Micky Jackson in trouble again

fryup · 07-03-2019 10:53AM

correction wrote: »

I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 10:54AM

Apparantly the viewing figures in the US were 1.29 million viewers.

No wonder America isn't planning on banning him.

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 10:55AM

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

You keep telling yourself that but it wont be.

I'm not favorable to Jackson as a person at all, but he's one of the greatest selling artists ever for a reason. He still today a HUGE draw music wise and so where money is to be made, Jackson, rightly or wrongly, will still be around.

That's the difference between him and fvcking Glitter.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 10:55AM

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

On Twitter, for a few days, until the next outrage.

correction · 07-03-2019 10:56AM

fryup wrote: »

don't be kiddin yourself MJ's legacy is in tatters after last night

I'm certainly not the one kidding myself here. In 5 years time people will be listening to all his hits like they always have and he will never leave the conversation as far musical icons go.

Rightly or wrongly I don't know but this is just not that big a deal to people outside the bubble.

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 10:58AM

Mark Wahlberg, despite being a convicted racist thug is one of Hollywood's top men.

If there is money to be made from you, you'll get play.

kunst nugget · 07-03-2019 10:59AM

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

That's ok, that's an individual choice. Others might not feel that way.

And that's okay too. It's up to each individual whether they want to enrich the estate of someone they have might issues with or not.

I watched Lords of Chaos over the weekend, the movie based on the really messed up Black Metal scene in the 90s and the deeply unpleasant characters involved in it. Whatever interest I might have in hearing what the music might be like is tempered by the fact that I don't want to give repellent people even a percentage of a cent of money from playing them on Apple Music.

But hypocritically, I'll play music by the likes of Bowie, Ozzy and Black Sabbath or the Mamas and Papas... I can't claim to be a moral crusader in any regard.

Censorship of the material, for me, is completely wrong.

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 11:01AM

^^^^

Agreed.

kunst nugget · 07-03-2019 11:03AM

fryup wrote: »

Glitter was one of the biggest pop stars back in the 70s, and there isn't a radio station out there who dares play his music...the same i feel will happen with MJ

Glitter hits had aged horrendously. They were only played occasionally as novelty songs and he was consigned to the nostalgia circuit by the time the allegations came to light. Nobody really gave two shíts about Glitter's music. The same can't be said for Michael Jackson's music.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 11:07AM

correction wrote: »

I don't even think public opinion has swayed enough against him for banning his music to even be a conversation tbh.

Don't think enough people even care about the documentary. You've definitely got loud people who do but I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

Exactly, none of the information in documentary is new, there is no new evidence, nothing.

It was all in a deposition which a Judge basically called a bunch of lies.

But you see if you have unlimited takes, soft lighting and background music to tell you when to be sad that does appeal to people who know very little about the case. So it is understandable.

But this is far from finished.

The 2 lads have an appeal going on and HBO have just been sued, I imagine that won't be the end of it either because there is some serious criminal allegations against people who are still alive.

A bunch of people are going to have to get back in court and tell their version events not under soft lighting but under oath.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 11:11AM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Elvis, there's another one who had allegations of child abuse levelled against him. His music is still played, covered and sampled to this day.

Jerry Lee Lewis too.
Rock Groups of the 1970s were notorious for sleeping with teenage female fans.

However and unfortunately it was different times. It seemed to have been ok to marry your 15 year old female cousin etc in many parts of the US up to about 1970. And it still is in many parts of the world.

We as in western society have moved on thankfully.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 11:13AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jerry Lee Lewis too.
Rock Groups of the 1970s were notorious for sleeping with teenage female fans.

However and unfortunately it was different times. It seemed to have been ok to marry your 15 year old female cousin etc in many parts of the US up to about 1970. And it still is in many parts of the world.

We as in western society have moved on thankfully.

Jerry Lee's wife was 13.

They were basically ran out of Britain when the news came to light.

There was great Doc on BBC4 about him.

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 11:13AM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

On Twitter, for a few days, until the next outrage.

Liam Neeson feels like a long time ago now.

Ashbourne hoop · 07-03-2019 11:16AM

Don't know if Jackson abused those boys but he clearly had an unhealthy interest in young boys and a grown man should not be sharing a bed with children who are not related to him. The documentary was way too long, no need for 4 hrs. There's questions to be asked on both sides but as I posted earlier, any questions you would have in relation to the two men can be answered by what we now know about victims of abuse.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 11:23AM

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

There's questions to be asked on both sides but as I posted earlier, any questions you would have in relation to the two men can be answered by what we now know about victims of abuse.

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 11:27AM

Boggles wrote: »

It was all in a deposition which a Judge basically called a bunch of lies.

Boggles wrote: »

they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Interested in reading this quote from the judge. Thanks.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 11:28AM

Boggles wrote: »

Jerry Lee's wife was 13.

They were basically ran out of Britain when the news came to light.

There was great Doc on BBC4 about him.

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

joe40 · 07-03-2019 11:29AM

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 11:35AM

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

For the next 6 months or so, perhaps even a year, it will reduced somewhat, but it wont be for long.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 11:35AM

joe40 wrote: »

Maybe you won't have Irish radio stations coming out publicly saying they won't play Michael Jackson, but I don't think anyone will bopping along to "Billie Jean" on a Radio station any time soon.

Just a guess...

Was shocked RTE didn't follow the outrage train and ban his music. They aren't completely useless, it turns out.

briany · 07-03-2019 11:36AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

There are some artists who people aren't going to abandon, no matter how much they've done, because their catalog is too classic. Not defending that mindset, but that's how it seems to work.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 11:36AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played?

Not only is it still played but him and Chuck Berry (another massive pervert) are credited with inventing rock and roll and influenced everyone from Elvis to the Beatles.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 11:38AM

Boggles wrote: »

Not only is it still played but him and Chuck Berry (another massive pervert) are credited with inventing rock and roll and influenced everyone from Elvis to the Beatles.

Who both went on to have allegations against them! (well, Harrison anyway).

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 11:38AM

briany wrote: »

There are some artists who people aren't going to abandon, no matter how much they've done, because their catalog is too classic. Not defending that mindset, but that's how it seems to work.

That's the reason Wahlberg gets movies, he brings in the $$$ for the blockbusters.

An also ran with his convictions would be thrown into the trash heap. Hollywood is hypocritical, music is hypocritical, society full stop is hypocritical.

Ashbourne hoop · 07-03-2019 11:40AM

Boggles wrote: »

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

Quite often victims of abuse got facts wrong, even as adults. They quite often stick up for their abuser, even as adults. I'm not 100% completely convinced that the men are telling the truth, but I'm certainly not convinced of Jackson's innocence, and I was/am a big fan of his music.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 11:50AM

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Quite often victims of abuse got facts wrong, even as adults

Victims of abuse in adulthood can get facts wrong about what happened them when they children. Absolutely.

But Wade as an adult couldn't remember when he started his book that couldn't get published, not only could he not remember he purposely removed the meta data from the digital documents so no one could see when he started it. Couldn't remember when he realized anally raping a child was not on.

Safechuck claimed he remembered he was molested in 2005, then he changed it to 2010 and then he changed it to 2013, 2014.

That's not some confused depressed memories, that's changing your story to fit within the statute of limitations in the law suit, i.e lying for cash.

Call me Al · 07-03-2019 11:58AM

Boggles wrote: »

Victims of abuse in adulthood can get facts wrong about what happened them when they children. Absolutely.

But Wade as an adult couldn't remember when he started his book that couldn't get published, not only could he not remember he purposely removed the meta data from the digital documents so no one could see when he started it. Couldn't remember when he realized anally raping a child was not on.

Safechuck claimed he remembered he was molested in 2005, then he changed it to 2010 and then he changed it to 2013, 2014.

That's not some confused depressed memories, that's changing your story to fit within the statute of limitations in the law suit, i.e lying for cash.

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

innuendo141 · 07-03-2019 12:02PM

Call me Al wrote: »

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

Their depositions from 2012+ are online to view

Boggles · 07-03-2019 12:02PM

Call me Al wrote: »

Is this in episode 2? Where have you seen these statements?

Sorry do you think there is anything in the documentary that even comes close to giving balance? :pac:

Safechuck said his one main fear was being exposed to the public, so he stuck his name down on a billion dollar suit with the bould Wade and made a documentary. That will keep it private all right.

LuckyLloyd · 07-03-2019 12:03PM

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments