I may be many things, but naive in respect of these particular issues I am not. Of my 31 years as a U.K. cop I spent over 5 years as a detective. During that time I sent down a considerable number of child abusers, including parents indulging their sexual fantasies with their own 5-15 year old children, mature women playing with 12 year old boys, and the public’s classic image of the sad, middle aged dirty raincoated paedos.
You seem determined to interpret my distaste for the judge, jury, executioner style of justice trotted out by the usual suspects after every so called ‘exposé’ as sympathy for MJ. Whilst there is undoubtedly a place for investigative journalism, it needs to treated with caution if we’re to avoid miscarriages of justice. Nowhere in my post did I profess to believe in Jackson’s innocence. What I will not do is condemn, out of hand, a man who cannot defend himself purely on the basis of two accusers who have, I’m afraid, shown themselves to be potentially less than reliable.
What that programme presented was not, in my reasonably well informed opinion, evidence that would prove to be 100% incontrovertible before a U.K. court of law.
There’s no need whatsoever for us, or anyone, to fall out over this. There’s enough of that going on elsewhere in this forum! We need a little more reasoned debate as opposed to entrenched, opiniated digging in. You obviously feel tremendously for the victims of abuse, as do I. At least if MJ was indeed guilty of what was alleged he is now beyond hurting anyone else.
However we have allegations going back over many years from far more sources than these two men. We have out of court settlements with accusers for vast sums, we have undisputedly very odd relationships and behaviours with kids freely admitted and documented.
If we are generous and assume he was just very innocent and pure it is hard to believe he did not think his behaviours at the very best open to question and suspicion, and in themselves potentially harmful to young people. At worst it is as his recent accusers suggest.
No judge and jury from me, but the most surprising thing about the allegations to me is that they don’t really seem surprising somehow.
Maybe it does not really matter; he cannot be tried now and cannot harm anyone else (if indeed he did) but perhaps we should not so blithely accept someone behaving like this in future without major scrutiny just because they are famous? Plenty of precedents for that scenario.
Tim
I did not accuse you of being naive on these issues what I said was
This wasn’t aimed solely at you Tim but at the many who say that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted in a court of law but as I think we all know and you yourself alluded to that vast sums of money I have read claims of up to £130 million to multiple victims by some journalists can buy witness silence. the facts are that he paid out between 10 and 20 million dollars to make charges go away and when he couldn’t bought the family of one victim a house for favorable testimony.
So no he cannot defend himself and it is up to our own minds to decide if we believe this testimony or not
it is important to all victims of sexual abuse that these issues are discussed and that they will be treated sensitively if they come forward.
Have to say that I see no merit at all in the ”can’t defend himself” argument.
“Can’t defend yoursel” because legal aid and access to justice is being systematically destroyed is not the same as “used millions to throw at the problem”. If the justice system had a problem with such a concept we wouldn’t have cold case units and the like. History is largely a constant reassessment of a given situation or individual after the event and often after a death based on what we have subsequently learned.
I don’t disagree, but would point out that allegations made post-mortem that could have been made when the alleged perpetrator was still living will be seen by many as the weaker for it. Easier to throw a stone when you know it can’t be thrown back!
I agree (and very much respect your post a few entries back) but in my experience with victims it is also often the case they only feel able and empowered to come forward either when the perpetrator has died or been prosecuted by someone else. I think that pressure would be even greater with a celebrity abuser.
What he said. The standard defence response in historic abuse cases but meaningless in the eyes of the law and rightly so. The point about historic abuse is that it’s historic for a reason. Money, power and fear can protect an awful lot whilst you’re alive.
One thing that is quite telling is that there has not been a single post in defence of MJ himself. In the past when I’ve posted on this subject I’ve been met with some quite strong opposition from people defending MJ and have usually ended up in the minority.
Possibly a bit of confirmation bias going on there to be fair. Some of us on a high end audio forum will have some MJ. Most, I would guess, will not. Logically if more people had some of his music they might be more inclined to defend him. Not sure I’d infer something either way.
Your probably right Mike perhaps some wishful thinking in my part. The group of fans who paid for the ‘Innocent - Facts Don’t Lie People Do’ banners on the side of London buses prove that a hardcore of Jacko fans still exist.
Off The Wall’ is one of my all time favourite albums that gets played a lot. Not sure about how I feel putting it on again. MJ looked so much different then, almost another person to what he later morphed into.
Is it possible to separate the Art from the Artist ? Or are they both inexplicably entwined ?
In the 80’s I physically destroyed the Queen albums I owned after they broke the UN sanctions on apartheid and played in Sun City. Queen has repeatedly defended their decision
Another case is Laibach who recently played one concert in North Korea. But in contrast Laibach presented a well thought out reasoning for accepting the invitation which I had no problem accepting. Laibach is also a progressive project, unlike Queen, which make them more believable in my eyes. Now I actually believe Queens explanation (they just liked the money they made) but I do not accept it.
There are plenty of other examples. Like Carl Orff and the nazis. Furtwangler was not perfectly clean during the nazi-period but he also spoke up and protested on others behalf and that allowed him to be cleared by the courts after the war. Which was just as well as I think that recording of Tristan with Kirsten Flagstad is amazing. I have no records with Orff music.
Then there are people that just fooled their audiences, like the blues singer Robert Johnson or Milli Vanilli, and that I have no problem with. Well, the #metoo-stories around Milli Vanilli makes them quite sleazy.
I saw Leaving Neverland and was depressed by the stories realising the pressure these boys must have been under with their parents receiving expensive gifts etc - on the other hand Jackson was cleared in the courts and it would have been nice to hear the courts reasoning.
How far are we going to take this? If we destroy all albums made by artists or bands who took advantage of under age groupies or camp followers during the 60s and 70s I suspect a lot of us won’t have much of a music collection left!
I still listen to the The Smiths despite Morrissey’s politics etc yet when I played Kate Bush ‘Aerial’ the other week the Rolf Harris talking bit really jarred and I switched it off. I note that on the re-master it has been removed and her son voices it.
I can think of many artists who have dubious or worse personal histories. I generally like he work of sculptor/engraver Eric Gill for example but check his eye-popping biographical details.
I guess it depends, and I’m trying to workout why sometimes I am OK and sometime not.
I have a feeling that if we were aware in any detail of the sexual peccadilloes of many artists stretching back through history it would very likely colour our view of their work. Whether or not it would disgust us sufficiently to turn us off their output depends, I believe, on the current levels of societal condemnation, our own personal experiences or a combination of the two.
For example, I believe that recent years have seen a marked increase in distaste for domestic violence, all sexual crimes involving women and children and crime fuelled by religious intolerance. On the other hand there has been a significant shift in tolerance of behaviour that used to be, in the not too distant past, illegal and viewed with repugnance by many in society. You only have to travel back 2 millennia to find a ‘civilised’ society that tolerated sexual deviances of all types.
It will indeed be interesting to see how artists such as Paul Gadd, Rolf Harris and Ian Watkins are viewed a hundred years hence. Whilst most us may wish their souls to rot in hell, does that lessen the quality or appeal of their artistic output? A fascinating moral dilemma.
I’m really struggling here can those of you having a moral dilemma not see that sexually abusing a seven year old boy and a boy with cancer is an act so repugnant it cannot be excused in any way ever.
It’s black and white as far as I’m concerned short of murder it’s about as low as a human being can go.