People have got to realise that there are people who were out to bring Michael down, and they have done a good job at taken his King of Pop crown away from him.
Michael has become a target of out of control bullying if you like, and this is due to the fact that he is an easy target. A target because he is so kind and friendly.
Originally posted by barand1
People have got to realise that there are people who were out to bring Michael down, and they have done a good job at taken his King of Pop crown away from him.Michael has become a target of out of control bullying if you like, and this is due to the fact that he is an easy target. A target because he is so kind and friendly.
Kind and friendly? An adult who has confessed to having sleepovers, with children. Whether done out of the kindness of his heart or not, it's an adult man, having children stay over at his house for 'friendship'. While when it comes to his own child, who he hangs over the edge of a balcony without a second thought, he seems to not want to know about. Apart from of course wanting to cover the child in masks.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, being found innocent on eleven counts was a little strange. Plus throw in MJ's previous experience with bribery, and eyewitness accounts from the security guard, testimonies from children and their parents. It is a bit strange.
Nowhere near as strange or perverse as other people seeming DISAPPOINTED that he wasn't actually convicted of paedophilia, and looking into his personal life where they have absolutely no business.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Kind and friendly? An adult who has confessed to having sleepovers, with children. Whether done out of the kindness of his heart or not, it's an adult man, having children stay over at his house for 'friendship'. While when it comes to his own child, who he hangs over the edge of a balcony without a second thought, he seems to not want to know about. Apart from of course wanting to cover the child in masks.
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nowhere near as strange or perverse as other people seeming DISAPPOINTED that he wasn't actually convicted of paedophilia, and looking into his personal life where they have absolutely no business.
I'm sorry I fail to see how people seeming disappointed, in arguing against what they feel to be a miscarriage of justice, is strange. It's the nature of celebrity, when a figure who's known globally is accused of pedophilia; there's going to be scrutiny of his personal life. This was eleven counts of pedophilia, with strong evidence for each one, people are going to ask questions. Whether he's guilty or not he's a celebrity and he's lived in limelight in the public eye for a long time. Now that the tables have turned and there's an element of controversy, which connotates his name; people aren't just going to stop paying attention.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So what? What does that have to do with anything?-AC
It has to do with his seemingly tainted mental state.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I'm sorry I fail to see how people seeming disappointed, in arguing against what they feel to be a miscarriage of justice, is strange. It's the nature of celebrity, when a figure who's known globally is accused of pedophilia; there's going to be scrutiny of his personal life. This was eleven counts of pedophilia, with strong evidence for each one, people are going to ask questions. Whether he's guilty or not he's a celebrity and he's lived in limelight in the public eye for a long time. Now that the tables have turned and there's an element of controversy, which connotates his name; people aren't just going to stop paying attention.
That's exactly my point. People wanted him to be convicted of touching a child. You'd think they'd be pleased that he seemingly didn't do it.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It has to do with his seemingly tainted mental state.
What does that have to do with anything?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's exactly my point. People wanted him to be convicted of touching a child. You'd think they'd be pleased that he seemingly didn't do it.
The point is that people wanted him to be convicted of touching a child, because they feel he did it. People wanted O.J Simpson convicted, should they be happy that he 'seemingly' didn't do it?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What does that have to do with anything?-AC
That was a different point, as a point was raised about his 'kindly' character by a different member.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Which ended with all charges dropped. 10 of the 12 found him innocent.
Where did I ever dispute that he was found innocent? I'm not arguing that he's guilty, I'm saying people have a right and a cause to question the verdict. I've provided larger arguments than the two sentences you chose to use.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The point is that people wanted him to be convicted of touching a child, because they feel he did it. People wanted O.J Simpson convicted, should they be happy that he 'seemingly' didn't do it?
I would say so, yes. All evidence, or most of it, points to the suggestion he didn't do it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I would say so, yes. All evidence, or most of it, points to the suggestion he didn't do it.-AC
I don't think all of the evidence does, some does, yes.
I believe there is enough evidence for an opinion other than the one, that he was definitely innocent. To say that he was definitely guilty however, would be completely unacceptable and slanderous.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't think all of the evidence does, some does, yes.
I believe there is enough evidence for an opinion other than the one, that he was definitely innocent. To say that he was definitely guilty however, would be completely unacceptable and slanderous.
Well newsflash; when general public idiots are calling him a paedophile JUST for having kids over, that isn't the kind of label anybody can really remove.
He'll always be known for this even if he's never touched a kid in his life, and for what? Cos of idiots who can't keep their noses out.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well newsflash; when general public idiots are calling him a paedophile JUST for having kids over, that isn't the kind of label anybody can really remove.He'll always be known for this even if he's never touched a kid in his life, and for what? Cos of idiots who can't keep their noses out.
-AC
Well they're not calling him a pedophile just for having kids over are they? Couple that with the allegations made against him and you've got a reason.
No, I doubt he will ever be able to remove that label, not to those who definitely believe it anyway. It isn't because of idiots who can't keep their noses out though, it's because of the way he acted in Martin Bashir documentary and his other rumoured, and documented antics.