Michael Jackson V Gary Glitter

[pk]

???? Wrote:

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

> ...but what would you have in place?

just let the people on here decide, based on incomplete evidence that they've read in the papers, rather than trusting people who have heard two sides of a story presented in court

[????]

I'm off to get my torch and pitchfork ;-)

[LegalEagle-ish]

I'd rather have juries than judges deciding issues of fact, but realise that innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty people sometimes get off with it.

[dulwichmum]

Perfect darling Mr Keef,

I do not mean to display any indication of a lynch mob mentality but I feel that it is highly irregular that a grown man admitted to befriending and sharing his bed with young boys. It beggars belief that this man who dangled a small baby from the window of a hotel has been permitted to adopt children. It seems that the law does not apply to some people because of their position.

In my experience, all newspapers, irrespective of whether they are broadsheets, put spin on stories - some have even been known to print fiction (gasp)!!!

I find it very odd that hysterical people queue up for hours to buy tickets to see this man. In my measured opinion, Michael Jackson is strange, and I consider him a threat to children and young boys.

[ibilly99]

Legal Disclaimer - GG and JK have both been found guilty - MJ has not - there is absolutely no inference or presumption of guilt at all intended in the juxtaposition of their names in this thread.

Can we get Jonathan King to open it with his classic Everyone's Gone to the Moon (yes they bloody well have !)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM9keQZwYI&feature=related

Gary can do warm up - Hello Hello Good To Be Back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAhu0suEHfU

And Michael who has now healed the world with his warbling can bring the house down with his classic Lost Children

Watch out for the paedo crabs - I suspect Moxton's might be up to no good ...

[Keef]

DM, I agree that he's a weird man, and shouldn't be a parent, not just because of the abuse claims, but because those kids are growing up in a bizarre circus. However, the guy can dance, and has released some great pop music, and will put on quite a show. I'd go if someone gave me a ticket. It's like saying you shouldn't go and see the rolling stones because they do lots of illegal drugs and sleep with women who could be their granddaughters. Basically it has little to do with whether they put on a good show or not. Gary Glitter was just shit, and no one would want to see a show of his even if he was a nice man.

[Brendan]

Apart from the fact that there is enough suspicion to brand him a paedophile and people shouldn?t be listening to his music let alone supporting him by forking out money to do so he is also just a fucking pop singer prancing about singing someone else?s songs. Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is like comparing a professionally prepared meal (not the world?s best or most original mind as the stones aren?t that good) to a bowl of badly set Angel Delight.

[RosieH]

Brendan, by that logic we should also stop listening to any Bill Wyman-era Rolling Stones given that he was dating (and doubtless sleeping with) Mandy Smith when she was 13. Or is it ok because they're musically superior?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Keef man, you've got it all wrong. I've seen GG in concert and he is one amazing showman. [before his disgrace, of course]

[TillieTrotter]

I was discussing this with my son (14) a few days ago who came up with the argument that MJ wasn't found guilty of paedophilia. I grew up with MJ, have most of his albums on vinyl and lots of Jackson 5 on old cassettes. I used to wear a big M J badge on my jacket as a wee one, in other words a big fan of his music. However, I don't think that my morals would allow me to go to see him now even though he was found not guilty.

[cdonline]

I wonder how many of the forum would go, even if all the allegations had not happened.

I'm not interested in seeing him. I think I've just moved on. He's turned in a bit of a joke, with some of the most dreadful plastic surgery, this side of Liza.

I occassionally watch 'Billie Jean' on YouTube. I still think it's a corker.

He's 50, I'm 40. I just don't fancy standing and screaming for a couple of hours at MJ.

[bigbadwolf]

Always thought he was a nonce. If anyone wants to read my Gary Glitter joke message me as it's suitably X-rated and forum banning material, but it's funny.

[Keef]

Just for the record, I did not compare him to the rolling stones. I pointed out that a person / band's of stage behavious has little to do with whether they'd put on a good show or not.

At the end of the day, we will never know the truth for sure. There is no smoke without fire, and I think that he is a bit dodgy, but it is possible that he is a mentally ill man, and sees no harm in having sleep overs with kids, who knows.

DM was right to point out the bit about him dangling his kid over the balcony, but what about this

http://members.cox.net/renegade_sith2/miscjunk/steve-irwin-feed-croc-baby.jpg

No one seemed to get too upset about that one, which for me was just as bad, but he was a fun lovable Aussie, so that's okay.

[bigbadwolf]

Quite right Keef, no one can say a bad word against Steve Irvin. Especially after the episode where he was in the back seat of an Australian air force F18 Hornet flying over a place where crocs mate and when he was handed the controls (God knows what the Pilot was thinking) Sir Steve manages to put the aircraft into a bowel wrenching nose dive so he could "git a closa look".

[dulwichmum]

Sweet Keef,

I must point out that I thought Steve Irvin was a complete and utter arse. When I saw that photo I thought that his kids should be taken into care and he should have been horse whiped. No, really.

I think that anyone who puts their children's lives at risk like this are at the very least guilty of criminal neglect.

[dulwichmum]

And also, I don't think that you can compare sleeping with lots of women and taking drugs and drinking heavily compares with being a preditory paedophile. Bill Wyman should have been put in prison for his relationship with Mandy Smith. We should not tolerate paedophiles in our society. This is a vile crime and it is not acceptable, I do not care how rich or high up they are in the Roman Catholic Church...

[Mick Mac]

And another one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/365000/images/_369625_gummer300.jpg

[dulwichdreadlocks]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Apart from the fact that there is enough suspicion

> to brand him a paedophile and people shouldn?t be

> listening to his music let alone supporting him by

> forking out money to do so he is also just a @#$%&

> pop singer prancing about singing someone else?s

> songs. Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is like

> comparing a professionally prepared meal (not the

> world?s best or most original mind as the stones

> aren?t that good) to a bowl of badly set Angel

> Delight.

this post is wrong on so many levels.

[Keef]

Just to clear up, I wasn't comparing doing drugs and drinking lots to messing with kids at all, they are clearly not the same thing. Christ, if they were, I'd have lynch mobs after me at the weekends!

[HonaloochieB]

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. And they performed brilliantly live.

Michael Jackson recoded some great pop music as a solo performer. And he performed brilliantly live.

Michael Jackson reached a peak of fame where ubiquity doesn't even start to describe his way of being in our lives.

Michael Jackson met Jordy Chandler. And his parents.

Michael Jackson had allegations made against him by Jordy's parents. The implication was he did a bad thing.

Michael Jackson went to Europe for a while. He had a problem with prescription drugs. Or it might have been an issue.

Michael Jackson went back home and donated a large sum of money to the Chandler family.

Michael Jackson then was for some years said to be 'suspect', when it came to children.

Michael Jackson came back to London in 2009 and people bought tickets to his shows. In droves.

Chamone.

[pk]

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

[Keef]

What pk said. Well put.

[ibilly99]

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.

This is not the actions of an innocent party and then think about the revulsion you feel for Gary Glitter take away the talent issue and then hang your heads in shame.

[Mick Mac]

Well said ibilly - I second that comment - some people can buy their way out of problems.

[????]

I'm off to buy a pitchfork.....why don't we just lynch him when he lands at Heathrow....

Pitchforks and torches or judges and juries...i choose the latter without "hanging my head in shame"