Official - Michael Jackson was scum

Dismember said:
The show has only been out for a couple weeks now, so it hasn’t been that long. My guess is that they’ll put out some kind of rebuttal but they’re taking their time rather than doing some rushed, reactionary piece. I guess we’ll have to wait until that happens to see what they have to say and if they make a strong case.
Click to expand...

Apparently the UK broadcasting regulatory Ofcom is dealing with over 150 complaints about the programme. Most seem to be concerned with the "graphic detail" of alleged abuse, but it's also likely that the lack of balance will also be looked at. Channel 4 may well come to regret being involved.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And of course successful libel suits determine truth, like Liberace was in no way gay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace_v_Daily_Mirror
Click to expand...
The whole "supposedly came from Jordan Chandler's journal", while Jordan Chandler and his entire family all deny he ever kept a journal puts a strong damper on its credibility, however. Notwithstanding that English libel laws differ in a couple significant ways from American ones - in Britain, the burden of proof for establishing truth of the claims is on the defendant (that would be the Daily Mirror in the Liberace case). In the US, burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish falsehood (the Jackson estate in this case); AND that the author of the piece in question knew that it was false beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
The whole "supposedly came from Jordan Chandler's journal", while Jordan Chandler and his entire family all deny he ever kept a journal puts a strong damper on its credibility, however. Notwithstanding that English libel laws differ in a couple significant ways from American ones - in Britain, the burden of proof for establishing truth of the claims is on the defendant (that would be the Daily Mirror in the Liberace case). In the US, burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish falsehood (the Jackson estate in this case); AND that the author of the piece in question knew that it was false beforehand.
Click to expand...

Of course Liberace also testified in court that he wasn't gay but a little perjury never hurt anyone.
 
Information Analyst said:
Apparently the UK broadcasting regulatory Ofcom is dealing with over 150 complaints about the programme. Most seem to be concerned with the "graphic detail" of alleged abuse, but it's also likely that the lack of balance will also be looked at. Channel 4 may well come to regret being involved.
Click to expand...

The true believers were only able to lodge 150 complaints? What's this world coming to?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment...-in-the-miracle-that-was-Michael-Jackson.html

https://variety.com/2005/biz/news/starstruck-in-neverland-1117921360/

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/6jk9gr/today_i_learned_that_jordan_chandler_sternly/
 
Shadowdweller said:
The whole "supposedly came from Jordan Chandler's journal", while Jordan Chandler and his entire family all deny he ever kept a journal puts a strong damper on its credibility, however. Notwithstanding that English libel laws differ in a couple significant ways from American ones - in Britain, the burden of proof for establishing truth of the claims is on the defendant (that would be the Daily Mirror in the Liberace case). In the US, burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish falsehood (the Jackson estate in this case); AND that the author of the piece in question knew that it was false beforehand.
Click to expand...

Did he? Is there a reputable website that states this with citations etc, and not just an MJ Fansite? I haven't been able to find anything.

Most of the book is here:

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19231369-michael-jackson-was-my-lover-stories#

Bit of hit or miss. Some parts seem fanciful other parts less so. If anything Robson's and Safechuck's parents come off worse than in the documentary but I don't think it damages their sons credibility as witnesses. YMMV.
 
Meanwhile, Barbra Streisand is in hot water for seemingly minimizing MJ's alleged sexual abusive behavior.

Speaking to the Times in advance of performances in Britain this summer, Streisand said she “absolutely” believed Wade Robson and James Safechuck.

But she said: “You can say ‘molested’, but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be [at Jackson’s Neverland ranch]. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”

...

Streisand, 76, said she had “a combination of feelings. I feel bad for the children. I feel bad for him. I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him.”

...

“His sexual needs were his sexual needs,” said Streisand, “coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has.” When she met him, she said, she found him “very sweet, very childlike”.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/23/michael-jackson-barbra-streisand-leaving-neverland

He didn't murder them, and the sexual abuse wasn't so severe that it left them so traumatized that they became catatonic for the rest of their lives... at least in these cases. I guess that means we shouldn't treat him as harshly as one would anyone else if they did what he did? Or something...

Even if he was a tortured soul that as stricken with remorse for his victims and regretted what he had done, he never actually owed up to the harm he caused and died denying everything. Because of that i have a hard time having any sympathy for him.
 
Arcade22 said:
Meanwhile, Barbra Streisand is in hot water for seemingly minimizing MJ's alleged sexual abusive behavior.



https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/23/michael-jackson-barbra-streisand-leaving-neverland

He didn't murder them, and the sexual abuse wasn't so severe that it left them so traumatized that they became catatonic for the rest of their lives... at least in these cases. I guess that means we shouldn't treat him as harshly as one would anyone else if they did what he did? Or something...

Even if he was a tortured soul that as stricken with remorse for his victims and regretted what he had done, he never actually owed up to the harm he caused and died denying everything. Because of that i have a hard time having any sympathy for him.
Click to expand...

I don't get offended much as I'm a middle class white dude in the US with a steady income, healthy kids, and no real problems I wouldn't feel embarrassed complaining about.

But I can't believe in this day and age someone would actually utter stuff like that. I'm not going to call myself a 'survivor' but as a person who went through childhood sex abuse, she comes off as an absolutely disgusting, horrible person to believe and say those things. Wonder if she'd shrug off a rape in the same way. Good god woman.
 
Having worked as a Sexual Assault Crisis Center, certified, I find this offensive.

Well, as they say in the South, bless her little heart for having never known, never experienced, the life-sentence of this type of harm, the grief and questions, the shame and trauma.


If nothing else, she should learn something regarding growing up and being a decent person. I have no use for her, and rules prevent me from saying what I actually think of her.
 
It's almost as if decades of being fabulously wealthy and tremendously famous have somehow estranged Streisand from the normal human experience. Oh, and also Jackson had that same problem.
 
I didn't plan to post to this topic again until after I watch the documentary, but do want to pop in to agree with this:

Well, as they say in the South, bless her little heart for having never known, never experienced, the life-sentence of this type of harm, the grief and questions, the shame and trauma.
Click to expand...

People make ludicrous comments that show their ignorance about all kinds of topics. I would've thought someone so wealthy and worldly would absolutely know better, but obviously not.
 
Matthew Best said:
What has wealth got to do with it???
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing.

I would think someone with that kind of wealth would read so many books, travel so much and be exposed to so many people and ideas they couldn't possible be ignorant of something so pervasive and destructive. But if the things they say are any indication at all, it clearly just doesn't work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom