The Michael Jackson interview

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Vaskez: [QB]I don't see the big deal about hanging his kid over a balcony. When I was little my dad used to hang me over bridges over rivers for a laugh. And it was just that: a laugh. He would never let go and he was easily strong enough to hold me. Period. What's the big deal? QB]

You make a very good and strong point here. I feel exactly the same way, I'd trust my old dad 100%.

For reasons I probably couldn't describe properly in type, I still have issues with MJ doing it. I think is this child "really really" his? If I wanted to look at my own deeper innermost thoughts I'd begin to wonder if this child/baby is so unimportant to him, it's just a tool, a toy. He's so wrapped up in his personal euphoria, nothing else matters. I'm MJ, if this one goes bandy....I'll get another.

Until he read the press.
I can't help but think that he's so wrapped up in his own success and (self believed) plausability, that he thought he'd use this interview as a damage limitation exercise.

How terribly wrong he was...

Just my 2 pennethworth.

[Attalus]

Well, Timber, at the end of the day, you are right, I have Never set foot in Neverland, nor met Michael Jackson. But, as a physician, I know that people are equipped with sexual drives, and I cannot see having an unrelated 12 yer old boy sleeping in the bed of an unmarried adult who seems incapable of forming a relationship with an adult woman without something developing. But, then, I am not called upon to give judgement as to anything but my opinion.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Charlie: Quote: Originally posted by Link: [QB]Even if you don't agree with who he is and what he does, Charlie, I think it's not fair you call him an arshole.. for any reason.QB]

I'm not after arguments. Any person I suspect of child abuse will always and forever be an arsehole in my mind, irrespective of their talents or mental capabilities.

If I thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser....I'd call him an arsehole.

M.J in my mind doesn't only have a talent for music.....ahem..

P.S. I've seen children dressed in veils and babies hung over balconies....the unstable, dangerous practises of an arsehole imo.

P.P.S. Spot on LZ, and put in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]Any person you suspect of child abuse? So suspicion is all it takes for judgement in today's just society, is it? All we ened to do to ostracise someone is say - oh, look. he's not within my definition of normal, he says he likes kids, I suspect he is a criminal, ergo he is an arsehole.

A small reminder - peoples' suspicions can be wrong. And people are too suspicious nowadays, and too quick to implicitly believe their own judgement.

Yes, he is very very mentally ill. Yes, he has serious issues in many areas. Yes, he says he likes kids and even has them for sleepovers.

Obviously this is activity that is disgusting! How *dare* a grown man like kids? Or ever sleep near one! Disgraceful! He's obviously a child molester.

Hold on, a few times when i've been watching TV with my nephew/niece on my knee, we've fallen asleep! *I* must be a paedophile! I mean, I'm an introvert. I'ma grown man who likes kids! I'm obviously suspected of being a criminal, and all we need is suspicion nowadays, apparently.

Oh, wait a minute, I remember when I was little i used to sleep in my parents' bed when I was ill. Obviously they are criminals too! How dare they! There is *no* way that any adult could even sleep near a child without it being suspicious, *ever*! After all, if you thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser, that's obviously enough for you to form an instant opinion of him, whether or not your suspicions are correct. Let's not even bother with proof, shall we? It's obviously overrated.

Come on guys, he is obviously very very ill. He needs psychotherapy. He does not, however, beat his children. He doesn't neglect them in favour of a rampant drink/drug habit.

He puts veils over their faces! *GASP* he's obviously drawing them into his world of self-delusion and fantasy! He's a dangerous man who must be stopped! I suspect he is causign mental harm to his kids.

Oh, hang on, he could be doing it for their benefit, just so the press won't know what they look like and can't hound them 24/7. Hmm ... naw, he obviously is doing it for some sinister reason. After all, he's Michael Jackson, and everyone has definitve and absolute supposition that he's a child-abuser.

If it was ever taken to court and he was *proven* beyond reasonable doubt that he is a child-abuser and a danger to children, I'll then join in with everyone who demands he be locked away forever. Until then I'll respect the man's inalienable, constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty, and simply define him as a very very very strange and mentally ill man.

Just a little eye-opener - a british woman was recently released and vindicated when she was jailed for killing her kids. The evidence was flawed, she was completely innocent, and had 3 years of her life stolen from her. I bet when she was jailed, she had screaming mobs ranting about her being a child murderer and baying at her. They were wrong. Your suspicions may be wrong.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Quote: Originally posted by Charlie: Quote: Originally posted by Link: [QB]Even if you don't agree with who he is and what he does, Charlie, I think it's not fair you call him an arshole.. for any reason.QB]

I'm not after arguments. Any person I suspect of child abuse will always and forever be an arsehole in my mind, irrespective of their talents or mental capabilities.

If I thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser....I'd call him an arsehole.

M.J in my mind doesn't only have a talent for music.....ahem..

P.S. I've seen children dressed in veils and babies hung over balconies....the unstable, dangerous practises of an arsehole imo.

P.P.S. Spot on LZ, and put in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]Any person you suspect of child abuse? So suspicion is all it takes for judgement in today's just society, is it? All we ened to do to ostracise someone is say - oh, look. he's not within my definition of normal, he says he likes kids, I suspect he is a criminal, ergo he is an arsehole.

A small reminder - peoples' suspicions can be wrong. And people are too suspicious nowadays, and too quick to implicitly believe their own judgement.

Yes, he is very very mentally ill. Yes, he has serious issues in many areas. Yes, he says he likes kids and even has them for sleepovers.

Obviously this is activity that is disgusting! How *dare* a grown man like kids? Or ever sleep near one! Disgraceful! He's obviously a child molester.

Hold on, a few times when i've been watching TV with my nephew/niece on my knee, we've fallen asleep! *I* must be a paedophile! I mean, I'm an introvert. I'ma grown man who likes kids! I'm obviously suspected of being a criminal, and all we need is suspicion nowadays, apparently.

Oh, wait a minute, I remember when I was little i used to sleep in my parents' bed when I was ill. Obviously they are criminals too! How dare they! There is *no* way that any adult could even sleep near a child without it being suspicious, *ever*! After all, if you thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser, that's obviously enough for you to form an instant opinion of him, whether or not your suspicions are correct. Let's not even bother with proof, shall we? It's obviously overrated.

Come on guys, he is obviously very very ill. He needs psychotherapy. He does not, however, beat his children. He doesn't neglect them in favour of a rampant drink/drug habit.

He puts veils over their faces! *GASP* he's obviously drawing them into his world of self-delusion and fantasy! He's a dangerous man who must be stopped! I suspect he is causign mental harm to his kids.

Oh, hang on, he could be doing it for their benefit, just so the press won't know what they look like and can't hound them 24/7. Hmm ... naw, he obviously is doing it for some sinister reason. After all, he's Michael Jackson, and everyone has definitve and absolute supposition that he's a child-abuser.

If it was ever taken to court and he was *proven* beyond reasonable doubt that he is a child-abuser and a danger to children, I'll then join in with everyone who demands he be locked away forever. Until then I'll respect the man's inalienable, constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty, and simply define him as a very very very strange and mentally ill man.

Just a little eye-opener - a british woman was recently released and vindicated when she was jailed for killing her kids. The evidence was flawed, she was completely innocent, and had 3 years of her life stolen from her. I bet when she was jailed, she had screaming mobs ranting about her being a child murderer and baying at her. They were wrong. Your suspicions may be wrong.[/QUOTE]I never made it to the end of your post....sorry.

I will suspect any man that will not stand up in a court of law and face the music. MJ fits this category.

I will suspect any man that will pay collosal amounts of money so as not to face open questioning regarding a child abuse case. MJ fits this category.

The average man I feel would be knocking on the court doors to speak his innocence on an allegation of child abuse. Sadly....MJ does not fit this category.

This leads me to think he's an arsehole.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Hmm ... but this man is mentally ill. People are quick anough to shout that he is running away into fantasy land away from harsh reality. However, he is *then* judged by normal standards when it comes to his actions in the paedophile accusation.

Does it not seem logical that a man who has spent years leading his escapist life pays off an accuser (with an amount he can well afford), rather than have the case go to court and be forced to deal with in in Real Life, whether or not he is innocent?

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Does it not seem logical that a man who has spent years leading his escapist life pays off an accuser (with an amount he can well afford), rather than have the case go to court and be forced to deal with in in Real Life, whether or not he is innocent?

No, it would seem far more logical to pay off the worlds best lawyers (with an amount he can well afford), and deal with the issues.

How can ANY MAN know that someone else somewhere, might even harbour the most minute thought that he could be a paedophile???? How could you sleep with yourself thinking that someone else thinks that of you??? F**k that. Any non paedophile would have to scotch and squash that rumour straight off....period!!!!

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Charlie: Quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: Does it not seem logical that a man who has spent years leading his escapist life pays off an accuser (with an amount he can well afford), rather than have the case go to court and be forced to deal with in in Real Life, whether or not he is innocent?

No, it would seem far more logical to pay off the worlds best lawyers (with an amount he can well afford), and deal with the issues.

How can ANY MAN know that someone else somewhere, might even harbour the most minute thought that he could be a paedophile???? How could you sleep with yourself thinking that someone else thinks that of you??? F**k that. Any non paedophile would have to scotch and squash that rumour straight off....period!!!![/QUOTE]I disagree. If that man were sane, then yes - undoubtedly he would persue the case until he was vindicated. You would. I would. MJ didn't - are we to take that as irrefutable proof of his guilt, because his actions do not conform to *your* idea of the way a normal person whould act?

He is clearly not normal. Actually, I think he's a fruitcake. I do not, however, think that his avoiding a court case (just as he is avoiding every other bit of responsibility in his life) is due cause to condemn him as guilty.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: However, he is *then* judged by normal standards when it comes to his actions in the paedophile accusation.

How else should we then judge him?

[Charlie]

He's clearly not normal I'd agree. He is however highly intelligent.

I really do feel that you are clutching at straws regarding some of your arguments. (Said kindly [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well Bardan, I think you have definitely qualified today's "Over The Top" Response Award.

Charlie was a bit "over the top" himself in saying that anybody he suspects of being a child molestor is an arse-hole...but you're response blew his completely out of the water.

It also overlooked, ignored, or exaggerated several points that have been made.

1) NOBODY has accused Michael Jackson of abusing his children. Several have voiced their suspicions that he has molested children. One isn't better than the other, but they are two separate issues.

2) NOBODY is calling for Michael Jackson to be "locked away". Several people just feel it is unwise for him to be around young children that aren't related to him. Most people also feel that sleeping in the same room (and especially the same bed) with these same children is more than just wierd or eccentric. Cloudy pointed out the specific comment by Michael Jackson where he said his relationship was very "loving" and asked "What's wrong with sharing a love?" with a 12 yr old. I'm sorry, but that simply is not "normal behavior" for a 44 year old man. My coworker told me that this same 12 yr old was sitting next to Michael and holding his hand during parts of the interview. Again, this goes beyond just being "odd".

3) NOBODY has suggested anything amiss with sleeping with your own children (whether biological or adopted). That IS normal. Sleeping with the child of a stranger is NOT! The same goes for your niece and nephew. Falling asleep in front of the TV is completely normal. If you both got up and went to sleep in the same bed, I might find that a bit more odd...but it still isn't on the same scale of sleeping in the same room (or bed) with other peoples children on a regular basis.

4) NOBODY claimed that Michael Jackson had any "sinister purpose" for making his children wear masks and veils in public. You claim that he "may just be trying to protect them from the media". The only way he will be able to do that is to keep them in the house all the time. Whenever Michael Jackson leaves NeverLand, it is a media event. It's just a fact of life because of who he is. Dressing his children in feathered masks is only adding to the media's frenzy - not taking away from.

Which brings me to a point that hasn't been mentioned yet. I think it's very ironic that - in trying to "protect" his children (by making them wear masks and cover themselves from head to toe) - Michael Jackson is also "stealing their childhood" just as his was stolen from him. You say that "maybe he doesn't want the media to know what they look like". Fair enough. Maybe he doesn't. But my question is "What's the purpose of hiding thier identity?" Is it so that they could go out in public un-molested? That isn't going to happen...because he never lets them go out without the obligatory mask and body garments. He isn't "hiding them" from the media at all. If anything, they are more recognizable, not less.

I understand the primary point of your post, Bardan. NOBODY has anything more substantial than suspicions to base any of their child-molestation accusations on. And accusations and suspicions do not meet the "burden of proof" that the law requires. I was just surprised to see you take one statement you disagreed with and get completely carried away with it - using it to extrapolate statements and opinions into accusations that hadn't been made.