Micky Jackson in trouble again

dubdaymo

There was an inconsistency occurred to me after I saw the notes on the final screen that "new boys" Culkin and the other lad denied that anything improper had happened to them in Jackson's company.

If Jackson was into kiddie-sex and was allegedly having such a ball anytime he was alone with Robson and Safechuck why would he dump them in favour of lads that offered no such favours.

I don't think a normal bloke having great sex with his bird would dump her for another one who wasn't up for it.

Leaving aside the sexual aspect if Jackson did dump them for the other lads that was very cruel in itself, not a shadow of doubt about that. However, it would point to a certain revenge aspect in the allegations now being made.

Jury still out.

kunst nugget

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Whatever MJ was as a person, his legacy to music absolutely ENORMOUS.

They only people who had as big an impact as he had on music were The Beatles and Elvis.

Thriller is (by far) the greatest selling album of all time.

People still adore Jacksons music, even 30 years after it was made, and will likely still adore it 30 years from now. Comparing also rans like Saville or Glitter to MJ isn't worth a topic of conversation.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be banned but the practicality of banning of one of the greatest artists ever, arguably the greatest popstar will be very very difficult.

I don't believe in banning anyone but as a consumer, especially in the days of spotify and apple music where every play is monetised however minutely, I can choose not to reward the artist or their estate by playing their music.

There's plenty of other music that I like above Jackson's so I'll be honest and say it's not really a huge issue for me.

Ashbourne hoop

Genuinely don't know what to make of Leaving Neverland. Pretty devastating testimony from Safechuck and Robson. Every question you may have about their truthfulness can be answered by what we know about other victims of child sexual abuse. Some of the abuse descriptions were very graphic and made the programme a hard watch. If Jackson did abuse these boys it is not the fault of the parents or the boys themselves, it is Jackson's, pure and simple.

SharpshooterTom

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't believe in banning anyone but as a consumer, especially in the days of spotify and apple music where every play is monetised however minutely, I can choose not to reward the artist or their estate by playing their music.

There's plenty of other music that I like above Jackson's so I'll be honest and say it's not really a huge issue for me.

That's ok, that's an individual choice. Others might not feel that way. You're certainly entitled to your choice and many others will likely agree.

fryup

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Comparing his legacy to Gary Glitter is laughable. He certainly might be guilty like Glitter, but no one likes GG's music, so its easier to ban him.

Glitter was one of the biggest pop stars back in the 70s, and there isn't a radio station out there who dares play his music...the same i feel will happen with MJ

ohnonotgmail

8-10 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Right. Completely different so.

not completely different but also not the same thing.

Boggles

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I guarantee you in 5-10 years his music will still be played.

People said this after the Bashir documentary and to be fair his career was finished from that point (never made another album) and went into exile.

His career was far from finished TBF. The exile was self imposed.

The trial did knock him for 6, but before his death he signed up for 10 concerts in London it had to be increased to 50, breaking ticket sale records and propelling is albums up the charts.

correction

I don't even think public opinion has swayed enough against him for banning his music to even be a conversation tbh.

Don't think enough people even care about the documentary. You've definitely got loud people who do but I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

SharpshooterTom

fryup wrote: »

Glitter was one of the biggest pop stars back in the 70s, and there isn't a radio station out there who dares play his music...the same i feel will happen with MJ

Not a chance. Jackons up there with the Beatles and Elvis in terms of influence, long term wise, he wont be banned.

Gary Glitter had a decent career, but he was nowhere near that of Jackson's level.

Deebles McBeebles

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Not a chance. Jackons up there with the Beatles and Elvis in terms of influence, long term wise, he wont be banned.

Gary Glitter had a decent career, but he was nowhere near that of Jackson's level.

Elvis, there's another one who had allegations of child abuse levelled against him. His music is still played, covered and sampled to this day.

fryup

correction wrote: »

I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

SharpshooterTom

Apparantly the viewing figures in the US were 1.29 million viewers.

No wonder America isn't planning on banning him.

SharpshooterTom

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

You keep telling yourself that but it wont be.

I'm not favorable to Jackson as a person at all, but he's one of the greatest selling artists ever for a reason. He still today a HUGE draw music wise and so where money is to be made, Jackson, rightly or wrongly, will still be around.

That's the difference between him and fvcking Glitter.

Deebles McBeebles

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

On Twitter, for a few days, until the next outrage.

correction

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

I'm certainly not the one kidding myself here. In 5 years time people will be listening to all his hits like they always have and he will never leave the conversation as far musical icons go.

Rightly or wrongly I don't know but this is just not that big a deal to people outside the bubble.

SharpshooterTom

Mark Wahlberg, despite being a convicted racist thug is one of Hollywood's top men.

If there is money to be made from you, you'll get play.

kunst nugget

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

That's ok, that's an individual choice. Others might not feel that way.

And that's okay too. It's up to each individual whether they want to enrich the estate of someone they have might issues with or not.

I watched Lords of Chaos over the weekend, the movie based on the really messed up Black Metal scene in the 90s and the deeply unpleasant characters involved in it. Whatever interest I might have in hearing what the music might be like is tempered by the fact that I don't want to give repellent people even a percentage of a cent of money from playing them on Apple Music.

But hypocritically, I'll play music by the likes of Bowie, Ozzy and Black Sabbath or the Mamas and Papas... I can't claim to be a moral crusader in any regard.

Censorship of the material, for me, is completely wrong.

SharpshooterTom

^^^^

Agreed.

kunst nugget

fryup wrote: »

Glitter was one of the biggest pop stars back in the 70s, and there isn't a radio station out there who dares play his music...the same i feel will happen with MJ

Glitter hits had aged horrendously. They were only played occasionally as novelty songs and he was consigned to the nostalgia circuit by the time the allegations came to light. Nobody really gave two shíts about Glitter's music. The same can't be said for Michael Jackson's music.

Boggles

correction wrote: »

I don't even think public opinion has swayed enough against him for banning his music to even be a conversation tbh.

Don't think enough people even care about the documentary. You've definitely got loud people who do but I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

Exactly, none of the information in documentary is new, there is no new evidence, nothing.

It was all in a deposition which a Judge basically called a bunch of lies.

But you see if you have unlimited takes, soft lighting and background music to tell you when to be sad that does appeal to people who know very little about the case. So it is understandable.

But this is far from finished.

The 2 lads have an appeal going on and HBO have just been sued, I imagine that won't be the end of it either because there is some serious criminal allegations against people who are still alive.

A bunch of people are going to have to get back in court and tell their version events not under soft lighting but under oath.

ToBeFrank123

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Elvis, there's another one who had allegations of child abuse levelled against him. His music is still played, covered and sampled to this day.

Jerry Lee Lewis too.
Rock Groups of the 1970s were notorious for sleeping with teenage female fans.

However and unfortunately it was different times. It seemed to have been ok to marry your 15 year old female cousin etc in many parts of the US up to about 1970. And it still is in many parts of the world.

We as in western society have moved on thankfully.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jerry Lee Lewis too.
Rock Groups of the 1970s were notorious for sleeping with teenage female fans.

However and unfortunately it was different times. It seemed to have been ok to marry your 15 year old female cousin etc in many parts of the US up to about 1970. And it still is in many parts of the world.

We as in western society have moved on thankfully.

Jerry Lee's wife was 13.

They were basically ran out of Britain when the news came to light.

There was great Doc on BBC4 about him.

SharpshooterTom

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

On Twitter, for a few days, until the next outrage.

Liam Neeson feels like a long time ago now.

Ashbourne hoop

Don't know if Jackson abused those boys but he clearly had an unhealthy interest in young boys and a grown man should not be sharing a bed with children who are not related to him. The documentary was way too long, no need for 4 hrs. There's questions to be asked on both sides but as I posted earlier, any questions you would have in relation to the two men can be answered by what we now know about victims of abuse.

Boggles

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

There's questions to be asked on both sides but as I posted earlier, any questions you would have in relation to the two men can be answered by what we now know about victims of abuse.

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

It was all in a deposition which a Judge basically called a bunch of lies.

Boggles wrote: »

they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Interested in reading this quote from the judge. Thanks.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Jerry Lee's wife was 13.

They were basically ran out of Britain when the news came to light.

There was great Doc on BBC4 about him.

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

joe40

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

SharpshooterTom

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

For the next 6 months or so, perhaps even a year, it will reduced somewhat, but it wont be for long.

Deebles McBeebles

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

Was shocked RTE didn't follow the outrage train and ban his music. They aren't completely useless, it turns out.

briany

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

There are some artists who people aren't going to abandon, no matter how much they've done, because their catalog is too classic. Not defending that mindset, but that's how it seems to work.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played?

Not only is it still played but him and Chuck Berry (another massive pervert) are credited with inventing rock and roll and influenced everyone from Elvis to the Beatles.

Deebles McBeebles

Boggles wrote: »

Not only is it still played but him and Chuck Berry (another massive pervert) are credited with inventing rock and roll and influenced everyone from Elvis to the Beatles.

Who both went on to have allegations against them! (well, Harrison anyway).

SharpshooterTom

briany wrote: »

There are some artists who people aren't going to abandon, no matter how much they've done, because their catalog is too classic. Not defending that mindset, but that's how it seems to work.

That's the reason Wahlberg gets movies, he brings in the $$$ for the blockbusters.

An also ran with his convictions would be thrown into the trash heap. Hollywood is hypocritical, music is hypocritical, society full stop is hypocritical.

Ashbourne hoop

Boggles wrote: »

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

Quite often victims of abuse got facts wrong, even as adults. They quite often stick up for their abuser, even as adults. I'm not 100% completely convinced that the men are telling the truth, but I'm certainly not convinced of Jackson's innocence, and I was/am a big fan of his music.

Boggles

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Quite often victims of abuse got facts wrong, even as adults

Victims of abuse in adulthood can get facts wrong about what happened them when they children. Absolutely.

But Wade as an adult couldn't remember when he started his book that couldn't get published, not only could he not remember he purposely removed the meta data from the digital documents so no one could see when he started it. Couldn't remember when he realized anally raping a child was not on.

Safechuck claimed he remembered he was molested in 2005, then he changed it to 2010 and then he changed it to 2013, 2014.

That's not some confused depressed memories, that's changing your story to fit within the statute of limitations in the law suit, i.e lying for cash.

Call me Al

Boggles wrote: »

Victims of abuse in adulthood can get facts wrong about what happened them when they children. Absolutely.

But Wade as an adult couldn't remember when he started his book that couldn't get published, not only could he not remember he purposely removed the meta data from the digital documents so no one could see when he started it. Couldn't remember when he realized anally raping a child was not on.

Safechuck claimed he remembered he was molested in 2005, then he changed it to 2010 and then he changed it to 2013, 2014.

That's not some confused depressed memories, that's changing your story to fit within the statute of limitations in the law suit, i.e lying for cash.

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

innuendo141

Call me Al wrote: »

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

Their depositions from 2012+ are online to view

Boggles

Call me Al wrote: »

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

Sorry do you think there is anything in the documentary that even comes close to giving balance? :pac:

Safechuck said his one main fear was being exposed to the public, so he stuck his name down on a billion dollar suit with the bould Wade and made a documentary. That will keep it private all right.

LuckyLloyd

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

sligeach

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

is_that_so

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

In all likelihood this will pass as it will with many others. You can go with the rigid boycott but if you have a love a music you'll end up as "hypocritical" as everyone else.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Make a claim, post it up.

Waiting for the evidence where the judge called the two men liars. Come on boggles, take your own advice!

Call me Al

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry do you think there is anything in the documentary that even comes close to giving balance? :pac:

Safechuck said his one main fear was being exposed to the public, so he stuck his name down on a billion dollar suit with the bould Wade and made a documentary. That will keep it private all right.

I asked you a simple question to support this balance you mention. I'd have appreciated a fairly simple answer.
It's not that hard to understand!
Both men were very credible to me. I watched that as a fairly neutral observer.
I'm neither a megafan nor a hater. Can many posting here say the same?

SirLemonhead

retro:electro wrote: »

Waiting for the evidence where the judge called the two men liars. Come on boggles, take your own advice!

Do you not have anything better to be doing while you wait for the poor guy to check back in?

retro:electro

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Do you not have anything better to be doing while you wait for the poor guy to check back in?

“The poor guy” is still posting he’s just avoiding my question

And nope

is_that_so

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

They were different times with a different set of values. The set of values some now use are very different and apparently vastly superior. As for banning things, beyond the intention of offending or inciting dubious behaviour we are free to change the station or stream it ourselves.

is_that_so

Call me Al wrote: »

I asked you a simple question to support this balance you mention. I'd have appreciated a fairly simple answer.
It's not that hard to understand!
Both men were very credible to me. I watched that as a fairly neutral observer.
I'm neither a megafan nor a hater. Can many posting here say the same?

Ascribing a perceived unverifiable view of yourself is not exactly incontrovertible anything. We all bring baggage to this. You seem to like the superior "moral" question.

Fiftyfilthy

Always believed and still do that the parents were hoping their kids would be molested $$$$$$$$

Call me Al

is_that_so wrote: »

Ascribing a perceived unverifiable view of yourself is not exactly incontrovertible anything. We all bring baggage to this.

It's just that some have bigger bags :-((((((