ChatterBank0 min ago
George Michael Died Of Natural Causes
112 Answers
A Coroner's report has confirmed
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MargoTester. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mikey - //Sqad.... "what message" does this send out to teenagers re. drug abuse? "
Exactly my point ! It sends out the wrong message.
Children and teenagers look up to people like Michael, and what they can see is that its OK to abuse drugs for years, because at the end you only die from natural causes. Its "cool" to abuse drugs apparently. //
This is an age-old argument that wasn't true when it started and it isn't true now.
I took drugs as a young man, but it was nothing to do with the fact that the musicians I liked took them, and I 'looked up to them' - because I didn't - at least not as far as their drug consumption was concerned.
I took drugs for the same reason that every young person takes drugs - including alcohol and tobacco - because my friends did!
The idea that pop stars are 'role models' is fatuous in the extreme, and has been since Paul McCartney was interviewed by a tabloid journalist in the 1960's about smoking marijuana.
The journalist advised Mr McCartney that he had a 'responsibility' to his fans. Mr McCartney quite reasonably replied, "No, it's you that has the responsibility, not me, I won't tell anyone, if you don't."
And that is the root of the nonsense about pop stars and drugs. The media delights in highlighting drug use by musicians, ever since the News Of The World was cahoots about the Stones' bust at Redlands. It was a private weekend party, there was no 'example' to fans, until the Sundays splashed it all over their front pages.
Ironically, when someone seriously is a genuine role model about drugs, the press become ever more intrusive and prurient than ever.
Look at Amy Winehouse, the best 'role model' about the effects of drugs in the last thirty years. There she was, losing her God-given talent to alcohol and drugs, and looking every inch the ravaged alcoholic junkie she was when she died. And what did the tabloids do? What they always do - point and hoot with never a single word about the evils of what she was doing to herself, not because she 'looked up' to other pop stars, but because she got involved with a drug addict who was delighted to include her in his scene - as all drug addicts are.
So if you seriously imagine that anyone took or takes drugs because George Michael did, then you need to learn considerably more about drug culture, pop culture, and the media-driven heavens-to-betsies attitude that media have had since the early 1960's - which was as prurient and sales-driven then as it is now.
Exactly my point ! It sends out the wrong message.
Children and teenagers look up to people like Michael, and what they can see is that its OK to abuse drugs for years, because at the end you only die from natural causes. Its "cool" to abuse drugs apparently. //
This is an age-old argument that wasn't true when it started and it isn't true now.
I took drugs as a young man, but it was nothing to do with the fact that the musicians I liked took them, and I 'looked up to them' - because I didn't - at least not as far as their drug consumption was concerned.
I took drugs for the same reason that every young person takes drugs - including alcohol and tobacco - because my friends did!
The idea that pop stars are 'role models' is fatuous in the extreme, and has been since Paul McCartney was interviewed by a tabloid journalist in the 1960's about smoking marijuana.
The journalist advised Mr McCartney that he had a 'responsibility' to his fans. Mr McCartney quite reasonably replied, "No, it's you that has the responsibility, not me, I won't tell anyone, if you don't."
And that is the root of the nonsense about pop stars and drugs. The media delights in highlighting drug use by musicians, ever since the News Of The World was cahoots about the Stones' bust at Redlands. It was a private weekend party, there was no 'example' to fans, until the Sundays splashed it all over their front pages.
Ironically, when someone seriously is a genuine role model about drugs, the press become ever more intrusive and prurient than ever.
Look at Amy Winehouse, the best 'role model' about the effects of drugs in the last thirty years. There she was, losing her God-given talent to alcohol and drugs, and looking every inch the ravaged alcoholic junkie she was when she died. And what did the tabloids do? What they always do - point and hoot with never a single word about the evils of what she was doing to herself, not because she 'looked up' to other pop stars, but because she got involved with a drug addict who was delighted to include her in his scene - as all drug addicts are.
So if you seriously imagine that anyone took or takes drugs because George Michael did, then you need to learn considerably more about drug culture, pop culture, and the media-driven heavens-to-betsies attitude that media have had since the early 1960's - which was as prurient and sales-driven then as it is now.
It matters not what Paul Macartney says to a reporter about his drug use.
The press have access to a coroners court as much as a criminal court.
If a so called celebrity is to appear in a criminal court for crashing vehicles under the influence of narcotics then it will be deemed in the public interest ,especially,as the drugs cause him to endanger the lives of innocent people two or three times.
Drug/user addicts deciding to go walk-about from a vehicle travelling at 70 mph on a motorway is normal behaviour and should be swept under the carpet. Why? This man is a menace to himself and other innocent people as a result of his selfish misuse of a illegal drug.
If it was any ordinary Joe who behaved like this I doubt if you pop star aficiondos would be so forgiving of this reckless behaviour.
Just because he is lauded with celebrity status for his talents does not exonerate himself from disclosure of the type of person he was.
Having read up on his life-style I can only wonder he lived as long as he did and without taking innocents with him.
http://
The press have access to a coroners court as much as a criminal court.
If a so called celebrity is to appear in a criminal court for crashing vehicles under the influence of narcotics then it will be deemed in the public interest ,especially,as the drugs cause him to endanger the lives of innocent people two or three times.
Drug/user addicts deciding to go walk-about from a vehicle travelling at 70 mph on a motorway is normal behaviour and should be swept under the carpet. Why? This man is a menace to himself and other innocent people as a result of his selfish misuse of a illegal drug.
If it was any ordinary Joe who behaved like this I doubt if you pop star aficiondos would be so forgiving of this reckless behaviour.
Just because he is lauded with celebrity status for his talents does not exonerate himself from disclosure of the type of person he was.
Having read up on his life-style I can only wonder he lived as long as he did and without taking innocents with him.
http://
Dinapal - //It matters not what Paul Macartney says to a reporter about his drug use. //
I think it does - because the point is not that Mr McCartney has a responsibility to his fans to live his life a certain way because he is a 'role model' - he doesn't because he isn't.
My illustration was an observation, not that the papers carry news that George Michael was quite correctly prosecuted for breaking the law, but that they treat it like a showbusiness story, which it clearly is not.
I don't think anyone is above the law, but the attitude of the media, turning a standard prosecution into something else because of the celebrity of the convicted person, shows the bad side of our media, and it's attitude to fame and the law.
I think it does - because the point is not that Mr McCartney has a responsibility to his fans to live his life a certain way because he is a 'role model' - he doesn't because he isn't.
My illustration was an observation, not that the papers carry news that George Michael was quite correctly prosecuted for breaking the law, but that they treat it like a showbusiness story, which it clearly is not.
I don't think anyone is above the law, but the attitude of the media, turning a standard prosecution into something else because of the celebrity of the convicted person, shows the bad side of our media, and it's attitude to fame and the law.
Dinapal - //If it was any ordinary Joe who behaved like this I doubt if you pop star aficiondos would be so forgiving of this reckless behaviour. //
I am not remotely forgiving of his behaviour, as my previous post confirms.
//Just because he is lauded with celebrity status for his talents does not exonerate himself from disclosure of the type of person he was. //
No, but his celebrity status is the only reason why the media is even vaguely interested in his lifestyle, living or dead, and they are only interested because the public takes a ghoulish delight in raking over discharged offences so it can snigger to itself.
//Having read up on his life-style I can only wonder he lived as long as he did and without taking innocents with him. //
You have not 'read up on his lifestyle' - you have read more muck-raking garbage from a media safe in the knowledge that you cannot be sued for libelling a deceased individual.
Elton John has freely admitted to being a ferocious coke fiend, and when he dies, he will get the same treatment, but while he is alive, the media leave him well alone.
Why? Because he leads a blameless life? No, because he is one of the most successfully litigious celebrities alive, as The Sun and others have found to their cost. Remember them accusing Elton John of having his guard dogs operated on to prevent them from barking? The Sun's legal team do, they got royally hammered in the libel courts for the paper's blatant lies.
Scandal sells papers, it goes with being famous, but that doesn't mean we should believe it all - trust me I have spoken to enough dfamous people to know the nonsense that is printed about them.
I am not remotely forgiving of his behaviour, as my previous post confirms.
//Just because he is lauded with celebrity status for his talents does not exonerate himself from disclosure of the type of person he was. //
No, but his celebrity status is the only reason why the media is even vaguely interested in his lifestyle, living or dead, and they are only interested because the public takes a ghoulish delight in raking over discharged offences so it can snigger to itself.
//Having read up on his life-style I can only wonder he lived as long as he did and without taking innocents with him. //
You have not 'read up on his lifestyle' - you have read more muck-raking garbage from a media safe in the knowledge that you cannot be sued for libelling a deceased individual.
Elton John has freely admitted to being a ferocious coke fiend, and when he dies, he will get the same treatment, but while he is alive, the media leave him well alone.
Why? Because he leads a blameless life? No, because he is one of the most successfully litigious celebrities alive, as The Sun and others have found to their cost. Remember them accusing Elton John of having his guard dogs operated on to prevent them from barking? The Sun's legal team do, they got royally hammered in the libel courts for the paper's blatant lies.
Scandal sells papers, it goes with being famous, but that doesn't mean we should believe it all - trust me I have spoken to enough dfamous people to know the nonsense that is printed about them.
I get the impression you believe that celebrities should just get on with their illegal activities and drugs must be kept under the carpet as long as they try to atone with their charitable donations.
If you are in the public eye and enjoy the fame it brings then you must surely expect, not only your talents to be bought to the attention of the public,but your misdeeds as well.
There are some bright kids out there who will ask,"How come Whitney Houston,Elvis, the Geldhof family members,Jackson, Jackson Hutchence,etc etc etc who all die before their time?"
Why shouldn't they be told via the press? I don't condone using illegal non prescription drugs yet you say that MacCartney 'quite reasonably' said I won't tell if you don't.
I see nothing reasonable in trying to get a reporter to cover up an illegal act.
If you are in the public eye and enjoy the fame it brings then you must surely expect, not only your talents to be bought to the attention of the public,but your misdeeds as well.
There are some bright kids out there who will ask,"How come Whitney Houston,Elvis, the Geldhof family members,Jackson, Jackson Hutchence,etc etc etc who all die before their time?"
Why shouldn't they be told via the press? I don't condone using illegal non prescription drugs yet you say that MacCartney 'quite reasonably' said I won't tell if you don't.
I see nothing reasonable in trying to get a reporter to cover up an illegal act.
Elton John, to the best of my knowledge, has not appeared several times in court for drug related offences.
The press would report a persistent offending motorist who appears in court for similar driving offences.
Perhaps you recall the Scottish Dust cart driver who lied about health problems and killed people last Christmas. He lost his PCV prior to that tragedy and lied to get a HGV licence. He has since appeared,last week,for further criminal offences.
I saw no one claim he had been hounded by the press from any ABers so why is George Micheal different?
The press would report a persistent offending motorist who appears in court for similar driving offences.
Perhaps you recall the Scottish Dust cart driver who lied about health problems and killed people last Christmas. He lost his PCV prior to that tragedy and lied to get a HGV licence. He has since appeared,last week,for further criminal offences.
I saw no one claim he had been hounded by the press from any ABers so why is George Micheal different?
Dinapal - //I get the impression you believe that celebrities should just get on with their illegal activities and drugs must be kept under the carpet as long as they try to atone with their charitable donations. //
Then your impression is entirely false. I do not condone drug taking by anyone, famous or not, but neither do I condone the scurrilous exposure of in famous people, not as a 'public service', but because, as I have said, scandal sells papers.
If you are in the public eye and enjoy the fame it brings then you must surely expect, not only your talents to be bought to the attention of the public,but your misdeeds as well. //
No argument there at all, but lets not pretend they are brought to the attention of the public for any good reason. A fundamental lesson of tabloid journalism is learning the difference between 'the public interest' and what interests the public. Only one of those sells papers.
//There are some bright kids out there who will ask,"How come Whitney Houston,Elvis, the Geldhof family members,Jackson, Jackson Hutchence,etc etc etc who all die before their time?"
Why shouldn't they be told via the press? //
No reason at all - but do the press say "They were weak impressionable stupid people with too much money and too much exposure to the wrong people, and no-one to tell them no.? If they did that, I would have no issue at all, but they don't and that is my point.
// I don't condone using illegal non prescription drugs yet you say that MacCartney 'quite reasonably' said I won't tell if you don't.
I see nothing reasonable in trying to get a reporter to cover up an illegal act. //
Neither do I, but I think you are missing my point.
Mr McCartney didn't suggest that the journalist hide what he was doing, he simply shifted the responsibility to where it actually lay - if Mr McCartney didn't tell millions of people he took drugs, which he was willing not to do, then why should the journalist do it to sell papers?
Mr McCartney's, and Mr Michael's and Mr John's and anyone you want to list's drug use is their own business if done in private - but the papers interfere because it sells papers, and for no other reason.
Then your impression is entirely false. I do not condone drug taking by anyone, famous or not, but neither do I condone the scurrilous exposure of in famous people, not as a 'public service', but because, as I have said, scandal sells papers.
If you are in the public eye and enjoy the fame it brings then you must surely expect, not only your talents to be bought to the attention of the public,but your misdeeds as well. //
No argument there at all, but lets not pretend they are brought to the attention of the public for any good reason. A fundamental lesson of tabloid journalism is learning the difference between 'the public interest' and what interests the public. Only one of those sells papers.
//There are some bright kids out there who will ask,"How come Whitney Houston,Elvis, the Geldhof family members,Jackson, Jackson Hutchence,etc etc etc who all die before their time?"
Why shouldn't they be told via the press? //
No reason at all - but do the press say "They were weak impressionable stupid people with too much money and too much exposure to the wrong people, and no-one to tell them no.? If they did that, I would have no issue at all, but they don't and that is my point.
// I don't condone using illegal non prescription drugs yet you say that MacCartney 'quite reasonably' said I won't tell if you don't.
I see nothing reasonable in trying to get a reporter to cover up an illegal act. //
Neither do I, but I think you are missing my point.
Mr McCartney didn't suggest that the journalist hide what he was doing, he simply shifted the responsibility to where it actually lay - if Mr McCartney didn't tell millions of people he took drugs, which he was willing not to do, then why should the journalist do it to sell papers?
Mr McCartney's, and Mr Michael's and Mr John's and anyone you want to list's drug use is their own business if done in private - but the papers interfere because it sells papers, and for no other reason.
Dinapal - //Perhaps you recall the Scottish Dust cart driver who lied about health problems and killed people last Christmas. He lost his PCV prior to that tragedy and lied to get a HGV licence. He has since appeared,last week,for further criminal offences.
I saw no one claim he had been hounded by the press from any ABers so why is George Micheal different? //
If you really can't see the difference - please allow me to point it out for you.
One is a dust cart driver, the other is George Michael.
I saw no one claim he had been hounded by the press from any ABers so why is George Micheal different? //
If you really can't see the difference - please allow me to point it out for you.
One is a dust cart driver, the other is George Michael.
You believe, in that case ,that so called celebrities have a protected status and should be cocooned no matter what , yet any one else not in the limelight is at the full mercy of the press.?
It appears that you have made statements which you have passed on as facts with regard to Elton John in this debate.
As,by your admission, they were wrong and you stand corrected I see no point in further debating this.
It appears that you have made statements which you have passed on as facts with regard to Elton John in this debate.
As,by your admission, they were wrong and you stand corrected I see no point in further debating this.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
News10 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.