Michael Jackson

[Maximus Decimus]

This has been the dominant story in the media for the past few days but I can see why people haven't wanted to touch it.

Whether he is guilty or not, I think there is a lot about this story that is difficult and interesting. I try to look at it as neutrally as possible, the debate is dominated by people seeing it as part of a wider #metoo movement and MJ diehard fans; neither of which are likely to be impartial. I've never been a huge fan personally but have misgivings about some of the current #metoo climate. 

I've only seen parts of the first half of the documentary, and it appeared to be a pretty graphic account of alleged abuse at the hands of MJ. I do intend to watch the rest as many people I respect such as Louis Theroux have come away stating that there can be little doubt he's a paedophile after watching it. Maybe I'll feel this way after watching it too but I tend to dislike one-sided arguments by their very nature - making a murderer was ruined for me when I saw what they'd left out.

That said, and this is true about much of the #metoo stuff, many people seem to be ruling out the possibility that anybody would invent such a story and that the detail means it's true. Humans can be incredibly manipulative and there is of course substantial motivation in the case of MJ for somebody to make up a story. The original claim against him and the eventual admittance that it was a lie proves this. This doesn't mean it isn't true of course. I also feel uncomfortable with the idea that Wade Robson testified under oath aged 22 that he'd never been abused. He was a celebrity at the time and was called by MJ to testify along with some others who continue to say he never did anything. Would he really have called someone he'd been abusing for 7 years? 

My wider opinion however has always been that if he wasn't a celebrity, there would be no doubt. It is only his celebrity and accepted strangeness that provides any sort of a defence.

What I perhaps find more interesting is the wider issue of what happens to his music. MJ was a cultural phenomenon probably only comparable to Elvis and the Beatles. There was a fantastic Moral Maze this week exploring whether you can remove the art from the artist. While on principle I accept the arguments that the art can stand separate, I personally couldn't listen to his music if it was proved he was a paedophile. Should they be banned though? Also, I have no problem sharing the books of Roald Dahl with my kids despite his obvious anti-semitism.

Any thoughts? 

[ckn]

The problem is that legally you can’t defame the dead meaning hearsay and “oooh, I always knew he was a wrong ‘un” become fair game for reporters

The coverage is overwhelming though and I saw something from one of his sisters yesterday that she said many years ago that outed him as a paedophile. 

On the balance of probabilities, I think he was one but, and not excusing it in any way at all, he was also a very troubled man who needed help rather than the leeches he surrounded himself with. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

The problem is that legally you can’t defame the dead meaning hearsay and “oooh, I always knew he was a wrong ‘un” become fair game for reporters

The coverage is overwhelming though and I saw something from one of his sisters yesterday that she said many years ago that outed him as a paedophile. 

On the balance of probabilities, I think he was one but, and not excusing it in any way at all, he was also a very troubled man who needed help rather than the leeches he surrounded himself with. 

I agree that if I was a betting man I'd say he was.

Even if he wasn't he left himself wide open to allegation and he didn't learn his lesson from the Jordi Chandler case. As a teacher we go to great lengths to ensure we're never left in a vulnerable position with a child yet he regularly shared a bed with one even after being accused. This is pretty damning.

The only doubt is that he was so strange, obviously had mental issues and might just have been incredibly naive. Much is made of why as a grown man he wanted the company of young boys but I don't see this necessarily as evidence of guilt; in school many children that have experienced trauma will gravitate towards younger children rather than their peers because they can't deal with them. 

Personally I'm always suspicious of men who claim to have no sexual side. It was a thought I always had about Saville and many priests: can people really just switch it off? 

I've watched a bit more and find the American lad more convincing than Wade Robson. As I mentioned earlier, Robson testified as a 22 year old that he was innocent; at the time he was a world famous choreographer. After MJ died he wrote a chapter in a book calling him the greatest human who ever lived. He then tried to get work on the MJ:One Cirque du Soleil tour but was knocked back and only came out with his allegations then. He is currently suing the MJ estate millions of dollars.

This doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth. However, the idea that people couldn't or wouldn't fabricate a detailed story in such circumstances is simply not true.

I also saw it mentioned on twitter that it is strange nobody is mentioning that two white men are changing their stories to try and discredit a black man. 

[Dave T]

I think this is difficult for quite a number of reasons. 

Firstly, the fact that he was never successfully prosecuted despite all the allegations means little I think, look at R.Kelly and other cases - money talks and it is obscene how you can buy innocence in the US.

Secondly, I think you raise a lot of valid questions M.D but I think a lot of this can be put down to the fact that these people were groomed, and a big part of being groomed can be that you do not believe there is anything wrong with it, indeed you could love the person who has groomed you. So I don't necessarily see it as too strange that these guys may have previously been on MJ's side. As well as love, there can be all sorts of other emotions, like shame and guilt, feeling stupid etc. and people come to terms with things like this at different stages of their lives, if at all.

I am in the camp that I believe he was a paedophile and have thought that since the allegations first surfaced, but I can understand the cynicism, but look at some of the anger and character-assassination, and that offers another reason why these men may have previously said nothing but good about MJ. He has a huge and very passionate fan base. I have already seen people sharing posts on Facebook, slating them and applauding criticism.

These people wouldn't be doing the same for Jimmy Seville.

[Clogiron]

He was obviously madder than a box of frogs witness the skin lightening, face altering, chimpanzee's and denying that any of it had taken place, any ordinary person would have been sectioned for such actions yet money talks and allows such people to continue with more nefarious practices

[Maximus Decimus]

47 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is difficult for quite a number of reasons. 

Firstly, the fact that he was never successfully prosecuted despite all the allegations means little I think, look at R.Kelly and other cases - money talks and it is obscene how you can buy innocence in the US.

Secondly, I think you raise a lot of valid questions M.D but I think a lot of this can be put down to the fact that these people were groomed, and a big part of being groomed can be that you do not believe there is anything wrong with it, indeed you could love the person who has groomed you. So I don't necessarily see it as too strange that these guys may have previously been on MJ's side. As well as love, there can be all sorts of other emotions, like shame and guilt, feeling stupid etc. and people come to terms with things like this at different stages of their lives, if at all.

I am in the camp that I believe he was a paedophile and have thought that since the allegations first surfaced, but I can understand the cynicism, but look at some of the anger and character-assassination, and that offers another reason why these men may have previously said nothing but good about MJ. He has a huge and very passionate fan base. I have already seen people sharing posts on Facebook, slating them and applauding criticism.

These people wouldn't be doing the same for Jimmy Seville.

Whilst completely agreeing about people defending him in a way that they wouldn't have defended Saville, I do think there is a difference atm between the R Kelly and Saville cases and MJs. It is not just that the number of allegations was significantly more, there were a number of other people with no financial motive who since came out and said they knew what was going on. That said... 

I've just finished watching the documentary and have to say it is very compelling. As I see it it leaves only 3 possibilities:

1) Wade Robson is a psycho willing to throw his own mum under the bus in pursuit of money. 

2) The whole family (7/8 people) have conspired together to concoct a coherent story to get money. 

3) Michael Jackson was a paedophile and they're telling the truth.

When put that starkly it is pretty damning. However, the sheer amount of money that could be gained means you can never rule out 1 or 2.

[Saintslass]

I purposefully haven't watched this documentary as I am weary of watching the entertainment figures of my youth either being accused of sexual wrong doing or being found guilty of it.  Jackson is dead.  Anyone can say anything now and he cannot defend himself, nor can the truth ever be established and if he has been guilty of wrong doing then no justice can be done.  Therefore, I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie.  Everyone knows he was strange; he didn't hide it and yet parents still let their children stay with him.

Whatever happens - and the way things have been going over the last few years I expect all his music to be banned, etc, etc (even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything and is now dead) - nobody is getting their hands on my vinyl copy of Thriller.  That was his best album and I will continue to enjoy listening to it regardless of the accusations. 

[Clogiron]

5 hours ago, Saintslass said:

I purposefully haven't watched this documentary as I am weary of watching the entertainment figures of my youth either being accused of sexual wrong doing or being found guilty of it.  Jackson is dead.  Anyone can say anything now and he cannot defend himself, nor can the truth ever be established and if he has been guilty of wrong doing then no justice can be done.  Therefore, I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie.  Everyone knows he was strange; he didn't hide it and yet parents still let their children stay with him.

Whatever happens - and the way things have been going over the last few years I expect all his music to be banned, etc, etc (even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything and is now dead) - nobody is getting their hands on my vinyl copy of Thriller.  That was his best album and I will continue to enjoy listening to it regardless of the accusations. 

As I said earlier madder than a box of frog's

[Tonka]

I found their accounts utterly compelling, and I say this as a trial lawyer of 15 years’ standing.

I find it entirely plausible that the two of them were so groomed that they could not speak out until recent years.  In the case of Wade Robson he made clear that he gave evidence in Jackson’s favour in the previous trial because he still loved him (as sick as that is) and moreover that the entirety of his existence was founded on his relationship with Jackson - his family emigrated to the US because of it and it led directly to his career as a celebrity music choreographer.  He wasn’t ready aged 22 to admit that it was all based on a lie.  I can completely understand that - if you were systematically raped by one of the most famous people in the world and whom you in turn idolised and loved between the ages of 7 and 14 I think it is entirely logical that you wouldn’t be able to speak openly about that.  Think of the level of personal risk and shame involved in that sort of move.

4 people have now accused Jackson. All boys, all the same thing.  One case settled for $22 million.  Another he wasn’t convicted (lack of sufficient evidence / bear in mind Robson was one of the chief witnesses for Jackson which led to him getting off).  2 others are now making the same allegation.  There’s a clear pattern here; I predict more will emerge.

The “lack of hard evidence” point is a non-starter - it’s 25 years after many of the events and in any event there’s no dispute they slept in his bed with him.  As is often the way with this sort of issue the evidence is people’s witness accounts.  And I believe them.

[Kayakman]

Everybody with half a brain knew what was going on at the time.  Jackson was a freak show (just look at him)...every time he appeared with one of those kids I cringed in horror....a blind man could see what was going on...what a pervert.

The willful blindness of people was shocking...just as it is today with Trump...the guy is clearly a total freak show in slow motion train wreck mode.

[johnmatrix]

He was an oddball that's for sure, having watched the documentary I was amazed at the parents behaviour. They whored their kids out for fame and money they were not concerned at all about if their child was safe etc. 

So they've lied in court before under oath now they're completely changing their statements what's to say they're not lying again. They've come out with this now because I'm guessing they'd have been torn to shreds in court. Seems like it's all about fame/notoriety and especially money. Two white men change their statements to convict a black man.

That said he was an absolute freak and kids should have been kept well away from him, I think he probably was.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

49 minutes ago, johnmatrix said:

Two white men change their statements to convict a black man.

How has this whole sorry saga got anything to do with race? 

[JohnM]

And his music? Will that now disappear from the airwaves? 

[Bedford Roughyed]

Just now, JohnM said:

And his music? Will that now disappear from the airwaves? 

His albums are currently going up in the UK charts but I would imagine he won’t be on many radio stations playlist right now.

[GeordieSaint]

25 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

His albums are currently going up in the UK charts but I would imagine he won’t be on many radio stations playlist right now.

Haven’t Radio 2 dropped him? 

[JohnM]

Dunno. I can understand it if they did, to avoid the inevitable outcry.  I'll just have to put his"Best of" on repeat. Do we really have to stop playing tracks by criminals, proven or otherwise, convicted or otherwise. 

[ivans82]

Will his music be banned like Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris ? A good  question back catalogue  worth millions and you still hear his songs on the radio daily , Some DJ s play him nearly every day , i personally binned him years ago , wasn`t it obvious even then ?

[Robin Evans]

It didn't stop me listening to the who after Townshend was cautioned as part of operation ore and placed on the SOR...

[henage]

I could have gone to see the WHO after Townsend was cautioned , did not bother .

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

And his music? Will that now disappear from the airwaves? 

This is what I think is the most interesting aspect. The did he/didn't he might never be fully proved and essentially comes down to who to believe. 

What makes MJ different is that he was a cultural icon. Easily the biggest worldwide star of the 80s and still had an incomparable profile into the 90s onwards. Removing Glitter or Harris' music doesn't make much of a dent but removing Jackson's would be removing the soundtrack of a whole generation.

I personally am against the music being banned but at the same time couldn't listen to it myself. For me, I need to be able to like the performer as well as the performance. I've been listening to this young Geordie lad recently and saw an interview with him; had he been a big headed cock I'd have found it hard to listen to him.

The moral maze covered it well I think. Time makes a difference but probably more important is how wrapped up the art is with the artist. Roald Dahl's anti-Semitism had nothing to do with his books; Caravaggios paintings stand separate from a man who committed murder but Jackson's art was tied in with who he was as a person. How could you listen to Heal the World knowing the singer was raping children at the time?

I'm instinctively against any banning though. They had a young girl on MM who was saying much as I said about how it's hard to remove the art from the artist. She was then challenged on Graham Linehan who she stated outright was a transphobe.

I don't think it's too much of a leap in the current climate to imagine a situation where we quickly move from banning MJ for being a suspected Paedophile to seeing examples like the IT Crowd and Father Ted being banned because the writer was a transphobe. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, ivans82 said:

Will his music be banned like Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris ? A good  question back catalogue  worth millions and you still hear his songs on the radio daily , Some DJ s play him nearly every day , i personally binned him years ago , wasn`t it obvious even then ?

I'm not sure it was 100% obvious. As I've said, his weirdness and Peter Pan image was and continues to be for many an adequate explanation to why he behaved as he did. We do after all have people like Macauley Culkin who continue to insist that it was exactly as MJ said it was. Most paedophiles present as normal in their everyday lives, MJ was clearly batpoop crazy: if you watch the Martin Bashir documentary it is clearly a man who lost touch with reality a long time ago.

There is a parallel with the R Kelly scenario though. I've been amazed at the recent furore as it has been known for some time that he had a very dodgy past. There were multiple accounts of his behaviour including a sex tape of him with a very young girl. Not to mention the whole Aliyah business. There was clearly enough for people to choose not to perform with him. 

 

[Copa]

While I’ll never know with 100% certainty if he was guilty, I’m very comfortable with him dying.

[Yorkshire Knight]

5 hours ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

How has this whole sorry saga got anything to do with race? 

Everything it seems. Two black entertainers in the form of MJ and R Kelly are currently being crucified while white liberals like Weinstein and Spacey have been forgotten about. Elvis also married a teenager yet no scrutiny.

Like I’ve always said, white liberal privilege is real! 

[Tonka]

49 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Everything it seems. Two black entertainers in the form of MJ and R Kelly are currently being crucified while white liberals like Weinstein and Spacey have been forgotten about. Elvis also married a teenager yet no scrutiny.

Like I’ve always said, white liberal privilege is real! 

I’m sorry but this is just wrong.  Weinstein and Spacey have been mullered by all sections of society beyond redemption.  Both await trial in relation to the allegations against them. Neither works in the meantime. I suspect the furore has died down because both stories really surfaced more than a year ago - although if you google it there are almost daily articles on both and fresh allegations - and have settled as they usually do whilst the wheels of justice turn (which is always slow - all the evidence needs to be gathered and presented - this can take years). 

Jackson and Kelly have been accused of serious crimes. Jackson is one of the most famous people of all time. I think he’s guilty - do you think that’s a racially-driven conclusion?  Do you think they are getting more attention than Spacey and Weinstein?  Sorry but I just don’t see a shred of it here.  Not to mention the fact that the two guys accusing Jackson were in fricking love with him - racistly presumably!?

I agree with you that white privilege exists, but this is not an example of it.  I actually can’t believe this point is being raised, it’s so distracting from the incredibly important (and racially blind) issue of child grooming and exploitation. 

And to cite Elvis having a (highly contentious at the time) underage girlfriend in 1950s America in support of your point is just hopelessly irrelevant.

Sorry to be so vocal but I just think that when you suggest there’s another agenda at work like this you detract from and marginalise the real issue.

[Chrispmartha]

12 hours ago, Kayakman said:

..a blind man could see what was going on...what a pervert.

 

https://www.nme.com/news/music/stevie-wonder-responds-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-controversy-2457782