Michael Jackson V Gary Glitter

[ibilly99]

It's not about lynching or pitchforks joking aside it's about morality and a sense of perspective.Yes it would have been good to have a jury but he bought off the family - that's the point. Having done that we are entitled to regard him as guilty by his own actions.

For those that can?t be arsed to look it up I repeat what it says in the Wikipedia article on the great man. I?m getting quite angry about this ? either paedophilia is a hateful, unforgiveable crime which is rightly despised and reviled by our society or it is not. If it is we shouldn?t be celebrating and feeding one who very strongly and on the balance of probabilities is one. I don?t care whether he is the Prince of Pop or not ? is there one law for the rich and talented and another for Gary Glitter and Jonathan King ? he bought his way out of a criminal conviction and infamy ? it?s not that difficult to comprehend - that is if you actually want to .

Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a 13-year-old child named Jordan Chandler and his father Evan Chandler.

The friendship between Jackson and Evan Chandler broke down. Sometime afterward, Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over?. A year after they had met, under the influence of a controversial sedative, Jordan Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched his penis.

Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial settlement; the negotiations were initiated by Chandler but Jackson did make several counter offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals.

Jackson's image took a further turn for the worse when his older sister La Toya Jackson accused him of being a pedophile, a statement she later retracted.Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip search, conducted at his ranch. The search was required to see if a description provided by Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded that there were some strong similarities, but it was not a definitive match. Jackson made an emotional public statement on the events; he proclaimed his innocence, criticized what he perceived as biased media coverage and told of his strip search.

[HonaloochieB]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HonaloochieB Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Michael Jackson had a father named Joe. He

> > apperenttly was not a nice man to his children.

> > Michael Jackson recorded some great pop music

> as

> > part of the Jackson 5.

>

> when he was a child himself

>

> and as such michael had a very unusual upbringing

> and has grown up to be a very unusual adult, one

> that certainly has odd and questionable

> relationships with children - but does that make

> him a paedo? (beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever

> the US standard of proof is?) without further

> evidence, no

>

> i wouldn't trust him with my children and i've no

> interest in seeing him live, but to say e.g. that

> because there's suspicion it's fair to brand him a

> paedo is not right

I didn't brand him as anything of the sort and I'm pleased that you wouldn't trust him with your children.

It shows a responsible attitude on your part. Obviously you haven't been able to run a CRB check on him so you never know.

It's to your credit that you wouldn't leave your kids in the care of a man who when accused of child abuse paid an enormous out of court settlement to the parents of the boy involved.

But it makes you think though...

[pk]

ibilly99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Then why did he pay $22,000,000 dollars to the

> Chandler family in an out of court settlement - if

> he was innocent - WHY - he would have had the best

> lawyers money could buy - if he was innocent he

> could have had his day in court and be cleared on

> the evidence presented. He chose not to and paid a

> HUGE amount of money. To all the apologists or the

> innocent until proven guilty crowd explain away

> that.

>

many/most civil actions settle, going to court is always a risk even for 'innocent' parties as you never know how the evidence will be heard, sometimes the reality may be seen as unlikely or unproven and where it's essentially one person's word against another the risks increase. so people sometimes pay for such problems to go away - the terms of such settlements are generally confidential, so i dunno about $22 m or not.

jackson's set to make $150 m from these dates so i guess he has different attitudes towards money than most

on the other hand, there's no denying that the chandlers obviously wanted money more than they wanted justice

not saying that's nec what happened, but it could be

[????]

We are entitled to regard him guilty in opinion....not in law...that is the whole basis of a legal system.

I'll repeat, do I think he's a paedo? yes. Am I going to buy tickets? No. Would I let my kids anywhere near him? no.

Has he been found guilty in a court of law? No.

We either have lord of the flies or a judicial system with all its flaws.....it IS as simple as that. In law MJ is innocent.

Let's put away the justice of 1920s southern USA eh...I'm sure that was based on emotion too

[pk]

ibilly99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a

> 13-year-old child named Jordan Chandler and his

> father Evan Chandler.

>

> The friendship between Jackson and Evan Chandler

> broke down. Sometime afterward, Evan Chandler was

> tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I

> go through with this, I win big-time. There's no

> way I lose. I will get everything I want and they

> will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will

> be over?. A year after they had met, under the

> influence of a controversial sedative, Jordan

> Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched

> his penis.

>

> Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their

> legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful

> negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial

> settlement; the negotiations were initiated by

> Chandler but Jackson did make several counter

> offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist

> and later police that he and Jackson had engaged

> in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as

> well as giving a detailed description of what he

> alleged were the singer's genitals.

>

> Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip

> search, conducted at his ranch. The search was

> required to see if a description provided by

> Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded

> that there were some strong similarities, but it

> was not a definitive match. Jackson made an

> emotional public statement on the events; he

> proclaimed his innocence, criticized what he

> perceived as biased media coverage and told of his

> strip search.

you think that's flawless evidence?

[ibilly99]

No pk - but I will repeat the main point of my previous thread - why didn't he let the court decide whether he was guilty or not - why pay him off and deny the right and proper forum to decide on his guilt or innocence.

What would be more honest reply from those who try and defend him is I don?t care whether he is a paedophile or not I love his music, he was part of my history and this will be the last chance I?ll ever get to see him and I have a ticket so back off and stop spoiling my fantasy. ?

Warning contains strong language ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1Pm37yX08&feature=related

[pk]

ibilly99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No pk - but I will repeat the main point of my

> previous thread - why didn't he let the court

> decide whether he was guilty or not - why pay him

> off and deny the right and proper forum to decide

> on his guilt or innocence.

>

>

i offered a possible answer above, is it what happened? dunno

[????]

I don't like his music, I'm not going, he's innocent in Law and that is all we have from a lynchmob....

[ibilly99]

I do like his music - in his time he was a genius of pop which makes it all the harder to have to take the position I do on this.

[dulwichdreadlocks]

ibilly99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No pk - but I will repeat the main point of my

> previous thread - why didn't he let the court

> decide whether he was guilty or not - why pay him

> off and deny the right and proper forum to decide

> on his guilt or innocence.

>

> What would be more honest reply from those who try

> and defend him is I don?t care whether he is a

> paedophile or not I love his music, he was part of

> my history and this will be the last chance I?ll

> ever get to see him and I have a ticket so back

> off and stop spoiling my fantasy. ?

>

> Warning contains strong language ..

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1Pm37yX08&feature

> =related

If I was innocent and facing a potentially gruesome court case, I'd pay to make it all go away if I had the means to do so. Just being innocent doesn't necessarily mean that a jury will find you innocent at the end of the day. I wouldn't want to rely on the decision of 12 random individuals - especially not when their minds may have poisoned against me by media coverage.