# Michael Jackson New Record



## tree (Nov 20, 2003)

Do you know what he did with his child: "Windowing"!


----------



## nervus (Nov 20, 2003)

tree said:
			
		

> Do you know what he did with his child: "Windowing"!


Better not


----------



## tree (Nov 20, 2003)

I am thinking about what is happening now. It seems me obvious that you know the latest about Michael Jackson. We all know that Samantha&co has posed nude for example. When she does something that is not good it will be difficult for me to say you are wrong because she looks good. When some other popstar is doing something with children I think that I will reject him because I have choice to choose another direction from now on.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 20, 2003)

And what makes you sure he did something to that child (or children)?


----------



## tree (Nov 20, 2003)

I have seen him with his child hanging out of the window on television. I own the record(lp) Thriller. I had the record "Purple Rain" from Prince and I changed it for his record ten years ago. He is singing there with Paul Mc Cartney.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 20, 2003)

And now, what makes you sure he did some weird stuff to that child? 
I hope not only things you see/read/hear in the press. If it was just by the press, there were not enough prisons for the "bad guys". 
I like Michael Jackson. He have some great pleas in his songs which I believe he is not just singing to have a great image. I believe some envious ppl are just trying to see him down and coming up with those stories..
But this is my own opinion and if he really did that stuff to that little boy (what is decission of the court should), he should be arrested like everyone else too.


----------



## Randman (Nov 20, 2003)

I heard he's changed the lyrics in one song to read: Billy, Gene, they're not my kids...


----------



## Arden (Nov 20, 2003)

Michael Jackson has serious personality issues to work out.  I think jail time might be good for him.

Someone was saying how he's not such a "smooth criminal..." and something else.


----------



## pds (Nov 21, 2003)

Very few entertainment personalities capture my attention, In fact,I could hardly care much less. Still, "personality issues" don't get worked out through jail-time. Michael Jackson reflects a society of misplaced values. He needs help, not a trip to a slammer.


----------



## tree (Nov 22, 2003)

::angel::


----------



## lilbandit (Nov 23, 2003)

Zammy-Sam, did you see the Martin Bashir interview broadcast by ITV (British channel)? There are accusations thrown around of bias and creative editing but even accounting for the most hostile editing known to man some of the remarks that he made are bizarre and disturbing. He openly confessed to sleeping with children in his own bed while sitting on a couch holding hands with a 12/13 year old boy throughout the interview. Whether anything untoward happened or not, he is a 44 year old man who should NOT be sharing a bed with children. He can claim to love children all he likes but that is not exactly model behaviour for a typical 44 year old. The man who organised the interview was the spoon-bending guru Uri Geller, who was one of Jackson's closest advisor prior to the inevitable scandal after the programme was broadcast. During a subsequent interview with Louis Thereaux (BBC) he admitted that he would not let his own children sleep with Jackson. He is no longer a part of Jackson's inner-circle. The bottom line is this: Would you let your children sleep in Jackson's bed? If I had children I would not let them sleep with the rich guy who owns the private theme park down the road. A lot of Jackson's supporters seem oblivious to this and accept this type of behaviour as perfectly natural.


----------



## bobw (Nov 23, 2003)

*And now, what makes you sure he did some weird stuff to that child*

Hanging an infant out a window isn't wierd enough for you.

Jackson should be put in the general population of a prison for awhile. See how he likes it. The man is a pedifile.


----------



## tree (Nov 23, 2003)

::angel::


----------



## tree (Nov 23, 2003)

I think the recordindustry wants Michael because he paticipated in playing for audience.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 23, 2003)

Now, none of us here know for absolute sure that Michael Jackson did anything other than simply go to sleep with children in his bed, and saying that he should be sent to prison because he's a weirdo is just silly -- that's like saying that prison would help RuPaul, Elton John, Marilyn Manson and the members of Jim Rose Circus.

Wacko Jacko's got some weird ways, but being weird isn't illegal.  He's obviously obsessed with remaining a child -- he idolizes Peter Pan and the idea of being young forever.  Hell, his plastic surgery is OBVIOUSLY done to try and keep him looking young (although anyone will look like a plastic doll if they spent as much as Jacko on plastic surgery).

I have my doubts as to Jacko's guilt, but I can't help but think that it wouldn't be unheard of for him to have molested a child or three.  But if we simply say, "He's weird and I don't like it and it's all a little creepy so send him to jail," then half the population would be in jail.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 24, 2003)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> Zammy-Sam, did you see the Martin Bashir interview broadcast by ITV (British channel)? There are accusations thrown around of bias and creative editing but even accounting for the most hostile editing known to man some of the remarks that he made are bizarre and disturbing. He openly confessed to sleeping with children in his own bed while sitting on a couch holding hands with a 12/13 year old boy throughout the interview. Whether anything untoward happened or not, he is a 44 year old man who should NOT be sharing a bed with children. He can claim to love children all he likes but that is not exactly model behaviour for a typical 44 year old. The man who organised the interview was the spoon-bending guru Uri Geller, who was one of Jackson's closest advisor prior to the inevitable scandal after the programme was broadcast. During a subsequent interview with Louis Thereaux (BBC) he admitted that he would not let his own children sleep with Jackson. He is no longer a part of Jackson's inner-circle. The bottom line is this: Would you let your children sleep in Jackson's bed? If I had children I would not let them sleep with the rich guy who owns the private theme park down the road. A lot of Jackson's supporters seem oblivious to this and accept this type of behaviour as perfectly natural.



The typicall behaving-pattern of a 44 years old man doesn't have to fit to everyone. Does that justify jail? I mean, all that is known yet is that he is spending the night in his bed with the children in there. Does that mean we should sue every mother AND father out there? Imagine your child is scared of God knows what and comes to your bed and your neighbour shoots a pic of you and your child in the bed. Should you be arrested? One might say: "well, this is your own child, Michael does so with other children as well". Well, that shoes very well how much he really cares and that all children are like his owns. 
I can just repeat: if he really did some weird stuff with that child and other as well, then he should be arrested. But for what he is doing by now I don't see any reason for all this...
There are many crazy ppl out there that don't fit to the typicall ppl. Does this mean we need billions of jails?


----------



## pds (Nov 24, 2003)

And the important half at that....

Jail is an out-of-sight out-of-mind ostrich solution to this particular problem. 

If you want to talk about protecting children, you can take Jako as your target, or you can turn south and do something about hunger, poverty and disease in the developing world. 

This is show business as usual.


----------



## bobw (Nov 24, 2003)

Tru, none of us knows for sure, but sleeping with small children, and you think this freak did nothing wrong, after paying $20,000,000 to the last victum that made charges. NAIVE comes to mind.

*RuPaul, Elton John, Marilyn Manson and the members of Jim Rose Circus.*

These people may be different, but I don't remember seeing any of them involved in anything like this.

Jackson is a sicko and should be put away, in a mental institution, but I'd like to see him passed around a prison first for a couple years.

Anyone who messes with kids should be in prison for awhile with the population there knowing what he did, then have his gonads removed with a dull spoon.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 24, 2003)

bobw said:
			
		

> Tru, none of us knows for sure, but sleeping with small children, and you think this freak did nothing wrong, after paying $20,000,000 to the last victum that made charges. NAIVE comes to mind.
> 
> *RuPaul, Elton John, Marilyn Manson and the members of Jim Rose Circus.*
> 
> ...



True, Jacko has some weird ways, but until the end of his trial, no one can say whether or not he did it -- yes, we have our very strong suspicions, but you can't send someone to jail on suspicion.  How would you feel if, 6 months in the future, the accuser came forward and publicly admitted it was a publicity/money stunt?  Chances are that won't happen, but what if...?

We can't send weirdos to jail.  Weird people make beautiful things: music, art, poetry, movies, etc.  We DO need to send criminals to jail, though, and we can't say someone should go to jail until we've proved that they've crossed the line.

My point is that Jacko has been an influential figure for most of his life.  People have some suspicions that he's been doing some nasty things, but you nor I can say for SURE that he did them.  Perhaps the parents just didn't like the fact that he was sleeping the same bed with him.  Perhaps he crossed the line while the kids were in his bed.  You don't know, I don't know, and the courts don't know yet -- hell, all we DO know at this point is that he's weird, and more than one person has accused him of going too far.  

We will have to wait and see.  If I were weird, I certainly would not like people automatically assuming that I needed some good, hard jailtime, no matter what I was accused of, until I was proven guilty (either in court or out of court).  Now, if I were convicted, then people saying I needed some jailtime would be justified.  But if we say he needs jailtime before even trying him in court, that's just plain backwards... we will have to wait and see.


----------



## bobw (Nov 24, 2003)

This would all be okay if having a lot of money didn't have the ability to buy you out of trouble, but unfortunately, it does.


----------



## tree (Nov 24, 2003)

Today I heart Jackson on the radio, without hearing the comments I knew it was him. Jacksons art rest similar from the beginning. I have a little for Samantha Fox, but when I hear her singing she's more common and less able to recognice. Kylie Minogue is also easy to recognice.


----------



## tree (Nov 25, 2003)

message deleted


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Nov 25, 2003)

bobw said:
			
		

> This would all be okay if having a lot of money didn't have the ability to buy you out of trouble, but unfortunately, it does.



Good point. But I think Michael Jackson will be done anyway, if this will be true and he will have to get to jail. He might be able to buy himself out, but his life will be ruined. I think I would rather prefere to spend some time in jail than loosing everything and most important: ppls trust. No children might visit his range anymore, no records could be sold...
He will get punished hard, if things will turn out to be true. Don't worry


----------



## tree (Nov 25, 2003)

The victim and Michael Jackson better go for a settlement.


----------



## bookem (Nov 27, 2003)

Did anyone see the Michael Jackson Interview broadcast on Sky One in the UK last week?  I presume it's been shown in the US, as the presenter seemed to be American.  

Bashir is the one who should be locked up for twisting his own footage to show his own personal opinion, not the one Michael Jackson expressed in the interviews, which Bashir's production team appear to have cut.


----------



## toast (Nov 27, 2003)

Jackson is innocent until the contrary is proved.
I agree he's highly suspicious, his general behavior tends to show he does weird things with youngsters. Although this is just public opinion/rumor, justice is something else.


----------



## lilbandit (Nov 27, 2003)

Any man that openly admits to sleeping with children that are not his or related to him in any way should be investigated. I don't care how weird or different he is, you just don't share a bed with children like that.To be honest, how many parents do it on a regular basis? If it does happen it is normally because of a bad dream but this isn't the case with Jackson. Zammy-Sam, nobody has pictures of Jackson and I don't think that a comparison with a frightened (young) child sleeping beside a concerned parent stretches that far with Jackson, he sleeps with children up to age 12/13. Don't tell me that they are afraid of the dark!! If it was you or I making such admissions, your children would be taken into care. As for the courts deciding, with the legal team that Jackson has put together anything is possible.


----------



## Arden (Dec 1, 2003)

Michael Jackson's life was ruined ever since he released the Thriller album.  Sure, it was wildly successful, being the #1 selling album ever, but it completely ruined his adult life, and probably his very sanity.

If this were up to me, this would all be over very quickly, thanks to our ol' friend the 9 mm.  But that's my opinion.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 1, 2003)

I don't understand why everyone is connecting some sexual incidents when one is sleeping with someone else in the same bed. 
Michael is known to have a rough childhood. That probably makes him act so different. But sleeping with children in the same bed when they are 12/13, how lilbandit says, is no crime in my eyes. They are old enough to bridle against this, if they would feel sexually harassed. 
I believe he is trying to give them what he was missing. True, this ain't what the children need. But this doesn't make him a criminal.
And we all know how trendy it got to just incriminate famous ppl just to get into the huge spotlight as well..
So, I don't see any crime in sleeping with children in the same bed. And I am sure, Jackson won't get arrested just for this. Any by now, this is all we surely know..


----------



## toast (Dec 1, 2003)

Zammy-San > So, I don't see any crime in sleeping with children in the same bed.

As far as legal texts are concerned, this is not a crime, although it is not considered as sane. Suspicion is legitimate, but again, one of the very few things I consider sacred is presumption of innocence. Jackson is innocent until the contrary is demunstrated in court.


----------



## Arden (Dec 1, 2003)

So Sam, would you let me sleep in the same bed as your children?  What about George Bush?  Perhaps Yassir Arafat?  Or Julia Roberts?

The point is that you don't know any of these people personally, and, despite their sterling or tarnished reputation, you would not want a perfect stranger to sleep in the same bed as your children (should you have any); I know I wouldn't, especially Michael Jackson.

It's a matter of trust.  You don't know someone very well, or, you might know someone very well, but you wouldn't trust your children to spend the night in the same bed as that person and not be molested or worse.  There's no reason Jackson should drag anybody into his own personal quandary, even if he is trying to make up for something missing from his own life.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 1, 2003)

Arden said:
			
		

> So Sam, would you let me sleep in the same bed as your children?  What about George Bush?  Perhaps Yassir Arafat?  Or Julia Roberts?



I would even let you sleep in MY bed! Together with Julia Roberts! 
Ok, the thing about Jacko spending the night with the children in the same bed is not new. But still parents keep sending their children there and still noone sued him for THIS! That shows that ppl seem to trust him and the children seem not to talk bad about him. Yes, it is trust. The same trust when someone from a zoo comes to your childrens school and let them touch a snake or any other dangerous animal. If I don't trust, I should not allow my child to be there. So, obviously a lot of ppl out there do trust Jacko. And I don't think parents are taking it too easy. It is not really new he might be doing something weird with those children. But still... they do trust him. 




			
				Arden said:
			
		

> The point is that you don't know any of these people personally, and, despite their sterling or tarnished reputation, you would not want a perfect stranger to sleep in the same bed as your children (should you have any); I know I wouldn't, especially Michael Jackson.



I completely agree with you. Seeing the situation makes me believe that either the parents are stupid or he is not that perfect stranger to many ppl out there.



			
				Arden said:
			
		

> It's a matter of trust.



Exactly!
To be honest: I do trust him and I would send my son to him, cause I believe it is the most important thing for him to see a childs smile. I might be wrong and he might have fooled me really bad, but then I would be surprised it came out that late. The children are not locked there and the parents are not "dead" to not check how their children are going there.
Let's simply see what the court says and not judge too early on someone that doesn't fit to our typical pattern.


----------



## toast (Dec 1, 2003)

Exclusive: Michael Jackson and Julia Roberts: their secret son is Arden -- more coverage to come.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 1, 2003)

I don't see the logic in any of your arguments Zammy, what kind of person would allow their child into the bed of a stranger? The analogy with the zoo-keeper doesn't follow, that would only happen in a PUBLIC place under supervision with parental and school consent. That is a long way from the situation with Jackson. To my mind, the parents who send their children are negligent. None of the interviews or footage of Jackson with the children in Neverland contain shots of parents, they are probably absent and once again I ask would you allow your child to stay overnight with the rich guy down the road who owns his own funfair? If you are responsible for a child that means you don't expose them to risk. Spending the night with a relative stranger unsupervised is a risk in my mind.There are a million ways to put a smile on a child's face without resorting to sleeping with him/her.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 2, 2003)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> I don't see the logic in any of your arguments Zammy, what kind of person would allow their child into the bed of a stranger? The analogy with the zoo-keeper doesn't follow, that would only happen in a PUBLIC place under supervision with parental and school consent.


A person to whom the stranger is not that stranger as you understand. There are ppl out there loving him. I admit, I do like him too. And this is a basis you are missing to understand my arguments. I actually completely agree with you. Noone would allow their child to get into the bed of a stranger. Now replace stranger with "very much loved friend, eventhough they never personally met". The situation will look kinda different, huh?
The example with the zoo was taken to show how important trust must be eventhough there is risc. If you don't trust, you surely won't let this happen. If it does happen (children visiting Jacko and animals coming to schools as a presentation), this shows there must be trust. A lot of trust. Or just stupidity..



			
				lilbandit said:
			
		

> To my mind, the parents who send their children are negligent.


Are you negligent when you send your child to a new doc where he/she might have to undress infront of him for an examination? No! Why? Because you trust the doc, eventhough he/she is a stranger. So, why is it so hard to understand that the parents sending their children to him trust him too?



			
				lilbandit said:
			
		

> None of the interviews or footage of Jackson with the children in Neverland contain shots of parents


Wow, they must trust him a lot or Wow, they must be darn stupid. You believe in the second but don't consider first. I consider both.



			
				lilbandit said:
			
		

> I ask would you allow your child to stay overnight with the rich guy down the road who owns his own funfair?


Not to a guy like you described, but did you ever consider he might be more than just a rich guy down the road who owns his own funfair TO SOME PPL? 



> There are a million ways to put a smile on a child's face without resorting to sleeping with him/her.


He is not only sleeping with them. He is doing a lot more. And one thing beside all is also sleeping with them in one bed. Why is everyone so much focused on this? Because it is not normal? Noone is saying he is normal. But ppl say he is a sex offender. This is were I see a huge logical step which is not consistent.


----------



## bookem (Dec 2, 2003)

Spot on Zammy-Sam.  I just couldn't find the words as usual.  You should be representing him


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 2, 2003)

Hehe. Maybe he will read this and buy me a Dual G5..


----------



## bobw (Dec 2, 2003)

*Are you negligent when you send your child to a new doc where he/she might have to undress infront of him for an examination? No! Why? Because you trust the doc, eventhough he/she is a stranger. So, why is it so hard to understand that the parents sending their children to him trust him too?*

Anyone who thinks like this should not have any children or be allowed near a child.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 2, 2003)

Personally I wouldn't let my children near him, I don't think it is possible to trust someone that I have never met enough to let him sleep with my children. I would have a lot of respect certain people, I have always liked U2 but no matter how much I love their music and respect them, I could not honestly say that I could call them very much loved friends. I don't think it is possible. I have never (and probably never will) be friends with Bono. A brief encounter at a concert is not enough for me to trust him with a child alone in a bed. Calling him a friend would be a delusion.
   Again a doctor is someone that is in a position of power, the opportunity is there but don't forget that caring for the sick is a doctor's job. It's not a hobby. There is also an inherent historical trust between a doctor and a patient. Of course a parent is not negligent when sending a child to a new doctor, yet many parents accompany their child into the doctor's office anyway. It builds trust, the child is introduced to the doctor and from an early age learns the appropriate behaviour of a doctor. Parents often explain what is happening to ensure that the child understands. I can only speak personally, but I would not consider an unsupervised visit to Jackson's bedroom as an appropriate adult model of behaviour for a young child to become accustomed to.
    We obviously disagree at a fundamental level about the guy, yet you wouldn't let your children sleep with him either and I believe that speaks volumes more than anything I could ever write!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 2, 2003)

I see the basic problem lies in trust. If I trust someone (no matter out of what reason), I am willing to allow riscy things. Lot of ppl don't trust Jacko at all. It is more than logical they would rather die than allowing their child to be close to him not even mentioning sleeping in the same bed. But if I trust him and believe he would rather die than allowing my child to feel unpleasantly or unhappy, I would have no bad feelings in letting him go to Jacko and even sleep in the same bed with him.
Now, the discussion would actually concentrate on: Why trusting Jacko?

And Bob, I feel slightly offended by your post. Would be nice if you describe what made you write down this rough generalization, which is (IMO) noxious for the social living.


----------



## bobw (Dec 2, 2003)

Gotta stand by what I said. If you're offended, then you shouldn't be entrusted to care for any children.

Doesn't have anything to do with trust. If you have kids, you would know their well being is paramount to anything else you do. Letting an adult sleep with them is something no good parent would ever let happen.

If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you *trust* him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 2, 2003)

bobw said:
			
		

> If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you *trust* him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.



Does this mean (hypothetically) that letting my young son sleep in the same bed with a close family friend is bad or wrong?

We don't know the relationships that these people had with Jacko.  We're assuming that the children are the only ones who knew Jacko personally and the parents just dropped them off, kind of like summer camp.  Hell, we don't even know the relationship the kids had with Jacko prior to the accusations.

Cory Feldman knew Jacko personally for many years growing up, and spent many nights at Neverland Ranch.  Nothing ever happened.  There are plenty of people that spent the night at Neverland Ranch and had nothing but great memories to bring back with them.

Also, I heard on the news the other day that the accuser's father was trying to regain custody of the child because of the behavior of the mother prior to the Jacko inciden -- she was known to have done things similar to this in the past to try and extort money and is even accused of being a little nutty.  Now, this could all be a load of crap, but hey -- you gotta take it into consideration.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 2, 2003)

bobw said:
			
		

> Gotta stand by what I said. If you're offended, then you shouldn't be entrusted to care for any children.
> 
> Doesn't have anything to do with trust. If you have kids, you would know their well being is paramount to anything else you do. Letting an adult sleep with them is something no good parent would ever let happen.
> 
> If you were willing to let your young kids sleep with an adult because you *trust* him, maybe you should be in jail along with him. On second thought, no MAYBE, you definitely should be in jail.



Bob, did you watch "Finding Nemo"? 
Give it a try, you will learn a lot! 
No seriously, you are disappointing me. A man in your age with such a tunnel view is very surprising to me. 
There are billions of ppl out there paying for nannies. Only the lucky ones can say, they *trust* their nannies. Guess if you were the law, billion of ppl would be arrested.
This is not realistical, Bob. 
I am not trying to pay you back with this post. But your point of view is far away from realism. 
Once I read an article about some ppl who grew up "with movies". Movies always make it very obvious whether one is bad guy or one is good guy. Such ppl tend to confuse movie and life. They tend to judge too quickly on bad and good guys in real life. If I were you, I would call you to be such a person, but I don't since I don't know you good enough to judge on this. As less as you know Michael. So, why do you judge on him? Why do you judge on me?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 2, 2003)

This is true, and something that I've been wanting to say for quite a while... no one knows here for sure what Jacko did or didn't do.  But the general consensus seems to be, "lock the bastard up!"  This just isn't rational or sane thinking.  Sure, we suspect him of something -- but suspecting something isn't enough to go on.  I would feel better if the general consensus was, "Lock him up IF he did it!" but not even that comes through here.

We know next to nothing about what happened, yet we sit here and condemn the man before he even has a trial.  We're condemning him on his lifestyle... his weirdness... his popularity... all these things EXCEPT for the facts of what happened. 

What if your clean-cut, nice neighbor was accused of this?  Would you be so quick to suggest jailtime without knowing what even went on?  I think the people here are using Jacko's fame to condemn him, and that's just wrong.  You may say, "Hey, money buys freedom and fame influences juries," but you know that thinking that way is wrong, that justice shouldn't be that way, yet you propagate and nurture that line of thinking by accepting it as the norm.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 2, 2003)

I don't recall ever saying that the guy should be locked up without proof...the general thrust of my argument is that children don't need to be in Jackson's bed at all. Why should they be? It doesn't benefit them and as I already stated, there are a million ways to make a child happy other than going to Jacksons house!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 2, 2003)

No, I don't recall you doing that but another poster did suggest that Jacko, in general, should be "put in the general popultion of a prison for a while."  And while its true that children do not NEED to be in Jacko's bed, there are a lot of things that children do not need that still happens every day without question.  Children do not need PlayStation 2.  Children do not need candy bards and soda.  Children do not need designer clothes.  Would you deny your child a trip to Disney World because there are other ways to make him just as happy?  It's DISNEY WORLD, for crying out loud!  It's MICHAEL JACKSON, for crying out loud!  For some things there are no substitute, and I'm not saying that the child couldn't be just as happy doing something else.  It's like if the Rolling Stones (or, insert favorite band here) came to perform a concert in your hometown... would you pass on tickets because there are other things that could make you just as happy as seeing the Stones?

And sure, children do not need to sleep in beds other than their own, but they do it -- it's called sleepovers.  Now, whether or not they should be having sleepovers with a man in his forties is another question -- but its not out of the question.  Age is only a number, and I think that's proven by Jacko and his childish ways.  Ever seen an interview with him?  He's quite clearly a child in his own mind.  That doesn't justify him having sleepovers with children who are of a child's age, but it doesn't make it wrong or illegal -- just questionable, and questioning someone's behavior does not automatically incriminate him.

These parents knew that the children would obviously be sleeping in close proximity to Jacko -- they knew it 10 years ago when someone else charged him, and I'll be damned if these parents didn't know about THAT incident when they were making the decision of whether or not to let their children go over to Neverland Ranch.  Charging someone with something doesn't mean they did it, nor should it carry a negative connotation with it until guilt or innocence  I was charged with something I didn't do years ago and was proven innocent by a jury -- should people call me a lawbreaker or a bad person because I was simply charged with something?  I should hope not.


----------



## bookem (Dec 3, 2003)

Anyone who thinks like this should not have any children or be allowed near a child.[/QUOTE]

Well, there have been cases of doctors, teachers and priests abusing children more frequently than we've actually heard about Jackson abusing children, so by your own definition if you are willing to trust one of these people, you should not be allowed near a child.  Same logic.

The big question is does actually sleeping in the same bed as a child or children constitute being a sex offender?  I believe it doesn't.

People are so opinionated and convinced that their opinion is right.  Whether you would let your children sleep in a 40 year old strangers bed isn't the question.  It may be morraly wrong, and I can't say I'd allow it myself unless I knew the bloke.  That's not the point though, and he shouldn't be condemned with personal opinions on what is right or wrong.  If he only slept in the same bed as children that's fine.  If he actually abused the children, and somehow this is proved, lock him up forever and throw away the key.


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 3, 2003)

I'm leaving it at that everone, said all I have to say and remain unconvinced. The arguments in defense of this guy's behaviour are getting too bizarre,putting everday events such as children eating sweets and playing a playstation game in the same context as spending the night in Jackson's bed is something I have difficulty with. Comparing the attractions of Disney World to Jackson's ranch doesn't make sense either. Jackson was a musician at one stage, what is he now? Disneyworld is a publicly accessible place and I'm fairly sure the owners don't invite children into their beds. I'm not hysterical, far from it, but people have been making all kinds of excuses for him. I really have difficulty getting past the admission that he has these sleepovers. I'm open minded up to a point but that behavior crosses my own (and the majority  of people's) moral line. That is not being opinionated. Somebody mentioned that they also felt Jackson's behaviour is morally wrong. The law does not provide the same guidance as your own morality. Laws are based on collective morality and do not cover every aspect of life. It is entirely possible to treat someone badly/cheat them/mislead them without falling foul of the law. Living life according to the strict letter of the law wouldn't work. Society would collapse. That's why I would see Jackson's behaviour as morally wrong and also a warning sign. Like it or not he does exemplify many of the traits of a paedophile. I don't know if he is or not but I know the behaviour is worrying. I question the motives of the parents and Jackson as I don't believe the children benefit at all. If Jackson is trying to bring some happiness into the lives of these children why not pay for them and their families to go to Disneyworld? Also as far as I know he was never found innocent of any charges because he settled out of court. Thanks for a good discussion everyone.


----------



## Arden (Dec 3, 2003)

I can't believe any of you actually think it is morally okay for Jacko to sleep in the same bed as a child, even one of 13.  It would be fine if they played games, went on a trip, or whatever, but sleeping in the same bed has too much potential for sexual abuse.  I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean?  Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex.  Do you want Jacko having sex with children?  Then why should he be allowed to sleep with children?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 4, 2003)

Arden said:
			
		

> I can't believe any of you actually think it is morally okay for Jacko to sleep in the same bed as a child, even one of 13.  It would be fine if they played games, went on a trip, or whatever, but sleeping in the same bed has too much potential for sexual abuse.  I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean?  Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex.  Do you want Jacko having sex with children?  Then why should he be allowed to sleep with children?



That's the problem why you can't believe some of us think it is morally ok. Sleeping in the same bed as a child can mean sexual abuse BUT also some kind of heavy welfare. Just generally spoken. Now ppl start with this:
ok, parents or very close friends/relatives sleeping in a childs bed = welfare
strangers sleeping in a childs bed = sexual abuse
I agree to this! But now, where does Jacko belong to? For the most probably to the stranger. And for the rest to very close friends. 
And this is the current problem. There is no need to discuss about the thing: he is sleeping with the children. I believe Mother Teresa was sleeping with many children in the same bed. And what do ppl think of her? She is a wonderful person full off welfare. She is a stranger to all those children, but still many many ppl trust her. And now keep the trust and exchange Mother Teresa with Jacko and you might have more understanding for those ppl. 
I am not comparing Michael to Mother Teresa! God forbid! Just trying to reduce the problem to its core! And this is *trust*.
So, it is really not about the sleeping in the same bed. It is more: how can ppl think of Jacko as a very very close friend and "present" their children to him? How can they trust this man/stranger?


----------



## Arden (Dec 4, 2003)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> How can they trust this man/stranger?


I have no idea... they must be stupid.


> I am not comparing Michael to Mother Teresa! God forbid!


Good, because then I'd have to hack your ass.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 4, 2003)

Arden said:
			
		

> I have no idea... they must be stupid.



I don't know how some ppl trust Bush. But I don't dare to call them stupid. 

I hope no one will comment my line like this: But no one lets his/her children sleep in the same bed like Bush. We are away from this sleeping_in_the_same_bed thing and hopefully understood the question is about trusting a stranger.


----------



## Arden (Dec 4, 2003)

Well sure, I'd trust a perfect stranger for some things, but not for others.  There are many fine lines, and crossing the sleeping-with-children one is going too far.

And I don't know how people trust Bush either.  And I wouldn't hesitate to call them stupid, confused, self-centered, or big-businessmen.


----------



## toast (Dec 4, 2003)

As lilbandit tries to bring the conversation to an end, I'll try to do the same, as far as my own opinion is concerned.

I do follow BobW and others when they say that having an adult sleeping with a child - read: next to a child - is a highly suspicious thing. I also back up the people who think that, when it comes to a pop star or a public personality, the image given to public opinion is even worse.

However, I would like to warn everyone about a fact: nothing is yet proved. Michael Jackson has not admitted anything, nor has the court proved a sexual relation supervened. I therefore recommend respect of an essential component of justice, presumption of innocence.

Why do I clutch so hard to it ? Because I emphatically imagine I could, one day, be the target of such accusations. Me or anyone, any individual. The court may prove there has been sexual intercourse, in which case the public opinion trial was right. HOWEVER, and I emphasize my sayings here, if the accusations are proved wrong, if it were all but truth, if this affair is just one more rumour, then an individual will see his name stained by a public Salem pedohunt, which is properly inacceptable.

On such grounds, some laws forbid the press (in UK, but also in France) to publish information on trials that are not yet ended. I would like to see this principle that I call "carefullness towards information", or more simply "beware of rumors even if you consider them as higly probable", definitely applied.

That said, back to Arthur Miller and John Rawls


----------



## tree (Dec 17, 2003)

If you like it, time is expiring.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 18, 2003)

Tree, I got a dog now!


----------



## tree (Jan 3, 2004)

He says that he is malthreatend in prison.


----------



## melmac (Jan 4, 2004)

Arden said:
			
		

> I mean, when someone says two people slept together, what does that mean?  Usually it means they did more than just sleep next to each other; usually it means they had sex.



Not if you wake up to the smell of feet fully clothed.


----------



## Arden (Jan 5, 2004)

melmac said:
			
		

> Not if you wake up to the smell of feet fully clothed.


 Um, what?


----------

