Why?

[Bagpuss]

Is it still acceptable to promote/play/advertise/openly admit to liking/admiring the music of Michael Jackson

Yet not the music of Gary Glitter?

Both well know pedophiles, one acceptable (the one who abuses young boys). The other not.

Discuss or not etc.

[sasguru]

C'mon c'mon, you'll never be leader of the gang asking questions like that.

[AtW]

I don't think Jackson is one - first the court case did not prove his guilt, and actually what was proven that his main accusers happen to be liars, but more importantly if you look at him you will see that he is a complete nutter, probably not with brains of an adult, so really I am inclined to believe that he is just mentally ill and wants to stay in childhood: he is not using taxpayer money for it and for his time he was pretty good, so I think it not right to compare him to Garry Glitter.

[Bagpuss]

I don't think Jackson is one - first the court case did not prove his guilt, and actually what was proven that his main accusers happen to be liars, but more importantly if you look at him you will see that he is a complete nutter, probably not with brains of an adult, so really I am inclined to believe that he is just mentally ill and wants to stay in childhood: he is not using taxpayer money for it and for his time he was pretty good, so I think it not right to compare him to Garry Glitter.

According to the police force which arrested him in the early 90s it is fact that his semen was on chidrens toys and that he masterbated in front of children staying at his house. He also had hardcore porn in these hidden 'childrens play rooms'. He wasn't convicted because the children were paid off and would not testify, but there was evidence as above of his tendencies. I don't see that as normal behaviour. Jordan was also known as his wife.

[Ruprect]

Because Glitter's music was RUBBISH.

[Bagpuss]

Because Glitter's music was RUBBISH.

No worse than the tripe that M Jackson came out with

[AtW]

According to the police force which arrested him in the early 90s it is fact that his semen was on chidrens toys and that he masterbated in front of children staying at his house.

Was this proven in court? No? Then these are just words which I'd say likely to have been made up in order to get publicity.

Abuse of children by Jackson was not proven in court - it was proven that the case was based on a lie by the main witness clealy motivated by money.

I am not Jackson protector and I don't like him, however you can't just put people in jail for long time on such a crime just because you don't like him.

[Bagpuss]

Was this proven in court? No? Then these are just words which I'd say likely to have been made up in order to get publicity.

Abuse of children by Jackson was not proven in court - it was proven that the case was based on a lie by the main witness clealy motivated by money.

I am not Jackson protector and I don't like him, however you can't just put people in jail for long time on such a crime just because you don't like him.

Evidence removed by the police from the house including hardcore porn in hidden children's play rooms, his semen found on children's toys. Not something you would expect to find? Remember these were pre pubescent children.

You are right he was found innocent. Innocent in the same way OJ Simpson was.

[AtW]

You are right he was found innocent. Innocent in the same way OJ Simpson was.

That's bulltulip.

In OJ Simpsons case it was clear that there were victims - dead people and he got off on technicality or jury made error, whatever it happens.

In Jackson's case the actual fact of abuse was not proven - what was proven is that the guy who claims to be abused and his mother were caught lieing in court and it became known they did something like this before for money. What jury in the world convict someone after primary witness was caught lieing like this? No chance.

I don't think Jackson abused children, perhaps he would have after a while, so it is certainly wise to ensure children are far away from that whacko, but matter of fact is that no abuse was ever proven so he is innocent. Looking at him I doubt he is capable of abuse actually - as I said I don't like him at all, he is a complete whacko and children should be kept far away from him, however he is not an abuser in my view and it certainly was not proven in court either.

[Bagpuss]

That's bulltulip.

In OJ Simpsons case it was clear that there were victims - dead people and he got off on technicality or jury made error, whatever it happens.

In Jackson's case the actual fact of abuse was not proven - what was proven is that the guy who claims to be abused and his mother were caught lieing in court and it became known they did something like this before for money. What jury in the world convict someone after primary witness was caught lieing like this? No chance.

I don't think Jackson abused children, perhaps he would have after a while, so it is certainly wise to ensure children are far away from that whacko, but matter of fact is that no abuse was ever proven so he is innocent. Looking at him I doubt he is capable of abuse actually - as I said I don't like him at all, he is a complete whacko and children should be kept far away from him, however he is not an abuser in my view and it certainly was not proven in court either.

In his summing up the judge had "grave and serious concerns" about Jacksons behaviour. You don't say that if someone is completely vindicated. The parents were on the make, as any would be who let there child into the care of a known or at least suspected paedophile. Jordan's parents were on the make. Strong circumstancial evidence exists, but without testiment their is no case. Money talks.