At this point, I guess I should add something -

In this country, we saw the documentary a few days earlier than you guys. Since then, on every breakfast, lunch or evening news programme, we have seen a (usually American) lawyer/psychologist/whaveter come on the screen, telling us how this programme is proof that MJ is some undeniably twisted deviant that is a danger to any and all children coming within 500 miles. To listen to them, you'd think he was responsible for every major atrocity committed in the past 44 years.

I think their reaction has been over-the-top, and hearing someone condemned so badly for just about everything you could think of (some American lawyer on this morning was saying that she would have his children taken away from him this moment based on the transcript alone), without any definitive proof, is really starting to grate on my nerves. Consider my first post on this thread to be a response not only to people on this thread, but to those we see on the news telling us that Tomás de Torquemada has been reborn in a thin, rather mad musician.

If this led me to go overboard on my responses here, then I apologise.

Excellent post. Child abuse issues are very emotive, this is why my opinion could be termed OTT. My primary concern is for the welfare of those children around him. Those that are currently being?, and are yet to be damaged. I think everyone has voiced the opinion of MJ's eccentricity, non normality are prevalent features of his lifestyle. I'm no longer interested in who's fault is who's. These children (possibly temporarily and imo very humble opinion) need to be removed and put in a more stable (normal) environment.

You're cool, we're cool. It's only a discussion. ;)

I always try to remember that I have a habit of overreacting. I tend not to do it in RL, where I would probably get a smack in the mush. Ah, the wonderful, intoxicating scent of invisibility that forums give you ;)

Ladies and gents - this is one of these subjects that inevitably polarises opinion. Just remember that at this moment, MJ has been convicted of no crime and (as far as I know) is not facing any criminal charges relating to his "relationships" with the young boys that have been in contact with him.

By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of MJ's lifestyle and actions, but exercise restraint when debating the more extreme speculation that follows on from this subject.

Let's turn the discussion on its head. Let's take MJ and his eccentricities out of it, for a bit. Say, we have a celebrity, call him X. X never has been married, except briefly. He likes girls, but not those older ones, just young ones. He is friends with a lovely 12 year old girl. Her family, who are fans as well as friends, have no problem with Miss Y spending the night with X, even though they sleep in the same bed. After all, they live in the state of Z, where your entire social position is determined by your proximity to and relationship with, celebrities. Would you, Bardan and Timber, not assume something was going on? Even though X, Y, and Y's parents deny it?

I haven´t seen this interview and I won´t be seeing it from what I have read in here. ;)

Is MJ a fellon? I don´t know and I don´t think anyone except the involdved parties do know.

Do I dislike MJ´s behaviour? Definitely! Most of what he does seems very strange! But do we get to see all he does? Does he behave the same way all the time? I don´t know.

Is MJ a topic to get worked up about? Hmmm... ;) LOL!

Yes, I would *assume* that there was somehitng going on. However, I would also remember that this was exactly that - *assumption*, and knowing only all too well that "Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups", I would withold judgement until it was proven that something illegal had been happening.

I may well *suspect* something was wrong. I might even *suspect* strongly enough to inform the police of my suspicions. However, I would not refer to X as a child abuser.

I actually have little to no problem with the people that have complain to the police about people such as X and their actions. I *do* have a problem with the whole 'assumed guilt' thing. X and Y might sleep in the same bed, but that is not to say that X and Y have sex. Assuming X is guilty of a crime because he sleeps in the same bed as Y, in spite of what X, Y and Mr. Y and Mrs Y say would lead me down the road that ends in saying that any deviation from what we would expect or assume according to our societal norms must involve criminal actions, and that the evidence of witnesses is of lesser importance than the expectations and assumptions of the public. That is very dangerous ground.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you to say X committed a criminal act and prove it. The burden is not on X to say and prove that he did not. Until the moment where it is proved that X did indeed act illegally, then you can safely call him all the names you want. until then, saying "X is a criminal" is slander (or libellous - one of the two. I am unaware of the distinction, though Inknow there is one).

Of course I believe there is a possibility MJ is a paedophile. Of course I recognise that the evidence is enough to make people regard him with varying degrees of suspicion. However, there is no proof to back those suspicions up, and until there is I am forced to conclude that MJ is not a criminal.

Of course, then we get in to the whole area of 'what would you accept as proof', and there the waters get murky ;)

NB - the British Government has recently started making moves towards changing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases onto the defendant and not the plaintiff. However much I despise sexual criminals for the scum they are, making someone 'prove' there was consent is in my opinion assumed guilt until proven innocence, and is a terrible thing for a civilised country to even consider. I knwo this is not directly related, but perhaps it just is part of the reason the whole 'assumption' thing is strong in my mind right now.

personaly the man is crazy no offense to any fan. he is a pop american and world legend for hiw music. but when someone thinks there peter pan and sleeps with children something must be wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer:

Quote:

Of course I believe there is a possibility MJ is a paedophile. Of course I recognise that the evidence is enough to make people regard him with varying degrees of suspicion. However, there is no proof to back those suspicions up, and until there is I am forced to conclude that MJ is not a criminal. Of course, then we get in to the whole area of 'what would you accept as proof', and there the waters get murky ;)

The man didn't pay a token sum, nor a large sum, nor a very large sum to keep himself out of court when allegations of child abuse were made against him. He paid a sum, the magnitude of which we can only dream of...

...Here's where the waters get murky ;)

Yes, the magnitude we can only dream of, but that to him is pocket change. You saw the documentary - in a matter of minutes he spent over 4 million pounds in a shop. He picked things out seemingly at random and spent an amount of oney we can only dream of. To him, it's chump change.

I didn't see the documentory. I knew enough and saw snippets that told me that I neither wanted nor required to see any more.

The man should have used his small change to defend himself against the very serious issues that surrounded him at that time.....ages ago.....the very same kind of issues that people are still discussing today.

Well, I think you should have watched the interview. I think it was a new and enlightening look into his life. I am not sure about his sleeping habbits, but am pretty sure that he most definetly has issues. He acted like a 12 year old billionare. Buying franticaly anything he wanted. When he was feeding his baby, he was not trying to hurt the child, he was trying to conceal the child while feeding it. He seems to make mistakes that people interpret, kinda like a 12 year. He grew up in a reppresive home and a carrer at what 8? I dont think the kid ever grew up, just got rich. A 12 year old may want to sleep with other kids for the companionship. Not sexuality. He lives in a place he calls Neverland, with video games, wax characters everywhere, toys, etc...
Just put yourself in his shoes, how would you be? I know one thing for sure, you have know idea.

And now for something completely different...
I cant beleive this post has gone on this long. I posted a thread about an abducted girl in my town, and have gotten replies from a few of you. This thread has gone on for a long time now. I was hopeing to discuss abduction issues and I dont know what else. This guys life means nothing, this little girls life means a lot more.

Sorry LK, it's not something I'm familiar with. I'll look anyway. I have an abduction story of my own, probably not for today though.

It's hardly surprising, nor does it say anything about how much these two issues are valued. Michael Jackson is a controversial figure, and with the documentary of course there will be debate over who he is and what he does. People have different views about him, that's what sparks debate and conversation. The abduction of the little girl, though far more important and sobering (or perhaps not, those alleging MJ's paedophilia might say), doesn't exactly encourage a lot of debate and exchange of different opinions. I imagine most people feel very strongly about a 4 year old girl being snatched, but they all feel the same way - that it's awful and terrible and they hope she's okay.

Regarding Michael, I think it's surprising that so much is being made of this television special - as if we now know him and what he's all about. For one thing, we only know what the reporter wanted us to see, and as Timber said, condensing 8 months into 2 hours, of course only the most controversial things will be shown. For another, it's not as if this is some sort of hidden camera expose. Having teams of cameramen, an interviewer, and whatever else following you around will change your behaviour. 'Look how he fed the baby!' someone commented. Yes, it was very awkward, and little Blanket ( :eek: ) probably didn't enjoy it at all, but would he feed him like that all the time, when the cameras weren't on him (or even if they were - how would we know, Martin didn't show us), with the veil and the shaky leg? Probably not. He certainly didn't do himself any favours with the plastic surgery denials, and there's no question he's not exactly Mr Healthy, but a couple of hours of documentary don't really equip us to make such vehement judgements.

Also regarding a comment someone made about Michael's brothers not having the same problems Michael does, when they were exposed to the same upbringing, so it's not a good excuse - you can't draw such a conclusion from that. All we can say is that his brothers had different (better) coping strategies, maybe had better support than he did. They also didn't have the same pressures Michael did; he was the star, he was the one who went on to huge stardom, they did not. It's also unclear whether they suffered the same emotional abuse that Michael did, regarding his appearance. Just as if you have two people who were raped say, and one managed to put it behind them and used it to become stronger, and the other became depressed, you can't say, well the person B *should* have got over it, person A did, or that person B's depression can't be caused by the rape since person A isn't depressed, Michael's background of abuse can't be diminished as a major factor for his present condition just because others subjected to similiar abuse aren't exactly the same.

<font color="plum">Hey <font color=yellow>Aelia</font> - It was I who mentioned that Michael J.'s siblings had not "turned out the same way he had" - even though they lived in the same abusive atmosphere. I wasn't trying to diminish the impact it had on MJ, just trying to point out that he was the only one that had such an obvious lack of coping skills. While it's true that he was much younger than his brothers, he is not that much younger than his sisters (LaToya and Janet). In fact, I believe Janet is younger than he. Still, neither of them were in the spotlight the way the boys were.

The thing that saddens me the most is that - in 1984-85 - Michael Jackson was the undisputed King of Pop (he made the declaration himself - but nobody could deny the fact). <font color=white>Thriller</font> was well on it's way to being the best-selling album of all time and MJ was permanently cemented in the position of Pop Royalty. He was literally on top of the musical world. Given the fact that he was in his early 20's and mega-successful, it seemed as if he had "overcome" any demons left over from his childhood. Obviously, that was not the case. It truly saddens me when I see how far he has "fallen back" from that position. He had the entertainment world in the palm of his hand - with enough money, power, and prestige to make the entire industry bend to HIS will, not the other way around. This is no idle exaggeration. His first step towards a "fall from grace" occurred in a TV commercial featuring MJ singing one of his songs from the <font color=white>Bad</font> album. The commercial was aired simultaneously on ALL THREE major TV networks. This is practically unheard of - and Michael Jackson was the only celebrity with the power and money to pull off such a stunt. BTW, the "fall from grace" remark stems from the end of the video where Michael seems to temporarily lose control. He starts smashing the windshields of some of the cars in the video, then jumps on top of one and grabs his crotch. Pretty mild stuff (relatively speaking) but a real shock when coming from the "squeaky clean image" he had built up to that point. And this is not "personal opinion", this is based on an article I read a few years back describing the events. Michael made a public apology for his actions the next day and the incident was seemingly forgotten. But it put a small chink in his armor that the media started to exploit.

<font color="red">Bardan</font> - I agree that child abuse/molestation is a very emotional issue. It is almost impossible to discuss the points from a strictly "intellectual" POV. You also made a good point about the numerous interviews with Americans that have been aired in England since the interview was shown. Now I understand a little better where your remarks were coming from. For the record, I don't believe MJ should have his children taken away from him. Debbie Rowe, the mother of the two oldest children, stated that she had NO misgivings at all with Michael raising their children. The mother of the infant is still "unidentified", but I suppose it can be reasonable assumed that she is also comfortable with the arrangement. I feel less comfortable with other children spending unsupervised time with him. I admit that I have no "solid proof or evidence" to base my fears on. It is based solely on his past actions and the media's portrayal and interpretation of these actions. <font color="yellow">Aelia</font> made a good point concerning Michael's "state of mind". I believe he truly does have a "12 yr old mentality" regarding his relationship with these children. At that age, there is nothing wrong with two kids sharing a bed. But Michael isn't a 12 yr old - he's 44. That's where the problem comes in. <font color="lavender">Cloudy</font> mentioned how concerned she was with his question about "What is wrong with sharing a love?"..that's because a 12 yr old and a 44 yr old may have vastly different opinions as to exactly what that means.

I was also unaware that the parents of these children were also staying at Neverland, but I believe <font color=orange>Attalus</font> made a good point about that. Regardless of the controversy surrounding him, Michael Jackson IS STILL a mega-star. I suspect that many of these parents are loyal fans from the 80's (or before) and wouldn't believe ANYTHING negative about MJ unless they saw it with their own eyes...and maybe not even then. Still, you and <font color=tan>Timber</font> have a valid point. These parents ARE there and they DO NOT see anything wrong with Michaels behavior towards their children. Therefore, I admit that my opinion of his actions could be completely off-base.

<font color="orange">Lord Kathan</font> - I saw your thread yesterday and I've said a prayer that the little girl will be found safe from harm. I am also far more concerned with her welfare than I am Michael's...nobody disagrees with these sentiments regarding her plight - that's why there has been little discussion of the issue. I was busy today and didn't have time to Search CNN for an update. I browsed MSN to see if they had anything about her, but didn't see anything. My heart and prayers go out to her parents and I continue to pray for her safe return.

Please do keep us updated.</font>

I saw the program and I was disgusted. By the interviewer. My God, what a hack !!! They talk about papperazzi, this guy is just like all those other blood suckers that think it's alright to invade people's privacy, or quote them completely out of context if they're actually given an interview.

For that matter, Journalism in general only ecompasses a very small spectrum. All journalism these days, from national news to tabloid, is alarmist, sensationalist, and full of misleading statements and outright lies.

Michael Jackson said he let kids sleep in his bed. He didn't say he had sex with them. I don't know if any of you have had sex, but I have and it's kinda hard to do while you're asleep (/saracasm).

"Price of fame" ??? just because someone's job puts them in the public eye, doesn't mean everyone else has the right to critisise everything about their private lives. You don't even have the right to know about their private lives. I always laugh when I hear about some reporter getting hurt or killed from sticking their nose where it wasn't welcome, and I laugh double hard when I see some journalist's own personal life in headlines cause it's like "The tables have turned, how do you like it now @$$hole ?"

Yeh, the guy is sick. One symptom is he doesn't realise what people think about him, or how bad it is to be thought of that way. Another was his knee shaking then he was feeding the baby, but the amount of stress he lives with, anyone would be high-strung at best and prone to anxiety attacks. Doesn't mean he has sex with children. Plastic surgury ? that's his business, not yours. Finally, everyone is saying how distressed the child was when he was feeding it. Maybe because the Interviewer grabbed the scarf, trying to pull it off and got it stuck on the baby's head. From what I saw, the interviewer hurt the baby, not Michael.

That sounds a bit on the extreme side to me, but then you are entitled to your opinion.

Whether or not we do, it is a fact that such things become known in one way or another. How many celebs have lost good friends or family over 'tell all books'? It's a fact of life and 'gossip' is going to happen either behind closed doors or on the television at primetime. I firmly believe that Jackson saw this interview as a means of stopping the rumors he surely knows are going around and now he's found it just didn't work out that way so he's blaming the interviewer, who certainly needs to accept some of the blame but is in no way the sole cause of Mr. Jackson's discomfort or the bad press going around. Sorry, but if he can't accept that his behavior is 'odd' to the rest of the world, he'll never understand why they don't accept it as 'loving' or perfectly ok and I don't just mean the kids sleeping in his room or the abnormal childhood his kids are getting to have, although that's the only thing I think anyone has a right to question on a serious note- as the rest of it is fluff and eccentricity gone over the top, but that is potentially damaging to the children in question.

Sorry, but I find it quite disturbing that anyone would laugh at another person being hurt or killed.

More news...

<h3>Jackson releases 'betrayal' footage</h3>
Michael Jackson has released a clip of footage he says shows he was betrayed by a TV documentary made by interviewer Martin Bashir.
The clip contains brief highlights of footage shot by the superstar's own cameraman during the making of ITV1's Living With Michael Jackson.
The footage shows Jackson being complimented off-camera by Bashir on his fathering skills, describing the star's relationship with his children as "spectacular".
The clip will not be seen in the US, as Jackson has agreed a deal for US TV network Fox to screen the full footage in a two-hour special on 20 February.
In the clip Bashir says: "Your relationship with your children is spectacular."
"I love them," replies Jackson.

'So loving'
Bashir adds: "It almost makes me weep when I see you with them.
"Because your interaction with them is just so natural, so loving, so caring."
Jackson has said Bashir was "hypocritical" because of documentary voice-overs in Bashir's programme which criticised his approach.
At the end of the clip, Bashir says: "Everybody who comes into contact with you knows this."
The Fox show will not include any new interview footage with Jackson, but will feature an interview with Jackson's former wife Debby Rowe.
It is provisionally titled Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Interview They Wouldn't Show You.
The full footage will be highly anticipated after Living With Michael Jackson became the week's most popular show when it was shown in the US on Thursday, attracting more than 27 million viewers.
The footage will also show Bashir "making many statements about how he feels it is a pity that the world is so quick to criticise Michael".
"On the face of it, either Martin Bashir was lying to Michael or was misleading his audience on the voice-overs on the film," a statement from Jackson has said.
Bashir spent eight months with Jackson during the making of the documentary and was said to have been given unlimited access to the pop star's life.
Jackson was furious when he saw the finished programme, saying the show "could have led viewers to conclude that he abuses children".
Viewers saw Jackson tell Bashir that he sometimes shared a bedroom with children as Bashir questioned him about his parenting abilities and personal life.
Granada Television, which made Living With Michael Jackson, has insisted it was a "truthful, open and intimate portrayal" of the star, with "no distortion, misrepresentation or breach of trust".
Martin Bashir is also expected to break his silence on the documentary in a webchat on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, 200 members of a Los Angeles youth group are so worried that the documentary has pushed Jackson to the brink of suicide that they will hold a vigil at his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
The members of the Right Way Youth Activities Inc are hoping to inspire people to pray for the singer.

Source: BBC