Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

You've already said its so long ago proof is no longer possible.

So we are left with accusations then. Accusations without proof wouldn't really stand up in court.

You agree the guy was eccentric? As in off the wall eccentric?

retro:electro

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?

Yeah that was Boggles’ claim which was false.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He says numerous times in this documentary that while he told his mother that Jackson "wasn't a good person" in 2005 and he wouldn't defend him, that was the extent of it..

Which is it?

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?

I never said the judge threw it out because of that.

It was thrown on technicalities, the judge by his own free admission added that Robson was a complete liar.

AllForIt

Piers Morgan gave Dan Reed a good grilling in this interview. I think Morgans line of questioning reflects many of the doubts a lot of ppl have on the issue. Reed looks more and more awkward as the interview goes one and appears to be biting his tongue somewhat. On Prime Time the other day he said when asked about evidence (other than testimony) he retorted "he slept in the same bed as them - what do you think he was doing with them [in his bed]".

I find it interesting too that a British person made this doc. I do recall in the 80's before any allegations the British Tabloids where vicious towards 'Wacko Jacko" - a term that originated in The Sun.

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

You've already said its so long ago proof is no longer possible.

So we are left with accusations then. Accusations without proof wouldn't really stand up in court.

You agree the guy was eccentric? As in off the wall eccentric?

In these type of historical abuse cases there is never proof, just evidence. The main evidence is the credibility of the accusers, which everyone has to form their own opinion on. Including juries in court cases. The irrefutable proof never exists.
Innocent until proven guilty is a vital part of our criminal justice system, and one I fully support, even if it means guilty people go free due to lack of evidence.
The court of public opinion is a more fickle place. Always has been always will be.
In my opinion of him as a person the evidence against Jackson is pretty damning. His behaviour posed a significant risk against children and with hindsight it is amazing it was accepted.
He was written off as a eccentric man child in the public eye and his behaviour was tolerated.
Even if nothing was ever proven in court this re appraisal of his life is damaging to his legacy.

mbur

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

sligeach

Have people read this letter from the Michael Jackson Estate attorney, Howard Weitzman to Richard Plepler, Chief Executive Officer of HBO?

Michael Jackson Estate Letter of FACTS – Debunking “Leaving Neverland”

https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

It's a very long letter, most sites just quote sections, but I suggest people read it, all of it, particularly those who think Michael is guilty, then try saying they believe the 2 accusers. Though the letter contains a lot, "the information discussed in this letter is just the tip of the iceberg on these two."

I was quoting some of it, but then removed it. It has to be read.

sligeach

sligeach wrote: »

Have people read this letter from the Michael Jackson Estate attorney, Howard Weitzman to Richard Plepler, Chief Executive Officer of HBO?


I was quoting some of it, but then removed it. It has to be read.

Like if you don't have a life "has to be read" maybe.. seriously?

I don't need to read all that guff to know that the documentary itself is just not good journalism - it's a "movie" made for commercial gain-not a documentary - good documentaries have some level of balance- this has none.

It's bad journalism and I don't think it does anything for further the pursuit of "truth". People can make their own minds up when watching it - I know I have.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Which is it?

Jesus, both? They both mean the same thing. That's what he told his mother, obviously referring to the abuse. Me saying he didn't defend him because Michael abused him was me paraphrasing. I mean, he spent much of the first part describing that abuse. Im pretty sure that's what he meant when he said Michael wasn't a good person and his mother took it as an admission of abuse. But maybe he meant he wasn't a good person because he didn't rewind his videos or something and that's why he couldn't defend him.

I don't know why I keep getting drawn into this. You aren't going to change your mind.

I didn't know much about Robson before all this and i believe him. Even without the abuse, his family was torn apart because of Michael Jackson. I didn't know about any of that. Safechuck is clearly a very troubled individual and I believe him also. Everything they say rings true.

I'm sure if more people come forward you'll write them off similarly. I'm not sure I could so vigorously defend someone facing such horrible accusations on multiple occasions, and slate alleged abuse victims but whatever, you do you!

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know why I keep getting drawn into this. You aren't going to change your mind.

Relax, I only asked you a question you directly contradicted yourself within 2 posts. I just asked for clarity.

As for changing my mind, I have no problem doing that, it will have to evidence based though.

I don't think that is a mental concept TBF.

ToBeFrank123

AllForIt wrote: »

Piers Morgan gave Dan Reed a good grilling in this interview. I think Morgans line of questioning reflects many of the doubts a lot of ppl have on the issue. Reed looks more and more awkward as the interview goes one and appears to be biting his tongue somewhat. On Prime Time the other day he said when asked about evidence (other than testimony) he retorted "he slept in the same bed as them - what do you think he was doing with them [in his bed]".

I find it interesting too that a British person made this doc. I do recall in the 80's before any allegations the British Tabloids where vicious towards 'Wacko Jacko" - a term that originated in The Sun.

Any judge would rule a statement like this inadmissible. A defence lawyer would object to it being speculation and conjecture which it is. Its the type of accusation that wouldn't be permitted in court for good reason.
Seems to me Reed has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. Yet he's not qualified as a lawyer or judge.
Very little in this documentary would I imagine stand up in a court of law under robust cross examination.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Relax, I only asked you a question you directly contradicted yourself within 2 posts. I just asked for clarity.

As for changing my mind, I have no problem doing that, it will have to evidence based though.

I don't think that is a mental concept TBF.

How did I contradict myself? Saying the same thing two different ways is not a contradiction. Safechuck told his mother not to defend him and he wouldn't either because "he wasn't a good person". That's all he was able to say to his mother at the time but even she knew what he meant. Now again, he might not have been referring to the abuse he had just detailed in graphic detail on camera making Jackson not a good person but I doubt it.

There will never be enough evidence for you if the many accusations, settlements and paedophilic behaviour over many years is not sufficient.

innuendo141

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Any judge would rule a statement like this inadmissible. A defence lawyer would object to it being speculation and conjecture which it is. Its the type of accusation that wouldn't be permitted in court for good reason.
Seems to me Reed has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. Yet he's not qualified as a lawyer or judge.
Very little in this documentary would I imagine stand up in a court of law under robust cross examination.

His interview with Piers Morgan confirms this.

ceadaoin.

mbur wrote: »

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

That's the thing, they weren't there against their will. They don't want to be rescued. It's something that a lot people can't understand. They were groomed and actually liked being with Jackson, even the sexual aspect, as wrong as we know it to be

joe40

mbur wrote: »

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

Yeah I remember those days we used to joke about Michael Jackson and child abuse.
It was easier for people/fans to write him off as "wacko jacko" rather than seriously question his behaviour.
His music was great, and many people were committed fans so it was easier that way.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How did I contradict myself?

You said in one post he specifically told his mother he was sexually abused in 2005 and the next one you said he didn't, he just told her Jackson was bad.

ToBeFrank123

I think in the interests of balance (something badly missing) Jackson was friends with a lot of people who ranged from elderly or middle aged (Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, etc) right down to kids. So he wasn't just friends with kids, he was friends with people of all ages. Its being portrayed that he spent his entire life hanging around kids or something like that. He spent time with kids, he spent time with adults. That needs to be said. He spent time with a lot of people, but commentators only want to focus on the fact he spent time with kids and ignore practically everything else. Balance is important.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

You said in one post he specifically told his mother he was sexually abused in 2005 and the next one you said he didn't, he just told her Jackson was bad.

Well that's what he said and she took it as him saying he was sexually abused. I can't remember exactly but she may have asked him and he said yes but he didn't want to talk about it. Either way, she understood that he had been abused and the audience understood that that's why he didn't defend him. Talk about pedantic

Mr.Wemmick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's the thing, they weren't there against their will. They don't want to be rescued. It's something that a lot people can't understand. They were groomed and actually liked being with Jackson, even the sexual aspect, as wrong as we know it to be

Agreed. Ask any social worker worth their salt what it is like to take damaged children away from abusive parents, the kids don't want to go.. they kick and scream, do not want to be separated. The healing process takes a very long time.

I once worked in a primary school in the UK where a Dad who sexually abused his kids would arrive at the school fence to try to see and talk to his daughters. The young girls, who were in care, were so happy to see him the couple of times he managed to get their attention. Being a young teacher, I didn't understand it at all and was very shock by it.. now that I am older, I understand perfectly.

martingriff

Is there serious question in relation to Michael Jackson and his sleepovers yes but I am finding some of Leaving Neverland to take serious and given that this is happening now so long after his death its casts some doubt to me. Anytime I hear of people coming out to say they were a victim of x or y after they die I go were you. Now do not get me wrong it is creapy but as far as I know it is not a crime I just think he was a boy in a mans body as he did not have his I was listening to Ivan Yates today and Tom Jones was on and he has no doubt of his guilt and anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong and he will never play anything from him again.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think in the interests of balance (something badly missing) Jackson was friends with a lot of people who ranged from elderly or middle aged (Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, etc) right down to kids. So he wasn't just friends with kids, he was friends with people of all ages. Its being portrayed that he spent his entire life hanging around kids or something like that. He spent time with kids, he spent time with adults. That needs to be said. He spent time with a lot of people, but commentators only want to focus on the fact he spent time with kids and ignore practically everything else. Balance is important.

But yet he didn't share a bed with any of those friends did he? He didn't even share a bed with his own wife. Like ever . He only shared a bed with children, and only male children of a certain age. Hmm

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think in the interests of balance (something badly missing) Jackson was friends with a lot of people who ranged from elderly or middle aged (Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, etc) right down to kids. So he wasn't just friends with kids, he was friends with people of all ages. Its being portrayed that he spent his entire life hanging around kids or something like that. He spent time with kids, he spent time with adults. That needs to be said. He spent time with a lot of people, but commentators only want to focus on the fact he spent time with kids and ignore practically everything else. Balance is important.

How many of those adult friends did he sleep with?

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But yet he didn't share a bed with any of those friends did he? He didn't even share a bed with his own wife. Like ever . He only shared a bed with children, and only male children of a certain age. Hmm

But still no proof of anything, just conjecture.

I'm a great believer in proof and evidence that stands up in court and due process. A one sided documentary is not the way to convict anyone. This is the main fault with this documentary, no right to reply was given to the other side. At least the Jackson estate lawyers have come out fighting which is their right. It would be a great if a documentary was made showing the other side of the story.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But still no proof of anything, just conjecture.

I'm a great believer in proof and evidence that stands up in court and due process. A one sided documentary is not the way to convict anyone. This is the main fault with this documentary, no right to reply was given to the other side. At least the Jackson estate lawyers have come out fighting which is their right. It would be a great if a documentary was made showing the other side of the story.

Its not conjecture that he slept with boys and not his wife. You said that the fact that he had adult friends provides "balance", as if that somehow means he didn't abuse children. Sure, priests are celibate therefore they couldn't have abused anyone right? And many alleged child abusers are married, they can't be paedophiles. No, that's not how it works.

So he had adult friends too. What's your point?

It's not just this documentary. I thought he was guilty before it. It's everything. The intense friendships with boys only, sleepovers, dropping them when they got older, his tactile behaviour with them and lots more.

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

How many of those adult friends did he sleep with?

I think we've been over the part where he was an eccentric individual who felt most comfortable in the company of kids, possibly because of his own difficult relationship with his father. He possibly only trusted or felt comfortable around kids. But he didn't spend all his time with kids was my point. He had adult friends too.
I can see its difficult getting any balance into this discussion and for some there's only one side to the story. If that's the case then this documentary has been very successful.
Its still a leap to say without solid evidence that because he shared a bed with kids he must have raped them. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and all that. Most people have simply bypassed the court of law thing.
Mob justice at its finest!

Beechwoodspark

I know the hardcore fans will never accept it but His life and music are now consigned to the dustbin of history.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its not conjecture that he slept with boys and not his wife. You said that the fact that he had adult friends provides "balance", as if that somehow means he didn't abuse children. Sure, priests are celibate therefore they couldn't have abused anyone right? And many alleged child abusers are married, they can't be paedophiles. No, that's not how it works.

So he had adult friends too. What's your point?

No its conjecture that because he shared a bed with some children he must have raped them. Others have made the point that if he was so sexually interested in them why did he abandon them for other kids like Culkin who wouldn't "put out" to put it crudely.

joe40

I know I'm been flippant here but if I'm on a work trip and choose to share a room and a bed with my glamorous female colleague, will the defence "nothing happened" carry much weight with the missus.
Seriously though, you know that at this stage there will be no evidence that stands up in a court of law.
But this is important Jackson is not on trial. His behaviour is been questioned especially in light of latest allegations, but also in relation to the stuff that has been well documented, but viewed in a different light nowadays.
If a current celebrity was behaving like jackson did with kids it would not be widely accepted.
As a society, not just in Ireland, we have all grown up a bit in relation to child abuse.
Imagine Ed Sherran sharing a bed with children.

Lady Spangles

AllForIt wrote: »

Piers Morgan gave Dan Reed a good grilling in this interview. I think Morgans line of questioning reflects many of the doubts a lot of ppl have on the issue. Reed looks more and more awkward as the interview goes one and appears to be biting his tongue somewhat. On Prime Time the other day he said when asked about evidence (other than testimony) he retorted "he slept in the same bed as them - what do you think he was doing with them [in his bed]".

I find it interesting too that a British person made this doc. I do recall in the 80's before any allegations the British Tabloids where vicious towards 'Wacko Jacko" - a term that originated in The Sun.

While that particular term may have originated in the Sun, the allegations against Jackson and rumours of his strange behaviour, certaintly did not. It was well known that his behaviour was strange "even by LA standards".

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

I know I'm been flippant here but if I'm on a work trip and choose to share a room and a bed with my glamorous female colleague, will the defence "nothing happened" carry much weight with the missus.
Seriously you know that at this stage there will be no evidence that stands up in a court of law.
But this is important Jackson is not on trial. His behaviour is been questioned especially in light of latest allegations, but also in relation to the stuff that has been well documented, but viewed in a different light nowadays.
If a current celebrity was behaving like jackson did with kids it would not be widely accepted.
As a society, not just in Ireland, we have all grown up a bit in relation to child abuse.
Imagine Ed Sherran sharing a bed with children.

Its viewed in the same light today as it was then. Odd, eccentric, unusual, creepy. However some people set the bar higher in terms of proof than others. Some people only accept evidence admissible in court and witnesses cross examined in court. Others meanwhile are ok accepting evidence and witness statements presented in a commercial documentary/film which needs to be explosive to get put on TV and with zero cross examination of witnesses.
So forgive me for setting the evidence bar higher than this. I was never one for mob justice or kangaroo courts. Unless the case is presented and tried in court, its pretty much just entertainment for the masses and little more.

We've had numerous people tried by media in recent years - everyone was sure they were guilty at the time. Turns out they were completely innocent when it went to court or the evidence was double checked. Some went to their grave with an untrue stain on their character.

Mrcaramelchoc

Has lisa Marie anything to say on all of it?probably not allowed open her mouth.

Beechwoodspark

What sickens me is his whole family facilitiated him and continue to deny in a desperate attempt to somehow keep him marketable. Dirty bastards all

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

What sickens me is his whole family facilitiated him and continue to deny in a desperate attempt to somehow keep him marketable. Dirty bastards all

I'm sure your post will get many thanks but unless they were in the bedroom with him they know as much as the rest of us.

turbbo

Boggles wrote: »

I don't.

I think this should be enough to not bother engaging in a debate anymore!

turbbo

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I do and freely admit the US justice system makes mistakes, such as OJ. I don't think this is the case with MJ though. However, I may be proven wrong. Some people are so certain they can't even wait for this to be brought back to court, its justice by documentary.

Fair enough I can agree to disagree with you Deebles but Boggles you're ignored from now on!

Beechwoodspark

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm sure your post will get many thanks but unless they were in the bedroom with him they know as much as the rest of us.

Sorry but I am not remotely taken in by your desperate attempts to deny reality.

My message to Jackson “fans”-It’s over.

He’s consigned to the rubbish tip of history and good riddance.

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am not remotely taken in by your desperate attempts to deny reality.

My message to Jackson “fans”-It’s over.

He’s consigned to the rubbish tip of history and good riddance.

The only thing I'm a mega fan of is trial by courtroom rather than documentary.

But maybe we should shut down the courts and hand over trials to film-makers.

ebbsy

Those 2 men looked like they had been coached very well in the way they delivered their so called truths.

Wonder how much they got paid ???

Beechwoodspark

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The only thing I'm a mega fan of is trial by courtroom rather than documentary.

But maybe we should shut down the courts and hand over trials to film-makers.

Stop trying to pathetically defend him. It’s not working. It’s over. Go home. Take the wacko jacko cds with ye

ebbsy

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry but I am not remotely taken in by your desperate attempts to deny reality.

My message to Jackson “fans”-It’s over.

He’s consigned to the rubbish tip of history and good riddance.

The only thing I'm a mega fan of is trial by courtroom rather than documentary.

But maybe we should shut down the courts and hand over trials to film-makers.

Good point.

I ask again - how much did these 2 guys get paid ?

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I know I'm been flippant here but if I'm on a work trip and choose to share a room and a bed with my glamorous female colleague, will the defence "nothing happened" carry much weight with the missus.
Seriously you know that at this stage there will be no evidence that stands up in a court of law.
But this is important Jackson is not on trial. His behaviour is been questioned especially in light of latest allegations, but also in relation to the stuff that has been well documented, but viewed in a different light nowadays.
If a current celebrity was behaving like jackson did with kids it would not be widely accepted.
As a society, not just in Ireland, we have all grown up a bit in relation to child abuse.
Imagine Ed Sherran sharing a bed with children.

Its viewed in the same light today as it was then. Odd, eccentric, unusual, creepy. However some people set the bar higher in terms of proof than others. Some people only accept evidence admissible in court and witnesses cross examined in court. Others meanwhile are ok accepting evidence and witness statements presented in a commercial documentary/film which needs to be explosive to get put on TV and with zero cross examination of witnesses.
So forgive me for setting the evidence bar higher than this. I was never one for mob justice or kangaroo courts. Unless the case is presented and tried in court, its pretty much just entertainment for the masses and little more.

We've had numerous people tried by media in recent years - everyone was sure they were guilty at the time. Turns out they were completely innocent when it went to court or the evidence was double checked. Some went to their grave with an untrue stain on their character.

"Odd, eccentric, unusual, creepy"
Is that honestly how you view Michael Jackson's behaviour. The well established stuff that is.

With the benefit of hindsight his behaviour was extremely high risk to say the least.
Can you honestly tell me you would support, (as in buy music etc) a current muscian behaving like that and not question the behaviour

goat2

I watched the first episode of this story,
My take on it is, the boy was seven and his mother saw nothing wrong with him sleeping with a grown man,
The mom left her husband in Australia to travel to America with her son and M Jackson, She was supposed to be the childs guardian, how could she be that innocent not to question why this grown man sleeping with her son,

Mam of 4

Part two is starting on Ch 4 ,'now , 9pm .

ebbsy

goat2 wrote: »

I watched the first episode of this story,
My take on it is, the boy was seven and his mother saw nothing wrong with him sleeping with a grown man,
The mom left her husband in Australia to travel to America with her son and M Jackson, She was supposed to be the childs guardian, how could she be that innocent not to question why this grown man sleeping with her son,

Because like those 2 men last night, she was getting paid a barrow load of cash.

This is what it's all about. Spondulicks.

AllForIt

Lady Spangles wrote: »

While that particular term may have originated in the Sun, the allegations against Jackson and rumours of his strange behaviour, certaintly did not. It was well known that his behaviour was strange "even by LA standards".

I'm talking about the late 80's period. Child abuse allegations first surfaced in 1993 according to wikipedia.

I'm referring to stories such as the bubbles the monkey story, sleeping in an oxygen tank to preserve himself, etc etc.

From the MJ wiki page:

In 1986, the tabloids ran a story claiming that he slept in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to slow aging, and was pictured lying in a glass box. The claim was untrue; widely cited tabloid reports state that Jackson disseminated the fabricated story himself.[120] When Jackson bought a chimpanzee named Bubbles from a laboratory, he was reported as increasingly detached from reality.[121] It was reported that Jackson had offered to buy the bones of Joseph Merrick (the "Elephant Man") and, although the story was untrue, Jackson did not deny it.[122] He initially saw these stories as opportunities for publicity, but stopped leaking them to the press as they became more sensational. The media then began fabricating stories.[120][123][124] These stories became embedded in the public consciousness, inspiring the nickname "Wacko Jacko", which Jackson came to despise.[9][125]

I make the point again. The British press were particularly vicious to Jackson way before any child abuse allegations. I know, because I remember it. If he were one of their own they wouldn't have been.

Call me Al

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think in the interests of balance (something badly missing) Jackson was friends with a lot of people who ranged from elderly or middle aged (Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, etc) right down to kids. So he wasn't just friends with kids, he was friends with people of all ages. Its being portrayed that he spent his entire life hanging around kids or something like that. He spent time with kids, he spent time with adults. That needs to be said. He spent time with a lot of people, but commentators only want to focus on the fact he spent time with kids and ignore practically everything else. Balance is important.

Yeah... He only slept with little boys though.. unless you can find the balance for that.

Paully D

Probably mentioned already but I see RTÉ have said they won’t be playlisting his music any more.

Using that logic, I assume they’ll now stop broadcasting anything to do with Catholicism? The Angelus, Mass etc?

0ph0rce0

Watching on channel 4 now. Pure lies

ceadaoin.

ebbsy wrote: »

Those 2 men looked like they had been coached very well in the way they delivered their so called truths.

Wonder how much they got paid ???

They didn't get paid for the documentary. The director has been clear about this