Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

1…34689…27

Comments

  • #152
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #153
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #154
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,958 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #155
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭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.


  • #156
    biggebruv
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Unearthly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,109 ✭✭✭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:


  • #158
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


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


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


  • #159
    RoryMac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,588 ✭✭✭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!


  • #160
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    RoryMac wrote: »
    Seems to be the one question sligeach avoids anyway!


    I'm sure there's an innocent explanation.


  • #161
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,623 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,650 ✭✭✭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


  • #163
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #164
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,118 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #165
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,623 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #166
    Realtai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85 ✭✭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!


  • #167
    Mr.Wemmick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭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.

    “The fact that society believes a man who says he’s a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman.”

    - Jen Izaakson



  • #168
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #169
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,958 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


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

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


  • #170
    Mr.Wemmick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭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.

    “The fact that society believes a man who says he’s a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman.”

    - Jen Izaakson



  • #171
    innuendo141
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    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.


  • #173
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,623 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #174
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #175
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭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


  • #176
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    A court of law found Jackson innocent in both cases


  • #177
    goat2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭goat2


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


  • #178
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭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.


  • #179
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭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.


  • #180
    nc6000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,424 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,650 ✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement