PDA

View Full Version : Wacko did not do nuffing against person 80



MisterGoof
13th June 2005, 21:36
Hmmm,

I think a civil action to follow. Remember OJ

AtW
13th June 2005, 22:28
Expected verdict -- the prosecution's case was so weak its not even funny. In OJs there were dead bodies, in this case everyone is alive and no signs of rape whatsoever.

Now I expect a few lawsuits from him over baseless accusations, the trial apparently cost him at least 10 mil bucks -- this ought to be paid back to him.

DimPrawn
13th June 2005, 22:38
Difference is OJ is black.

dazza12
13th June 2005, 22:46
I think he'll at least wipe the smile off of the DA's face by suing the state or DA's office.

Isn't he the same guy that's been trying to stitch Jacko up all along? He was the one behind the Jordy Chandler case wasn't he?

AtW
13th June 2005, 22:48
> Isn't he the same guy that's been trying to stitch Jacko up all along?

Yeah -- I am sure he is going to lose his job now, even though in the USA these posts are electable by local people. Jacko is clearly a Whacko, but that's not illegal. He is also broken financially, but from the case it always seemed to me that he was anything but molestor.

xoggoth
13th June 2005, 23:49
Isnt it funny how lots of people like us who would never have had any time for Jackson or his music have suddenly started liking him since all these accusations started?

Maybe it's a backlash against all the stupid hysteria there is about child abuse. For centuries it was not even illegal, then for decades nobody believed it happened, and now we see it round every corner and parents aren't even allowed to film their kid's sports days, lest somebody might wack off over a fuzzy picture of little Johny in his white sports shorts. Ain't human nature idiotic?

SupremeSpod
14th June 2005, 08:24
Just because the Jury found him "Not Guilty" it doesn't mean he didn't do it!

Spod.

EddieC
14th June 2005, 08:46
Well I'd be guilty of some of the charges he faced. The ones about supplying an intoxicating liquid to a minor.

All my kids have tried wine and beer before they were 5. Only tiny sips mind you, I wouldn't want to waste good alcohol on them.

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 09:05
centuries it was not even illegal, then for decades nobody believed it happened, and now we see it round every corner and parents aren't even allowed to film their kid's sports days

Excellent point. Chris Morris highlighted the insane hysteria brilliantly in his Brass Eye special a few years back. However, there is a difference between the loony left on a misguided crusade and what Jackson did. I'm not talking about the allegations. Only two people in the world know for sure whether Jackson abused the boy, but we do know that Jackson has an obsession with sleeping with boys. Whether it's entirely platonic or not, that's weird and completely inappropriate. Jackson's behaviour courted trouble.

The fact that Jackson was found not guilty doesn't prove anything. America is very reluctant to send its celebrities to jail, unless they have a certain reputation (Martha Stewart is the exception).

Personally I don't have any sympathy for Jackson. He is a grown man (a father of two), who has allegedly squandered a vast fortune, consistently acted inappropriately with children to the detriment of his career, finances and reputation, despite countless warnings and 'close escapes'. If, at the age of 46, he wants to act like a little boy, that's his right and it's his life, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. There are far more deserving cases in the world.

OwlHoot
14th June 2005, 09:21
> Maybe it's a backlash against all the stupid hysteria there is about child abuse. For centuries it was not even illegal

Well "Carnal knowledge of an infant under the age of seven" was a capital offence in England until the 1840s.

You're pretty much right though, because I think that law was only introduced in the 18th century (when the idea got about that raping infants would cure syphilis).

dundeegeorge
14th June 2005, 09:28
Yeah and now it's a cure for Aids - ******** africans - Live 8 indeed, flamethrowers would cure a lot of Africa's ills, although nukes might be quicker.

Geldof - "luuk, jost give us de ******* nukes and we'll do da rest, youse guvermints hav de nukes, youse don't need em just donate dem to us and we'll eradicate poverty and disease in africa"

tim123
14th June 2005, 09:54
Jacko is not broke. He is cash poor. He has a half a billion dollar asset (the rights to an extensive back catalog) that for some reason he is emotionally attached to and does not wish to sell.

tim

NumptyCorner
14th June 2005, 10:30
-Excellent point. Chris Morris highlighted the insane hysteria brilliantly in his Brass Eye special a few years back. However, there is a difference between the loony left on a misguided crusade and what Jackson did

I thought it was the right wing press that had people up in arms witch hunting paediatricians

WageSlave1
14th June 2005, 12:38
I thought it was the right wing press that had people up in arms witch hunting paediatricians

NC, you're right. I stand corrected. It gives credence to my previous rants about the tabloid press and the state of the nation.

AtW
14th June 2005, 14:28
> Jacko is not broke. He is cash poor.

His debts are very high -- he will have to sell things he "attached to", it would have certainly broke my heart to sell things that I have high attach value to.

NumptyCorner
14th June 2005, 14:41
Which way for him now?

Vegas cabaret act/freak-show

Reality TV show

Disappear from the limelight

ZATHRAS999
14th June 2005, 14:48
Vegas cabaret act/freak-show

Well my significant other when first spotting Wacko Jacko said 'Ah! Dracula!'

So in our house that is exactly what he is known as.

tim123
14th June 2005, 16:02
I don't agree with this "he has squandered" his money line.

When he was earning he invested wisely, he invested 50 million on the rights to a portfolio of songs now reputed to be worth 500 million.

The problem is that he is no longer earning the sums that he used to and in order to continue living the lifestyle that his fans expect him to live (I would guess that he likes to do this as well) it's time to cash in the investment, but the guy is wacko.....

1) an investment, no matter how good, is worth nothing if you insist on keeping it on the mantelpiece to look at.

2) Just how can you become emotionally attached to owing the rights to a song that somebody else wrote and performed FFS?

tim

WageSlave1
15th June 2005, 08:40
When he was earning he invested wisely, he invested 50 million on the rights to a portfolio of songs now reputed to be worth 500 million

My understanding, which could easily be wrong, is that Jackson has borrowed heavily against the catalogue. Not a wise financial move.

As for feeling sorry for him, I refuse to feel sympathy for a man with such obvious delusions of self-importance. Yesterday his website claimed the jury's verdict ranked alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall and Mandela's release, and Jacko compared himself to Martin Luther King. This from a man who has previously sailed a giant statue of himself along the Thames and portrayed himself as a Christ figure, able to heal the sick. Sympathy…why!?