Michael Jackson New Record

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

:p
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top