Micheal Jackson

Gillie

I could be opening a big arguement here but i'll say it anyway.

I think its disgracful that we have to watch ads on TV trying to sell Jacko's new "Number 1s" album. I'm all for the "Innocent till proven guilty" thing but I think its very distastful.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think R Kelly was under investigation for the sexual assualt of a minor yet while the investigation was going on his new single "Ignition" was number 1! I find it a bit hard to take.

If Joe Soap is being Investigated for a crime can he be suspended from his job (obviously depends on his/her employers policy etc.). But if it is the case they are suspended without pay etc. Why then if your a musician should you be allowed to produce Music and make profit from such productions. Footballers sometimes get away with it also. They get the bench where they still get payed!

I'm not arguing that Jacko's Guilty or Innocent - i'm simply making a comparison to how a regular person would be treated in the same situation! I'm not sure how ppl are dealt with in a regular job - are they suspended etc. Perhaps someone can clarify this!

Anyway Comments?

quank

i know its kinda off topic, but i think Michael is inoocent

i think the kids' parents just want money off him tbh...

anyway, my worthless two cents

bonkey

Originally posted by Gilly2003
But if it is the case they are suspended without pay etc.

Given that you don't know if suspension can happen or not at all, how can you say what would happen if a suspension was carried out?

i'm simply making a comparison to how a regular person would be treated in the same situation!

Well, you're not really. You're making a comparison about how you see Jackson being treated and you think a regular person might be treated whilst admitting you don't know if thats whats done at all.

So surely you're jumping the gun a bit with the "rich people get better/different treatment" allegations? You may be right mind, but you are still jumping the gun.

Also, while you may find it hard to take....ask yourself how you would like to be treated in a situation where you were charged, pending trial? Innocent or Guilty?

By your statements here, you would clearly prefer to be considered guilty by the common man, because you have a problem with someone else being otherwise.

jc

Villain

Originally posted by Gilly2003
I could be opening a big arguement here but i'll say it anyway.

I think its disgracful that we have to watch ads on TV trying to sell Jacko's new "Number 1s" album. I'm all for the "Innocent till proven guilty" thing but I think its very distastful.

100% disagree, Michael Jackson at this moment is inocent and until that changes he should be allowed sell his music.

I agree quank I think he is inocent and the parents are looking to extract money.

Michael Jackson opened his home to a lot of sick kids and has helpded a lot of people lets not forget that.

Also were any priests suspended from saying mass after raping inocent children??

tribble

I'm all for the "Innocent till proven guilty" thing but I think its very distastful.

My friend you are either FOR the presumtion of innocence or you are NOT.
There are no hedged bets.

tribble

Silent Bob

Originally posted by Gilly2003
I'm all for the "Innocent till proven guilty" thing but I think its very distastful.

It's "innocent unless proven guilty".

"Until" has connotations that the person is guilty, it just needs to be proven.

ixoy

Firstly, even you point out it will depend on the employeer whether they suspend the employee or not. If the crime they're changed with is completely unrelated to their conduct at work then there's no real reason that they WOULD get suspended.

Secondly, Michael Jackson relies on the public for his money. If someone in your workplace was charged with a crime there's no way you can register your disgust and affect their salary. With Jackson, if you feel so strongly, you can just choose not to buy his record and boycott his work. There you go - you're affecting his sales!

And since this isn't Judge Dredd, we presume his innocence unless the evidence compels us to think otherwise.

Cork

Michael Jackson deserves due process and he is inocent until proven otherwise.

That said - I was in a record store last Thurday & they were playing his new cd - I very nearly went over to ask them to put something else on.

chill

Originally posted by Cork
Michael Jackson deserves due process and he is inocent until proven otherwise.

That said - I was in a record store last Thurday & they were playing his new cd - I very nearly went over to ask them to put something else on.

I bought one for me and one for my nephew for Christmas day before yesterday. It's brilliant and I have hardly stopped playing it in my car.

I hope the truth gets an opportunity to come out despite the lynch mob but either way I'll never allow artists lives to affect what music I listen to or how I judge it.

Meh

Originally posted by chill
I'll never allow artists lives to affect what music I listen to or how I judge it.

So would you get your nephew "Gary Glitter's Greatest Hits" for his birthday, then?

Sangre

Originally posted by Gilly2003

If Joe Soap is being Investigated for a crime can he be suspended from his job (obviously depends on his/her employers policy etc.). But if it is the case they are suspended without pay etc. '

Well I would assume this would be unconstitutional, considering it is our fundamental right to have due process, which implies innocent unless proven guilty, of course this would probably be impractical once the trial commences etc, and of course if there is no bail

Anyway, these allegations wouldnt stop me buying the cd until after his is convicted...maybe. Anyway, the arrest was just very,very bad timing for him, they just decided to go ahead with the publicity they had probably already bought.

Any publicity, is good publicity.

ixoy

Originally posted by Meh
So would you get your nephew "Gary Glitter's Greatest Hits" for his birthday, then?

No, 'coz it's sh1te. However, going by what you actually mean, I'd have no objection because I seperate their work from their actions outside of their work. I mean, by a similiar token, should I boycott anything Roman Polanski does?

Smurfette

Michael Jackson's record company released that record in time for Christmas to try and recoup some of the money they lost on his disastrous last album (sales wise)
So say he was suspended from his job and an ordinary person was likewise do you think the company wouldn't use say a major report or similar if it was to make money for the company ?
I'm saying this as a lifelong Jackson fan ...bought his new album last Sat week and to be honest wish I hadn't and haven't played it since .

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
So would you get your nephew "Gary Glitter's Greatest Hits" for his birthday, then?

If he liked GG's music, I probably would, yes.

A massive chunk of predominantly black rap in the US is produced by guys with records...some of whom are even producing albums from prison. I vaguely remember someone pointing out an album at some point which was riding high in the album charts and saying "he's on death row at the moment".

I guess some people can seperate music from musician's personal life....

jc

Kopf

Originally posted by irish1

Michael Jackson opened his home to a lot of sick kids and has helpded a lot of people lets not forget that.

Helpded? Oh dear. There goes my regard for your opinion, right down the drain.

Villain

Originally posted by Kopf
Helpded? Oh dear. There goes my regard for your opinion, right down the drain.

Yes helped.

Can you expand on what your problem is, instead of posting silly posts about opinion that I really don't care about.???:rolleyes:

Hobart

So just because somebody is a suspected phaedo, that automatically makes his music bad?? Now Gary Glitter (Unfortunate name BTW) would not be on my top 10 all greatest hits, go the jc, but I still think off the wall is one of the greatest albumns ever made. MJ stuff since then has been so so imo. The fact that he may/may not have molested some childern, while a serious and sad allegation, does not make me suddendly think his music should be suspended from sale.

chill

Originally posted by Meh
So would you get your nephew "Gary Glitter's Greatest Hits" for his birthday, then?

I'd get him Charles Manson's album if it was good music.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
I'd get him Charles Manson's album if it was good music.

Helter Skelter is "good music"

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Kopf
Helpded? Oh dear. There goes my regard for your opinion, right down the drain.

Why? Cos of a spelling mistake? Oh... you're real clever.

As for Michael Jackson.. he's weird alright, but currently innocent. No matter what the turnout is though I'll still listen to his music. I think bonkey's summed it up quite well with his post.

neuro-praxis

I might reconsider supporting him by purchasing his cds if he were found guilty.

Then again I might not.

As it is, I'm a fan. I'll keep buying. He's an amazing musician. This whole situation makes me very sad.

azezil

Wheather he's innocent or not is not for me to decide, I don't see any reason why his record sales should be halted.

I do however have issue with his treatment of his own kids, in November last year he stunned fans in Berlin by dangling his barefoot baby from a hotel window, the children wear masks in public, this is not normal behaviour and is an issue I feel should have been addressed long ago.

tbh

Its like Homers thought process when hes trying to decide whether to vote for Sideshow Bob or not...to paraphrase..
"I do agree with his moonwalking policy...but I don't agree with his kiddy-fiddling policy"...

Executive Steve

Originally posted by bonkey


I vaguely remember someone pointing out an album at some point which was riding high in the album charts and saying "he's on death row at the moment".



jc

errrr. death row is a record label....

and i think its a bit stupid to give out about the occasional rapper with a criminal record... its not as if these sinister "mostly black rappers" are sitting in their cell heading up multi million dollar multimedia entertainment corporations planning to corrupt your children...

the whole point of culture is that its a transfer of experience through expression, yes? musicians artists painters and poets etc. are supposed to be creative on the basis of experiences that you have not had in order to enrich your life. the point is you cant seperate a musician's personality from his or her music... unless theyre bad musicians.

as for michael jackson, well at least he has been of some benefit to humanity: plastic surgery would be decades behind were it not for the experience and know how the worlds finest cosmetic surgeons have gained on the basis of his numerous journeys under the knife.

Tha Gopher

Bonkey-Im a big rap fan and AFAIK there has never been a best selling album by a rapper facing execution. I presume your confusing it with Death Row Records,a phoenonomally successful rap record company until the mid 90s,when their main star Tupac Shakur was killed and big names like Dr Dre and Snoop Dogg left the company,as well as CEO Suge Knight being sent to prison for a few years for assault. Snoop Dogg however was doing well in the charts at the same time as being charged with involvement in a murder of which he was later aquitted,and Tupac came out with a massive selling album while on bail from prison appealing a highly dubious rape conviction.
Anyway I think that unless proven guilty he should be allowed to advertise and sell as much as he wants. If you were wrongly accused of a sex offence would you lkike to be sacked from your work? In the UK John Leslies tv career was finished by false allegations,with spineless bastards ITV using some sort of lame excuse to dump him. Same with Michael Barrymore-he mightnt have been up to good stuff,but he didnt kill anyone or rape anybody. Angus Deayton gets kicked off tv for snorting cocaine and uysing prostitutes? Its a personal decision that harms nobody,so whats the fuss? When you think about it there arent too many artists nowadays who dont have a conviction for something. As somebody said Roman Polanski almost certain commited offences with a child but he is still the toast of the high brow cinema crowd. But Michael Jackson has charges levelled against him which may or not be true and its time to burn his CDs? Feck off

ferdi

micheal jackson is one of if not the greatest solo artist of all time



that is all

Moriarty

Police, Child Welfare Probers Concluded Sex Abuse Charges "Unfounded".

Intwesting.

vibe666

when the first allegations arose about MJ i refused to believe it was possible, but over time and repeated allegations my opinion was swayed to the point where i started to think it could be true, after all the 'innocent unless proven guilty' line can only go so far against the 'no smoke without fire' line so many time beofre it wears thin.

having said all that, i just read the report posted above and it turns out that yet again MJ has been the victim of more money grabbing scum who would subject their own children to the trauma of accusing someone they obviously love of the type of abuse they should be protecting them from. personally, that makes the childrens parents as bad as someone who is physically abusing children. mental abuse of that type can be almost as bad.

these people shouldn't be allowed to have children.

tbh, i'm ashamed of myself for giving into the media hype surrounding the story. i should know better by now.

sorry MJ.:(

Wompa1

I think he was innocent this time but he was guilty in 93 and probably has done it more than once

Kalina

Apprently he's been charged with 7 counts of molesting a child and 2 more counts of giving him intoxicating substances.
I think he's innocent, both of this crime and in life in general. A bit too innocent for the life he leads in public eye.