Michael Jackson

[Bungle]

If you could ensure the children are from unemployed and or ethnic minorities we would be most interested in commisioning a series
Yours sincerely
A Bellend head of light entertainment channel 5

Thinking of ripping off the BBC series 'Don't tell the bride' with Shamima Begum starring in the special one off episode.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Fifteen to One. Gary and the team ask progressive challenging questions such as ‘where have you told your mum you are?’ to those under the age of consent.

Fifteen to one. Sounds like a show where MJ/Gadd and Saville have a group of kids arranged in descending age order and they see how far they can get along the row before even they think they have gone too far...

 

[McBain]

What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary

Recent allegations against the pop icon are disturbing. But do they hold up to scrutiny?

www.forbes.com

Don't believe a word of it myself, the fact the actual FBI spent years investigating it and found no evidence speaks volumes for me.

It's all about the money. As usual.

Strange that Robson defended him so much, but totally lost on the pitch forks in here.

 

[Bungle]

Hairy Poppins - We follow Rolf as he begins his career as a nanny

 

[Moomin]

Man in the mirror is basically a confession song.

 

[Moomin]

Stop being an utter childish idiot. 'Wow' stop being so dramatic. Are you not capable of having an adult debate?

You should ask your hero via the powers of Derek Acorah why he couldn't have an adult debate with adults instead of noncing boys in his funfair.

 

[Kenshin]

Inconvenient facts btw.

The accusers swore under oath that he hadn't done anything to them. Even under cross examination

They had a lawsuit thrown out of court and owe Michael Jackson estate money because there was no evidence.

So besides both claiming he is innocent for many years, even as a defence for Michael Jackson. Despite the fact they have failed with a court case before today for lack of evidence and changing stories with no corroborating evidence. Despite the fact the documentary contains no statements that offer a defence.

He is guilty right because someone says so?

This is where society has gotten to. Everyone is guilty because someone accuses them.

 

[longers]

Inconvenient facts btw.

The accusers swore under oath that he hadn't done anything to them. Even under cross examination

They had a lawsuit thrown out of court and owe Michael Jackson estate money because there was no evidence.

So besides both claiming he is innocent for many years, even as a defence for Michael Jackson. Despite the fact they have failed with a court case before today for lack of evidence and changing stories with no corroborating evidence. Despite the fact the documentary contains no statements that offer a defence.

He is guilty right because someone says so?

This is where society has gotten to. Everyone is guilty because someone accuses them.

Have you actually watched the documentary ? Your posts seem to suggest you haven’t.

 

[Kenshin]

Have you actually watched the documentary ? Your posts seem to suggest you haven’t.

Considering what I have posted, what difference does that make?

If they both have swore under oath he is innocent then no matter what they say in a documentary is neither here nor there.

As the documentary is completely wrong sided and again as above they have both in the past failed to take the estate to court, how can a documentary then change that?

Perhaps the documentary is to pay for the legal fees they now owe the family of Michael Jackson?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Man in the mirror is basically a confession song.

Just imagine what Another Part of Me is then...

 

[d34noj]

Have you actually watched the documentary ? Your posts seem to suggest you haven’t.

I have. My opinion still stands.

 

[COYBL25]

Thinking of ripping off the BBC series 'Don't tell the bride' with Shamima Begum starring in the special one off episode.

With the follow up - “ Don’t behead the bride “

 

[Lanolin]

Considering what I have posted, what difference does that make?

If they both have swore under oath he is innocent then no matter what they say in a documentary is neither here nor there.

As the documentary is completely wrong sided and again as above they have both in the past failed to take the estate to court, how can a documentary then change that?

Perhaps the documentary is to pay for the legal fees they now owe the family of Michael Jackson?

Only if you believe nobody has ever lied under oath, which would be... naive.

 

[longers]

I have. My opinion still stands.

Thats fine. No one can say for sure but for me it's simply a case of whats more believable.

Michael Jackson fits the textbook profile of a paedo. He had an abused childhood, has an obsession with youth, spent all his time hanging around with kids, slept in beds with kids hundreds of times, bought wedding rings for his 'special kids' etc... that's just a few things off top of my head.

I find it a lot easier to believe he was a paedo than i do this all being a conspiracy by two families to make money. The two families had never met prior to the filming and weren't legally allowed to do so either due to ongoing court stuff and yet the two guys testimonies were strikingly similar in terms of how they were groomed etc. The level of effort required to get two entire families to collude with each other and lie convincingly on camera would be immense, they'd have to take acting classes, concoct bullet proof stories which they know would be analysed to death by those doubting them. I just can't buy into that, seems much more likely that the guy who did lots of weird noncey type stuff was in-fact a nonce.

 

[longers]

Decent interview with the director, you can hear his responses to the arguments against the films legitimacy

Must Watch - Dan Reed on Leaving Neverland - BBC Sounds

Nihal talks to Dan Reed, who has made the Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland

www.bbc.co.uk