Before any Beatles fans bite: - Yes you're right. I am a music snob. Feel free to treat my opinions with distain. It's enough for me to know that I'm right without having to convince anyone else.
It's ok. I think they're shit.
Before any Beatles fans bite: - Yes you're right. I am a music snob. Feel free to treat my opinions with distain. It's enough for me to know that I'm right without having to convince anyone else.
I'm sure most are ashamed of not realising what happened.
No, they weren't being paid off, they were being naive, and their kids were telling them nothing was happening.
I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it but I thought the point was that they weren't all paid off. Some of the kids denied anything wrong was happening at the time?Yeah ‘cos people give you a shitload of money for no reason. No grown up is that naive surely.
Yeah ‘cos people give you a shitload of money for no reason. No grown up is that naive surely.
Exactly what money are you saying they were given? Jacko's place was a party paradise for kids, and he was generous (which was insignificant in relation to his wealth). It was the best time of the kids' lives and they were with their families too. The kids were groomed and didn't feel that they were being abused, and didn't want their parents to know.Yeah ‘cos people give you a shitload of money for no reason. No grown up is that naive surely.
I will certainly be watching. Like many, I have never believed that Jackson was innocent, and have found it disturbing that his reputation has been in no way tarnished whilst others have been outed for their despicable behaviour.
This should change that.
Exactly what money are you saying they were given? Jacko's place was a party paradise for kids, and he was generous (which was insignificant in relation to his wealth). It was the best time of the kids' lives and they were with their families too. The kids were groomed and didn't feel that they were being abused, and didn't want their parents to know.
But that's completely different to what you were saying.I haven’t seen the programme but I was thinking of this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson
Yeah ‘cos people give you a shitload of money for no reason. No grown up is that naive surely.
Seriously?
He paid one of the abused children $23m to keep quiet.
But that's completely different to what you were saying.
You said that the parents were taking money, which was more important than their kids' well-being.
I said
"I'm sure most are ashamed of not realising what happened.
No, they weren't being paid off, they were being naive, and their kids were telling them nothing was happening."
and you replied
"Yeah ‘cos people give you a shitload of money for no reason. No grown up is that naive surely."
but the case you've linked to is when the family were being paid off after the abuse. The abuse had already happened, they weren't allowing it to happen in order to get money.
Hmm we’ll have to agree to differ on this as I do not believe that any normal parent wouldn’t have spotted what was likely to be going down, regardless of what the children said. In the case I linked it appears they let it happen, even encourged it, and then demanded hush money. Far too easy to say they were naive and then they end up pocketing 23 million. So clever enough to get a lawyer on the case but not bright enough to see that their child was very likely being abused, with their encouragement..
Call me a cynic but I just don’t beleive it.
That's one thing, but that's not what you were saying. You were saying the parents turned a blind eye because of the money they were getting, and they put that money ahead of their children's well-being. That's not the case, they weren't getting loads of money.Hmm we’ll have to agree to differ on this as I do not believe that any normal parent wouldn’t have spotted what was likely to be going down, regardless of what the children said.
I don't see any evidence that they let it happen. The boy's parents weren't together and the father didn't want his son spending so much time with Jackson.In the case I linked it appears they let it happen, even encourged it, and then demanded hush money.
Once they thought he was abusing their child, of course they'd get a lawyer. That doesn't require them to be bright. And obviously at some point the father did think his son was being abused, and then he acted. It's not surprising they didn't realise at the start.Far too easy to say they were naive and then they end up pocketing 23 million. So clever enough to get a lawyer on the case but not bright enough to see that their child was very likely being abused, with their encouragement..
Undoubtedly something untoward going on which money solved in life. I figured this would be brought up again in death.
Whichever way it goes, his music should not be suppressed. Censoring art is a worrying premise indeed.
That's one thing, but that's not what you were saying. You were saying the parents turned a blind eye because of the money they were getting, and they put that money ahead of their children's well-being. That's not the case, they weren't getting loads of money.
I don't see any evidence that they let it happen. The boy's parents weren't together and the father didn't want his son spending so much time with Jackson.
Once they thought he was abusing their child, of course they'd get a lawyer. That doesn't require them to be bright. And obviously at some point the father did think his son was being abused, and then he acted. It's not surprising they didn't realise at the start.
Isn't this natural? You don't hear Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris on the radio any more.
Frankly that says quite a lot about the dentist...........................On the Chanel 5 program last night I think it was the father of one of the kids called Jordan, who pulled out of the original case; after questioning the child about something happening and the child denying, his dad took him to the dentists to put him under anaesthetic and coerced a story out of him under the influence. In this instance I think it says more about the father than Jackson.
I can’t be the only one that thinks his music is meh?