nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

Sabre0001

A trailer has been released for the controversial documentary. Set to air on March 3rd and 4th on HBO. Will air "later in the spring" on Channel 4, according to Buzz.ie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Ze8LjzV7Q

The Jackson family, naturally, isn't at all happy with this documentary. They said, "Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged."

"We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice.

Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate.

Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive."

Could be an interesting watch.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mcmoustache

sligeach wrote: »

Ratings: “Leaving Neverland” Not a Ratings Smash for HBO, Beaten by “Real Housewives of Atlanta,” “Beachfront Bargain Hunt,” Survivalists Show

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/03/05/ratings-leaving-neverland-not-a-ratings-smash-for-hbo-beaten-by-real-housewives-of-atlanta-beachfront-bargain-hunt-survivalists-show

And ironic that Roger Friedman is the author of the article. I'm not alone in the boycott. Channel 4 should have higher viewer figures, it's a bit of a trashy station.
https://twitter.com/SandcastleFugi/status/1102997266682372096

Ah well, that settles it so and totally explains why he slept with children. I guess we can go home now.

mcmoustache

leggo wrote: »

Mate, stop. It got weird like 10 pages ago.

But did you not see the ratings? Totally clears the singer. Thank you.

sligeach

I've seen numerous sites all say that 3 Canadian radio stations have pulled Michael Jackson songs. Sky News now, but the Irish Examiner and the Belfast Telegraph earlier amongst many others.

As a result of the claims featured in the documentary, three major radio stations in Canada have pulled Michael Jackson songs from their playlist following the audience response.

https://news.sky.com/story/michael-jacksons-nephew-defends-him-against-new-abuse-allegations-11655962

I got a personal response from one of the Canadian stations stating this isn't true. The ironic thing is that part of my initial comment to them was to correct them that the BBC hasn't banned Michael's songs being played, which they proclaimed. The media, eh, they're so reliable, impartial and trustworthy. They always tell the truth.

mcmoustache

If you banned the songs of everyone who didn't have a super clean record from radio stations, there'd be nothing but whale sounds.

biggebruv

Gives a whole new meaning to the song “bad” now.

The metoo era defiantly helps give the doc credibility too I think before people weren’t quick to believe it but now after Seville and Harvey Weinstein, Cosby it’s just so hard not too

Unearthly

sligeach wrote: »

I've seen numerous sites all say that 3 Canadian radio stations have pulled Michael Jackson songs. Sky News now, but the Irish Examiner and the Belfast Telegraph earlier amongst many others.

https://news.sky.com/story/michael-jacksons-nephew-defends-him-against-new-abuse-allegations-11655962

I got a personal response from one of the Canadian stations stating this isn't true. The ironic thing is that part of my initial comment to them was to correct them that the BBC hasn't banned Michael's songs being played, which they proclaimed. The media, eh, they're so reliable, impartial and trustworthy. They always tell the truth.

Ah here, you are emailing Canadian radio stations about this now? :pac:

mcmoustache

Unearthly wrote: »

Ah here, you are emailing Canadian radio stations about this now? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqSTXuJeTks

RoryMac

mcmoustache wrote: »

I still haven't heard a good explanation for why he was sleeping with kids that weren't his.

Seems to be the one question sligeach avoids anyway!

mcmoustache

RoryMac wrote: »

Seems to be the one question sligeach avoids anyway!

I'm sure there's an innocent explanation.

BorneTobyWilde

biggebruv wrote: »

Just finished was on the fence before. I’m definitely choosing to believe the 2 guys here it’s just bizarre he was a sick guy

It's a convincing tale for sure. That's what a documentary is suppose to do, make you believe the narrative, it does that as it's so one sided.

ceadaoin.

Smertrius wrote: »

But in 2005 these men testimony this wasn't sexual abuse under oath of Law and order now 4 years later they are testimony again its was sexual abuse now I am confuse

No, one of them did - Wade Robson. Jimmy Safechuck declined to testify on Jackson's behalf in 2005

Agent Coulson

I watched the first hour and there was no way I was sitting through another 3 hours

Not because I don’t believe them.

Because it was a boring as **** and a terrible style/ edit/ storytelling of Documentary there was nothing there that grabbed my attention nothing new nothing that made me go wow holy sh1t really and made me want to watch more.

fritzelly

That was a slog to watch, 90 minutes would have sufficed
And such a one sided affair with absolutely nothing to counter the claims or any other pertinent information really highlighted
Dunno if he did anything but these two guys stories really do stink. Promised the world and have everything bought for them, then realised when they were adults you have to work for yourself unless you decide to sue a company that has billions

About to watch the Oprah show - never thought I would say that

BorneTobyWilde

After watching the whole 4 hours I'm thinking it was probably true, and i've defended Michael up to this point. The last hour of it is what convinces me, the family stuff, the fallout within the two families once they told them it was true. It tore them apart, Wade's mom is an outcast, hated by Wades brother and sister for allowing Wade to stay with Michael.
As for Michael, he was a man child, lets pretend he really was 13 and having sexual experiences with other 13 year olds, not so shocking as that's happening daily and it's normal part of growing up. But he wasn't 13, he was an adult who never had a normal life and was playing out the acts of a exploring teenager as an adult man. The fact he reached out to these guys to defend him makes it more believable that he indeed saw his relationships with them as loving and not abusive. If all of this stuff is true then I fear in time we might hear Prince and Paris tell similar stories.

Realtai

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just watched the first episode, about to watch the second. They're two hours long a piece.

PM me if you can't find it online and we can discuss your poor Google skills in great depth.

As of yet, have to say, haven't seen one damn thing that would have me changing my mind.

PMed ya!

Mr.Wemmick

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

After watching the whole 4 hours I'm thinking it was probably true, and i've defended Michael up to this point. The last hour of it is what convinces me, the family stuff, the fallout within the two families once they told them it was true. It tore them apart, Wade's mom is an outcast, hated by Wades brother and sister for allowing Wade to stay with Michael.
As for Michael, he was a man child, lets pretend he really was 13 and having sexual experiences with other 13 year olds, not so shocking as that's happening daily and it's normal part of growing up. But he wasn't 13, he was an adult who never had a normal life and was playing out the acts of a exploring teenager as an adult man. The fact he reached out to these guys to defend him makes it more believable that he indeed saw his relationships with them as loving and not abusive. If all of this stuff is true then I fear in time we might hear Prince and Paris tell similar stories.

Exactly this. Folks who knew Jackson said he was a kid, a kind soul, meant no harm, very gentle, etc. all probably very true. He was a child but in a man's body, with a man's sexual needs, hormones, the full works. Jackson loved these boys, this is true, everyone agrees? Cared for them deeply and was so close to them emotionally it was just a normal progression and development of his love for them, right? All part of a loving, caring relationship. Sharing beds with them, being so close to them.. he a kid in man's body, what could possibly go wrong?

I would love to hear from the parents who said no to Jackson from the outset, who had the cop-on to know something is not normal here. Quincy Jones in his documentary - when he is not talking about Jackson's amazing talent - hints something was very off about Jackson's personality.

I have not seen the documentary yet.

is_that_so

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm sure there's an innocent explanation.

Probably not one people would choose to believe. Became a very, very strange man and something may have happened. Legally apparently it didn't but there's a huge money pot there to be tapped as well.

sligeach

https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1103175063472431105

https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1103175247547777024

Mr.Wemmick

Kinda funny how so many failed to twig what people do and say when faced with pressure and emotional threats from rich powerful people. Would they lie, yep. Do they change their story, yep.. in many cases, do they still love their abusers, yep.

Victims of abuse go through many stages of denial with the trauma: this never happened to me to complete mental breakdowns.. and this is exactly what the defense teams base their cases on since the dawn of time.

But the truth always worms its way out, as we are seeing now. No doubt, we will hear more about Jackson in the years to come.

innuendo141

https://www.dailyedge.ie/ryan-tubridy-louis-theroux-and-countless-others-will-stop-playing-michael-jacksons-music-now-but-will-you-4526271-Mar2019/

Tubs is putting a stop to his tunes now.

.......

innuendo141 wrote: »

Tubs is putting a stop to his tunes now.

Not sure I understand this really.

No artist is morally perfect.

I would only have an issue with an artists work if the work incorporated the abuse in some way, such as that painter whose paintings of nude children were removed from the walls of the Tate when it was discovered he was actually a pedophile.

I also think people view the style of abuse that Jackson was supposedly engaged in as more kindly than they would someone like Jimmy Saville, probably because the intent wasnt to get off on the misery of another but rather was performed in a manner that suggested he cared for the person he was abusing.

Someone said to me yesterday, ah but Michael wasnt right in the head after his own upbringing and his childhood being stolen from him, I pity him. My reply was that clearly Saville wasnt right in the head either.

But I understand where she is coming from.

BorneTobyWilde

The fact he would call these two guys before the trial in 2003 and say things like
'' we can't let them take me down, they are evil, we must stand against them''

They said Michael would ask them to defend him in court, that tells me he saw nothing wrong in loving these guys and having relationships with them, he was asking '' victims'' to defend him, so unheard of. This is a very different case to Saville, Michael cared for the few people he had these illegal relationships with. If it is true. The whole thing is just sad, he was a very lonely guy on a big ranch.

Bobtheman

glasso wrote: »

not defending Bowie but I think the Jackson stuff is worse.

I think sleeping with teenage girls was quite common among rock stars and celebrities and god knows who else. I don't think it was ever acceptable but I think it the scourge of paedophilia was less known then than now ?

Bobtheman

To be classed as a padeophille you must have exclusive interest in kids. I don't think Bowie falls into that category.
I think Jackson might fall into that category despite his marriage
There was a serious debate in France in the 1980s to allow people to have Junior companions. I kid you not

Bobtheman

A court of law found Jackson innocent in both cases

goat2

Why did they wait until after his death to come out with this,

PirateShampoo

Bobtheman wrote: »

To be classed as a padeophille you must have exclusive interest in kids. I don't think Bowie falls into that category.
I think Jackson might fall into that category despite his marriage
There was a serious debate in France in the 1980s to allow people to have Junior companions. I kid you not

What the hell are you talking about "exclusive interest"?

Your a pedophile if you molest children, it's not term based off your marital status.

Bobtheman

PirateShampoo wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about "exclusive interest"?

Your a pedophile if you molest children, it's not term based off your marital status.

To qualify true paedophiles must only be interested in kids . Obviously others have interest in both adults and sometimes kids .
The whole thing is more complicated than is made out by media.
Bottom line is we need less hysteria about priests and more about family members /close association.
Priests are now historical issues. Education and research are needed.

nc6000

Bobtheman wrote:

A court of law found Jackson innocent in both cases

Courts don't find people to be innocent, they find you are either guilty or not guilty based on the evidence.

Being found not guilty doesn't equal being innocent, it means there wasn't enough evidence presented for a jury to reach a guilty verdict.

ceadaoin.

goat2 wrote: »

Why did they wait until after his death to come out with this,

Did you watch the documentary? They explain it fairly well.