Micky Jackson in trouble again

fin12 · 11-03-2019 08:16PM

Banning something always has the opposite effect, his music sales will go through the roof now.

innuendo141 · 11-03-2019 08:17PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know why you keep saying I'm "jumping down your throat" or "having a go" lol. It says here in the lawsuit details and in the documentary that he made his mother aware that something had happened between them, years prior to MJs death. So she knew, just not the details.

I suppose that document from 2014 doesn't give a date, but it does state that he didn't realise until therapy that he had been a sexual abuse victim. However, it does suggest it was close to the date he made his claim, being 2013.

Irish Guitarist · 11-03-2019 09:17PM

I have no problem with the radio not playing his songs. I could live with never hearing his music again.

I don't agree with writing him out of history the way The Simpsons are trying to do though. In 1991 he was a massive name in the world of music and I'm sure the episode he appeared on helped popularise the cartoon. It's disingenuous to act like that never happened. It's very similar to the BBC cutting Jimmy Savile out of Top Of The Pops clips as if he never existed.

lee_baby_simms · 11-03-2019 09:33PM

fin12 wrote: »

Banning something always has the opposite effect, his music sales will go through the roof now.

I think the phrase "all publicity is good publicity" doesn't always apply when paedophilia is involved.

8-10 · 11-03-2019 09:39PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

“You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk)

Written by R Kelly, what do you expect?

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 09:42PM

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I think the phrase "all publicity is good publicity" doesn't always apply when paedophilia is involved.

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 09:47PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

RTE will have to hire an army of phone operators to man the switchboard...I must listen to the wireless later to see if there is any mention of it or if the lovely girl continuity announcer says anything.

is_that_so · 11-03-2019 09:49PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

ABBA's music had almost faded from memory barely a decade after they split up when a series of popular films and a musical pushed them right back into the public eye again. ABBA Gold helped too.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 10:10PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

What did they expect? They had years to make a complaint to the cops. Does anyone know if they did? And if not why not?

If you go on national tv don't be surprised if you get positive and negative attention. It comes with the territory.

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

Except those who were innocent like Cliff Richard, William Roche, and those accused by "Nick".

Hannibal_Smith · 11-03-2019 10:12PM

Couldn't tell you the last time i heard a Michael Jackson song on the radio.

tylercheribini · 11-03-2019 10:14PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Couldn't tell you the last time i heard a Michael Jackson song on the radio.

Exactly,storm in a tea cup, Id be surprised if the RTE weekly roster contained more than a few instances anyway.

hetuzozaho · 11-03-2019 10:18PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

I'm kinda waiting for more too.
But this seems like he was on relationships with them for long periods. As opposed to Saville and weinstein. So maybe he didn't need to. He had what he needed every night in his bedroom, hassle free. For years. Yikes if true

tylercheribini · 11-03-2019 10:25PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

I'm kinda waiting for more too.
But this seems like he was on relationships with them for long periods. As opposed to Saville and weinstein. So maybe he didn't need to. He had what he needed every night in his bedroom, hassle free. For years. Yikes if true

Although Savile and Weinstein possessed considerable clout, I think the power and influence Jackson wielded at his peak was in a different stratosphere. Interestingly, Savile, like Jackson, had plans to build a childrens hospital too.

fin12 · 11-03-2019 10:50PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

Beechwoodspark · 11-03-2019 10:53PM

fin12 wrote: »

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

....shudder...

Mr.Wemmick · 11-03-2019 11:03PM

fin12 wrote: »

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

My 14 year old knows who he is and calls him a Paedo. So do all his friends - they've gleaned enough from the news and snippets here and there to know about him with young boys.

But then they call any dodgy looking guy of a certain age a Paedo, think they're obsessed :pac:

I like MJ's & QJ's music, they don't.. more into the 90s with Kurt Cobain, Red Hot Chilli Peppers sort.

marklazarcovic · 11-03-2019 11:06PM

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 11:34PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.

Media coverage of the case led to more women coming forward to state that Hall had also sexually abused them.[20] On 22 January 2013, he was charged with raping a 22-year-old woman in 1976 and indecently assaulting 10 more girls, then aged from 9 to 17 years old, between 1967 and 1986.[21][22] Speaking to reporters after an appearance at Preston Magistrates Court on 7 February 2013, Hall again denied any wrongdoing, calling the charges "pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious".[17]

At a pre-trial hearing at Preston Crown Court on 16 April 2013, Hall pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecent assault involving 13 girls aged between 9 and 17 years old. He was released on bail pending sentencing on 17 June. Reporting restrictions prevented the media from making the news public until 2 May 2013, when the Crown Prosecution Service elected not to pursue the rape charge or three other indecent assault charges relating to the same complainant, who had decided not to give evidence. Hall made a statement through his barrister, issuing an "unreserved apology" to his victims.[2][23][24]

In July 2013, the media reported that 17 women were preparing to launch civil claims against Hall and the BBC, on whose premises a number of sexual assaults had allegedly taken place. Lawyers for the women confirmed that several of the claims related to alleged offences that were not part of Hall's criminal prosecution.[34]

On 15 July 2013, Lancashire Police confirmed that five new allegations of rape and sexual assault had been made against Hall, including the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl.[35] These investigations resulted in a further 16 charges of rape and indecent assault being laid against Hall in October 2013.[36] On 6 November 2013 he appeared in court in relation to these charges, but did not make any plea. He made a further appearance in court on 29 November; at a preliminary court hearing on 28 February 2014, he pleaded not guilty to raping two young girls. He went on trial at Preston Crown Court on 6 May 2014,[37] where he admitted indecently assaulting a girl under 16 but denied 20 further charges.[38] On 16 May 2014, Hall was found not guilty of 15 charges of rape and four counts of indecent assault but was found guilty on one count of indecent assault.[39] At Preston Crown Court on 23 May, Mr Justice Turner sentenced Hall to a further two years and six months in prison, to run consecutively to his existing prison sentence of 30 months.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

marklazarcovic · 11-03-2019 11:42PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice stuff that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

No victim is waiting for anything for Christs sake,its not a decision you make, oh I'll just give it 5 more years,maybe 10,then I'll tell, you haven't a clue.

Most don't ever tell.

11-03-2019 11:42PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

Excellent post. This is how child abuse affects people right through their lives.

Once again it's clear that there are people on this thread who know nothing about abuse and have set their own arbitary standards on how victims should behave. Which are completely removed from reality.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 11-03-2019 11:46PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

What did they expect? They had years to make a complaint to the cops. Does anyone know if they did? And if not why not?

If you go on national tv don't be surprised if you get positive and negative attention. It comes with the territory.

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

Except those who were innocent like Cliff Richard, William Roche, and those accused by "Nick".

How many victims does there need to be? Jackson isn’t Saville. There might not be hundreds. Does his victim count have to match Savill’s?

As for the two men. I’m sure they knew what a hostile reaction they’d get from some corners. That’s my point. Who would put themselves through that predictable response?

hetuzozaho · 11-03-2019 11:47PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Once again it's clear that there are people on this thread who know nothing about abuse and have set their own arbitary standards on how victims should behave.

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 11:48PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

No victim is waiting for anything for Christs sake,its not a decision you make, oh I'll just give it 5 more years,maybe 10,then I'll tell, you haven't a clue.

Most don't ever tell.

Ok this is proof of nothing in the current context. Most might not tell, but some do. We know this from high profile cases in the UK. People come forward either publicly or anonymously. They write letters. They go to their local police station.
They talk to their parents who then represent them. They go to lawyers.

Except we know if the accused is innocent as happened in several cases in the UK. You know Cliff Richard, William Roche and the accused by the fantasist "Nick" were innocent because it was usually only one person who made an accusation and when that accuser was focused on it became clear they were telling porkies.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 11:50PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

Is it allowed to describe someone as a bot on here?

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 11:52PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Excellent post. This is how child abuse affects people right through their lives.

Once again it's clear that there are people on this thread who know nothing about abuse and have set their own arbitary standards on how victims should behave. Which are completely removed from reality.

No seriously. As an supposed expert on abuse, the poster said the abused generally come forward 30 years later.

Great. So where are they?

Lambasting other posters as knowing nothing about abuse just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

This is not a contest of who knows the most about abuse.

11-03-2019 11:52PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ok this is proof of nothing in the current context. Most might not tell, but some do. We know this from high profile cases in the UK. People come forward either publicly or anonymously. They write letters. They go to their local police station.
They talk to their parents who then represent them. They go to lawyers.

Except we know if the accused is innocent as happened in several cases in the UK. You know Cliff Richard, William Roche and the accused by the fantasist "Nick" were innocent because it was usually only one person who made an accusation and when that accuser was focused on it became clear they were telling porkies.

Yes, where there is an individual accuser and no prior pattern of suspicious behaviour. You cannot compare Cliff Richard and Bill Roche to Jackson, and it's utterly ridiculous to try.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 11-03-2019 11:55PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

Ceadaoin asked a pertinent question earlier, bolded in the post below:

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He claims he received a call from Jackson asking him to defend him once again. He said no. Can anyone disprove that this happened? His mother and father were on at him to help his friend and he told them to stop defending him because he wasn't a good man. His mother understood he was saying that he was abused but didn't push it because he made it clear that he didn't want to discuss it. His mother was aware since that point that something sexual had happened between him and Jackson. Therefore when he died in 2009 she was aware of it so she may very well have been happy

100% clear to me. Some of the people in here who are rubbishing every single aspect of the documentary and what Robson and Safechuck say haven't even watched it.

Can you disprove Safechuck’s claim that MJ rang him?

Safechuck said he told his mother in 2005 to stop defending MJ because he wasn’t a good man but didn’t further elaborate. She apparently read between the lines.

Hannibal_Smith · 11-03-2019 11:56PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Excellent post. This is how child abuse affects people right through their lives.

Once again it's clear that there are people on this thread who know nothing about abuse and have set their own arbitary standards on how victims should behave. Which are completely removed from reality.

No its not clear at all. You havent a clue what people's knowledge on child abuse is. People have added another dimension to the accusations made against Michael Jackson. Its up to each of us whether they are taken on board or not, but i certainly wouldnt get personal about it.

11-03-2019 11:58PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No seriously. As an supposed expert on abuse, the poster said the abused generally come forward 30 years later.

Great. So where are they?

Lambasting other posters as knowing nothing about abuse just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

This is not a contest of who knows the most about abuse.

This is just nasty, I'm not claiming to be an expert but I do have experience and I know of others who have also.

You have made it abundantly clear from the utter drivel you've posted about abuse victims that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm challenging your points, not getting into a competition FFS.

As for your question of where are they? Well two of them told their story to the world, their names are James Safechuck and Wade Robson.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 11:58PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Yes, where there is an individual accuser and no prior pattern of suspicious behaviour. You cannot compare Cliff Richard and Bill Roche to Jackson, and it's utterly ridiculous to try.

OK I'm getting tired of this nonsense. You clearly don't have any clue about the entire Jackson saga from day 1. You've watched a documentary and made your mind up. You've also read some allegations about Jackson that were tried in court in the past and proved to be nonsense and thrown out.

So Jackson has been found guilty in the minds of many based on documentary interviews with two proven liars without any cross examination and allegations that were tested in court and found not to stand up.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

I will leave you now with a quote from Abraham Lincoln about lynch mobs. It seems very relevant.
In 1837 he complained about:

"the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country—the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice".

G'night!

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments