[Archived] Michael Jackson

[Cheeky Sidders]

Interesting how most Jackson detractors completely overlook the millions upon millions he poured into charities. He was also never proven guilty of any charges... those who know him properly have almost always said there's no chance of him being a paedo.

I've said nothing about Jacko up to now as I appreciate he has a lot of loyal fans who are genuinely upset that he has died. However, given the obvious interest in this whole sorry tale and the fact that everyone else seems to be adding their points I think the time has come for me to add my two pen'orth.

Michael Jackson gave "millions upon millions" to charity. I don't know the figures but so fecking what? Giving money to charity does not absolve you from other stuff you've done. Saddam Hussein gave a lot of money to charity as did the Krays and I'm sure many other not so nice folk. The bottom line is if you have millions upon millions of pounds it's easy to give it away. My boss donates loads of charities and he's a right c... [whoa there, Sidders]. You see my point.

He was never proven guilty of any charges. Absolutely true... but then he got the first and arguably most damning law suit against him dropped when he paid the plaintiff in excess of $20 million. All things considered if anyone touched me up I'd be prepared to let it go for that sort of sum. In fact, if Salma Hayek touched me up I'd be quite prepared to let her do it for free. Alas, she's never taken me up on the offer despite my daily begging letters. As most of us on here are blokes (and I'd say a decent bunch) I'd like to think that the only reason any of us would take a child to our beds would be a) they were our own kids AND b ) they were unwell or had had a bad dream or something AND c) it would be an exception AND d) you'd fire them off to their own beds as soon as possible. We wouldn't invite a bunch of pre-pubescent boys around to our house for a sleepover, give them wine (which Jackson told them was "Jesus juice") and then share a bed with them. That is NOT normal. Don't give me the old crap about "he was a man trapped in child's body". That is the behaviour of a paedophile. Trust me, through my career I have known more than a few and the old "I was only being their friend" excuse is a perennial favourite. Whether he was convicted is beside the point, his behaviour was that of a predatory paedophile who stretched (at the very least) the bond of trust he had with those boys. It's what we overpaid interfering do-gooders call "grooming". I think a lot of questions also have to be asked about the parents of those boys who allowed him to stay at his house but that's a whole different debate. I have no doubt that some people might have seen him as an easy target to sue but it was not normal to do those things and in other countrries (like here) he would probably have been convicted. Celebrity brings some protection from conviction and mega-celebrity brings more defence. Lest we forget, they didn't convict OJ either. I have no doubt that some members on here had tough childhoods and had domineering and abusive fathers. That doesn't mean they didn't bloody well grow up and spend their time in their adult life playing with pre-pubescent boys.

"those who knew him properly have almost always said there's no chance of him being a paedo" - yeah, I seem to remember Peter Sutcliffe's/ Fred West's/ Andrei Chikatilo's family, friends, neighbours and workmates saying they were quiet sort of lads too whio wouldn't do anyone any harm. The sort who kept themselves to themselves. Have any of your friends or relatives ever done anything that was really shocked you? Exactly. Do we ever really know anyone?

Now then, this business of genius. I have no doubt he has millions of fans who think his music was great and all that. Personally, I quite like "I want you back" which he did with his brothers but I won't bore you with the reasons why as some of you might blush. But for every person who thinks his music was great and his dancing something out of this world, I can find you at least two who thought he was sh1te. It's all about personal taste. Yes, I'll concede he was an entertainer who was loved (yes, loved) by his fans, but genius? Nah, sorry. Leonardo Da Vinci? Yeah, safe to say. Brainy Italian lad, ahead of his time and even now throws up a few surprises. William Shakespeare? He had his moments and despite some of the dreary stuff I think we can say he was. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Mad as a box of frogs on acid but by heck he was bloody good at what he did. Thomas Edison? Where would we dbe without him? In the bloody dark, that's where! Despite being a yank, it's safe to ay he was a genius, although probably boorish. Albert Einstein? Dodgy hair-do, a German (FFS!) and his breakthrough led to an altogether more deadly age, but there's no doubting the genius tag. Michael Joseph Jackson? Superb dancer, better than average singer, talented songwriter, not a musician, er... messianic narcissist who you would'nt trust around small children, certainly. Genius? Feck off.

[thenodrog]

In Rovermatts defence, let me repeat his quote^^^^^^^^^. He was merely stating the obvious.

Michael Jackson's music is fantastic without doubt, which is why SIX of his songs are currently in the top 40 & they made it there in two days of sales. Also he has TWO albums in the top ten album chart. The stats there speak for themselves.

No the stats speak for our society.

[DE.]

Michael Jackson gave "millions upon millions" to charity. I don't know the figures but so fecking what? Giving money to charity does not absolve you from other stuff you've done.

Never said it did, did I? Simply said it's often overlooked in favour of throwing around negative headlines or unfounded rumours because people prefer to tear him down than see him built up. Just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you have to give it to charity. He went above and beyond for a number of charities, and that should at the very least be respected, not ignored or at worst dismissed because "he had loads anyway".

He was never proven guilty of any charges. Absolutely true... but then he got the first and arguably most damning law suit against him dropped when he paid the plaintiff in excess of $20 million.

Have said previously I think this was his biggest mistake. The post before my last explains what I think of this contentious point.

As most of us on here are blokes (and I'd say a decent bunch) I'd like to think that the only reason any of us would take a child to our beds would be a) they were our own kids AND b ) they were unwell or had had a bad dream or something AND c) it would be an exception AND d) you'd fire them off to their own beds as soon as possible. We wouldn't invite a bunch of pre-pubescent boys around to our house for a sleepover, give them wine (which Jackson told them was "Jesus juice") and then share a bed with them. That is NOT normal. Don't give me the old crap about "he was a man trapped in child's body". That is the behaviour of a paedophile. Trust me, through my career I have known more than a few and the old "I was only being their friend" excuse is a perennial favourite. Whether he was convicted is beside the point, his behaviour was that of a predatory paedophile who stretched (at the very least) the bond of trust he had with those boys. It's what we overpaid interfering do-gooders call "grooming". I think a lot of questions also have to be asked about the parents of those boys who allowed him to stay at his house but that's a whole different debate. I have no doubt that some people might have seen him as an easy target to sue but it was not normal to do those things and in other countrries (like here) he would probably have been convicted. Celebrity brings some protection from conviction and mega-celebrity brings more defence. Lest we forget, they didn't convict OJ either. I have no doubt that some members on here had tough childhoods and had domineering and abusive fathers. That doesn't mean they didn't bloody well grow up and spend their time in their adult life playing with pre-pubescent boys.

How many of the people you know had their childhood taken away entirely through becoming one of the most popular celebrities in the world (not only destroying any grasp on reality but forfeiting any and all privacy to the media), believed themselves to be peter pan, all but bankrupted themselves building a theme park and had a pet chimp called bubbles who they would call their child? Come on. You can't compare Jackson to a normal person, the man was psychologically a total mess. You're using tabloid speculation of "jesus juice" (never remotely proven) and his celebrity status to ignore the fact the man was by all means a nutcase who probably did to some extent believe he was a child or thought he could at the very least relive his childhood in adulthood. He was so far removed from reality that to even try to compare him to a normal paedophile is pointless. I'm not saying he definately was, or definately was not, but he was not a 'normal bloke' and it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to work how to to judge a guy living in a world so far removed from the one most of us consider normal.

"those who knew him properly have almost always said there's no chance of him being a paedo" - yeah, I seem to remember Peter Sutcliffe's/ Fred West's/ Andrei Chikatilo's family, friends, neighbours and workmates saying they were quiet sort of lads too whio wouldn't do anyone any harm. The sort who kept themselves to themselves. Have any of your friends or relatives ever done anything that was really shocked you? Exactly. Do we ever really know anyone?

My quote was from a journalist who was by all accounts not friends with Jacko, merely somebody investigating his case. In fact, it would probably have been in the journo's best interests to stir up controversy, whereas instead he stated after research (how much have you done outside of what the press have told you?) he did not believe Jacko to be a kiddie fiddler. He goes on to call Jacko gay and says that he liked young men, but not children. Unsure as to the truth of that, but it shows he's willing to publish controversial claims, so why wouldn't he publish that Jaco might be a paedo if he'd found any evidence suggesting it was even remotely possible?

Now then, this business of genius. I have no doubt he has millions of fans who think his music was great and all that. Personally, I quite like "I want you back" which he did with his brothers but I won't bore you with the reasons why as some of you might blush. But for every person who thinks his music was great and his dancing something out of this world, I can find you at least two who thought he was sh1te. It's all about personal taste. Yes, I'll concede he was an entertainer who was loved (yes, loved) by his fans, but genius? Nah, sorry. Leonardo Da Vinci? Yeah, safe to say. Brainy Italian lad, ahead of his time and even now throws up a few surprises. William Shakespeare? He had his moments and despite some of the dreary stuff I think we can say he was. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Mad as a box of frogs on acid but by heck he was bloody good at what he did. Thomas Edison? Where would we dbe without him? In the bloody dark, that's where! Despite being a yank, it's safe to ay he was a genius, although probably boorish. Albert Einstein? Dodgy hair-do, a German (FFS!) and his breakthrough led to an altogether more deadly age, but there's no doubting the genius tag. Michael Joseph Jackson? Superb dancer, better than average singer, talented songwriter, not a musician, er... messianic narcissist who you would'nt trust around small children, certainly. Genius? Feck off.

Not sure why you're comparing Edison, Einstein, and the like with Mozart, Jackson etc, considering their genuis status comes in totally different fields that are completely unrelated to each other. In fact, this whole argument doesn't really make sense to me. Nobody is comparing Jackson with Einstein, but then I doubt Einstein would have been anywhere near as talented a musician as Jackson. Edison either, for that matter. Musically, and as an entertainer, I'd call Jackson a genius within his field. He thought ahead of his peers, created music which will span many generations after ours, and put on some truly spectacular shows during his life - many concepts of which were his ideas. He was beyond simply "talented", his music made him arguably the most famous entertainer on the planet. You don't get that far without being a genius within your field.

This is all my opinion of course, I doubt we will ever know the full truth behind Jacko's life. Too many conflicting reports, rumours and unreliable witnesses. At the end, I'm not sure Jackson himself could seperate fantasy from reality anymore.

[Tris]

believed themselves to be peter pan, all but bankrupted themselves building a theme park and had a pet chimp called bubbles who they would call their child?

He was so far removed from reality that to even try to compare him to a normal paedophile is pointless.

He goes on to call Jacko gay and says that he liked young men, but not children.

I'm not sure Jackson himself could seperate fantasy from reality anymore.

Which side are you on?

[Rovermatt]

I can't believe anyone would let a kid share his bed when that kid wasn't their's. Particularly when they were famous, and in doing so opening themselves up to the possibility of litigation. It defies belief that anyone could be that naive.

Either he's guilty of appalling misjudgement, and quite frankly quite a few tracks short of an LP or he's a paedophile.

Who was that kid he was filmed cuddling when Bashir was interviewing him? There was something very not right about that.

It was the same kid who brought the charges against him in 2003.

[Rovermatt]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? Mad as a box of frogs on acid but by heck he was bloody good at what he did.

That's certainly a description that can be applied to Jacko.

[DE.]

Which side are you on?

I think he was a psychological mess, but I don't think he was a paedophile. I don't have to believe Jacko was sane to appreciate the things he did that were good, nor do I have to rely on the tabloids to tell me what was bad about him.

I also think his musical legacy should be seperate from his personal life, and that within his field he was most certainly a genius.

It's not like you have to absolutely love, or absolutely hate him, is it? There are things about him I liked (mostly his music), and things I disliked. Some people go overboard on both fronts.

[Rovermatt]

His ex-wife is claiming now that he is not the father of the two kids she gave birth to. Surely this is plainly obvious to anyone since, you know...they're white.

[Tris]

His ex-wife is claiming now that he is not the father of the two kids he gave birth to. Surely this is plainly obvious to anyone since, you know...they're white.

and he's a bloke

[Rovermatt]

Absolutely! They're definitely not his then.

[Rovermatt]

I was watching a video this morning of his dad hocking a new record label at two press events in the wake of his son's death. Now wonder Jacko was messed up with this crook as father.

[DE.]

Aye, his father is not coming out of this well at all.

[American]

Disinherited from the estate, which was before 500 million in debt and is apparently now worth a billion?!?

Edit: I also hope that they don't allow his father anywhere near the children - he's a big reason that most of his children are far from normal....

[Claytons Left Boot]

Michael Jackson's music is fantastic without doubt, which is why SIX of his songs are currently in the top 40 & they made it there in two days of sales. Also he has TWO albums in the top ten album chart. The stats there speak for themselves.

His music is only fantastic to those that think it is fantastic.

In my opinion, most chart music is utter drivel and the fact that he has six songs in the top 40 etc means absolutely nothing.

[DE.]

In my opinion, most chart music is utter drivel and the fact that he has six songs in the top 40 etc means absolutely nothing.

I don't understand the opinion that Jackson's music is "just chart music". He's done pop, soul, rnb, dance, rock, ballads... he's spanned a number of genres. Yes, they all have a chorus-driven, pop-leaning vibe to them, but then so do most rock bands so I don't think it's a big deal. I hate manufactured pop music, but it's obvious Jackson doesn't fall into that category.

Btw Claytons Left Boot, I know that's not exactly what you were saying but I know some people have expressed that opinion and it is IMO unfounded.

[thenodrog]

I hate manufactured pop music, but it's obvious Jackson doesn't fall into that category.

Rockin Robin!

[broadsword]

I don't care if it was "manufactured" or not (whatever that means, something to do with working off of a template perhaps), but the sound it made was muzak to my ears, that's for sure.

His mass appeal is completely mystifying to me.

Especially with all of that: "Heeeeeeeeeeeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee", "Whooo-hooooo", "Eeeeeeee" girlie nonsense he shireked over the top.

EDIT: Which song did he sample for the riff of "Black or White"? I could swear it's Hungry Like the Wolf (now that's a proper pop song).

[DE.]

Pretty sure the riff was an original one created by Slash.

[T4E]

I don't care if it was "manufactured" or not (whatever that means, something to do with working off of a template perhaps), but the sound it made was muzak to my ears, that's for sure.

His mass appeal is completely mystifying to me.

Especially with all of that: "Heeeeeeeeeeeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee", "Whooo-hooooo", "Eeeeeeee" girlie nonsense he shireked over the top.

Not to mention "Shamon".

Or was that

?

[broadsword]

Shamon!

Whoooo-hooo!

Eeeeeeh!

Whhhhhoooooooooooooooooo!

Sounds like he's got his cock in his flies to me.

[DE.]

This is getting a bit sad now.

[T4E]

This is getting a bit sad now.

Why do you say that?

[Cheeky Sidders]

Another celebrity has pegged it tonight. First David Carradine, then Farrah Fawcett, then Jackass and now Mollie Sugden. I reckon there's a bug going round called luvvie flu. Ronnie Biggs next. There'll no celebs left by Christmas!

[T4E]

Another celebrity has pegged it tonight. First David Carradine, then Farrah Fawcett, then Jackass and now Mollie Sugden. I reckon there's a bug going round called luvvie flu. Ronnie Biggs next. There'll no celebs left by Christmas!

If Amy Winehouse goes this year we'll have lost the Goody, the Bad, and the really bloody ugly!

[DE.]

Why do you say that?

I don't really have any problem with people poking fun at Jacko, he was a weird dude. Just unsure as to why some people would continue to do it over and over again in a thread. If you don't like him, what to gain from saying so in a thread related to him? Why would you even open it in the first place? Repeating jokes that others have said a million times over isn't particularly original don't see why some people can't accept MJ was a good musician. Or know what the term 'manufactured pop' means.