Leaving Neverland and the New Zealand media reaction

Forums › Off topic › Leaving Neverland and the New Zealand media reaction

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2195909 11-Mar-2019 15:12

Scott3:

Copy paste for people who don't like to click through to twitter.

NZ Media "we will no longer play the music of Michael Jackson due to the abhorrent crimes he committed against his alleged victims. Next up Tony Veitch with the sport."

"Coming up after the break, back to back hits, featuring R. Kelly and Chris Brown!"

The decisions by radio stations to not play a certain artists music due to accusations made in a documentary film seem inconstant at best given the the airtime that they give to other people who have done very bad things (and in many cases been convicted for them).

How can you commit crimes against alleged victims?

Alleged crimes, surely?

RunningMan

9193 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4845

#2195924 11-Mar-2019 15:15

Item:

I'm reasonably confident that Michael Jackson never landed on the moon.

Huh? He did the moon walk...

gehenna

8668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2195933 11-Mar-2019 15:22

Batman:

La Toya Jackson, MJ's sister confirms these allegations way back in 1993, so yes he's most probably a paedophile.

Unless he molested her, which she hasn't claimed, she's being just as speculative as everyone else and going with the "no smoke without fire" argument.

sen8or

1898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403

#2195938 11-Mar-2019 15:29

Refuse to watch the doco, will continue to listen to his music on spotify.

He might be guilty, he might not. Court found him not guilty years ago, he has no opportunity now to rebuke the claims. Seems money grabbing opportunism to me

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2195985 11-Mar-2019 16:25

Ge0rge:

As opposed to a one-sided documentary that provided no opposing views? Regardless of the name of the website, giving some thought to the content is more useful than your comment.

A one sided documentary by an award winning documentarian who has publicly stated that if he had even the slightest suspicion that any of the accusations were not true, if he detected even a single inconsistency, he would have scrapped the whole project. This documentary may well bring in money for him, but he also has a much bigger asset to protect - his reputation.

The responses from the Jackson estate have been damning in the extreme - from immediate lawsuits to ad-hominem attacks trying to destroy the credibility of the accusers. Even the Jackson Foundation has inadvertently near admitted that the allegations were true, by claiming that Wade Robson committed perjury on the witness stand when he said Michael did nothing wrong.

I think people calling this opportunism to make cash are just throwing up smokescreens in refusal to accept that maybe Michael Jackson was a terrible person. But terrible people sometimes do great things, and we don't let the image of the responsible person tarnish the achievement or the others involved in bringing it to life - Volkswagen was founded by a terrible person who shall remain nameless as an example, but tens of thousands of people ultimately made it what it is.

On the topic of this thread though - even Dan Reed (the documentary director) has said he thinks the documentary and revelations in it should not stop people listening to the music. Individuals may choose to, as is their prerogative. But destroying history because we don't like the historian is a bad slope to slip down.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2195989 11-Mar-2019 16:31

sen8or:

Refuse to watch the doco, will continue to listen to his music on spotify.

He might be guilty, he might not. Court found him not guilty years ago, he has no opportunity now to rebuke the claims. Seems money grabbing opportunism to me

I'm a bit over the he "might" be guilty comments. He had extremely inappropriate relationships with many very young boys. At least he's in the right place now.

From Vanity Fair:

1. There is no dispute that, at age 34, Michael Jackson slept more than 30 nights in a row in the same bed with 13-year-old Jordie Chandler at the boy’s house with Chandler’s mother present. He also slept in the same bed with Jordie Chandler at Chandler’s father’s house. The parents were divorced.

2. So far, five boys Michael Jackson shared beds with have accused him of abuse: Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and Jimmy Safechuck. Jackson had the same nickname for Chandler and Arvizo: “Rubba.” He called Robson “Little One” and Safechuck “Applehead.”

3. Jackson paid $25 million to settle the Chandlers’ lawsuit, with $18 million going to Jordie, $2.5 million to each of the parents, and the rest to lawyers. Jackson said he paid that sum to avoid something “long and drawn out.” Francia also received $2.4 million from Jackson.

4. Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.

5. The hallway leading to Jackson’s bedroom was a serious security zone covered by video and wired for sound so that the steps of anyone approaching would make ding-dong sounds.

6. Jackson had an extensive collection of adult erotic material he kept in a suitcase next to his bed, including S&M bondage photos and a study of naked boys. Forensic experts with experience in the Secret Service found the fingerprints of boys alongside Jackson’s on the same pages. Jackson also had bondage sculptures of women with ball gags in their mouths on his desk, in full view of the boys who slept there.

7. According to the Neverland staff interviewed by the Santa Barbara authorities, no one ever saw or knew of a woman spending the night with Michael Jackson, including his two spouses, Debbie Rowe or Lisa Marie Presley. Rowe, the mother of two of Jackson’s children, made it clear to the Santa Barbara authorities that she never had sex with Jackson.

8. The parents of boys Jackson shared beds with were courted assiduously and given myriad expensive gifts. Wade Robson’s mother testified in the 2005 trial that she funneled wages through Jackson’s company and was given a permanent resident visa. Jimmy Safechuck’s parents got a house. Jordie Chandler’s mother got a diamond bracelet.

9. Two of the fathers of those who have accused Jackson, Jordie Chandler and Wade Robson, committed suicide. Both were estranged from their sons at the time.

10. In a 2002 documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson told Martin Bashir there was nothing wrong with sharing his bed with boys.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2196017 11-Mar-2019 17:57

Batman:

JaseNZ:

Fact or fiction do you have a view on this and what is going on at the moment with the radio stations etc banning his music.

La Toya Jackson, MJ's sister confirms these allegations way back in 1993, so yes he's most probably a paedophile.

She denied it later. Choose the version you want to believe.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2196018 11-Mar-2019 17:59

Item:

xpd:

Was Jacko guilty of whats been claimed ? Really, we'll never know so I don't have an opinion on that part of it. Same with the moon landing.

I'm reasonably confident that Michael Jackson never landed on the moon.

He walked there, though.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2196040 11-Mar-2019 18:13

I have stated my opinions about this on other threads and don't really feel inclined to repeat it all again. But don't we all feel oh so morally superior while condemning someone like Jackson?

Banning his music or anyone else's is the height of hysterical hypocritical self-righteous pc BS. What a load of crap.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2196062 11-Mar-2019 19:06

Rikkitic:

But don't we all feel oh so morally superior while condemning someone like Jackson?

I do. I'm very glad he's dead for the sake of victims he could have had, only sorry he's not still alive because having to face up in public to what he did might have given his victims some closure.

At this point in time, due to recent circumstances WRT other celebrities finding themselves very deep in the crapper for doing things arguably far less than Jackson's alleged long-term paedophilia, grooming, abuse of power to enable himself to sexually violate young boys, and then using massive sums of money to corrupt the judicial process. Perhaps consider how, given the overwhelming evidence against him, if he'd have gotten away with it now? I very much doubt it - times have changed in some ways for the better. The Jackson family cover-up makes the Vatican look like amateurs.

See I also don't like his music, never have, never will. That's a subjective thing - I won't criticise anybody who did or still does. Go for it - I don't care.

There's also not a "ban" as you are stating. If government legislates to rip MJ CDs from stores (does such a thing still exist?) or block access to MJ content on the 'net then I'll grab a picket and protest. MJ's music isn't "dangerous", but he almost certainly was.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2196068 11-Mar-2019 19:20

Rikkitic:

Item:

xpd:

Was Jacko guilty of whats been claimed ? Really, we'll never know so I don't have an opinion on that part of it. Same with the moon landing.

I'm reasonably confident that Michael Jackson never landed on the moon.

He walked there, though.

Only after many had already been there to show him what to do.

Some fans and most of the media thought he'd "invented" it - ROFL.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2196075 11-Mar-2019 19:37

Fred99:

There's also not a "ban" as you are stating. If government legislates to rip MJ CDs from stores (does such a thing still exist?) or block access to MJ content on the 'net then I'll grab a picket and protest. MJ's music isn't "dangerous", but he almost certainly was.

The 'ban' is by all the self-appointed guardians of public morality taking it upon themselves to decide what others should be allowed to listen to.

Jackson will get what is coming to him in the afterlife, if he ever makes it past all the priests.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2196076 11-Mar-2019 19:40

Rikkitic:

I have stated my opinions about this on other threads and don't really feel inclined to repeat it all again. But don't we all feel oh so morally superior while condemning someone like Jackson?

Banning his music or anyone else's is the height of hysterical hypocritical self-righteous pc BS. What a load of crap.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to observe that people are quite happy to condemn Donald Trump, antivaxxers, climate change deniers, religion faithfuls, but not happy when other people condemn MJ. When is one allowed to pass judgement on social media and when should one not judge on social media?

gzt

18710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7841

Lifetime subscriber

#2196099 11-Mar-2019 20:58

Rikkitic: Banning his music or anyone else's is the height of hysterical hypocritical self-righteous pc BS. What a load of crap.

Jackson's music has not been banned. Some radio stations have made a commercial decision not to play it in the belief that playing it will harm their commercial interests. Calling that decision a ban seems overheated.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Trusted

#2196102 11-Mar-2019 21:05

I think it's interesting how so many people jump on the defensive, instead of objectively considering the information presented in the new documentary. There appear to be many personal attacks being made against the subjects of the documentary in an attempt to discredit them.

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4