Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[DieselDaisy]

It is ironic as it is Soul usually accusing me of a lack of linguistic exactitude. 

[Len Cnut]

Its funny how to reponse is always 'its not against the law' and no one will approach the question of whether they think its right or wrong or whether they would do it, cuz thats a straw man argument apparently.  You can go on about it not being against the law all day but no ones said that, its just weird and creepy.  Social Services in any non mental country in the world that found out about a young boy sleeping with a forty year old man in a room with porno mags around the gaff would snatch the kid out of there quicker than you can moonwalk.  They wouldn't go 'oh he's just eccentric and lets give him the benefit of the doubt here, they're just sleeping in the same bed, who knows, he might not be fucking them'.

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Angelica]

1 hour ago, action said:

the united states was founded more than 200 years ago and since that time, not a single parliament has made sleeping with children a criminal offence.

before you all burn me on the stable, bear in mind that while many people find such behaviour offensive and disturbing, no elected parliament, no elected representative body of our society, ever, has found the political will to incriminate such behaviour. so who the hell are you, witch hunting and judging people? Are all those people that judge, having clean records?

don't judge, lest you be judged yourself!

now, criminal law has penalized a lot of behaviour. Some rightly so, in other cases not so much. But if you ask me, you're a good citizen if you follow the law. But as it stands, I've yet to meet the first person who never broke the law. So whoever you are, you've got still room for improvement.

And now we're going to spit out people when they show behaviour that "does not sit well" with certain people?

get the fuck out of here, and come back to me when you're entitled! which is, never.

the parliament makes the rules. not you, not me. not even fucking president trump.

In a way, I'm sort of content with the fact there is a clear body of rules that concretes which behaviour is allowed and which not. As a result, a lot of tedious discussion is avoided between individuals in society. One person thinks behaviour A is unacceptable, while the other person thinks it is. To solve the problem, refer to the law. As for the rest, people should fucking mind their own business.

It's not for a accidental group of people to suddenly call the shots and witch hunt people for behaviour that is not, and has not ever been a crime.

 

Nope, it’s not a crime. Of course, it’s also not something anyone who wasn’t a pedo would do in a million years. ‘It’ being sharing a bed with a child (let alone multiple children) they had no familial relationship with, specifically for the sake of it. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Angelica

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Yeah like it's not illegal to walk around with a packet of wotsits duck taped to your knob but I ain't gonna do it it's just odd 

I might give that one a go

[EvanG]

12 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Also it's 14:21 On a working day in native Belgium maybe hold fire on the beers until 5PM?

It's the same time here and you're making me feel really bad about myself now.

[SoulMonster]

38 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is ironic as it is Soul usually accusing me of a lack of linguistic exactitude. 

I have never claimed sleeping with someone is the same as raping someone. You are missing the point, again 

48 minutes ago, action said:

the united states was founded more than 200 years ago and since that time, not a single parliament has made sleeping with children a criminal offence.

before you all burn me on the stable, bear in mind that while many people find such behaviour offensive and disturbing, no elected parliament, no elected representative body of our society, ever, has found the political will to incriminate such behaviour. so who the hell are you, witch hunting and judging people? Are all those people that judge, having clean records?

don't judge, lest you be judged yourself!

now, criminal law has penalized a lot of behaviour. Some rightly so, in other cases not so much. But if you ask me, you're a good citizen if you follow the law. But as it stands, I've yet to meet the first person who never broke the law. So whoever you are, you've got still room for improvement.

And now we're going to spit out people when they show behaviour that "does not sit well" with certain people?

get the fuck out of here, and come back to me when you're entitled! which is, never.

the parliament makes the rules. not you, not me. not even fucking president trump.

In a way, I'm sort of content with the fact there is a clear body of rules that concretes which behaviour is allowed and which not. As a result, a lot of tedious discussion is avoided between individuals in society. One person thinks behaviour A is unacceptable, while the other person thinks it is. To solve the problem, refer to the law. As for the rest, people should fucking mind their own business.

It's not for a accidental group of people to suddenly call the shots and witch hunt people for behaviour that is not, and has not ever been a crime.

No one is saying it is illegal. Just that it is a huge red flag. And I also think the majority here are saying we can't say for sure whether he did rape the kids or not, just that it can't be ruled out even if he was never sentenced for it.

[beautifulanddamned]

What if I came on here and said:

Guys, I need some advice. I have a seven year old son, Billy. A few years ago we moved next door to a thirty five year old man, Steve. Steve is very kind to us, soft spoken , quite successful. Well known in the community. Steve told us he had a very rough childhood and so prefers to socialize almost exclusively with children. Well, just boys really. He has become very close to Billy, showering him with love and affection, buying him (and us) gifts, even taking him away on trips and vacations. Billy often sleeps at Steve's house, in Steve's bed, Steve having assured us that "it's the most loving thing a person can do." Billy seems really attached to Steve, emotionally and physically and I worry a little bit because Steve seems to have "favorite" boys that stop being "favorites" as they get older. I'd go get Billy now, but there is a series of alarms that go off when you walk to Steve's bedroom door. Anyway, people are starting to tell me that this all seems very inappropriate and that there was a multi- million dollar pay off to another little boy who alleged sexual abuse but it's not like I have proof that anything is happening, right?

 

I gotta believe that the advice would be less about the legality of sleeping with children and getting proof of butt-sex, and more "are you fucking crazy? get your kid out of there and call the police."

Also, I find it high comedy when the loving, functional Jackson family goes on tv and complains that these boys see Michael as a "blank check." They might as well have thought bubbles over their heads saying, "Goddammit,  we are finally making millions of dollars without that creepy weirdo blowing it all on gold unicorn statues and rivers of popcorn and they have to bring up the kiddie diddling again."

 

Anyway, those mothers are disgusting, Michael was probably a child molester and Off the Wall is awesome.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never claimed sleeping with someone is the same as raping someone. You are missing the point, again 

No one is saying it is illegal. Just that it is a huge red flag. And I also think the majority here are saying we can't say for sure whether he did rape the kids or not, just that it can't be ruled out even if he was never sentenced for it.

The documentary specifically relays lurid paedophilia scenes - these are the specifics. It is not merely a rehash of Jackson's Peter Pan syndrome, which anyhow most people are agreed upon.

Be Germanic more about this Soul. I'm disappointed in you.

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The documentary specifically relays lurid paedophilia scenes - these are the specifics. It is not merely a rehash of Jackson's Peter Pan syndrome, which anyhow most people are agreed upon.

I actually downloaded it last night to give it a watch, got through 5 mins and I thought fuck this shit, this is a waste of time.  I sort of know already whats in it, the kids lengthy story, how he was a big Jacko fan, about 50 mins or so in it'll probably get into detail describing what he did, etc etc, a bunch of incriminating looking but ultimately insufficent shit paraded out, the end.  The running time of 2 hours sort of put me off too, I'm buggered (no pun intended) if I'm sitting through all that, I just watched Alan Partridge instead.

[Len Cnut]

There's actually a parrallel between this and the ISIS bride case.  The people on her side always go 'she should be let back in cuz its illegal to make her stateless' whilst completely ignoring the abhorrant moral implications of what she's done.  Just ignore that shit, whats important here is that we all look like a right on bunch.  Same with Jacko fans 'its not illegal', 'yeah but its creepy, would you not think that shit was weird if you stumbled upon it?' 'DENIED, straw man'

Edited March 5, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

musical kiddy fiddler 

[downzy]

I realize it can be difficult with respect to the nature of this conversation, but let's please try not to insult or direct insinuations towards others because they believe something different than ourselves.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I actually downloaded it last night to give it a watch, got through 5 mins and I thought fuck this shit, this is a waste of time.  I sort of know already whats in it, the kids lengthy story, how he was a big Jacko fan, about 50 mins or so in it'll probably get into detail describing what he did, etc etc, a bunch of incriminating looking but ultimately insufficent shit paraded out, the end.  The running time of 2 hours sort of put me off too, I'm buggered (no pun intended) if I'm sitting through all that, I just watched Alan Partridge instead.

I think two hours is actually for only part one.  There's two parts, so it's a four hour investment. 

I'm in the same boat.  I've got access to it as well but not sure if I want to invest that kind of time.  

[soon]

The conversation about if MJ is a predator or "just" slept wth boys has being ongoing my entire life. Thats weird, right?

[action]

36 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

4 hours? Fucking hell how much noncing did he do?

I'd only believe the allegations if it were a 5 hour documentary. 4 just doesn't cut it for me. sorry. the facts are too serious. But 5 hours would end all doubt. no way they could lie for 5 hours straight. But 4 hours? I don't know, man. Even I can lie for 4 hours straight. You should see me when I'm explaining to my wife where I've been all evening!

[downzy]

Interesting podcast with Slate's reporter who covered the 2005 trial:

https://megaphone.link/SLT2297135840

Here's a loose transcript: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-2005-trial-changing-mind.html

The TL;DR summary is that the HBO documentary changed Stevenson's (Slate's reporter on the subject) regarding whether Jackson abused Robson.  He believed Robson was telling the truth in his 2005 testimony, but now finds his account in the HBO documentary as credible.

One thing I don't recall or never learned from the 2005 trial was MJ calling up Robson's mom at 1:30 in the morning and asking her to bring her son over right away.  She does, and as soon as they get to Neverland Ranch MJ takes the boy to his bedroom.  Again, it's not proof that anything happened, but it's weird as fuck.  

[Dazey]

6 hours ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Watch Green Street he says Struggle and Runt in that ... there ya go I win based on having evidence 

Who says it? Fuckin' Frodo and the guy out of Queer as Folk?

[OmarBradley]

 

6 hours ago, beautifulanddamned said:

What if I came on here and said:

Guys, I need some advice. I have a seven year old son, Billy. A few years ago we moved next door to a thirty five year old man, Steve. Steve is very kind to us, soft spoken , quite successful. Well known in the community. Steve told us he had a very rough childhood and so prefers to socialize almost exclusively with children. Well, just boys really. He has become very close to Billy, showering him with love and affection, buying him (and us) gifts, even taking him away on trips and vacations. Billy often sleeps at Steve's house, in Steve's bed, Steve having assured us that "it's the most loving thing a person can do." Billy seems really attached to Steve, emotionally and physically and I worry a little bit because Steve seems to have "favorite" boys that stop being "favorites" as they get older. I'd go get Billy now, but there is a series of alarms that go off when you walk to Steve's bedroom door. Anyway, people are starting to tell me that this all seems very inappropriate and that there was a multi- million dollar pay off to another little boy who alleged sexual abuse but it's not like I have proof that anything is happening, right?

You indirectly raise a good point, I actually brought this up with some friends last night as we discussed.

Regardless of alleged sexual misconduct, aren't these odd experiences for a young child to have? Like, wouldn't you as a parent rather your 12 year old boy hang out with other 12 year old boys and not 40 year old men? Wouldn't you rather your child learn organically about the world and experience things with his peers rather than being given unyielding adulation and presents and money and trips. I could see it from both ways: some parents may think "what an amazing opportunity (for us too)," but if it were me I'd be thinking "no, I'd rather you play baseball with Timmy from down the street than go to Aruba with a 40 year old man."

It just seems to be odd experiences for a normal child to have and I wonder how that affect's their psychology in life. (again, even regardless of alleged sexual abuse).

Edited March 5, 2019 by OmarBradley

[downzy]

1 hour ago, OmarBradley said:

 

You indirectly raise a good point, I actually brought this up with some friends last night as we discussed.

Regardless of alleged sexual misconduct, aren't these odd experiences for a young child to have? Like, wouldn't you as a parent rather your 12 year old boy hang out with other 12 year old boys and not 40 year old men? Wouldn't you rather your child learn organically about the world and experience things with his peers rather than being given unyielding adulation and presents and money and trips. I could see it from both ways: some parents may think "what an amazing opportunity (for us too)," but if it were me I'd be thinking "no, I'd rather you play baseball with Timmy from down the street than go to Aruba with a 40 year old man."

It just seems to be odd experiences for a normal child to have and I wonder how that affect's their psychology in life. (again, even regardless of alleged sexual abuse).

Check out the link to the podcast I provided a few posts ago as they touch on these issues.  (Transcript can be read here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-2005-trial-changing-mind.html)

The Slate journalists talk about how everything surrounding and involving Michael Jackson was and continues to be transactional (from the perspective or assumption that he's guilty).  The parents use their kids for transactional purposes just as MJ's father used his kids to achieve his ends.  The parents of the accused perceive their children as the vehicle for living a kind of life they would have no other means to achieve.  I think this is where most MJ defenders see issues with the accusations levelled against him.  It speaks to the motivation for filing charges or civil suits and undercuts the claims made by the kids.  That said, it's also possible that both can be true: that the parents of these kids were crass and calculating opportunists and MJ was also a monster.  

[Len Cnut]

Quote

The Slate journalists talk about how everything surrounding and involving Michael Jackson was and continues to be transactional (from the perspective or assumption that he's guilty).  The parents use their kids for transactional purposes just as MJ's father used his kids to achieve his ends.  The parents of the accused perceive their children as the vehicle for living a kind of life they would have no other means to achieve.  I think this is where most MJ defenders see issues with the accusations levelled against him.  It speaks to the motivation for filing charges or civil suits and undercuts the claims made by the kids.  That said, it's also possible that both can be true: that the parents of these kids were crass and calculating opportunists and MJ was also a monster.  

This is a REALLY good point and something that, with the absence of any sure knowledge, I wouldn't be like...dismissive of it, its much more in keeping with what 35 years of experience has taught me that life tends to be like, that everyones on the make, everyones got a fuckin' angle...perhaps even including the kids by the time they're grown up and Jacko has fallen off the perch and they see a potential earner in it.  Its a much more palletable notion (which is a sad indictment of our fuckin' culture, the human condition even, unfair to blame our culture, not like other cultures are more forgiving) than this idea of the poor sad childlike innocent 40 year old fuckin' man and the big bad stage parents and their evil urchin children all conspiring to take down ol' plastic face that runs the haunted amusement park.  

Edited March 5, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Dean]

Corey Feldman has come out in defence for Jackson and called it one-sided.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/05/entertainment/corey-feldman-michael-jackson/index.html

I just got done watching the first episode and it was quite sickening hearing the detail that they go into. I don't think Jackson sexually assaulted any children though certainly was an odd individual in the ways he chose to live his life. I'm interested to see if MJ's nephew will go ahead with the supposed response documentary he's trying to crowd fund.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dean

[Dazey]

14 minutes ago, Dean said:

Corey Feldman has come out in defence for Jackson and called it one-sided.

As in one was always catching?  

[Len Cnut]

To anyone whoose seen it, in a nutshell, what do they actually accuse him of, what, bumming them?  

[Jabberwocky]

18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

To anyone whoose seen it, in a nutshell, what do they actually accuse him of, what, bumming them?  

Pretty much. I know one of them said Jacko tried to give him a rogering when he was 14, I think. He made the kid go and retrieve his underwear and check it for anything suspicious. The boy found some blood droplets and threw them in an outside bin.

There was a part where one of the boys (the choreographer) said Jacko was obsessed with Britney Spears (he did her stage show) and was trying to get him to get closer to her. Jacko talked about how hot she was.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Jabberwocky

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

There was a part where one of the boys (the choreographer) said Jacko was obsessed with Britney Spears (he did her stage show) and was trying to get him to get closer to her. Jacko talked about how hot she was.

I wouldn't argue with him on that one, she was fit as fuck early on though she's started to take on the look of those knackered old Jeep Cherokee driving American mid-west mums lately.