Indeed. Along with racism and sexism we've come a long way.....
Oh hang on Yaxley-Lemon and "freedom of speech". FFS.
The****nuggettwatfacedshitbagcuntknobwavingwankerturdarseheadedslimegobblingweasel.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Leaving Neverland- Michael Jackson documentary
- Thread starter edna krabappel
- Start date
Oh hang on Yaxley-Lemon and "freedom of speech". FFS.
The****nuggettwatfacedshitbagcuntknobwavingwankerturdarseheadedslimegobblingweasel.
pishhead
Well-known member
Absolutely, and for context for everyone take a look at the video within this link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378
Absolutely chilling.
I was quite the Jacko fan, went to see him back in '92, but I've been confident he was a paedo for a long time now, and have continued to say so. I don't think this is because of his popularity with younger generations. I imagine it's easier for his victims to speak out, knowing they won't have to see the scumbag accuse them of lying.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Wow. That was pretty grim.
The term "child abuse" is what we're familiar with, but when you actually hear the specific details of what was going on forensically spelled out by the victims....that was a deeply uncomfortable watch.
Yes, its always going to be "allegedly", but its difficult to hear such specific testimony like that and just dismiss it as bullshit. Certainly not a jury I'd have liked to have sat on.
The term "child abuse" is what we're familiar with, but when you actually hear the specific details of what was going on forensically spelled out by the victims....that was a deeply uncomfortable watch.
Yes, its always going to be "allegedly", but its difficult to hear such specific testimony like that and just dismiss it as bullshit. Certainly not a jury I'd have liked to have sat on.
I have to agree. My children are grown up now, but I would never have let them sleep in the same bedroom as male adult.
I think the parents were in awe of Jackson and were looking to forward their children’s careers. Jackson used that. The trouble is it’s easy to see the danger in the local 40 year old who lives on his own and has an unhealthy interest in hanging around with young children and wanting them to come over for sleepovers. It’s a lot harder when Jackson is flying you around first class and staying in the best hotels to see.
luppers
New member
Was going to post similar comment ,agree with you
The tricky thing every time someone in the arts is exposed for things like this is it reopens the question;
Can you separate the art from the artist? Seeing lots of conversations about who it’s ok and not ok to play the music of anymore.
John Lennon beat his first wife multiple times. Do we stop listening The Beatles?
Jimmy Page and David Bowie two of many, many artists who allegedly had underage groupies - that’s Zeppelin and Bowie gone.
One of my friends said they didn’t want to watch House of Cards any more after the revelations about Spacey, but then is that fair on all the other actors in that show who are presumably innocent?
Where is the line? And no - before anyone misconstrues my point - this obviously isn’t me defending paedophilia, but genuinely asking the question out to debate, because I don’t know the answer.
Can you separate the art from the artist? Seeing lots of conversations about who it’s ok and not ok to play the music of anymore.
John Lennon beat his first wife multiple times. Do we stop listening The Beatles?
Jimmy Page and David Bowie two of many, many artists who allegedly had underage groupies - that’s Zeppelin and Bowie gone.
One of my friends said they didn’t want to watch House of Cards any more after the revelations about Spacey, but then is that fair on all the other actors in that show who are presumably innocent?
Where is the line? And no - before anyone misconstrues my point - this obviously isn’t me defending paedophilia, but genuinely asking the question out to debate, because I don’t know the answer.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
I guess if you view it as Frank Underwood and not Spacey then that is a sensible view. The series is about a mythical president.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
I understand the point you're making. I think the first time this was highlighted to me was with Gary Glitter, who before all the revelations was actually a very cool act to go and see at uni especially around Xmas. Then obviously that changed almost overnight, his music was blackballed on the radio etc, so that decision NOT to separate the artist from his art was made in his case. In some ways the decision is even harder in the Jackson case, because the music was so good and part of the cultural landscape across the world.
But you really can't argue too much with any radio station who takes the individual decision not to play his music. As Easy 10 said, that was a deeply uncomfortable watch last night. Jackson is the villain, but as parents you protect your children from any chance of harm and they got sucked in by the superstar and the fame.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Also who is the victim here. MJ didn’t exacly have a normal upbringing so was possibly a product of his life experiences and perhaps would have been a very different person if he had a normal life. Not defending anything but presumably you aren’t born a peado or are you, I don’t know the answer to that?
I agree. And it's not just music of course. Google Eric Gill (for one) and tell me if people should still admire his art (he makes Jackson look almost normal).
I think you do have to separate the person from the work. I understand people not wanting to play Jackson's music now, but if you're doing an 80s retrospective you simply have to acknowledge and include him as he was a huge star. Ditto if you want to do something on Britain in the 1970s you have to have an edition of Top of the Pops with Jimmy Savile introducing Gary Glitter. rather then just trying to airbrush them out.
It's a similar, but admittedly not identical, argument about people like Churchill. Yes he was an imperialistic, misogynistic racist, very much a man of his time, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't also be admired for his part in defeating the Nazis.
Interesting point.
I went to see Killing Joke in London a few years ago. It was after Mr Paul Gadd had his first conviction. Before the group came on stage the stage entry music started. Rock and Roll part 1 (well, the one with minimum vocals). When I was a kid I LOVED that song. The audience reaction was interesting. It seemed like we had reclaimed that song. So I am very much in the 'separate the music from the act' category. Mind you, I never liked and wouldn't listen to 'leader of the gang'. Largely because it's shit. Putting 'the bang in gang' had me cringing long before Mr Gadd had his collar felt.
As for Kevin Spacey, again, one of my 3 most favourite movies is Usual Suspects. It was on tell late a few nights ago. It is still amazing, and I still loved it.
To add to the list of shame, Jimi Hendrix beat his girlfriends. Mick Ronson shagged a 15 year old (who I went to school with till age 11) in the dressing rooms at the Dome. And the number of records with gobsmacking lyrics (by today's standards) is legion. One of my favourite tracks in the early 70s was 'The Cops are Coming' by the Heavy Metal Kids. I hadn't heard it for more than 30 years and hadn't remembered all the lyrics.....I just looked it up on yourube but oddly the Gary Holton original isn't available. Anyway, any fule listening now would instantly go 'what the actual ****?'
Back to the question: if I liked it once, and still like it now, then I like it, and I will separate the artist from the crime. Fortunately I never liked a whole host of numpties who turned out the be legally-defined perverts. Always hated Jonathan King, for example. But I don't feel particularly smug about it.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Sadly it sounds like you are musically illiterate rather than a music snob. Oh, and speaking of literacy, it's disdain not distain.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
I was very anti-MJ at the time of all of the allegations, but am now not as convinced as I was. Not sure if any of this has been mentioned in the thread, but there are a lot of videos kicking about that were filmed during the Bashir interview, as well as recording from the father of the original allegations. It's shocking how diferently the Bashir programme was shown in comparison to what was actually said and filmed. As I suppose you would expect, it was cut to be highly provocative. In the tapes from the conversations with the father, he is asking Michael, as a friend, for money. Eventually he threatens to blackmail him with an abuse story. Which is exactly what he did. There are plenty of videos of the child adamently declaring, for a long time, that MJ never touched him inappropriately. Eventually he changes his story.
Don't get me wrong, Michael Jackson is not right, he was properly weird and in my opinion quite likely he was up to something dodgy. But we do not know that and there is no evidence. The only people ever suggesting things are all chasing money, after previously defending Micael. There were a lot of kids that used to hang out with him (very weird), and nearly all of them defend him.
I think Michael Jackson was very troubled, abused by his father, misled and betrayed by people he trusted and quite possibly a padeophile. I would never have let my children near him. I also think Bashir is a total **** and the people accusing Michael now are possibly abused children, but more likely they are liars trying to get some cash.
Your margin may vary.
Don't get me wrong, Michael Jackson is not right, he was properly weird and in my opinion quite likely he was up to something dodgy. But we do not know that and there is no evidence. The only people ever suggesting things are all chasing money, after previously defending Micael. There were a lot of kids that used to hang out with him (very weird), and nearly all of them defend him.
I think Michael Jackson was very troubled, abused by his father, misled and betrayed by people he trusted and quite possibly a padeophile. I would never have let my children near him. I also think Bashir is a total **** and the people accusing Michael now are possibly abused children, but more likely they are liars trying to get some cash.
Your margin may vary.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,585
I've been waiting for someone to spot that. I've added the comma that was missing from your post.
Steve Earle has made some great albums, so I will assume that you are one of the minority of Beatles fans who actually likes music. You're like Manchester United fans who live in Manchester.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
I've not watched the new documentary yet but I certainly remember my GUT feel at the time of the first Bashir doc.
I'm willing to accept that maybe I am biased towards a brilliant musician but my over riding feeling was:
He was SO open about the fact that he shared his bed with these kids that it actually seemed ludicrous that he was up to something 'weird'. In my mind, if you were up to something DODGY there would be an element of secrecy or at least not openly declaring it. He was doing quite the opposite and then seemed surprised that someone would question it. That to me smacked of someone who had MAJOR issues stemming from his mental childhood but was just suffering with a complete naivity to how his actions might be perceived.
Now, I'm willing to accept that I may well have been COMPLETELY stupid and have fallen for the most ridiculous lie, but I can only go on my gut feeling at the time of watching. Not one part of me then or now thought "he's touching those kids". The fact that, almost immediately, allegations started coming out (led by a VERY dodgy mother) just smacked of people jumping on a chance.
Again, this was my gut feeling. I can accept if I was wrong. I hope I'm not.
I'm willing to accept that maybe I am biased towards a brilliant musician but my over riding feeling was:
He was SO open about the fact that he shared his bed with these kids that it actually seemed ludicrous that he was up to something 'weird'. In my mind, if you were up to something DODGY there would be an element of secrecy or at least not openly declaring it. He was doing quite the opposite and then seemed surprised that someone would question it. That to me smacked of someone who had MAJOR issues stemming from his mental childhood but was just suffering with a complete naivity to how his actions might be perceived.
Now, I'm willing to accept that I may well have been COMPLETELY stupid and have fallen for the most ridiculous lie, but I can only go on my gut feeling at the time of watching. Not one part of me then or now thought "he's touching those kids". The fact that, almost immediately, allegations started coming out (led by a VERY dodgy mother) just smacked of people jumping on a chance.
Again, this was my gut feeling. I can accept if I was wrong. I hope I'm not.