Tom 14013 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21985 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" Give it a few days, I suspect 'the truth' will flood out now as iirc the deceased do not have the same rights in libel laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Of course he was revolutionary that is without doubt and at a time there was a lot of things holding black music back. As I said earlier an artist can only hope to release 2/3 great works in their time and Thriller and Bad were that. IMO two of the greatest pop albums ever made. You mean Off The Wall? Sorry, yes Off the Wall with Quincy Jones and those bedevelling guitar counter riffs. I was banging on about Bad in the MTV context. Mind I loved Speed Demon. When he danced with that Rabbit in Moonwalker. Cool as Who would have thought it would come down to me and you to make a last stand for old Jacko. tbf there's only a couple of people saying they never liked him. Generally the guitar headed muso's. you'd have thought they'd love Give in To Me. Check the guitars on this sheet. The master. Edited June 26, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Gordon Brown has had his say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth 113 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 amazon bestseller list: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=sv_m_h__3 Basically a massive artist, a truly flawed genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14048 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Tell you what, I'd be up for visiting Neverland now since that place is going to be more unsettling than his last two albums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo I don't really know to be honest. Justice is different for the rich man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21985 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? Come off it. The evidence against OJ was FAR more compelling. I asked someone else earlier....if your kids had been molested by someone, would you accept their money so they could go free? I don't doubt he's fucked up and should have spent less time 'playing' with kids. Whether kids were ever in danger in his care is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? In Jackson's case it was a lot less clear cut, he may have been a paedophile, or he may have been an incredibly fucked up mentally ill individual that wasn't (but had claims filed against him for the $$$$'s). Doubt the truth will ever be known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldstott 0 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo I don't really know to be honest. Justice is different for the rich man. You can not libel the dead, so calling him a kiddy fiddler is fair game. He was found not guilty of the second set of circa 7 charges, he did settle out of court with the parents of Jordi Chandler (??) years earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14013 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I'm not that bothered either way, there's 6 Billion people in the world and it's best not to get wound up by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth 113 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? I see what you're saying, but there wasn't a shred of evidence against Michael, though OJ had the glove. IIRC Even the kids mother said he was innocent. Cant remember too much about both so If im talking soz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Sublime and magical. Alone in the darkness. Edited June 26, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21985 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? Come off it. The evidence against OJ was FAR more compelling. I asked someone else earlier....if your kids had been molested by someone, would you accept their money so they could go free? I don't doubt he's fucked up and should have spent less time 'playing' with kids. Whether kids were ever in danger in his care is another matter. On the other hand, if you were innocent of the charges would you not fight to prove it, no matter what it took? As for your question, I suspect for many parents the answer would be 'yes' btw, especially when dealing with someone as untouchable as Jackson. He is clearly guilty of some level of wrong-doing, ranging from inappropriate behaviour to outright child abuse. Even the lesser of his crimes makes me feel uncomfortable. Anyway, whatever, he's not a person I would idolise or even respect. Listening to his tributes, his death seems to be bringing out the usual quotient of fruitcakes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? Come off it. The evidence against OJ was FAR more compelling. I asked someone else earlier....if your kids had been molested by someone, would you accept their money so they could go free? I don't doubt he's fucked up and should have spent less time 'playing' with kids. Whether kids were ever in danger in his care is another matter. On the other hand, if you were innocent of the charges would you not fight to prove it, no matter what it took? As for your question, I suspect for many parents the answer would be 'yes' btw, especially when dealing with someone as untouchable as Jackson. He is clearly guilty of some level of wrong-doing, ranging from inappropriate behaviour to outright child abuse. Even the lesser of his crimes makes me feel uncomfortable. Anyway, whatever, he's not a person I would idolise or even respect. Listening to his tributes, his death seems to be bringing out the usual quotient of fruitcakes though. You really think parents would take money over a conviction for child molestation? That would say much more about the parents involved than it would about Jackson in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Come off it. The evidence against OJ was FAR more compelling. I asked someone else earlier....if your kids had been molested by someone, would you accept their money so they could go free? I don't doubt he's fucked up and should have spent less time 'playing' with kids. Whether kids were ever in danger in his care is another matter. My honest opinion is that he wasn't a full-on child rapist but some of the stuff he did with kids was dodgy - a bloke in his 40s showering and/or sleeping with kids even if no fiddling took place is fucked up. Whether that's strictly "illegal" is one for the DAs etc and in that context if I knew my kids were still "intact" I'd be tempted by $20m if I'm being honest - especially considering the strain of trial. Of course if my kids had told me he'd went further then thats something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth 113 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I always felt he was probably a child trapped inside a child's body due to not having much of a childhood himself. So I always perceived him to be innocent. Imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21985 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I always felt he was probably a child trapped inside a child's body due to not having much of a childhood himself. So I always perceived him to be innocent. Imho To an extent I agree but that's no defence against harming other children. I challenge anybody to listen to the MB interview and not feel at least a bit disturbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I always felt he was probably a child trapped inside a child's body due to not having much of a childhood himself. So I always perceived him to be innocent. Imho Would bet on him being a grade A loon, and immeasurably fucked up, and perhaps a "danger" to children in other ways, but probably not a paedophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 (edited) Jacko takes the web down. By Maggie Shiels Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley The sheer number of queries concerned Google The internet suffered a number of slowdowns as people the world over rushed to verify accounts of Michael Jackson's death. Search giant Google confirmed to the BBC that when the news first broke it feared it was under attack. Millions of people who Googled the star's name were greeted with an error page rather than a list of results. It warned users "your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application". "It's true that between approximately 2.40PM Pacific and 3.15PM Pacific, some Google News users experienced difficulty accessing search results for queries related to Michael Jackson and saw the error page," said Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker. It was around this time that the singer was officially pronounced dead. Google's trends page showed that searches for Michael Jackson had reached such a volume that in its so called "hotness" gauge the topic was rated "volcanic". Fail Google was not the only company overwhelmed by the public's clamour for information. The microblogging service Twitter crashed with the sheer volume of people using the service. Edited June 26, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Most news sources are calling it ''His Eccentric Personal Life'' rather than something more truthful or obscene. Could his estate sue if anyone made any more extreme claims? Can't really see the BBC saying "he got off with it but we all know he was a fiddler!" I'm not sure if you can really Libel a dead man. I'm sure he was found innocent wasn't he? Truthful and obscene is a bit harsh imo In a show trial. Did you think OJ was innocent? Come off it. The evidence against OJ was FAR more compelling. I asked someone else earlier....if your kids had been molested by someone, would you accept their money so they could go free? I don't doubt he's fucked up and should have spent less time 'playing' with kids. Whether kids were ever in danger in his care is another matter. You asked me. It's not a very compelling argument tbh, it depends on the parents. Some people put money above justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth 113 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I always felt he was probably a child trapped inside a child's body due to not having much of a childhood himself. So I always perceived him to be innocent. Imho To an extent I agree but that's no defence against harming other children. I challenge anybody to listen to the MB interview and not feel at least a bit disturbed. Hang on, I'm not using that as a defence a "harming children". I have already stated I felt he was innocent. Agree he's probably got more issues than the beano but that doesn't automatically make him a peado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 To show quite how 'big' he was, heres the all time best sellers chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-...lbums_worldwide The Beatles biggest album, Sgt Pepper has sold 32million copies since 1967 Michael Jacksons thriller has sold 109million copies since 1982 Mental! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now