Michael Jackson

[BrisGirl]

The one thing I find sad in our society today, is how readily we 'the public' are quick to pass judgement and condemn people just on bare facts or what the media choose to let us know.

Now, with the Michael Jackson saga, we are again bombarded with media opinions and visions by both parties, asking us to make our own minds up.

I have now found the whole scene bizarre, as now we have the man - Michael Jackson - himself conducting interviews saying 'it is OK for men (who are not related to the boys) to have sleep-overs with little boys and this includes them sleeping in the man's bed because it is innocent and in fun - there is nothing wrong with it'.

My question to the main stream of the public, keeping his current charges out of this discussion, Is Michael Jackson being victimised or is it fundamentally wrong for men to conduct this behaviour, in the vein of it being innocent as he testifies?

 

[Pessimistic]

Assuming things are as Jackson says, in that he is not abusing them, you have to say his behaviour is stupid because if kids get the idea it is OK to sleep with men then they are very likely to be abused by someone else one day.

But If that is the case i don't think he should be punished as such. I don;t think stupidity is actually a crime.

On the other hand he will mount a formidable legal and PR defence so let's not get taken in by his "manchild" act. He is as cunning as anyone and it does make you wonder.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by BrisGirl
Is Michael Jackson being victimised or is it fundamentally wrong for men to conduct this behaviour, in the vein of it being innocent as he testifies?[/I]

Sleeping in the same bed as little boys is just plain wrong.


1) Why would any grown man want to sleep next to a young boy?
2) What parents would even take the risk and let their kids sleep in a bed with an adult?

What makes it worse in this case is:

a) Jackson has little interest in females. He may have been married and had kids, but up until 30 he had never been seen out on dates with females. Humans have sexual urges and he isn't using them on females or grown males, but he hangs out with kids everyday. More than a bit sus.
b) His Neverland Ranch is a child's paradise (until they get a sore batty).
c) He displays all the behavioural traits of a typical pedophile.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I work with kids and one of the golden rules is you must remain above reproach . One of the ways to achieve this is never find yourself alone in a room with a child, always have at least one other adult and, if possible, other children-children are far less likely to lie about these matters.

 

[BrisGirl]

His brush with the same charges a couple of years ago, should have brought to his attention that this behaviour is unacceptable.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
I don;t think stupidity is actually a crime.

It's not.

Infact, most western countries reward stupidity.

 

[Tim56]

Whilst sleeping with kids is disturbing, I don't think he actually r*ped any of them.

 

[Jello]

Cut the crap you guys.
I babysitted for a friend the other night and fell asleep on the couch while watching TV with a 5 year old boy asleep next to me on one side and an 8 year old girl asleep next to me on the other side. Should I be charged?
The couch was mighty uncomfotable and I has a stiff neck when I awoke. If I fell asleep with them on the floor would it become more chargable? What about a bed? Seeing as a bed is designed for sleeping as far as I knew.
Yeah the world has some weird people in it and Mr Wacko (who btw is not getting anywhere near my kids) is a safe bet to top the list but not being allowed to be in the same room as a child?
Using your logic we should not let our kids join the scouts and definately under any circumstances not let our children go anywhere near a catholic church. Education could be tricky if we dont let them go to primary school though.
That Santa Claus fella is not really THAT bad is he because he makes children sit on his lap?
The world is a scary place. If you let your view of it be determined by ALL your fears then is passes scary and becomes ridiculously unbearable.

 

[red+black]

i don't think anyone is arguing that you can comfort a child by sleeping next to them, be you a parent, relative, or babysitter. make a habit out of it though and the question has to be asked whether you appreciate that it is unacceptable to do so for what appears to be YOUR OWN reasons/pleasure.

doesn't mean you had sex, but that's not the point. you should KNOW BETTER.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Jello
Cut the crap you guys.
I babysitted for a friend the other night and fell asleep on the couch while watching TV with a 5 year old boy asleep next to me on one side and an 8 year old girl asleep next to me on the other side. Should I be charged?
The couch was mighty uncomfotable and I has a stiff neck when I awoke. If I fell asleep with them on the floor would it become more chargable? What about a bed? Seeing as a bed is designed for sleeping as far as I knew.

Do you continuously invite kids to stay over in your bed? Is your house decked out to cater for kids? Do you have little or no sexual attraction to adults?

Using your logic we should not let our kids join the scouts and definately under any circumstances not let our children go anywhere near a catholic church. Education could be tricky if we dont let them go to primary school though.
That Santa Claus fella is not really THAT bad is he because he makes children sit on his lap?

- No kid of mine will be joining the scouts as it is a haven for nonces
- Apart from being anti-religious, no kid of mine will be joining any Catholic Church groups (or Christian for thast matter) as they are also havens for nonces
- When my kids want to sit on Santa's knee, I'll be watching and ready to pounce
- cases of pedophilia are less frequent in primary schools as teachers aren't often left alone with 1 teacher.


Scout groups and church groups are the obvious ones, so best to play the percentages and opt out. The most common source are family friends and relatives. I'll be keeping a close eye on any adults who seem keen to hang out with my kids.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Do you continuously invite kids to stay over in your bed? Is your house decked out to cater for kids? Do you have little or no sexual attraction to adults?
But is that what Jackson does continually?.NeverLand is supposedly meant to be for Kids,inclueding "peter pans"like jacko.Jacko has been married twice,his 2nd wife,an Australian,claims she is prepared to have sex with him again.

- No kid of mine will be joining the scouts as it is a haven for nonces
- Apart from being anti-religious, no kid of mine will be joining any Catholic Church groups (or Christian for thast matter) as they are also havens for nonces
- When my kids want to sit on Santa's knee, I'll be watching and ready to pounce
- cases of pedophilia are less frequent in primary schools as teachers aren't often left alone with 1 teacher.
1-You mean u have produced Children?.
2-What group is suitable for children then?.
3-WTF?.
4-And so they cant engage in Pedophilic activity?.What fantasy world do u live in?.Neverland perhaps?.

Scout groups and church groups are the obvious ones, so best to play the percentages and opt out. The most common source are family friends and relatives. I'll be keeping a close eye on any adults who seem keen to hang out with my kids.
What 24/7 365 days a year?.I hardly think so.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003

But is that what Jackson does continually?

Yes. He said it himself. What planet are you from?

.NeverLand is supposedly meant to be for Kids,inclueding "peter pans"like jacko.

My point exactly. I don't know what you're trying to say, but my point was that what Jackson does and what ????? does are very different - which makes his point moot.

Jacko has been married twice

Both times out of the blue. No long term courtship, no lasting marriages. He also has rarely be seen with women from when he was a teenager until 10 years ago. That's about 20 years where arguably the world's most eligible bachelor has spawned the chance to go out with multitudes of women, yet alone one or two.

his 2nd wife,an Australian,claims she is prepared to have sex with him again.

Irrelevant. It's more about his desire to have sex with women, not the other way around. There have been multitudes of women throwing themselves at him over the last 30 years and he knocks them back for a night in with someone else's kids.

1-You mean u have produced Children?.

never said i did.

2-What group is suitable for children then?.

pre-school, primary school, sports clubs.

The difference between these and the others are that a) they are necessities, and b) there is a smaller ratio of child predators.

3-WTF?.

Obviously a bit of humour that was lost on you. I've noticed you have made three posts on this board and all are in reply to me. Seems you are attacking everything you can. A rather pathetic attitude considering the only thing you know about me is that I have a different political perspective than you. You can play this game all you want. Good luck.

4-And so they cant engage in Pedophilic activity?.What fantasy world do u live in?.Neverland perhaps?.

err, what are you on?

Seems like you are so hell-bent on shooting me down you are reading things that aren't there. I said there is a LESS chance. Doesn't mean NO chance.

What 24/7 365 days a year?.I hardly think so.

I never said that either. I just said I'll be watching out.


I find it laughable that you actually think you can shoot me down. You'll have to do better than that.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Yes. He said it himself. What planet are you from?
A planet where reality reigns.


Both times out of the blue. No long term courtship, no lasting marriages. He also has rarely be seen with women from when he was a teenager until 10 years ago. That's about 20 years where arguably the world's most eligible bachelor has spawned the chance to go out with multitudes of women, yet alone one or two.
I'm quite unsure about this.On what do u base your claims on?.
Irrelevant. It's more about his desire to have sex with women, not the other way around. There have been multitudes of women throwing themselves at him over the last 30 years and he knocks them back for a night in with someone else's kids.
Again,Evidence?

The difference between these and the others are that a) they are necessities, and b) there is a smaller ratio of child predators.
But there still Pedophiles active there.

err, what are you on?
Common sense,what are u on?.
Seems like you are so hell-bent on shooting me down you are reading things that aren't there. I said there is a LESS chance. Doesn't mean NO chance.
BUT U NOTICED.



Well down in flames u go.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003


Well down in flames u go.

I'll let people read for themselves and make their own judgements. It's quite clear to me that you're only intention was to shoot me down and in the process made a heap of false assumptions. Too many people like you who make no sense, make stuff up, and then claim victory. I couldn't be bothered arguing over pathetic and unimportant stuff with pathetic and unimportant stuff.

 

[Jello]

Originally posted by bunsen burner


My point exactly. I don't know what you're trying to say, but my point was that what Jackson does and what ????? does are very different - which makes his point moot.

I am not sure about moot. Does having a swing and trampoline count as being decked out for kids? I cant really afford a roller coaster. That sort of makes part of your point a little moot too.
However the point I was making in the first place was that although Jacko is a freak we cannot charge him coz he had a child on his bed unless he molested them. Would it be ok for Jackson to have done everything he has if he was only 8 years old? If that would change everything would it also apply if he is 38 years old with the mind of an 8 year old? The bigger point I was trying to make might be made easier to understand if I ask you this.
Are you not going to drive your kid to school because there is a chance of a car accident? In fact more chance of that then your kid ever being r*ped.

BTW I agree with you on the scouts and church. Am not so fearful of Santa but I do see and understand your point.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Jello
I am not sure about moot. Does having a swing and trampoline count as being decked out for kids? I cant really afford a roller coaster. That sort of makes part of your point a little moot too.

Why do you have swings and a trampoline? Forgive me for forging ahead, but I expect it is because you have kids. I'm also assuming you didn't have the swings and trampolines put in before you had kids and invite all the neighbourhood kids around to 'hang'.

However the point I was making in the first place was that although Jacko is a freak we cannot charge him coz he had a child on his bed unless he molested them.

Fair enough, but I wasn't talking about charges etc, I was referring to the fact that the amount and type of interaction jacko has with kids makes it very hard to believe he isn't a nonce.

Would it be ok for Jackson to have done everything he has if he was only 8 years old?

no probs.

If that would change everything would it also apply if he is 38 years old with the mind of an 8 year old?

8 year olds can't create and sell 10s of millions of records.

Are you not going to drive your kid to school because there is a chance of a car accident? In fact more chance of that then your kid ever being r*ped.

Not relevant.

- you can't tell when you are going to have a car crash
- There is a higher chance that nonces take positions as scoutmasters and clergymen than other positions. As these are non-necessary activities, it is a smart option to avoid them.

BTW I agree with you on the scouts and church. Am not so fearful of Santa but I do see and understand your point.

At least Santa is controlled. He is in the open with heaps of people watching - including the parents. Scout leaders and church elders have many oppportunities to be alone with children.

 

[Frodo]

I'd like to say "leave it to the law" but the OJ case put paid to that!!!!

I think Bunsen is correct on this one.

In my opinion the guy is a freak...a black guy turned white.

He is clearly not attracted to females, the clear conclusion must be that he is more likeley to be attracted to males. I guess he has orgasms...what does he think about?

Now all that above doesn't make him a bad guy, but it makes him one that needs to be squeaky clean when dealing with young children. Overnighting is not on. Sleeping with them is definately not on, whatever the excuse.

But what sort of person would allow their child to stay such a guy?

 

[Jello]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Why do you have swings and a trampoline? Forgive me for forging ahead, but I expect it is because you have kids. I'm also assuming you didn't have the swings and trampolines put in before you had kids and invite all the neighbourhood kids around to 'hang'.

Good point. Your right I didnt, however if I did I would be ****ed if someone labelled me a child molesteror for doing so. I think the guy down the road who owns the amusement park would be ****ed if you called him one too.

Fair enough, but I wasn't talking about charges etc, I was referring to the fact that the amount and type of interaction jacko has with kids makes it very hard to believe he isn't a nonce.

Another good point however if I pulled a beanie over my head, poked a couple of holes in it for vision and drove really fast it would also make it hard to believe I hadnt just robbed the corner 7-11. Does this make wearing beanies in such a manner an unacceptable activity? Ovbiously speeding fines would be unavoidable.

no probs.

8 year olds can't create and sell 10s of millions of records.

Actually I think Wacko was younger than that when he sold his first million. Regardless, it didnt answer the question of whether his actions would become acceptable IF he had only the mind of an 8 year old. I had a friend who was a damn good footballer until he was bashed at a train station. The doctors say he now has the brain of a 10 year old and this is unlikely to change. Would it be ok for him to sleep with other 10 year olds or would you immediately call him a nonce? Yes Jackson is a freak and a weirdo, I am not ever going to dispute that and I will repeat that my kids will never get any closer to him alone than they will to a priest and that is a looooooooong distance. However the actions you have mentioned do not automatically make him guilty of raping children and therefore it is only the act of raping children that should be unnacceptable. Not being gay(if he is). Not providing a playground for them. Not even being on a bed with them. Is it unnacceptable for a babysitter to sit next to the bed and read a kid a bedtime story? Is it unnacceptable for the babysitter to sit on the bed next to the kid while reading the bedtime story? Does it make it less unnacceptable if the babysitter is a woman? If it is innocent it is innocent right? Are we becoming so caught up in our paranoid fears that in ten years time it will unnacceptable for a parent to sleep with their children? I would of been in trouble as a child everytime there was a thunderstorm. I agree the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence does not bode well for the freak but there is a possibility that he genuinely cares for kids because they are the only ones on his level. Sex with them might disgust him as much as the thought does to you and me. If this is the case and unforetunately you and me are not in a position to know, how can his actions be unnacceptable?

Not relevant.

- you can't tell when you are going to have a car crash
- There is a higher chance that nonces take positions as scoutmasters and clergymen than other positions. As these are non-necessary activities, it is a smart option to avoid them.

Actually I can tell you that you will not have a car crash if you are not driving a car. So by driving a car you have a chance of crashing and that chance is made greater if you are driving compared to not driving. Therefore by choosing to drive your kid to school you are placing the kid in more danger than if you didnt.
I will concede that your point about driving a kid to school is more of a necessary activity than scouts and church. However what about driving your kid to play in his/her sporting team on the weekend? Is that a necessary activity? For me and you maybe more than church but for alot of religious families their kid going to church is more important than them joining the local cricket team. So in fact by driving your kids to wherever is putting them in more danger than not driving them to wherever. Just as sending them to church is putting them in more danger than not sending them to church. So actually it is relevent because in both cases you have a choice as a parent whether to put your kid in danger or not. You choose one but not the other even though the car crash poses more of a risk. This finally brings me back to my original point which was not trying to defend Wacko but merely pointing out that if we let our fears rule our lives it will be more than being on a bed with children that is seen as unnacceptable. Will feeding them McDonalds become unnacceptable. That is not a necessary activity but it causes harm to a kid. Going to school. Unnacceptable because we all know the schools are full of drugs and what self respecting decent parent would chance their kids coming in contact with drugs?. Next we will be banning or kids from wearing batman costumes because it might cause them to be violent to each other. Oooops thats already been done.
Agreed, it is always best to err on the side of caution but to wallow in continued fears cannot be healthy for either parent or child. I am not going to lock my kids up in their room until they are 20 just so they do not come into contact with possible dangers.

 

[evo]

I think a few of you a falling into the trap that media has slowly set over our life times. Most mainstream media would have us believe that the world is increasingly becoming a more dangerous place.I don't believe this to be true.Marylon Manson of all people said something interesting that I agree with in "Bowling for Columbine" a very goood movie by Michael Moore. He said words to the effect that media continually seeks to make us afraid so we will consume more to make us fell better.

I very much doubt that pedophilia is more prevelant now than it has ever been. But if we are to believe the media every scout leader and preist are suddenly to be kept well away from our children.I went to scouts as a lad and always had a great time,never any inappropriate contact,similarly I went to Anglican Sunday school and the camps that they ran.Again no problems.I would have no trouble sending my son to scouts for example.

In as far as Michael Jackson goes,while I fell he is one weird dude I very much doubt that he acted in a sexual way to that kid.It's obviously another extortion attempt by the boys mother and this time Wacko isn't going to settle out of court.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Jello
I think the guy down the road who owns the amusement park would be ****ed if you called him one too.

Guy who owns the amusement park most likely does it for money. Jacko does it to attract kids.

Another good point however if I pulled a beanie over my head, poked a couple of holes in it for vision and drove really fast it would also make it hard to believe I hadnt just robbed the corner 7-11. Does this make wearing beanies in such a manner an unacceptable activity?

This is all well and good, but the point I am making is that if Jacko wasn't a nonce, then why is he sharing a bed with children? Although it is possible he is completely innocent, the chances are he isn't.

However the actions you have mentioned do not automatically make him guilty of raping children and therefore it is only the act of raping children that should be unnacceptable.

I never said automatically - I said likely - highly likely.

Let's not go into the guilty/not guilty scenario. Slightly off topic.

Not providing a playground for them. Not even being on a bed with them.

Once again, let's not get confused over whether these are actions to find him guilty, because they aren't. They are however actions that make most people believe he is guilty.

Is it unnacceptable for a babysitter to sit next to the bed and read a kid a bedtime story?

No, but this is very different to Jacko's situation. His behaviour has strong similarities with pedophile behaviour.

Does it make it less unnacceptable if the babysitter is a woman?

Makes it more unacceptable. Much more.

1) Woman (in general) have a natural nurturing instinct. men don't.

2) Men generally don't go for babysitting jobs, so a male who choses his job as babysitter raises suspicion. (I'm not talking one-offs here, I'm talking as a person's main job)

3) female pedophiles are rare, males aren't.

If it is innocent it is innocent right?

yes, yes, and no.

yes, when it is innocent
yes, when not innocent but not yet exposed
no, when not innocent and exposed.

Are we becoming so caught up in our paranoid fears that in ten years time it will unnacceptable for a parent to sleep with their children?

no

I would of been in trouble as a child everytime there was a thunderstorm. I agree the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence does not bode well for the freak but there is a possibility that he genuinely cares for kids because they are the only ones on his level.

A very slim chance. I play the percentages and head for the boundary.

Sex with them might disgust him as much as the thought does to you and me. If this is the case and unforetunately you and me are not in a position to know, how can his actions be unnacceptable?

Plying kids with amusement parks and chimpanzees? plying kids and parents with money? sleeping in the same bed as kids? going to awards ceremonies hugging and kissing someone else's kids?

Not illegal, but it's not really the point. The point is that a person with this behaviour is very very sus.

Agreed, it is always best to err on the side of caution but to wallow in continued fears cannot be healthy for either parent or child. I am not going to lock my kids up in their room until they are 20 just so they do not come into contact with possible dangers.

I'm not really talking about fear and locking them away - more about being aware of what's out there, and being smart about protecting children.

All the other stuff just happens. That's life and so be it. But not being aware or throwing your kid into a sexual abuse situation is bad parenting.

Just like yourself, I wouldn't let my (future) kids go near someone like Jacko. Not worth the risk (or the money).

 

[myee8]

Aside from my opinion (that he is a peda freak), Jacko's actions seem very wierd but not to warrant the attention he currently gets. His high media profile and wierdness only serves to multiply the severity of the attention he receives. Wierdness and having the opinion that kids should sleep in his bed do not mix. Ditto for the past allegations and the child dangling thing though. By the way, i reckon that face of his is going to fall apart one day with all that plastic surgery and loss of pigmentation.

 

[EssJayW]

As a father of 4 with the births spanning over 14 years I have found that my attitudes have changed immensely to parenting and the issues of what you allow your children to do or not to do. Before I had children and whilst my oldest 2 were approaching primary school age, I always said my children wont be allowed to do this or that. What I have discovered is that you grow as a parent as your children grow. Things like not allowing them to join scouts, brownies etc. Why punish the children if they want to join, because of your fears. Why not go the other way and become involved in the group yourself. This helps both the child and yourself.

Rather than be paranoid about the dangers, do something about it. Teach your children, become involved in their activities and sports, get to know their friends parents and their teachers. You will soon find out who are the bad apples. Being over protective of your children can often lead to rebellion and therefore putting the children in more danger. It is quite easy to watch from a distance while still giving your children space and independence.

For those without children. Good Luck. You may find that your attitudes will change as your children grow.

As for anyone that allows their children to be alone with this freak. They need to be charged themselves.

Cheers

SJW

 

[Milkman]

Originally posted by evo
I think a few of you a falling into the trap that media has slowly set over our life times. Most mainstream media would have us believe that the world is increasingly becoming a more dangerous place.I don't believe this to be true.Marylon Manson of all people said something interesting that I agree with in "Bowling for Columbine" a very goood movie by Michael Moore. He said words to the effect that media continually seeks to make us afraid so we will consume more to make us fell better.

Clip can be found here: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php

 

[BrisGirl]

Originally posted by EssJayW
As for anyone that allows their children to be alone with this freak. They need to be charged themselves.

May we explore this statement a little further?

You were very open minded at the start of your post but finished with this one.........from this I gather you have formed the opinion that M Jackson is a 'bad apple' and may I ask why you think this?

PS I agree with you on the parents...there is a duty of care and they have not supplied it

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by EssJayW
As a father of 4 with the births spanning over 14 years I have found that my attitudes have changed immensely to parenting and the issues of what you allow your children to do or not to do. Before I had children and whilst my oldest 2 were approaching primary school age, I always said my children wont be allowed to do this or that. What I have discovered is that you grow as a parent as your children grow. Things like not allowing them to join scouts, brownies etc. Why punish the children if they want to join, because of your fears. Why not go the other way and become involved in the group yourself. This helps both the child and yourself.

Rather than be paranoid about the dangers, do something about it. Teach your children, become involved in their activities and sports, get to know their friends parents and their teachers. You will soon find out who are the bad apples. Being over protective of your children can often lead to rebellion and therefore putting the children in more danger. It is quite easy to watch from a distance while still giving your children space and independence.

For those without children. Good Luck. You may find that your attitudes will change as your children grow.

As for anyone that allows their children to be alone with this freak. They need to be charged themselves.

Cheers

SJW

This is all well and good, and I certainly agree, BUT I don't think kids will be rebelling too much if they aren't allowed to go to church or scouts. If my kids are anything like I was when I was that age, they would be rebelling even if I suggested they go to either of these.

As for getting involved with scouts myself? Sporting clubs and school excursions no problems, but the scouts? No way.


Are people aware that the guy who started the Scout movement, Sir Baden Powell was a nonce? The scouts has had a culture of pedophillia from day one. Although there are many innocent parents who are just doing the right thing for the kids, there is no shortage of nonces in the scout industry.