Michael Jackson documentary

[Gwadien]

To continue a discussion in the music thread.

This documentary about MJ, I watched it, seemed like pretty compelling stuff to be honest.

I don't buy the argument @Scouse made that they did it to make a bit of money - it was pretty clear that they were kids and it appeared to be normal and the parents seemed to be completely oblivious to what was going on.

With the 'me too' movement, I adopted the same approach to all legal stuff; innocent until proven guilty.

I really don't understand all this hostility the documentary has received, people are basically saying if he was a paedophile they don't want to hear about it, why?

 

[Scouse]

I don't buy the argument @Scouse made that they did it to make a bit of money - it was pretty clear that they were kids and it appeared to be normal and the parents seemed to be completely oblivious to what was going on.

With the 'me too' movement, I adopted the same approach to all legal stuff; innocent until proven guilty.

I really don't understand all this hostility the documentary has received, people are basically saying if he was a paedophile they don't want to hear about it, why?

Nah - I don't care whether he was a paedo any more. He's dead.

That's my objection to the documentary. Other than making cash for the documentary makers what is going to be achieved? It can't move forward legally (he's dead), it can't give the kids (if he was guilty) any closure (he's dead).

If you respect the rule of law (your #metoo point) then all this documentary can be is gossip that can go nowhere. It can achieve nothing.

But making money.

Edit: In fact, it reinforces the fact that people are going to be judged outside the court of law. It undermines that principle in favour of gossip. So I actually find this sort of thing counterproductive.

 

[Deebs]

Renamed the thread, not sure I will watch it. However, as @Scouse rightly pointed out, he is dead, what can become of it? Perhaps these "me too" people should have spoken up when he was alive and could defend himself.

 

[Gwadien]

So I care because of a few reasons.

The first one being that his Estate made money last year (or may have been the year before) at $780million. I don't think this should be pulled away from then, but people should be aware if you are listening to MJ, you're still supporting the shit he did, very much like Lostprophets.

Secondly, it appears that there is a correlation between power and abuse (WHO WOULD HAVE EVER GUESSED IT?). Hopefully with MeToo, Operation Yewtree etc something will be done about power and abuse. Surely that's a good thing? But don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that with great power comes great fuckability, so ironically, it's open to abuse.

I don't think it's really fair to say the victims are money grabbers (ofc the film makers are, but that's their job) I don't think it's an easy thing to go onto TV and talk about Michael Jackson anally raping you. I'm sure it's the last thing that they would really want to do.

As I said in a previous thread, I'm a very big fan of this; Damnatio memoriae - Wikipedia

Does that mean you didn't agree with looking into what Jimmy Savile did?

 

[Scouse]

The first one being that his Estate made money last year (or may have been the year before) at $780million. I don't think this should be pulled away from then, but people should be aware if you are listening to MJ, you're still supporting the shit he did, very much like Lostprophets.

Bullshit.

If you're buying a dead artists music you're financially supporting companies and shareholders and the recipients of royalties (like his kid).

In no way are you supporting anything "Michael Jackson" any more - because he's dead.

If he was alive and you thought he was a paedo, sure stop buying. But he's dead now, so knock yourself out.

All the rest? Don't care. He's dead.

As for Saville? Yep, shit came out after he died. Hopefully victims felt some catharsis. Anything after that? He's dead too. Move on. Nothing to do any more.

 

[Embattle]

Personally I have no intention of watching it since it doesn't really interest me, I do find it some what concerning we have another case of trial by media going on when in reality the person in question is dead and there isn't likely to be any actual legal outcome that confirms the media accusations nor can the person in question now defend themselves.

 

[Scouse]

Not to mention, it went to trial and he was found innocent.

Regardless of whether we like that result or not, that's the only place criminality should be decided.

 

[Wij]

View: https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/1104355429797318656

 

[DaGaffer]

Not to mention, it went to trial and he was found innocent.

Regardless of whether we like that result or not, that's the only place criminality should be decided.

Yes, although I would caveat that with "famous people get away with shit in America" (or the "OJ effect") and the more famous, the more you get away with. Anyone with eyes and ears could see what a travesty his trial was.

 

[Scouse]

Yes, although I would caveat that with "famous people get away with shit in America" (or the "OJ effect") and the more famous, the more you get away with. Anyone with eyes and ears could see what a travesty his trial was.

I'm totally sympathetic to your point but I don't know. I wasn't a juror and until they change their laws that is going to be a thing. So still, court = end of.

 

[BloodOmen]

The way I've always looked at it

An innocent man does not pay $23,000,000 to a childs family to keep them quiet if he was really innocent, not when he clearly had the resources to financially bury them.

He was a fucking monster despite his contributions to music.

 

[Scouse]

An innocent man does not pay $23,000,000 to a childs family to keep them quiet if he was really innocent

If you're a billionaire with such a public profile and you can pay $23m to not have your name dragged through the mud, because humans are "no smoke without fire" so even if you're squeaky-clean you're going to have people lining up to trash your life, then that might seem a reasonable return on investment so you don't have to go through with it.


Your idea is why we have courts to decide these things @BloodOmen. Not "I reckon this..."

 

[Exioce]

Perhaps if we locked the "Michael Jackson Documentary" thread to people who have actually watched the documentary, we'd get less paedophile apologia.
America is about to go through its version of the UK's reckoning with Jimmy Savile. If this encourages other current, past and future victims to come forward then it's to be welcomed.

 

[Gwadien]

Perhaps if we locked the "Michael Jackson Documentary" thread to people who have actually watched the documentary, we'd get less paedophile apologia.
America is about to go through its version of the UK's reckoning with Jimmy Savile. If this encourages other current, past and future victims to come forward then it's to be welcomed.

This exactly, all along.

 

[Scouse]

paedophile apologia

Utterly and completely disagree with that.

Who above has said anything that apologies for or belittles the horrific offenses of paedophiles? Show me.

Only thing that's been said is that the "rule of law" applies and "courts" are where we decide who is guilty and who isn't.

The above isn't paedophile apologia - your argument is a call for mob rule. A call for emotion and gossip and fucking TV programmes to be more important than the courtroom.

Yes, of course we want victims to come forward. But we also want people to be prosecuted through the actual courts, not in the court of public opinion. And stating that doesn't make anyone an apologist for anything. It just means you're opposed to deciding emotive subjects using your emotions first, and your intellect second (if at all).

 

[Gwadien]

So you think that because it's not legal people shouldn't be able to form opinions and therefore change their behaviour in that case?

That means you're not allowed to be outraged at people that tax avoid, because that's legal.

 

[Scouse]

So you think that because it's not legal people shouldn't be able to form opinions and therefore change their behaviour in that case?

That means you're not allowed to be outraged at people that tax avoid, because that's legal.

???

I don't see how any of that follows. In fact, I don't really understand your first paragraph.

And please to be showing me exactly where anything I've said is "apologising for paedophilia" before you go asking me to answer any more of your questions...

 

[Gwadien]

I didn't say you apologised to paedophilia, I meant I agreed more with that you haven't watched it.

Well, you're saying that legally he's sound so therefore we should ignore it, and because he's dead there will be no legal case.

First of all, I find it strange that you hold the law above your own morals, so you're pretty much arguing that so long as people haven't done anything wrong legally, they haven't done anything wrong morally. This documentary shows fairly morally wrong things done.

I also find the 'he's dead don't worry about it' very concerning - this should be investigated, not him as paedophile, but the people around him, who facilitates his behaviour, who knew about his behaviour? I feel like lots of people are getting away with lots of crimes simply because he's untouchable.

As I said before, I didn't see any criticism before about Savile and other cases, and there was generally lots of support for #metoo, until LOTS of men were accused (some falsely, granted) but then it got to a stage where everyones favourite actors were getting accused and somehow it became personal so the support for it declined.

 

[Gray]

I don't think MJ will have done any of the things. It does seem like a cashgrab affair each time. But yes, he is dead now so what can be done.

I found that R Kelly documentary slightly interesting though. Unlike MJ and Saville though, R Kelly is still alive so I guess he would be a good example of how things could turn out when it goes south.

 

[Job]

I don't buy the argument @Scouse made that they did it to make a bit of money - it was pretty clear that they were kids and it appeared to be normal and the parents seemed to be completely oblivious to what was going on.

Without the slightest bit of evidence outside of a highly scripted..edited and sensationalist documentary with dubious motivations.

Its obvious to me that half of this country should never sit on a jury.

 

[Job]

I didn't say you apologised to paedophilia, I meant I agreed more with that you haven't watched it.

Well, you're saying that legally he's sound so therefore we should ignore it, and because he's dead there will be no legal case.

First of all, I find it strange that you hold the law above your own morals, so you're pretty much arguing that so long as people haven't done anything wrong legally, they haven't done anything wrong morally. This documentary shows fairly morally wrong things done.

I also find the 'he's dead don't worry about it' very concerning - this should be investigated, not him as paedophile, but the people around him, who facilitates his behaviour, who knew about his behaviour? I feel like lots of people are getting away with lots of crimes simply because he's untouchable.

As I said before, I didn't see any criticism before about Savile and other cases, and there was generally lots of support for #metoo, until LOTS of men were accused (some falsely, granted) but then it got to a stage where everyones favourite actors were getting accused and somehow it became personal so the support for it declined.

You keep saying it shows this and that..it doesnt, its two people telling stories outside of court.

Can you not get your head around this.

 

[Scouse]

I'm clearly not talking about the subjects of the documentary doing it for cash.

 

[Wij]

Not seen it yet but the point is a good one. Should we have said the same for Sir Jim’ll? He’s not here to defend himself so leave him alone?

 

[BloodOmen]

If you're a billionaire with such a public profile and you can pay $23m to not have your name dragged through the mud, because humans are "no smoke without fire" so even if you're squeaky-clean you're going to have people lining up to trash your life, then that might seem a reasonable return on investment so you don't have to go through with it.


Your idea is why we have courts to decide these things @BloodOmen. Not "I reckon this..."

And yet his name was dragged through the mud regardless, it served no purpose other than to shut the family up from giving specific details. It was an admission of guilt.

 

[Scouse]

And yet his name was dragged through the mud regardless, it served no purpose other than to shut the family up from giving specific details. It was an admission of guilt.

No. It would specifically have come with no admission.

And if the family were sure of winning they'd have stood to gain more financially.

An admission of guilt is only valid in court. No matter how you *feel* about it blood.

 

[Talivar]

Dead or not they should still be able to talk about their experiences and the world should still be encouraged to try and investigate to find the truth. Maybe if we can do this and determine if he did or did not then in future cases we may be better armed and prepared to find the truth

 

[Scouse]

Dead or not they should still be able to talk about their experiences and the world should still be encouraged to try and investigate to find the truth. Maybe if we can do this and determine if he did or did not then in future cases we may be better armed and prepared to find the truth

You *can't* find the truth because he's dead.

And he went to court, was found not guilty, so *that* is what we have. End of.

 

[BloodOmen]

No. It would specifically have come with no admission.

And if the family were sure of winning they'd have stood to gain more financially.

An admission of guilt is only valid in court. No matter how you *feel* about it blood.

And yet that family wasn't the only one, I guess he's just that 1% that was "innocent" though, eh?

You're entitled to your opinion, I'll stick with mine. I think he was absolutely guilty and even if he was innocent, his behaviour didn't help his case/view in the public.

 

[Wij]

You *can't* find the truth because he's dead.

And he went to court, was found not guilty, so *that* is what we have. End of.

And Sir Jim?

 

[Talivar]

Ofc you can find the truth, dead or alive they still might find evidence as proved with people like Saville.