Jump to content

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO


Recommended Posts

I don't understand how people can be so sure he either did or didn't do it. I'm able to admit that I don't know. He was a grown man with needs (I'm guessing) who spent much of his time with mostly young boys (and not girls for some reason), even sleeping in the same bed. Who am I to state that nothing ever happened? I always thought he was just a very naive person with some mental issues because of his fucked up upbringing but who would never touch any of those kids inappropriately, but I've never even met the guy. So I'm not saying I believe these accusations but I can't say that it's all bullshit either because I simply can't know.

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 745
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've posted about this recently in another thread. I believe Michael Jackson to be 100% innocent of all charges that have been brought against him. If you look into the history of the two people in

Let’s be REALLY CLEAR - having the slightest urge to regularly share a bed with a child you have no familial relation too, free of any sinister context, is quite simply (and fucking obviously) NOT a t

Look, the man made lovely fuckin' songs, thats all well and good but a fuckin' grown man that goes around sleeping in the same bed as kids, to me, is a fuckin' wrong 'un.  Its weird and fuckin' creepy

13 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

His death has nothing Mysterious about it play with fire and one day you will get burned the bloke knew what he was asking for taking that shit.

 

If you having trouble sleeping Mick just take a few Nhytol like the rest of us 

I agree with this, that doctor getting stuffed was just a witchhunt, almost every fuckin' famous person out there has a doctor like this that they can rinse for a script of whatever fuckin' disco pills they fancy, its not like they're being fuckin' pumped against their will full of shit that they have no idea what its about, alright it ain't double legal and all that but its a bit of a fuckin' skank pinning it on the doctor if you ask me though I haven't looked extensively into it so perhaps I'm missing something. 

And furthermore, expanding on the childlike innocence thing, no fuckin' person with that amount of money who can sustain it can possibly be THAT fuckin' childlike and innocent, its just not possible, he would get taken for a steamer and hung out to dry in a fortnight.  Everything you see in the media, in interviews, on record is fuckin' calculated.  And I'm not talking about Jacko exclusively here I'm talking about most famous people and the times when it ain't calculated it REALLY clangs.  I don't know how people can afford to be this naive, believing stuff like that, this guy has a fuckin' squad of attourneys, accountants, publicists etc etc but he's this total fuckin' babe in the woods that don't know his arse from a bag of crisps, really?  So they all sit there goin' over his end of year finances and various lawsuits while he sucks his thumb and goes goo goo gaa gaa, yeah, right.

  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

To me it just boils down to the same thing it's alwwys been: people who are looking for a reason to think Michael is guilty will find it. People who are looking for a reason to think he's not will find it. 

I probably should have went with my first plan and just not posted in this thread lol 

With all due respect...bullshit. I’m not out to get him OR protect him. I’m not going to state unequivocally that he’s a pedobear because I don’t know that to be true. I’m not going to state he’s not because I don’t know that either. My own personal instincts sway to the ‘there’s smoke and fire here’ but that’s not because I’m ‘looking for a reason to think he’s gulity’. Just as I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not just blindly defending him. Okay? Cool. 

Edited by Angelica
  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoulMonster said:

The talk of someone who definitely isn't a father.

I don't see how that changes anything.

You don't see a difference between sleeping, i.e., the two of them lying down in bed, closing their eyes and going to sleep, and bumming or sodomy to give it its less colloquial expression, i.e., - well I'll not provide you with a graphic description but here is a clue: you accuse the Catholic church of it all the time?

As I said earlier, the issue is not whether he was eccentric - errant even. I think most of us can agree Jackson was psychologically imbalanced and did things that would be considered inappropriate for most adults. But the documentary specifically makes accusations of sodomy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by action
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

 

Mate no one is saying that it is illegal just morally wrong and to be frank a bit odd 

 

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

Edited by lukepowell1988
  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Angelica
  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol:

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.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I might give that one a go :lol:

Been caught a few times in Waitrose with some Twiglits and a copy of the Sun strapped to me some sort of wank infused Jihad I am on 

Edited by downzy
Post Edited to Remove Personal Insults
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes 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.

It's on Channel 4 tonight if you fancy another go 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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' :lol:

Edited by Len Cnut
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm half tempted to give it a go tonight it's me and the wifes 5 year anniversary nothing says I love you more than sharing a tub of rock road ice cream and watching a musical kiddy fiddler 

Edited by lukepowell1988
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...