In all honesty I can't remember what you said in the Jacko thread but by saying what you are saying above are you not admitting that giving 8 year old boys alcohol, watching porn with them, letting them sleep in the bed of a man 40 years their senior without any biological ties to them and teaching them to masturbate is ok ? they are all things that Jacko is proven guilty of

 

They are bad enough in themselves mate

 

I think you will find he was acquitted of all charges.

 

Therefore in the eyes of the law he did not commit these acts.

So saying he was proven guilty of is libellous, because in legal terms your statement is untrue.

I think you will find he was acquitted of all charges.

 

Therefore in the eyes of the law he did not commit these acts.

So saying he was proven guilty of is libellous, because in legal terms your statement is untrue.

I don't know about US law but, under English and Welsh law, you can't libel the dead. So Craig's statement isn't libellous.

I don't know about US law but, under English and Welsh law, you can't libel the dead. So Craig's statement isn't libellous.

 

Excuse me, but he was found proven not guilty, hence it is legally untue. As Michael Jackson was an American citizen, albeit not of sound mind to belong to this planet, in US and Canadian law his estate could sue for slander.

 

There was a famous case with Glenn Miller and the allegations that he died in a Paris brothel through autoafixiation, that it was covered up by the US and Allied authorities at the time that his plane disappeared over the English Channel instead during WW2, and his estate successfully won libel damages from magazines for this "false" allegations in the 1990s, which I'm sure is one of many such examples.

And aren't those two criminal acts in themselves anyway? :unsure:

 

convieniantly overlooked by 'fans'... not sure about americal law but theres no dispute that he plied them with alcohol and showed them (soft) porn... now why tf would anybody do THAT?....

 

Can't we have an adult reasonable discussion without name-calling? :rolleyes:

 

because you dont post as an 'adult' , you post as either a wind up merchant or an idiot who NEVER thinks things through at a rudamentary level.

 

I think you will find he was acquitted of all charges.

 

Therefore in the eyes of the law he did not commit these acts.

So saying he was proven guilty of is libellous, because in legal terms your statement is untrue.

 

no... he was aquitted of molesting kids ... you yourself has quoted that he 'only' showed kiddies 'soft porn'..

 

besides he HAS slept with unrelated childeren.... you think thats ok? that alone makes him a creep to be avoided.... that one fact alone is enough to condemn him. wake up jacko fans.... like it or not the bloke was an utter creep, a dirty old man, the sort of bloke you wouldnt give two sh!ts for if it was the 'bloke next door' .... ffs... hypocrisy at its worst.

Excuse me, but he was found proven not guilty, hence it is legally untue.

 

so was oj simpson :rolleyes:

Excuse me, but he was found proven not guilty, hence it is legally untue. As Michael Jackson was an American citizen, albeit not of sound mind to belong to this planet, in US and Canadian law his estate could sue for slander.

 

There was a famous case with Glenn Miller and the allegations that he died in a Paris brothel through autoafixiation, that it was covered up by the US and Allied authorities at the time that his plane disappeared over the English Channel instead during WW2, and his estate successfully won libel damages from magazines for this "false" allegations in the 1990s, which I'm sure is one of many such examples.

Erm, but I said I didn't know about US law. Under English and Welsh law, you can't libel the dead. However, living Americans (or any other nationality) can sue in English courts if something has been published in England.

 

I assume the Glen Miller case you cite was decided several decades ago. Has the law been changed since then?

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Chris is condoning GG's behaviour by buying his records. Having said that, I wouldn't buy them because I'd feel uncomfortable doing so. I don't like the idea of my money potentially financing his future activities.

 

I'm surprised no-one has said they're not buying them for the plain truth! They were sh/te! They were sh/te back in the 70's and they're sh/te now! :lol:

 

Norma

I'm surprised no-one has said they're not buying them for the plain truth! They were sh/te! They were sh/te back in the 70's and they're sh/te now! :lol:

 

Norma

 

True, you shouldn't buy GG records because they were criminal in the first place, to music in general :lol:

Here we go, the tedious Michael Jackson discussion about a man who clearly had mental and damaged physcological problems. :lol: Just maybe, MAYBE that might be why he acted the way he did? :P

Here we go, the tedious Michael Jackson discussion about a man who clearly had mental and damaged physcological problems. :lol: Just maybe, MAYBE that might be why he acted the way he did? :P

 

that doesnt make it acceptable.

 

and as ive already said, this isnt a topic about michael jackson per se.

Chris - You're a hypocrite and an absolute moron.... You've no compassion for two genuinely disturbed and neglected 10 year olds, who CAN turn themselves around and become useful members of society, and yet you defend to the hilt a middle-aged fukkin' PERVERT whose committed more than one offence, and will commit again because he IS a fukkin' PERVERT who cant control himself. Unlike Thomson and Venables, I dont see this PERVERT seeking counselling to try and control his urges, therefore he gets absolutely no compassion from me... A bullet in the fukkin' head is the only thing that'll stop Glitter from committing his vileness on underage girls, hopefully some day, someone will oblige and shoot the fukker, he's irredeemable in my eyes....

 

Richard - I still cant believe you're defending the other middle aged PERVERT Jackson for the stuff we KNOW that he did and he himself ADMITTED to.... Plying kids with alcohol (a shop assistant who supplies alcohol to kids gets a 20 grand fine FFS....), showing them porn (absolutely irrelevant in my eyes if it was "soft" porn or not, and again, if a Licenced Sex Shop got caught out selling porny DVDs to underagers, they'd be heavily fined, and/or closed down...), teaching them masturbation, sleeping in the same bed (absolutely DISGUSTING whether or not anything actually went on, I mean, sorry, did he actually have the parents' consent for that, IN WRITING??? And even if he did, well, you also have to question the suitability of these fukkin' "parents" as well).... Any one or two of these things are bad enough and it all adds up to a pattern of behaviour... ie, that of an "Escalating Offender"... The only reason he didn't go the "Full Gary" is because the trial stopped the c/unt in his tracks....

 

Josh - I'll tell you what I think is tedious, people like you continuing to defend Jackson and using his upbringing as some sort of excuse for unnacceptable behaviour, as if that's some sot of "get out of jail free" card..... He was GROWN MAN ffs, not a 10 year old kid, and he should have had the sense to realise that his actions could be read in a certain way, and that society as a whole does not accept behaviours such as that.... Mind you, perhaps if he hadn't surrounded himself with weirdos like Uri fukkin' Gellar......

 

Getting back to the question... I would agree with what was said earlier... Any scandal involving kids is the absolute WORST thing... Yeah, even moreso than murder.... I mean, there can be mitigating circumstances or reasons for one adult to kill another, there is no reason or justification to commit a crime upon a child.... I can accept a Rock/Pop Star picking up someone in a club only to find out later that the person was underage (esp, when you're talking about the US where most states have this ridiculous law on Age of Consent being 18, and I think in one or two it's even 21, fukkin hell..), that can happen, and if the star shows the requisite amount of remorse or regret (and doesn't make a "habit" of it...), then fine, they get a pass, after they've been dealt with by the law obviously....

Chris - You're a hypocrite and an absolute moron.... You've no compassion for two genuinely disturbed and neglected 10 year olds, who CAN turn themselves around and become useful members of society, and yet you defend to the hilt a middle-aged fukkin' PERVERT whose committed more than one offence, and will commit again because he IS a fukkin' PERVERT who cant control himself. Unlike Thomson and Venables, I dont see this PERVERT seeking counselling to try and control his urges, therefore he gets absolutely no compassion from me... A bullet in the fukkin' head is the only thing that'll stop Glitter from committing his vileness on underage girls, hopefully some day, someone will oblige and shoot the fukker, he's irredeemable in my eyes....

 

Excuse me but I agree 101% with you that he is a PERVERT and maybe cannot be redeemed. I do not defend him to the hilt. Please quote me where I have. You wouldn't catch me having a pint down my local with him but I see nothing wrong with buying a CD by him if I want the music. The decision to buy music or not to buy it shouldn't be based on what a person does or has done in their private life. It should purely be based on the music and if you want it or not. What about all those buying Jacko albums since his death then, millions around the world?

 

Here's a post by someone on DS today that I agree with totally.

 

"I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of "Rock Stars" that have dipped their toes in the world of underage sex since the 50's.

Your Presleys, Wymens , Townsend's and Jacksons of this world probably only scratch the surface.

Yet people still buy their music.

Why should GG's be any different?

He's done his time.

Stick him on the radio and get him back in the charts for some Gary action! "

Edited August 29, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Excuse me but I agree 101% with you that he is a PERVERT and maybe cannot be redeemed. I do not defend him to the hilt. Please quote me where I have. You wouldn't catch me having a pint down my local with him but I see nothing wrong with buying a CD by him if I want the music. The decision to buy music or not to buy it shouldn't be based on what a person does or has done in their private life. It should purely be based on the music and if you want it or not. What about all those buying Jacko albums since his death then, millions around the world?

 

Here's a post by someone on DS today that I agree with totally.

 

"I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of "Rock Stars" that have dipped their toes in the world of underage sex since the 50's.

Your Presleys, Wymens , Townsend's and Jacksons of this world probably only scratch the surface.

Yet people still buy their music.

Why should GG's be any different?

He's done his time.

Stick him on the radio and get him back in the charts for some Gary action! "

 

You just don't get it do you :manson:

 

By buying his albums you are GIVING him MONEY to FUND his perverted activities, every kid he touches from now on you have given him money to help do so :manson:

 

If you really like Glitter's music why the hell don't you go to a bit torrent site and DOWNLOAD it for FREE ? by giving Glitter money you are effectively an accessory to child molestation and under age sex

 

I think you will find he was acquitted of all charges.

 

Therefore in the eyes of the law he did not commit these acts.

So saying he was proven guilty of is libellous, because in legal terms your statement is untrue.

 

He was not on trial for giving kids alcohol, showing them porn, teaching them masturbation or having them sleep on his bed, they were not on the charge sheet he was on trial for child abuse which ultimately I have to accept through gritted teeth the result of the jury same as I did with OJ but those things I mentioned were not things he was on trial for so he couldn't be found guilty of them they only emerged during his trial

Excuse me but I agree 101% with you that he is a PERVERT and maybe cannot be redeemed. I do not defend him to the hilt. Please quote me where I have. You wouldn't catch me having a pint down my local with him but I see nothing wrong with buying a CD by him if I want the music. The decision to buy music or not to buy it shouldn't be based on what a person does or has done in their private life. It should purely be based on the music and if you want it or not. What about all those buying Jacko albums since his death then, millions around the world?

 

Here's a post by someone on DS today that I agree with totally.

 

"I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of "Rock Stars" that have dipped their toes in the world of underage sex since the 50's.

Your Presleys, Wymens , Townsend's and Jacksons of this world probably only scratch the surface.

Yet people still buy their music.

Why should GG's be any different?

He's done his time.

Stick him on the radio and get him back in the charts for some Gary action! "

 

Bill Wyman is dirty old man - and frankly, I'm not a big fan of his either, but there are four other guys in The Rolling Stones who didn't go around sleeping with Mandy Smiths - as opposed to a predatory paedophile.... Glitter is the latter, you're not even talking about the same species here as the rest of us.......

 

Craig has a point - why hell BUY his stuff....? Steal it.... Off the net...... :rolleyes: It's preferable to actually giving him money.....

 

And I pretty much feel the same way about people who buy Jackson's albums all of a sudden... But difference is, HE'S DEAD*, so record sales wont be funding any of his activities will they....? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

*oh, hang on though, you dont actually think Jacko's dead, do you Chris....? :P

*oh, hang on though, you dont actually think Jacko's dead, do you Chris....? :P

 

 

I'm 70-30 on that one Scott. 70% sure he's dead.

I'm 70-30 on that one Scott. 70% sure he's dead.

Do you believe Hitler is dead?

Do you believe Hitler is dead?

 

 

Yes, 100%. I 100% believe Diana WAS MURDERED though, as many people do.

Edited August 29, 200915 yr by Crazy Chris

Yes, 100%. I 100% believe Dians WAS MURDERED though, as many people do.

 

diana murdered?.... tell me how then, because it was HER decision not to wear the seat belt, if she had she wouldnt have died therefore how tf could it be murder?

diana murdered?.... tell me how then, because it was HER decision not to wear the seat belt, if she had she wouldnt have died therefore how tf could it be murder?

 

EXACTLY.... A car crash is absolutely no guarantee of killing someone, therefore, it's not a particularly effective assassination tool... God, there are LOADS of untraceable poisons and toxins out there, so if anyone was gonna kill her or Dodi, they would've used this method....