Michael Jackson. All the rumours were true...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jackson worshipped childhood. Cultishly. Weirdly. It doesn't make him a paedophile.

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, it would seem perfectly obvious to me that he was a paedophile but one that was careful enough not to have any illegal materials in his possession and to pay off any child making public accusations.

Isn't that what every sane person has believed for the past decade?

There's the two main thoughts on the subject of Michael Jackson there. And really, we don't know which it was.

My personal take on it is that Jackson was severely mentally damaged by his childhood - or lack of childhood really - and was indeed obsessed with childhood and children, but whether or not it was sexual is a question that's unresolved.

I am personally Dubious about the moral wotsits of allowing naked photos of children out and about, particularly once they're old enough to be identifiable (a baby is a baby is a baby, they all look pretty much like tiny Winston Churchills, and within even a few months, only the parents would know which pictures were their sprog). I don't think there's anything specifically "dirty" about naked pictures, so long as they're not zoomed in on the genitals, but kids aren't old enough to have informed consent about it all.Not to mention once it's published or at the least on the internet, that's about it, it can't be undone. And there -is- always the possibility of the one paedophile out of a thousand people who see the picture getting their hands on it, and the possibility of the one in a thousand child molesters out of that thousand paedophiles fixiating on it and trying to find the child.

The chances are low, but I don't agree with putting the photos out there for some point the parents want to make. They can put naked photos of themselves out there if they want to normalise nudity, not other people.

Edit: I realise my position on babies vs children is hypocritical on the reasons I've specifically given. Maybe it's just that naked babies are more normalised already, although even those tend to avoid the genitalia.

I said it before and was shouted down on this forum, you don't pay someone $20 million in hush money if you're innocent, if it was me that was accused I would spend every penny proving my innocence.

As for what was found, S&M stuff while weird is a fetish some are into but pics of kids shows exactly the kind of twisted individual he was.

His "daughter" won't believe a word of it though, and has said as much.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You don't buy a kids silence if you've nothing to hide.

You don't accept a bribe if a man has abused your Son/Daughter. That is, of course, unless your primary motivation was money in the first place rather than justice.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Read the thread.

I have.

If your child was abused by a man would you accept a bribe to go away?

Simple question.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I have.

If your child was abused by a man would you accept a bribe to go away?

Simple question.

I wouldn't.

But just because they took the money doesn't mean nothing happened.

mikeym wrote: »

I dont trust content from Fox OP :cool:

You are not alone. :cool:

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You don't accept a bribe if a man has abused your Son/Daughter. That is, of course, unless your primary motivation was money in the first place rather than justice.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure I would want my child to go through a very public trial where they would have to relive their experience in front of the world and probably be aggressively questioned on the stand.