour in order to get a smirk from their peers. Whatever. Honestly, it's like we've been invaded by a host of chortling, ignorant and slightly grubby fourteen year olds lately.... Jesus, why are you surprised? Youv just detailed the real, if not mental age of many posters....yet you sound surprised by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 'Facts Of The Allegations' I don't think that you understand what that phrase means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I don't think that you understand what that phrase means. Can you prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Come on RedM, let's get real for a minute. I bet even your goodself has had a few of the jokes texted/emailed to you this morning. It's a natural reaction to make light of big events. Inappropriate humour? Maybe. Funny? Yes. If they're funny jokes...then yes, of course. Call me weird, but I just don't think jokes about child abuse are funny in the slightest. Plus, I'm just sick of it being a rather recurring theme on JKB. It's cropping up much too often and if it was being discussed in a sensible and mature way then I wouldn't have a problem at all, but it's endlessly being used for stupid asides or jokes and it's not pleasant...not at all.... It's like the subject has become fair game. Horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsy Van Gaverson Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 If they're funny jokes...then yes, of course. Call me weird, but I just don't think jokes about child abuse are funny in the slightest. Plus, I'm just sick of it being a rather recurring theme on JKB. It's cropping up rather too often and if it was being discussed in a sensible and mature way then I wouldn't have a problem at all, but it's endlessly being used for stupid asides or jokes and it's not pleasant...not at all.... It's like the subject has become fair game. Horrible. Two words never used to describe Michael Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acey Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Can you prove it? Yes. You're treating "the facts of the allegations" as if it meant "the facts". When, in fact, the only facts that the facts are facts of are the facts of the allegations. In other words, if the facts of the allegations were just that (facts), then every single trial would end in a "guilty" verdict. QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Leaving the accusations aside , it must be remembered that he influenced a lot of musicians of today.There was a few musicians on the radio today saying that if it was not for him they probably would not be performing or be were they are just now.He was a very talented individual and his influences on other musicians, sell out tours and record/CD and album sales confirms this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyheartsfc Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 RIP legend gutted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiba Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Yes. You're treating "the facts of the allegations" as if it meant "the facts". QED Prove It? You seemed to understand what I was saying when you replied on post 335. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,266
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.