I did not want to show the world the sadness in my eyes.

pwurple · 27-02-2020 11:59am

Surely if you knew the papers were about to do a huge scandalous reveal on some 'juicy' kidnap and rape story, you would be better advised to get ahead of it so you wouldn't be hounded at your door by reporters going "Is this true".

She has taken firm control of her own story in the media. That's what instagram and twitter are, personal media. She has taken that control, and fair play to her.

Millicently · 27-02-2020 1:30pm

pwurple wrote: »

Surely if you knew the papers were about to do a huge scandalous reveal on some 'juicy' kidnap and rape story, you would be better advised to get ahead of it so you wouldn't be hounded at your door by reporters going "Is this true".

She has taken firm control of her own story in the media. That's what instagram and twitter are, personal media. She has taken that control, and fair play to her.

That isn't what happened though. Nobody knew where she was, like she'd literally fallen off the face of the earth almost. Nobody saw her, no fans tweeted that they'd met her somewhere, there were no photos of her heading in to some branch of some supermarket somewhere, nothing. Then she talks to a journalist last year and now she's using Instagram to invite people to submit questions on her alleged ordeal and serialising it in Rolling Stone Magazine and talking about a comeback. Wouldn't surprise me from the bizarre way that she was speaking if she's been in some sort of psychiatric facility for a while.

Stevieluvsye · 27-02-2020 1:32pm

Millicently wrote: »

That isn't what happened though. Nobody knew where she was, like she'd literally fallen off the face of the earth almost. Nobody saw her, no fans tweeted that they'd met her somewhere, there were no photos of her heading in to some branch of some supermarket somewhere, nothing. Then she talks to a journalist last year and now she's using Instagram to invite people to submit questions on her alleged ordeal and serialising it in Rolling Stone Magazine and talking about a comeback. Wouldn't surprise me from the bizarre way that she was speaking if she's been in some sort of psychiatric facility for a while.

Yeah but but but mental health needs to be taken seriously It's gutter swamp pi!swombles like you who condone having mental health problems

jiltloop · 27-02-2020 1:33pm

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

The real dreggs of our society in this thread, Sinn Fein voters no doubt, i hope they remember these posts if karma visits their family.

WTF has Sinn Fein got to do with this?

This thread truly is an abomination. :mad:

Millicently · 27-02-2020 1:43pm

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Yeah but but but mental health needs to be taken seriously It's gutter swamp pi!swombles like you who condone having mental health problems

If she was in a psychiatric facility they might have let her out without her meds. Honestly all that rot about spending thousands of days longing to let the sunlight into her heart and her magic love for her friends/fans. It's very hard to drop completely off the radar when someone is famous. Every women's magazine has photos of some glamourous celebrity in sweatpants and looking slovenly going in or out of some shop for a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. I think she must have been in a facility somewhere at least for a good part of it.

Outlaw Pete · 27-02-2020 2:08pm

Could people please use spoilers. Some of us are waiting for the Netflix special.

27-02-2020 2:30pm

Antares35 wrote: »

Which is a perfectly reasonable position to hold from an objective viewpoint but for survivors of abuse and sexual crimes, this can be a very grey area. I read somewhere that on average it takes adult survivors of abuse 24 years to speak out (albeit this is in the case of historic sex abuse so is not exactly on par with the facts being stated here).

I first told people about being abused last year when I was 35 - a good 25 years after the event and I didn't go to the authorities. If the perpetrator is known to the family, victims can struggle with the idea of how this move might be the "hitting nuclear" option.

I can also say that when people asked me, "why didn't you tell us sooner" and "why are you only bringing this up now" it acted very much as an implied suggestion that I was somehow to blame for not bringing it up sooner. Meeting such scepticism and suggestions that I was "wrong" in how I dealt with the issue has indeed acted as a second wound, the pain of which is just as great as that inflicted by the first.

I completely understand it being difficult to talk about after a trauma like that. But surely using a music magazine interview and social media is a very ill advised way of going public with this.

creditcarder · 27-02-2020 3:34pm

Millicently wrote: »

By swamp creatures you mean people that find it a little curious that someone whose last album flopped turns up after a decade with an extremely sensational story claiming to have been raped drugged and held captive announces it on Instagram, invites people to submit questions about it to her and claims she will answer those questions in a spoken interview in a few weeks time, also that it will be serialised in Rolling Stone Magazine. Fook but the stupid is strong in some people.
Maybe it's true maybe it's not but the whole thing stinks of striking while the iron is hot, a day after Weinsteins conviction and a week after Caroline Flacks suicide. Not all of us swallow people's stories without asking questions. When you plaster something like this on Social Media it's to invite the whole world in and that's exactly what she did now if you want to believe her then go right ahead but how dare you throw nasty names at people who aren't naive pawns who are willing to swallow any story to enable a has been to make a comeback? By all means she could use Social Media to discuss it but using her alleged experience to relaunch her career is bloody tacky.

As a sidenote, I really hope Irish men don't turn into sissy boys (:P) or lose their individuality. I mean, the older Irish men are some of the most cookiest men on the planet, and one of the reasons women love them is that they don't put women on as much of a pedestal.

Man, I travelled through countries where not letting a woman ahead in a shop line will have men staring you down, and you really don't want to live in a society like that :P As a man or as a woman, as if you don't live up to womanhood, those same men will stare you down in disgust and contempt.

creditcarder · 27-02-2020 3:35pm

jiltloop wrote: »

WTF has Sinn Fein got to do with this?

This thread truly is an abomination. :mad:

Funnilly enough, Sinn Fein would be the first to believe her.

Antares35 · 27-02-2020 3:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely understand it being difficult to talk about after a trauma like that. But surely using a music magazine interview and social media is a very ill advised way of going public with this.

It wouldn't be something I would be comfortable with

but I am a "lay person" and have not grown up in the media eye. Who knows what their "normal" is I suppose. If she is doing it for publicity then absolute shame on her for belittling and disrespecting genuine survivors.

seamus · 27-02-2020 3:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely understand it being difficult to talk about after a trauma like that. But surely using a music magazine interview and social media is a very ill advised way of going public with this.

What would you suggest is an appropriate way of "going public"?

Bearing in mind that making a police report and speaking to a therapist is not "going public".

One eyed Jack · 27-02-2020 5:20pm

seamus wrote: »

What would you suggest is an appropriate way of "going public"?

Bearing in mind that making a police report and speaking to a therapist is not "going public".

The point was that it was ill-advised, not whether or not it was appropriate or inappropriate. It’s ill advised for anyone who isn’t surrounded by a management team to give an open invite to the media and the public into their lives, offering to do an AMA and hoping that the media and the public will respond positively. From experience the reality is that the media don’t care about the person, they only care about getting a story, and the public well goodness only knows what way they’ll react. And it’s impossible to know how the person themselves who claims to have been kidnapped, held hostage, drugged and raped, will react to the media and the public intruding into their personal and private life again.

Another poster earlier suggested that she has firmly taken control of her own story in the media. She hasn’t, she’s done quite the opposite by making a public announcement on social media of her ordeal and the apparent reasons for her extended hiatus from the music industry which has moved on in her absence. I don’t know quite what the point of her making such a public announcement and then asking for her family’s privacy to be respected and for everyone to make this a positive experience for her was about, there has been no indication that the media were about to publish anything about her, not even the journalist whom she claims was so kind to her. Journalists aren’t known for their kindness to anyone, they’re always after a good story, and all that’s missing from Duffys tale is alien abductors, but who knows? People who want to know are likely following her on social media anyway already, waiting for the next instalment of the drama to unfold.

I’d suggest it was about as well advised as Michael Jackson agreeing to be interviewed by Martin Bashir tbh.

Bigbagofcans · 27-02-2020 5:43pm

Millicently wrote: »

It's very hard to drop completely off the radar when someone is famous. Every women's magazine has photos of some glamourous celebrity in sweatpants and looking slovenly going in or out of some shop for a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. I think she must have been in a facility somewhere at least for a good part of it.

It's very easy when you've been out of the limelight for a long time and were only in it for a brief period. Her music career stalled and people lost interest.

She wasn't exactly garnering the same attention as the likes of Lindsay Lohan.

volchitsa · 27-02-2020 5:52pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d suggest it was about as well advised as Michael Jackson agreeing to be interviewed by Martin Bashir tbh.

Because someone talking about being drugged and abused is completely like someone who is suspected of abuse themselves.

Totally. :eek:

MOR316 · 27-02-2020 5:58pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d suggest it was about as well advised as Michael Jackson agreeing to be interviewed by Martin Bashir tbh.

Forgotten about that.

"Hold his hand, Michael. It'll look great for you!"
"Really? OK then"

Naive idiot

One eyed Jack · 27-02-2020 5:59pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Because someone talking about being drugged and abused is completely like someone who is suspected of abuse themselves.

Totally. :eek:

No, because it turned out to be ill advised for Michael Jackson to give an interview to Martin Bashir. I could have given numerous examples of celebrities who had been advised to give interviews to journalists who they imagined had their best interests at heart, only for it to go as they hadn’t expected.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-02-2020 6:04pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Forgotten about that.

"Hold his hand, Michael. It'll look great for you!"
"Really? OK then"

Naive idiot

I know, yeah. Being duped into telling people you share beds with unrelated children. Poor Micheál. Couldn’t catch a break. :rolleyes:

eviltwin · 27-02-2020 6:13pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point was that it was ill-advised, not whether or not it was appropriate or inappropriate. It’s ill advised for anyone who isn’t surrounded by a management team to give an open invite to the media and the public into their lives, offering to do an AMA and hoping that the media and the public will respond positively. From experience the reality is that the media don’t care about the person, they only care about getting a story, and the public well goodness only knows what way they’ll react. And it’s impossible to know how the person themselves who claims to have been kidnapped, held hostage, drugged and raped, will react to the media and the public intruding into their personal and private life again.

Another poster earlier suggested that she has firmly taken control of her own story in the media. She hasn’t, she’s done quite the opposite by making a public announcement on social media of her ordeal and the apparent reasons for her extended hiatus from the music industry which has moved on in her absence. I don’t know quite what the point of her making such a public announcement and then asking for her family’s privacy to be respected and for everyone to make this a positive experience for her was about, there has been no indication that the media were about to publish anything about her, not even the journalist whom she claims was so kind to her. Journalists aren’t known for their kindness to anyone, they’re always after a good story, and all that’s missing from Duffys tale is alien abductors, but who knows? People who want to know are likely following her on social media anyway already, waiting for the next instalment of the drama to unfold.

I’d suggest it was about as well advised as Michael Jackson agreeing to be interviewed by Martin Bashir tbh.

Maybe this is the way she feels is best for her to get it out there. It can be incredibly liberating to share a trauma, how it's shared is a very individual thing. I can understand her request for her family's privacy, they are not public people and she doesn't want them hounded. I don't believe in judging how people process trauma, if you have never experienced something of this nature how can you possibly say what's right or appropriate?

seamus · 27-02-2020 6:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point was that it was ill-advised, not whether or not it was appropriate or inappropriate.

That wasn't the point at all. The point the poster made was that her "way" of going public was ill-advised.

As opposed to....what?

offering to do an AMA and hoping that the media and the public will respond positively

Now you're just making stuff up. She hasn't offered to do an AMA. You have no idea what thought or planning may have gone into this, no idea what supports may or may not be around her.

You've assumed that Duffy has (or hasn't) done a load of things, and then criticised her for all of these figments of your imagination.

volchitsa · 27-02-2020 6:17pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, because it turned out to be ill advised for Michael Jackson to give an interview to Martin Bashir. I could have given numerous examples of celebrities who had been advised to give interviews to journalists who they imagined had their best interests at heart, only for it to go as they hadn’t expected.

I just find the comparison totally inappropriate.

Look, Michael Jackson expected Bashir to take his side (or be fooled by him) whereas Bashir - justifiably, and like many others - felt that there was good reason to be suspicious of his version of events and that it was quite possible that he was in fact an abuser. I don't think that suspicion has been fully lifted.

The reality is that it would have been completely wrong for Bashir to have been fully on Michael Jackson's side. Like the recent interview with Prince Andrew by Emily Maitlis, Bashir simply used someone's belief in their own entitled status so as to get access to interview them. He let him think that he was getting a soft soap interview when in fact it would have been unethical to allow him that.

There is no suggestion of there being any such potential alternative version of events here. She is not suspected of being an abuser trying to get her story in first. Unlike Michael Jackson and Prince Andrew.

volchitsa · 27-02-2020 6:19pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, yeah. Being duped into telling people you share beds with unrelated children. Poor Micheál. Couldn’t catch a break. :rolleyes:

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. It's a relief to know it's not just me who sees it like that. (Sometimes I wonder about some posters on here.)

One eyed Jack · 27-02-2020 6:29pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe this is the way she feels is best for her to get it out there. It can be incredibly liberating to share a trauma, how it's shared is a very individual thing. I can understand her request for her family's privacy, they are not public people and she doesn't want them hounded. I don't believe in judging how people process trauma, if you have never experienced something of this nature how can you possibly say what's right or appropriate?

Very easily - by judging how circumstances have turned out for people who have chosen to share their private lives with journalists and how that turned out for them. The experiences of other people who have chosen to do so suggests it rarely ever goes well for them. I can understand her requests for her family’s privacy too, and I can understand journalists and the public’s intentions to completely ignore her wishes, because journalists are only interested in a good story that they can sell to the public who want to hear that story. I can also understand why she feels it is the best way to do what she’s done for herself, she just has no control over how other people choose to process that information or what they choose to do with that information once it’s out there.

One eyed Jack · 27-02-2020 6:37pm

seamus wrote: »

That wasn't the point at all. The point the poster made was that her "way" of going public was ill-advised.

As opposed to....what?

As opposed to not going public, or not speaking to a journalist about it, or not publishing it on social media, or not inviting questions from the public about it, a million other ways she could have been advised other than the way she has been advised to do what she’s done.

seamus wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up. She hasn't offered to do an AMA. You have no idea what thought or planning may have gone into this, no idea what supports may or may not be around her.

I’m not making stuff up, and I do have an idea what she’s planning based upon her own public statement -

If you have any questions I would like to answer them, in the spoken interview, if I can.

seamus wrote: »

You've assumed that Duffy has (or hasn't) done a load of things, and then criticised her for all of these figments of your imagination.

I haven’t done any such thing.

One eyed Jack · 27-02-2020 6:42pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I just find the comparison totally inappropriate.

Look, Michael Jackson expected Bashir to take his side (or be fooled by him) whereas Bashir - justifiably, and like many others - felt that there was good reason to be suspicious of his version of events and that it was quite possible that he was in fact an abuser. I don't think that suspicion has been fully lifted.

The reality is that it would have been completely wrong for Bashir to have been fully on Michael Jackson's side. Like the recent interview with Prince Andrew by Emily Maitlis, Bashir simply used someone's belief in their own entitled status so as to get access to interview them. He let him think that he was getting a soft soap interview when in fact it would have been unethical to allow him that.

There is no suggestion of there being any such potential alternative version of events here. She is not suspected of being an abuser trying to get her story in first. Unlike Michael Jackson and Prince Andrew.

The comparison was on the basis of their being advised to give interviews to journalists, that was all. I was giving an example of how it didn’t turn out well for the person concerned and didn’t go positively as they had expected. Duffy obviously hopes that this will go positively for her, but that would make her the exception in terms of how celebrities giving interviews to journalists to tends to go. The interviewees motives and the interviewers motives are rarely ever the same.

creditcarder · 27-02-2020 6:47pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe this is the way she feels is best for her to get it out there. It can be incredibly liberating to share a trauma, how it's shared is a very individual thing. I can understand her request for her family's privacy, they are not public people and she doesn't want them hounded. I don't believe in judging how people process trauma, if you have never experienced something of this nature how can you possibly say what's right or appropriate?

People are allowed an opinion. Tbh, I did get odded out by the term liberating as it almost seemed like a buzzword. I don't actually have that much of an opinion one way or another, but I do find it odd how people are instantly believing her.

Just odd imo

MOR316 · 27-02-2020 7:49pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, yeah. Being duped into telling people you share beds with unrelated children. Poor Micheál. Couldn’t catch a break. :rolleyes:

Ahhh the Kraken awakes.

On YT. Behind the scenes from the programme. Go look for it.
Personally, I find it very sick and worrying that you and others think the 99% of those people, who said he never done anything to them, are lying. It's as if you want them to be have been molested.

Very worrying.

I'll be exiting this conversation now. Please don't bother me again. I have no time for someone who gives out to others on here, for "caring about things" whilst, expecting sympathy for some experience you had an airport.

Thank you

Lillyfae · 27-02-2020 7:59pm

Jonybgud wrote: »

Post one of every thread = little news story and maybe a littler question, then open to others viewpoints...

Skip to post 180'ish of every thread..."I hope the spirit of humanities bitterness visits your house and takes a dump in your tea pot and I hope Sinn Fein pours you a nice bitter helping from the very same pot."

Every thread, without fail.....:rolleyes::pac:

It’s the boards.ie version of Godwin’s Law.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-02-2020 11:20pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Ahhh the Kraken awakes.

On YT. Behind the scenes from the programme. Go look for it.
Personally, I find it very sick and worrying that you and others think the 99% of those people, who said he never done anything to them, are lying. It's as if you want them to be have been molested.

Very worrying.

I'll be exiting this conversation now. Please don't bother me again. I have no time for someone who gives out to others on here, for "caring about things" whilst, expecting sympathy for some experience you had an airport.

Thank you

I don’t necessarily think they are lying. He probably did do nothing to those people. It’s almost as if abusers don’t abuse everyone in the relevant demographic that they come across. There’s a whittling down process. Anyhoo, knock yourself out trying to turn it back on me. Unfortunately MJ has literally admitted to the bed thing. There’s no getting away from it and that in and of itself is creepy before you consider anything else. MJ’s defenders must really curse him on this point. As I said, poor MJ, people believing he did something creepy because he... said he did something creepy. Why is he so persecuted?

Also, on a messageboard, you don’t get to dictate who responds to you. You can choose not to read the posts of people who quote you but you can’t control whether people will quote you and respond to you. That’s how messageboards work. Why I have explain this, I’m not sure. There’s also the ‘Ignore’ feature but, again, that doesn’t stop me responding to you.

Raconteuse · 27-02-2020 11:46pm

God the spitefulness of that post. "Very worrying" is a phrase that gets misused a lot.

And exiting the conversation after two posts? Not much of a fight put up there for Jacko. Hmmm...

What is this about an airport too?

MOR316 · 27-02-2020 11:49pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t necessarily think they are lying. He probably did do nothing to those people. It’s almost as if abusers don’t abuse everyone in the relevant demographic that they come across. There’s a whittling down process. Anyhoo, knock yourself out trying to turn it back on me. Unfortunately MJ has literally admitted to the bed thing. There’s no getting away from it and that in and of itself is creepy before you consider anything else. MJ’s defenders must really curse him on this point. As I said, poor MJ, people believing he did something creepy because he... said he did something creepy. Why is he so persecuted?

Also, on a messageboard, you don’t get to dictate who responds to you. You can choose not to read the posts of people who quote you but you can’t control whether people will quote you and respond to you. That’s how messageboards work. Why I have explain this, I’m not sure. There’s also the ‘Ignore’ feature but, again, that doesn’t stop me responding to you.

Just like you don't get to abuse and dictate to other people about what they post and who they respond to, like you do in other threads.

Very troublesome person. Touch of a bully in you, in what I've seen you post towards others. A hypocritical bully actually. Nasty stuff but, not my place to judge. I'll let you learn from your mistakes.

Ignore function? Thank you for pointing that out. You must have experience of it. Thanks again

27-02-2020 11:52pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, because it turned out to be ill advised for Michael Jackson to give an interview to Martin Bashir. I could have given numerous examples of celebrities who had been advised to give interviews to journalists who they imagined had their best interests at heart, only for it to go as they hadn’t expected.

Two words. Five syllables. Derek Zoolander.

"A model idiot".

MOR316 · 27-02-2020 11:52pm

Raconteuse wrote: »

God the spitefulness of that post. "Very worrying" is a phrase that gets misused a lot.

And exiting the conversation after two posts? Not much of a fight put up there for Jacko. Hmmm...

What is this about an airport too?

What fight for Jackson?

I was responding to something else, from another poster and the poster, who follows me around, responded to it. That's it. I didn't even bring up anything about the bed thing. She just follows me around, saying it. Weird obsession but, not my business.

I understand you're just trying to WUM me because you're at home, bored and want a laugh...If not then, I'm missing your point

Raconteuse · 27-02-2020 11:56pm

MOR316 wrote: »

Just like you don't get to abuse and dictate to other people about what they post and who they respond to, like you do in other threads.

Very troublesome person. Touch of a bully in you, in what I've seen you post towards others. A hypocritical bully actually. Nasty stuff but, not my place to judge. I'll let you learn from your mistakes.

Ignore function? Thank you for pointing that out. You must have experience of it. Thanks again

The irony. Your posts are dripping with sneering.

Thought you were exiting the conversation?

MOR316 · 27-02-2020 11:58pm

Raconteuse wrote: »

The irony. Your posts are dripping with sneering.

Thought you were exiting the conversation?

I just learn from you, pal. The best

Yes, the conversation with said poster

I never said anything about you though, did I?

One eyed Jack · 28-02-2020 12:09am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Two words. Five syllables. Derek Zoolander.

"A model idiot".

I hadn’t intended for the conversation to go the way of a discussion about MJ, but I figured using Margaret Cash as an example of a person who gave an interview to journalists and it didn’t go as she expected, might have been controversial :pac:

MOR316 · 28-02-2020 12:12am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hadn’t intended for the conversation to go the way of a discussion about MJ, but I figured using Margaret Cash as an example of a person who gave an interview to journalists and it didn’t go as she expected, might have been controversial :pac:

Wouldn't worry about it. Poster just follows me around, throwing those kind of posts at me, my apologies. Was just backing you up that having seen the behind the scenes footage of that interview, it was a very naive, bad and stupid thing to let Bashir do it.

Anyways, I don't know the story of Margaret Cash.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2020 12:13am

Raconteuse wrote: »

God the spitefulness of that post. "Very worrying" is a phrase that gets misused a lot.

And exiting the conversation after two posts? Not much of a fight put up there for Jacko. Hmmm...

What is this about an airport too?

Indeed. Also “the kraken awakes” and some incoherent waffle about other recent posts I’ve made. Personal jabs in lieu of cogent points. Ah well. Come at me, bro.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2020 12:17am

MOR316 wrote: »

Just like you don't get to abuse and dictate to other people about what they post and who they respond to, like you do in other threads.

Very troublesome person. Touch of a bully in you, in what I've seen you post towards others. A hypocritical bully actually. Nasty stuff but, not my place to judge. I'll let you learn from your mistakes.

Ignore function? Thank you for pointing that out. You must have experience of it. Thanks again

If my posts were abusive, they would be actioned. You are very welcome to report them. But note that only one of us has made personal jabs in this thread and it wasn’t me. Ask yourself, would the person you are so jealously defending do the same for you?

Seriously, chuck mud all you want.

Raconteuse · 28-02-2020 12:18am

creditcarder wrote: »

People are allowed an opinion. Tbh, I did get odded out by the term liberating as it almost seemed like a buzzword. I don't actually have that much of an opinion one way or another, but I do find it odd how people are instantly believing her.

Just odd imo

I find it odd the way people don't believe her.

I believe her but I could be wrong. The same applies for those who don't believe her and state as fact that she's lying. I can't accept that someone would make all that up. But maybe she did. However I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Raconteuse · 28-02-2020 12:26am

volchitsa wrote: »

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. It's a relief to know it's not just me who sees it like that. (Sometimes I wonder about some posters on here.)

To be fair, many many think Jackson abused boys. I think he did too. Now maybe I'm wrong - I can't state with absolute certainty that he did, but I have grounds for believing that he did.

Similarly, those who believe he didn't - entitled to their opinion but they cannot state as fact that he didn't.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2020 12:33am

Raconteuse wrote: »

To be fair, many many think Jackson abused boys. I think he did too. Now maybe I'm wrong - I can't state with absolute certainty that he did, but I have grounds for believing that he did.

Similarly, those who believe he didn't - entitled to their opinion but they cannot state as fact that he didn't.

But weirdly, they do. And many say stuff like “Michael wouldn’t do that” as if they knew him personally. Most odd. And, like, the confirmed stuff (that he literally admitted to himself) is unacceptable.

the_pen_turner · 28-02-2020 12:37am

Raconteuse wrote: »

To be fair, many many think Jackson abused boys. I think he did too. Now maybe I'm wrong - I can't state with absolute certainty that he did, but I have grounds for believing that he did.

Similarly, those who believe he didn't - entitled to their opinion but they cannot state as fact that he didn't.

the diference there is that there has been several investigations done into the alegations and nothing has been proven . so to say its one opinion against another is wrong.

volchitsa · 28-02-2020 12:42am

Raconteuse wrote: »

To be fair, many many think Jackson abused boys. I think he did too. Now maybe I'm wrong - I can't state with absolute certainty that he did, but I have grounds for believing that he did.

Similarly, those who believe he didn't - entitled to their opinion but they cannot state as fact that he didn't.

Yes, that's why it was perfectly reasonable for any journalist not to play the supporting role that he seems to have been expecting. And why the comparison with someone who is alleged to have been a victim of abuse, rather than a possible perpetrator is completely inappropriate.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2020 12:46am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the diference there is that there has been several investigations done into the alegations and nothing has been proven . so to say its one opinion against another is wrong.

Gotta say, if I was accused of something so egregious, I wouldn’t be settling as he did in the first case. And, as I said, a big thing MJ admitted was true is red flag-tastic and hugely inappropriate by itself and there’s no getting away from that. It takes some mental gymnastics to justify it.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, that's why it was perfectly reasonable for any journalist not to play the supporting role that he seems to have been expecting. And why the comparison with someone who is alleged to have been a victim of abuse, rather than a possible perpetrator is completely inappropriate.

Indeed.

the_pen_turner · 28-02-2020 12:51am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Gotta say, if I was accused of something so egregious, I wouldn’t be settling as he did in the first case. And, as I said, a big thing MJ admitted was true is red flag-tastic and hugely inappropriate by itself and there’s no getting away from that. It takes some mental gymnastics to justify it.

Indeed.

i agree, i wouldnt have settled. but it was a diferent time and he was rich and foolish. years ago money made problems go away.

im not saying the whole thing isnt wierd and very suspicious . lots of red flags but that doesnt mean its true. all the investigations have plenty of opertunity to get to the truth. . i dont know if he did or didnt either but i can only go with the facts

MOR316 · 28-02-2020 12:54am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the diference there is that there has been several investigations done into the alegations and nothing has been proven . so to say its one opinion against another is wrong.

This!

Found not guilty in court.
Two lads in LN have changed their stories 6 times
They lied in their deposition
Their case got thrown out in 2017, with a judge saying no could ever believe them.
They changed their story and are now suing his estate, saying the company procured them for Jackson, despite in their sworn depositions to the cops and in LN, they said their mothers hounded Jackson for years to let them visit, so their case is going to be thrown out again
The two of them defended him all his life, now he abused one in a building that never existed and the other "hundreds of times" despite saying he and his mother they were only at Neverland 4 times to the cops?

99% of the rest all defend him to this day and are outraged at what those two are doing!

Yes, of course I get it. He had sleepovers with kids and regardless of whether there were occasions when the families were there (And there was) it's still very wrong, no matter how innocent it was. That is something I will never defend him against! Ever!
Sean Lennon, despite saying nothing happened and how great it was, says looking back it was a bit weird

However, when there are so many provable lies floating about, it's hard not too get defensive when you know the facts. Why has no one questioned the fact that in the NY Times in 2017, Harvey Weinstein planted fake stories to the media, about MJ, for years to get the heat off him?
I just don't like how people seem to want him to be guilty or seem to want kids to be molested.
I saw Macauley Culkin's latest interview where he defended Jackson and said he never saw him do anything to anyone and he never ever acted like that towards him, his brother or his friends...Yet, so many people are accusing him of lying, almost like they want him to be molested.

Genuinely, I apologise to anyone who I may have offended. Really wasn't my intention. However, this isn't a fanboy thing to me, I only got into his music last summer after studying all this. I just get really annoyed where people don't want to or choose not to see two sides to any story, especially when one side is provably complete nonsensical and financially motivated.

Can throw stones at me now

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2020 12:55am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i agree, i wouldnt have settled. but it was a diferent time and he was rich and foolish. years ago money made problems go away.

im not saying the whole thing isnt wierd and very suspicious . lots of red flags but that doesnt mean its true. all the investigations have plenty of opertunity to get to the truth. . i dont know if he did or didnt either but i can only go with the facts

Those accusations were just as horrific 25 years ago as they are today. Calling the ‘90s a more innocent time with regards to this kind of stuff is unconvincing. He settled. That is something defenders of him must also curse him for. Another thing that requires huge mental gymnastics to explain away.

Here’s a fact for you: MJ shared beds with unrelated boys, by his own admission.

MOR316 · 28-02-2020 12:57am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i agree, i wouldnt have settled. but it was a diferent time and he was rich and foolish. years ago money made problems go away.

im not saying the whole thing isnt wierd and very suspicious . lots of red flags but that doesnt mean its true. all the investigations have plenty of opertunity to get to the truth. . i dont know if he did or didnt either but i can only go with the facts

The settlement was discussed recently

He wanted the criminal trial first. Requested it three times, as he was in the middle of a world tour and the civil case could have gone on for 18 months and could have jepordised his right to a fair trial in the criminal case. His lawyers advised him to settle the civil case and move on to the criminal trial.

The prosecution decided to take the money BUT, the criminal case went on. Two grand juries could not find any evidence against him so it was cleared 9 months later!

It's all there online. FBI released these documents in 2004. I've read them, as have many others. These are facts, not speculation. If anyone doesn't believe me, they are there for you to read

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 28-02-2020 12:57am

Lillyfae wrote: »

I agree with you, she always did seem sensible and down to earth but the statement is odd to say the least.

That Guardian article is heinous, even without the current situation the writer needs to have a look at themselves.

The article seems to be borrowed from a Welsh newspaper.

the_pen_turner · 28-02-2020 1:00am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Those accusations were just as horrific 25 years ago as they are today. Calling the ‘90s a more innocent time with regards to this kind of stuff is unconvincing. He settled. That is something defenders of him must also curse him for. Another thing that requires huge mental gymnastics to explain away.

Here’s a fact for you: MJ shared beds with unrelated boys, by his own admission.

im aware of this, im not disputing it or explaining it away.
but that doesnt make him an abuser.

I did not want to show the world the sadness in my eyes.

Comments