Michael Jackson V Gary Glitter

[ibilly99]

Can anyone explain the moral difference between the convicted and imprisoned Leader of the Gang who has served his time and is hounded wherever he goes and the saintly Prince of Pop who paid millions more than once to pay off families of his abused child friends and now has sold 850,000 tickets for his residency at the O2 later in the year.

Jackson may have been cleared on charges of child molestation, but the details that emerged at his trial four years ago paint a picture of a deeply perverted man. One whole section of evidence was devoted to the pornography he kept at Neverland, inluding two books featuring pictures of naked young boys and DVDs called Barely Legal.

Stinks to me but many colleagues and friends who are going to see him think different and are uncomfortable when I bring it up. Am I missing something here ?

[dulwichmum]

Lovely ibilly99,

No sweetie, you are not missing anything. I can't understand it either. I think he is vile.

[ibilly99]

Thanks the fantabulous dulwichmum the world's gone mad perhaps that's why we're in the state we're in.

[Mick Mac]

Absolutley agree with everything ibilly99 has said. Cannot understand why anyone wants to see this guy, thought the ticket sales would bomb, but shows how much I know. Also whether he is even capable of doing these gigs must be in doubt - has he said a sane word in the last ten years?

[charliecharlie]

neither have any appeal...

http://www.yourcelebritystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/michael-jackson_loses-neverland.jpg

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3519/glitterzs7.jpg

no doubt that Michael Jackson had talent but now... not interested

[ibilly99]

Yeah thought the same too about ticket sales - wish I'd got some now to flog on for a profit ! What's creepy is the indifference others have to this (see the other thread on tickets) if I'd started a thread on the rehabilitation of GG imagine the rightful abuse I would have got.

From the web

Two jurors on Michael Jackson's child abuse case claim they fear they have let a "paedophile" back on the streets.

Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman - who are both writing books on the trial - have alleged they were pressured into acquitting the superstar by 10 of the other jurors, and they have spoken out for the first time on America's MSNBC show.

When asked by host Rita Cosby if the other jurors would be angry with them for making the claims, Cook, 79, replied: "They can be as angry as they want to"

"They ought to be ashamed. They're the ones that let a paedophile go."

She added: "I just really think Jackson is a danger to young boys"

"It breaks my heart to even think about him being around young boys"

Meanwhile, Hultman, 62, claims the star-struck jurors who pressed for a not guilty verdict refused to look at the evidence properly, saying: "The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn't take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there"

However, the other jurors have hit back at Cook and Hultman's allegations - saying they are only trying to promote their new books.

Juror Susan Rentschler told America's New York Daily News newspaper: "They've really changed their tune I don't know about Ray, but I think Elly wants attention and she's trying to sell a book.

"Ray actually came over to the 'not guilty' side pretty early on He realised that he could not convict Michael Jackson on his personal feelings alone"

Meanwhile, Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, has also slammed Cook and Hultman's claims.

He told America's New York Post newspaper: "They're embarrassing themselves, they're embarrassing the system. These people voted not guilty ? Judge Melville looked at them in open court and said, 'Is this your verdict?' and they said, 'Yes'"

[RosieH]

ibilly, you have a point, but I find it troubling nevertheless: is Jackson guilty by a "no smoke without a fire" public verdict?

While barely legal may be legal only barely, it remains legal nonetheless.

My own opinion of Michael Jackson is entirely subjective - he is without a doubt, deepy disturbed, and I suspect that yes, he very possibly is a paedophile. But he was found not guilty and as such is free to go about his business as usual.

And the two jurors, who are now writing books for which they will be paid a lot of money, might have wanted to show a bit of backbone during the trial and stood up and dissented, rather than now that that hint of spine might stand to make them millions. For me they can have no credibility whatsoever.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I didn't think anyone would buy tickets to see him because he is a disgusting guy, but a woman I work with is a total fanatic and queued up to buy 5. She isn't even going to sell any, she wants to see him 5 times.

She wouldn't have it that he's a peado or even that he bleaches his skin - so I think that even if he was found guilty, people like my workmate would have still gone to see him if he was allowed to perform.

Incomprehensible to me, but there you go, they are fanatics.

[Mick Mac]

Rosie - he's as innocent as OJ Simpson - sometimes 12 people get it wrong when the world outside watches, in amazement.

[Freddy1929]

I think he is doing about 40 concerts at the O2, I'll take bets on him canceling some....

and I'm totally in agreement with ibilly99, I think the jury were star struck, as were the OJ simpson jury.

it is sad to say that in America, if you are rich you can get away with some things (the guy who pleaded guilty this week to a massive fraud, is the exception that proves the rule - but then he did scam the rich!!)

[ibilly99]

Business as usual wouldn't apply to anybody other than him. I agree in his time he was a pop genius and it is that that allows most folk to ignore the inconvenient truth - but settling out of court for $22 million is hardly the actions of an innocent party however dubious and reprehensible the Chandler family might have been. Like others have said the rich can buy 'justice' and when you have a African American 'hero' to boot thrown in it was very unlikely that the mud would ever stick. If he'd had lived in the UK and had the police seize his computers he would most probably be doing time al la Jonathon King or Gary Glitter.

What sticks in my craw will be the fawning adulation of 100,000?s at the 02 that 'celebrate' this man - they should know better. They are bailing him out.

[????]

Legal......you're in the legal profession and yet you dismiss the verdict of a court and go with the hearsay? mmmm

[dulwichmum]

So ???? - you believe that a verdict by jury is always right do you?

Michael Jackson is rich and famous - as an adult he has spent a huge amount of time in the company of young boys - brought there by their parents. He has been accused of being a paedophile and yet he has been permitted to adopt children?

He appears to be untouchable because of his wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38494000/jpg/_38494549_jackson_afp.jpg

[ibilly99]

Wise words mrs mum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

[????]

No.. I think he's guilty....but I can't prove it and nor could the prosecution.....do we have Lord of the Flies or a judical system with all its flaws? It is a simple question and you can't have it both ways....torches and pitchforks or judges and juries?

.....I certainly won't be buying any tickets

[RosieH]

???? bang on.

Mick Mac, I think you'll find that I said,

My own opinion of Michael Jackson is entirely subjective - he is without a doubt, deepy disturbed, and I suspect that yes, he very possibly is a paedophile.

but if no one bothers to find him guilty, are we going to jusge by tabloid and storm the barricades?

[ibilly99]

Time to get out the pitchforks and blast them into space

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7jVnrfoZD8

[ratty]

He's a vile wnaker imo and I am totally shocked that anyone would buy tickets to see him, but, friends of mine have done exactly that!!

Wonder if he will do any Glitter covers???

[Asset]

I'm with RosieH and Quids on this debate, but as a by the by, I found myself at a MJ gig at Wembley Stadium in the late eighties. I got a free ticket and wasn't that bothered about being there BUT I was totally blown away and it remains one of the most exciting gigs I've ever been to.

[lard]

Disappointed...thought this was one of those Superman versus Bruce Lee type fight questions...

The best one of those is "How many 5 year olds all coming at you at once could you beat in fight?"

[Mick Mac]

RosieH Wrote:

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

> ???? bang on.

>

> Mick Mac, I think you'll find that I said,

>

> My own opinion of Michael Jackson is entirely

> subjective - he is without a doubt, deepy

> disturbed, and I suspect that yes, he very

> possibly is a paedophile.

>

> but if no one bothers to find him guilty, are we

> going to jusge by tabloid and storm the

> barricades?

No not at all Rosie - I'm not a tabloid reader - but I'm entitled to make a personal judgement based upon the facts I've read in the quality press and media. Based upon that I'm not going to enrich him by buying tickets and I'm amazed many thousands of people have not come to the same conclusion.

There is a jury system in place but if a the 12 people empowered with this decision make what I feel is the wrong decision I don't have to agree with it. He's legally entitled to live his life as a person who legally is completely innocent and I respect the system that came to that decision, but I also know that a jury system will make occaisional mistakes and for me he will always be guilty. No storming of barricades.

[Keef]

I'm with Rosie, quids and Asset, particularly Rosie, point about these 2 jurors, have no respect for anything they say in order to fill their pockets. Yes he's an oddball, but lets not have a lynch mob mentality.

[Mick Mac]

I don't think there is a lynch mob mentaility Keef - just a number of people saying what they feel, and that the courts may have gotten it wrong on this one.

[LegalEagle-ish]

???? Wrote:

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

> Legal......you're in the legal profession and yet

> you dismiss the verdict of a court and go with the

> hearsay? mmmm

Yes and I decided I couldn't do criminal law after the solicitors I worked for got a multiple rapist off twice by instructing a barrister renowned for destroying rape victims in court.

I have seen enough criminal trials of clients we defended to know that the jury do get it wrong.

[????]

...but what would you have in place?