Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Jacko / Glitter
30 Answers
Superstars are turning out for Jacko's memorial which is being broadcast live globally. His dodgy past appears to have been swept under the carpet. Or does the fact that he was never found guilty mean he wasn't guilty? And does the fact that Gary Glitter was found guilty mean no-one will ever look beyond his chequered history? Chuck Berry is still a legend despite his criminal record. What should we conclude from all this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chirpychirpy. 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.
Chuck Berry will remain a legend because of his phenomenal talent, as will Michael Jackson. The same can hardly be said of Gary Glitter.
Personally, I believe Michael Jackson was grossly misunderstood, and was guilty of nothing more than never growing up. Probably not a popular opinion, but there you have it.
Personally, I believe Michael Jackson was grossly misunderstood, and was guilty of nothing more than never growing up. Probably not a popular opinion, but there you have it.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his girlfriend when she was 13, Bill Wyman who was 'dating' Mandy Smith when she was 13 and he was in his 50's. Neither were convicted though. In Wyman's case if Mandy Smith had brought charges, Wyman would have been the Gary Glitter of the 80's.
As for Jackson's history being swept under the carpet...well I think he was guilty as hell with the Chandler case. I followed it very closely and have since read all of the court documents. Definately swept under the carpet. I know some Jackson fans that wouldn't read anything of the original trial and dismissed it regardless.
Being found guilty or innocent doesn't mean the correct decision was always made though. Look at the OJ trial as an example.
As for Jackson's history being swept under the carpet...well I think he was guilty as hell with the Chandler case. I followed it very closely and have since read all of the court documents. Definately swept under the carpet. I know some Jackson fans that wouldn't read anything of the original trial and dismissed it regardless.
Being found guilty or innocent doesn't mean the correct decision was always made though. Look at the OJ trial as an example.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
If anyone you knew was sleeping with unrelated boys (remember this is fact and somerthing MJ admitted) there would be vigilante groups banging their door down even if it wasn't sexual.
As for the 'mj was misunderstood/had a bad upbringing'. Complete crap. If a non celebrity used that one it would be largely dismissed in court.
People see what they want to. I remember during the Chandler case that a couple of MJ fans I knew said they would still love MJ no matter what he did. Thats the problem, people will dismiss anything regardless if what they like means something to them.
I was a mj fan. I had everything, plus lots of rare stuff. I sold or binned the lot after reading the Chandler court case notes. That's how convinced I was.
As for the 'mj was misunderstood/had a bad upbringing'. Complete crap. If a non celebrity used that one it would be largely dismissed in court.
People see what they want to. I remember during the Chandler case that a couple of MJ fans I knew said they would still love MJ no matter what he did. Thats the problem, people will dismiss anything regardless if what they like means something to them.
I was a mj fan. I had everything, plus lots of rare stuff. I sold or binned the lot after reading the Chandler court case notes. That's how convinced I was.
-- answer removed --
I think Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin aged 13, something that wasn't unusual were he was from, still wrong though.
What we learn from Jackson, Townsend and Wyman is that paedephilia is apparently excusable if you're cool.
Even if you feel Townsend was innocent Wyman was decidedly dodgy and appeared on the One Show the other night.
If I'd have been on that couch I'd have asked him about Mandy Smith, she clearly suffered terribly as an adult, perhaps because of him?
Isn't she dead now too?
What we learn from Jackson, Townsend and Wyman is that paedephilia is apparently excusable if you're cool.
Even if you feel Townsend was innocent Wyman was decidedly dodgy and appeared on the One Show the other night.
If I'd have been on that couch I'd have asked him about Mandy Smith, she clearly suffered terribly as an adult, perhaps because of him?
Isn't she dead now too?
Whatever...
Michael Jackson is the biggest music star of the late 20th century.
Full stop.
Was he convicted of chold molestation?
No.
Full stop.
Elvis Presley was a fat junkie when he died, but he's still revered.
Jacko had more talent in his little finger than the vast majority of his peers (apart from Madonna obviously).
Michael Jackson is the biggest music star of the late 20th century.
Full stop.
Was he convicted of chold molestation?
No.
Full stop.
Elvis Presley was a fat junkie when he died, but he's still revered.
Jacko had more talent in his little finger than the vast majority of his peers (apart from Madonna obviously).
SP's comment of 'whatever' sums him and the MJ contingent up. The refusal to admit that non related men sleeping with boys is wrong, but it is ok if they are in the charts.
Let me ask you direct SP.
Scenario one. Would you let a son of yours sleep in the same bed as a man across the road who locked the bedroom door and had a ferris wheel in his garden and an endless stream of boys visiting each weekend?.
Scenario two. Would you let your son sleep with a man who was your favourite popstar?
There's no doubting MJ's talent as a singer/dancer, but at times it seemed as though he didn't have a brain in his head. This has now of course been confirmed as true.
Let me ask you direct SP.
Scenario one. Would you let a son of yours sleep in the same bed as a man across the road who locked the bedroom door and had a ferris wheel in his garden and an endless stream of boys visiting each weekend?.
Scenario two. Would you let your son sleep with a man who was your favourite popstar?
There's no doubting MJ's talent as a singer/dancer, but at times it seemed as though he didn't have a brain in his head. This has now of course been confirmed as true.
Depends how old my son was. 16 and over - no problem. Under 16 - no way.
My problem here is this whole Jacko/Glitter thing. The fact is, no matter what we may think if the nose, the ferris wheel, the skin lightening, the monkey and the weird Liz Taylor fixation...Jackson was never convicted of anything, and as far as we know, he could have had entirely innocent relationships with these kids.
There are two things that make me think the whole paedo thing was rubbish:
1. Jordan Chandler was not able to describe what Jacko looked like in the nip
2. Despite intense searches of Neverland, the LAPD weren't able to find a scrap of evidence supporting the assertion that he was a paedophile.
No computer disks, no porn, no letters - nothing.
Incidentally, whilst I like him as an artist, I'm certainly no 'fan'. I've seen him live once, but I've seen Madonna six times. I prefer my perverts to be muscular women with attitude thank you.
My problem here is this whole Jacko/Glitter thing. The fact is, no matter what we may think if the nose, the ferris wheel, the skin lightening, the monkey and the weird Liz Taylor fixation...Jackson was never convicted of anything, and as far as we know, he could have had entirely innocent relationships with these kids.
There are two things that make me think the whole paedo thing was rubbish:
1. Jordan Chandler was not able to describe what Jacko looked like in the nip
2. Despite intense searches of Neverland, the LAPD weren't able to find a scrap of evidence supporting the assertion that he was a paedophile.
No computer disks, no porn, no letters - nothing.
Incidentally, whilst I like him as an artist, I'm certainly no 'fan'. I've seen him live once, but I've seen Madonna six times. I prefer my perverts to be muscular women with attitude thank you.
If I knew my child had been abused, I'd want the perpetrator removed from society for a very long time, but these parents eagerly took the money, leaving someone that they alleged to be a paedophile free to exploit other children. If they had been convinced of his guilt, why didn't they pursue it to the bitter end through the courts to put other children out of harm's way? Simply because theirs was an evil scheme to make a fast buck - or in this case several millions of fast bucks - and they did it regardless of the potential destruction their action would cause to the man they accused, or to anyone else. They are the morally criminal in all this - but people with dirty minds, who find it impossible to comprehend that not everyone thinks the same way as they do, have enthusiastically demonised a vulnerable human being, and in the process, exonerated these disgusting leeches.
I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson or anyone else, but I am a parent, and this has never rung true to me. In fact it stinks.
I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson or anyone else, but I am a parent, and this has never rung true to me. In fact it stinks.
Contra arguement Naomi, wouldn't anyone innocent of paedophilia fight tooth and nail, through the courts if necessary, to clear there name rather than paying loads of dosh to hush it up.
The kindest thing you can say about MJ is that he had lost all sense of reality and what is acceptable. Even after the Jory case he continued to invite boys into his bed.
Weird
The kindest thing you can say about MJ is that he had lost all sense of reality and what is acceptable. Even after the Jory case he continued to invite boys into his bed.
Weird
I can understand your point Naomi, but its a known legal strategy to plead a "lesser charge" .
Again the allegations leading to the trial were after the Jordy incident. Had he learnt nothing? Why take boys into your bed and leave yourself open to allegations of sexual abuse? Where was his judgement that to do so is unacceptable. Why didn't his advisers say it was dodgy and likely to lead him into trouble.
I suspect he was a star who thought he could do what he wanted, (even if innocent) and all his yes men that surrounded him would not/ could not gainsay him.
Why he is being idolised I cannot imagine. Yes he was very talented but he was a very flawed individual who at best had lot touch with reality. Personally I want my heroes to have some integrity not just fame
Again the allegations leading to the trial were after the Jordy incident. Had he learnt nothing? Why take boys into your bed and leave yourself open to allegations of sexual abuse? Where was his judgement that to do so is unacceptable. Why didn't his advisers say it was dodgy and likely to lead him into trouble.
I suspect he was a star who thought he could do what he wanted, (even if innocent) and all his yes men that surrounded him would not/ could not gainsay him.
Why he is being idolised I cannot imagine. Yes he was very talented but he was a very flawed individual who at best had lot touch with reality. Personally I want my heroes to have some integrity not just fame
Rosetta, But if he was innocent, why should he plead a 'lesser charge'? That would be like you or me being wrongly accused of murder and entering a plea of manslaughter in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. We'd end up deemed guilty of something, and for no reason. Whilst none of us will ever know what went on in his mind, he clearly didn't recognise the possibility that firstly his actions would encourage unsavoury suspicions, and secondly, that callous people would take advantage of that. That indicates to me a certain unworldly naivety, and therefore, by the standards set by the rest of the world, his judgement was indeed flawed. Having said that, nothing excuses the total absence of integrity, or loyalty, displayed by the parasites who made a fortune through knowing him.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
