Michael Jackson: Your thoughts?

dlofnep

I grew up watching Jackson's videos on tele. He was a mile away from every other artist in his creativity and all of his music videos were awesome. Still, he's left with the stigma of the molestation case, which he was found not guilty in a court of law. Was it a case of an overly-affectionate Jackson being exploited by the families and the media, or is he really a pervert?

In any case, what's everyone's thoughts on his life, what he accomplished, and yadda yadda?

Me? I think he's a legend. What say you?

monkeyfudge

Personally I like to think there's a little bit of truth in this story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940

Radharc na Sleibhte

His music is the best there is.
Its just a shame about all the other stuff.

dlofnep

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Personally I like to think there's a little bit of truth in this story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940

The good old onion!

Gummy Panda

He's no pedobear

monkeyfudge

But they have a point... it was around the late 80s when it all went a bit strange and the music became rubbish.

keen

Was decent back in the day, child abuser these days.

Secret rooms in his ranch, alaramed corridors leading to his bedroom a bit strange imo.

Affable

He's not an evil man who should be demonised. He just needs help.

elmolesto

He is a legend, just a bit strange

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Affable

The Scientist wrote: »

He's an evil man who should be demonised.

Way too harsh. The man's clearly off his rocker and not in control of himself.
To call him evil is wrong.

dlofnep

The Scientist wrote: »

He's an evil man who should be demonised.

Affable wrote: »

He's not an evil man who should be demonised.

This is all quite confusing.

Degsy

he was always a bit strange.I was reading a book about an EMI record executive who worked with a lot of the big stars back in the day and he said jackson was like a big child.Whether he just never matured or it was the symptom of something more sinister that he needed the cmpany of kids remains to be seen.Whether he is actually a nonce or not,he brought all this on himself,he's a grown man who lets kids that arent his sleep in his bed and **** knows what else.

Black Swan

His plastic surgeon loves him (all the way to the bank).

Dinter

Affable wrote: »

He's not an evil man who should be demonised. He just needs help.

Yeah, with all that money you think he could have afforded some.

Although I suppose installing motion detectors on the corridors leading into your bedroom so you don't get caught having "interesting" sleepovers with minors probably costs a bit.

Then again maybe I'm just ignernt in believing there's no smoke without fire.

The Jeffersons in South Park ftw.

Bard

Michael Jackson is an enormously successful and talented singer and performer, who has the biggest selling album of all time.

Nicknamed the "King of Pop", he's had a long and well reknowned musical career, producing some of the defining music of its time - particularly in the 80's and 90's.

Despite wanting to never grow up, he turns 50 years old later this year and enjoys the company of children a little too much than is good for his image.

What else is there to say, facts-wise? (apart from all this, of course)

Personally, I don't know if he has it in him to actually molest children, but the allegations against him were very strong and very suspicious. Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children and from that viewpoint, he's one of the most memorable names of the 20th century.

I think the 21st century has left him behind though - although it'll be interesting to see what his upcoming album sounds like all the same...

dlofnep

He has an upcoming album? Sweet!

Dinter

Bard wrote: »

Despite wanting to never grow up, he turns 50 years old later this year and enjoys the company of children a little too much than is good for his image.

Personally, I don't know if he has it in him to actually molest children, but the allegations against him were very strong and very suspicious. Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children and from that viewpoint, he's one of the most memorable names of the 20th century.

Whether or not he actually molested young boys in terms of actual sexual acts I can't see how any boy would not be damaged by having what appears to be a 45 year old, asexual, badly scalded, ladyboy cuddling up to him and murmuring sweet nothings in his high pitched falsetto after paying the child's parents money for the privilege.

Just had a thought that the royalties he received from people's spending on his albums funded his sleepovers. Think I need a shower.

Sherifu

Gummy Panda wrote: »

He's no pedobear

Partners. More evidence.

Cunny-Funt

Ex-legend.


He's a talented, misunderstood, ****ed up weirdo.

He's the result of his upbringing and surroundings. & his appearance does not help him one bit.

I feel sorry for the guy tbh.


I feel creeped out by him too however.

South Park had him down imo.

Terry

I'd take head.

Sir Molle

How exactly do you guys all know what type of person he is? I'd imagine what you see written in the papers which isn't false (which doesn't leave you with a lot of information) would be only the tiniest insight in to what his personal life is like. So, really, you know nothing about who he is or what he is like.

Also, it just so happens that most of the people who have met him seem to think that he's pretty down to earth outside of the fact that he attracts enormous attention where ever he goes. If you are going to be a judge of his character, you could at least take the information you're basing your opinion on from those who have met the man first hand.

Lol, at this thread though.

Cunny-Funt

Cheers for that. You just made me shudder.

*edit*

that was @ terry

El Weirdo

Bard wrote: »

Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children...

Would you say the same thing about Gary Glitter?

Amazotheamazing

The former head of CBS defended him in a tell-all book. he didn't spare Dylan, Springsteen, the Rolling Stones or Paul Simon so there's no reason to assume he was lying for the fun of it.

Jackson is undoubtedly a disturbed man, but I don't think he is a child-abuser. Made some great tunes too!

RATM

I reckon ppls judgement ( especially his fans of which I was one as a kid ) is clouded when it comes to the allegations.

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

A great performer but a shamed one nonetheless.

Amazotheamazing

RATM wrote: »

I reckon ppls judgement ( especially his fans of which I was one as a kid ) is clouded when it comes to the allegations.

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

A great performer but a shamed one nonetheless.

His father beat him, I don't think he sexually abused him. Don't think it's comparable.

Bard

el_weirdo wrote: »

Would you say the same thing about Gary Glitter?

No, but there's a difference, in that Gary Glitter was actually CONVICTED of both possession of child pornography and child sexual abuse.

Jay P

A legend. Yes he's a bit weird but nothing he was never convicted so I dont feel any different about him.

Exit

I used to be a huge Michael Jackson fan, and I mean huge... posters on the wall, defending him when anybody badmouthed him, that kind of thing.

Thankfully over time, I grew up. He is a bit too weird and suspicious, and I really wish he had never got involved with children whatsoever. It's a little uncomfortable to think about when listening to his music or watching a music video.

The whole thing also overshadows his great music. I hadn't listened to his stuff for a long time, but at work they have an 80s station on satellite radio where they play 5 or 6 different songs of his a night. And it's awesome. Whereas a lot of 80s music sounds like it's from the 80s, a song like Billie Jean really still sounds fresh. I've since asked my brother to post over some of my Jackson albums and i can't wait to blast them in the car.

Sir Molle

RATM wrote: »

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

It's amasing how little you know. Latoya spoke out to boost her career under the influence of her manager and husband. She has openly admited to this, and has retracted her comments. There has never been any conclusive evidence to suggest guild on Jackson's part. If we're talking about evidence, the majority of the evidence incriminates the accusers for fraud.

Terry

Prove it.

Sir Molle

Terry wrote: »

Prove it.

Latoya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VnPqCAv47c

foxy06

The very fact that he admitted himself that he likes to sleep with young children means he should be locked up. We don't need proof about what he did to those boys. Just wanting to be alone and half naked in a bedroom with them is inappropriate enough....and he said all this himself.

Sir Molle

foxy06 wrote: »

The very fact that he admitted himself that he likes to sleep with young children means he should be locked up. We don't need proof about what he did to those boys. Just wanting to be alone and half naked in a bedroom with them is inappropriate enough....and he said all this himself.

Ahaha, nice attempt at a troll.

I agree, we should make sleeping in the same bed as a kid a crime.

AckwelFoley

Did he touch little boys? Yes

Is the Album thriller great? Yes.

Next question.

El Weirdo

snyper wrote: »

Did he touch little boys? Yes

Is the Album thriller great? Yes.

Next question.

Off The Wall is better IMO. But if this was some old nobody who said that he enjoyed the company of children and had slept in the same bed as them, would there be so many people defending him? I think not.

foxy06

Not a troll i can assure you, but yeah sleeping half naked in a bed with a child thats not your own and admitting it on international tv isn't right.

Some people hold this sort of topic close to their heart and you can't blame them for being upset that lots of people think that people that are accused of child abuse are talked about in a "he probably didn't do it" kind of way. This is why so many victims don't prosecute in the first place.

Sir Molle

foxy06 wrote: »

Not a troll i can assure you, but yeah sleeping half naked in a bed with a child thats not your own and admitting it on international tv isn't right.

I see you've started making things up to make your argument believable. lmao. When did he mention that he sleeps in the same bed as kids when he's half naked? What he actually said was that he has sleep overs with some of his friends, who happen to be children. "half naked" is something you added. It is also worth mentioning that his bedroom is a multi-story room with multiple beds. I even believe he also said that they sleep in seperate beds. Not only that but the kids were never invited in to his bed, and as McCaulie Culkin stated under oath during the trial that kids generally fell asleep all over the place in Neverland.

Anyway, in an attempt to try and justify sleep over, the first thing you have to take in to account is that Michael Jackson grew up as a child sleeping in the same beds as his brothers and other people because they were too poor to afford a house where they could each have their own bed. Even when they were on the road performing with the Jackson 5 they often had to sleep in the same bed as each other. This taken in to account with the fact that as a kid he grew up as a celebrity, not having the childhood a normal person would have had has ment that as an adult he values the normal child hood things that you or I would take for granted. i.e. Disney, sleep overs, kids, amusment park rides, candy etc. It might be weird, but since when is weird wrong? There's a clear difference.

But hey, lets just ignore the context of everything....

foxy06 wrote: »

Some people hold this sort of topic close to their heart and you can't blame them for being upset that lots of people think that people that are accused of child abuse are talked about in a "he probably didn't do it" kind of way. This is why so many victims don't prosecute in the first place.

Yeah, think of the people accusing because they could be victims. Let's abandon the innocent until proven guilty thing...

Not to mention the fact tha the trial is over and that he was found not guilty. But, yeah, you're right let's think of the potential victims feelings here and not the defendants rights.

foxy06

He said in his interview with martin bashir that he slept wiht the children in the same bed topless.

This may not sound that bad but If i decided to let my kids sleep in the same bed as the 45 year old man down the road I would be hung.....but its ok he kept his trousers on ....or so he told me ....and he is a good singer so it must be ok.....

Sir Molle

foxy06 wrote: »

He said in his interview with martin bashir that he slept wiht the children in the same bed topless.

This may not sound that bad but If i decided to let my kids sleep in the same bed as the 45 year old man down the road I would be hung.....but its ok he kept his trousers on ....or so he told me ....and he is a good singer so it must be ok.....

You clearly did not watch the interview because he never said anything like that.

foxy06

no he clearly did

he said he slept topless with boys in his bed

even if he was not topless, sleeping with young boys is obviously not right.

Sir Molle

He did not say he slept in beds topless, with children. The major flaw with making things up to base your argument on is when you're arguing with someone who actually know what they're talking about, your argument will probably be exposed as nonsense.

foxy06

yes he did

Sir Molle

no he didnt.

foxy06

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTocf3aWlIA&feature=related

just listen to this

its sick

Sir Molle

So if you'd like to point out where exactly he said he sleeps in the bed with little children topless, it would be much appreciated.

Mint Sauce

used to be favourite artist, seen him at wembley during the dangerious tour, still would rate him highly, still a fantastic entertainer, rumoured to be doing a 30 odd night residency at the o2 (milineium dome) either this or next year, would love to go if true

TomCo

Maybe he did touch some children now and then, but c'mon, its Michael Jackson... Michael Jackson!

QuadLeo

I think Jackson is a genius. One of the best performers the world has ever seen. He has his problems and needs a lot of guidance and help. His gigs are epic and his songs are universal and will be remembered for donkeys years.

ps how long is a donkey's year?

Black Swan

foxy06 wrote: »

yes he did

Sir Molle wrote:

no he didnt.

foxy06 wrote:

yes he did

Sir Molle wrote:

no he didnt.

foxy06 wrote:

yes he did

Sir Molle wrote:

no he didnt.

:pac::rolleyes: