Michael Jackson

Status
Not open for further replies.

ashwuk76 said:
I was a huge fan back in the day, went to his concerts, but watching this was shocking. I just dont understand though how that Australian woman split up her family and literally pushed her son into his arms.. yes i get that he promised them lots of things, but when it was obvious that wasnt gonna happen why stay? proper weird.
Click to expand...


Think it's quite easy to say now, but awareness of paedophilia, and the type of it practiced by the rich and famous just wasn't as big in the public conscience. They seemed to have been swept up in the whole thing, and even the two victims have said they never gave their parents any cause for concern. You can't underestimate the power of that level of manipulation
 

Bungle said:
Give me a nonce documentary to work with and I'm well away it would seem.

Just submitted an application to Channel 4 for a programme called Crystal Haze, basically Gary, Rolf and the gang heavily sedate potential victims and they have to escape the maze before the haze sets in and they pass out. Work in progress.
Click to expand...

Get Edward Tudor-Pole presenting and you're on to a winner here.
 
Lanolin said:
Why do you keep saying it's defamation? It's only defamation if it's false. You keep saying you're open minded about it but then basically say they're lying.

Frankly, saying you can never publically reveal that you were abused by a paedophile if that person is now dead is a disgusting, horrifying attitude.
Click to expand...

It would be defamation if he was alive, no question about it. Because whether they're lying or not, their testimony is unsubstantiated because they can't legally prove it is true. So I'm not saying they are lying - I'm saying there's no process to determine whether they are lying or not. Everything instead is coming from one side, believed instantly - it's the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty."

For me, the law should be changed so that defamation covers hurting the reputation of the deceased estate, because for all the good making it public does if it is true, there's equally all the undeserved damage it does to the deceased family if its' false. There's got to be a balance.
 
Bungle said:
Give me a nonce documentary to work with and I'm well away it would seem.

Just submitted an application to Channel 4 for a programme called Crystal Haze, basically Gary, Rolf and the gang heavily sedate potential victims and they have to escape the maze before the haze sets in and they pass out. Work in progress.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt it be more fun the other way around? Gary, Rolf etc are the ones who are hazed and have to escape before an angry mob beats them up?
 

Tubey said:
It would be defamation if he was alive, no question about it. Because whether they're lying or not, their testimony is unsubstantiated because they can't legally prove it is true. So I'm not saying they are lying - I'm saying there's no process to determine whether they are lying or not. Everything instead is coming from one side, believed instantly - it's the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty."

For me, the law should be changed so that defamation covers hurting the reputation of the deceased estate, because for all the good making it public does if it is true, there's equally all the undeserved damage it does to the deceased family if its' false. There's got to be a balance.
Click to expand...
Well it's not believed instantly is it? There's a massive campaign from cultists calling potential victims liars - despite having no evidence of that whatsoever - who were complaining about the program without having even seen it.

Again, whether a lawsuit could be filed or not, any suggestion that a victim should never tell people that they were a victim because the perpetrator's family would get upset about it does not sit comfortably with me. Whether you can prove it or not, if you know it happened, you have every right to say it. Any suggestion otherwise is shameful in my opinion.
 
Lanolin said:
Well it's not believed instantly is it? There's a massive campaign from cultists calling potential victims liars - despite having no evidence of that whatsoever - who were complaining about the program without having even seen it.

Again, whether a lawsuit could be filed or not, any suggestion that a victim should never tell people that they were a victim because the perpetrator's family would get upset about it does not sit comfortably with me. Whether you can prove it or not, if you know it happened, you have every right to say it. Any suggestion otherwise is shameful in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No you don't.

If someone went to the media and ran a story about you being a pedophile tomorrow, would you be delighted as long as "they knew it happened" so they have "every right to say it"?

Of course you wouldn't. You don't have the right to say whatever you want about anyone you want.
 
A couple of people on this thread were trying to defend this nonce a couple of weeks back hang your heads in shame you know who you are.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top