WILL HE WONT HE!

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:30 am

Well Impy everybody said this trail was done rather well. Not a hint of foul play and based on what was presented the correct verdict was made.
There is no evidence that Jacko ever miss touched a child. The jury made the right decision.

But look at who made the accusations:
The mother has a history if lying to celebs to get money out of them. Telling them of fake charties and milking their links to sting more celebs. She also didn't go to the police but went to a high profile lawyer. Hardly has justice at heart.

The kid kept changed his story. Reliable evidence there.

To remotely claim there was any evidence that Jacko was guilty is mob culture mentality.
This isn't the OJ case. Jacko was stung by a money grabbing mother who is willing to use her children to rinse as much money as possible.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:39 am

I agree that there was no compelling evidence. I think Jacko is dodgy as hell, but if I was in the jury I couldn't have sent him down just because I think that. There's reasonable doubt, so 'not guilty' it is.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:51 am

I have an important question.

Who gives a ****?

In other real news injustice, corruption and murder persisted around athe world. Fortunatly nothing has been done.

We are a joke race. Humanity is clearly a prank being played by some higher being.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:57 am

Best First wrote:I have an important question.

Who gives a ****?

In other real news injustice, corruption and murder persisted around athe world. Fortunatly nothing has been done.

Live 8?

The G8 summet?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:28 am

Live * is bull. The people invovled could pool more money than they will raise through the public. Its lip service.

Besides the very notion that we need concerts to draw attention to suffering points to the drastic failing of our collective compassion for our fellow man.

G8 is a tiny step in the right direction but obliterating debt is ultimatly meaningless if you do nothing abothe trade practices that created and perpetuate the issue in the first place and i don't see any of the world leaders taking on these issues in any meaningfull manner.

Don't be suckered by it all.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:39 am

imo Jackson just needs help. I pity him very much, he was screwed up by his family and all thats left now is a broken mind in a twisted body. He probably did sleep with kids, probably with their consent (not that it makes any difference).

As Besty observed tho, its rather depressing the level of coverage and interest his trial draws. A show which combines the dual obsessions of celebrity and paedophilia is apparently more interesting to most people than ways to help those who literally live a life so different to ourselves as to be almost impossible to place within the same time period as us.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:59 am

Karl Lynch wrote:imo Jackson just needs help.

totally agree.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:15 am

I understand that there is loads more crap going down in the world.
But the Jackson thing cannot fail to be talked about - otherwise I wont ever talk about anything else untill the millions of children around the world stop dying.

Out of interest if he was found guilty would we, and the radio stations still play his music, or would it be shunned.

Im thinking of remixing Bad...

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:33 am

I don't think I could listen to his music if he was guilty.

After Gary Glitter's revelation I skip past his songs on various 70's complations because I can't stomah them. I would feel the same with Jacko. Now he's just a man whose own riches prevents him getting the help he needs.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:00 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote: But the Jackson thing cannot fail to be talked about

um... why?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:05 pm

because hes Michael Jackson.

Why do you think its headline news? its our celebrity culture - Dont get me wrong, I understand what your saying, but ppl will always be interested in someone who they have had a relationship with.

I know who he is, ive watched him change i have heard and enjoyed all his music.
The dying children in crap country X are un-known to me, its hard to be as interested in them.

Morally I should be, but emotionally im just not.

Thats not to say I care much for Wako, but i am interested.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:15 pm

There's a lot of truth in that, sad as it is about human nature. The real bad things in this world always seem to be happening very very far away, and (certainly from my experience) are only brought home to you when they literally happen on your doorstep. Then suddenly they stop being something far away affecting people you don't know, and they become the biggest problem in the world.

It's also a lot easier, emotionally, to look at the Jackson case. If we really sat and opened our hearts to what was going on in some parts of the world we'd be so affected it would be heartbreaking. For our own protection in general we don't.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:26 pm

I hate when people say 'its human nature' its such a cop out and it always seems to be used to excused the lowest common denominator, when in fact there are lots of humans who don't act in that fashion at all. No offence K, i just hate the turn of phrase.

As for the MJ thing, i understand people talking about it, but our news media should be a bit more responsible in terms of pandering, again, to the lowest common denominator. Its like there is a concious effort to turn us into a nation of ****ing Sun readers.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:29 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:if he was found guilty would we, and the radio stations still play his music, or would it be shunned.

Very much shunned, I would imagine.

Jetfire wrote:I don't think I could listen to his music if he was guilty. After Gary Glitter's revelation I skip past his songs on various 70's complations because I can't stomah them.

Silly. "Thriller" doesn't become a 'bad' (no pun intended) track if the singer is later found out to be a diddle merchant.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:35 pm

Best First wrote:I hate when people say 'its human nature' its such a cop out and it always seems to be used to excused the lowest common denominator, when in fact there are lots of humans who don't act in that fashion at all. No offence K, i just hate the turn of phrase.

I wasn't excusing it, I'd never do any such thing. Whilst I appreciate the generalisation doesn't fit everyone, generalisations never do AFAIK, but it describes the huge majority of people I've ever been in contact with. The lowest common denominator is imo most people in society unfortunately.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:37 pm

It may not change the quality of the song but the context provided by the performers actions may affect some people's ability to enjoy it. Which i would say is eminantly understandable rather than silly.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:46 pm

Thats certainly true. I have a hard time listening to Wagner, great as the music is, due to his mad political views.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:01 pm

What the [composite word including 'f*ck'] does the topic mean?
WILL HE WO HOEE? What?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:22 pm

Best First wrote:It may not change the quality of the song but the context provided by the performers actions may affect some people's ability to enjoy it. Which i would say is eminantly understandable rather than silly.

That reaction by some people is not unexpected but it is silly. I don't believe for a second that Townshend was looking at sexual images of minors for 'research for a book he was writing'. He is attracted to youngsters. "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Won't Get Fooled Again" don't become lesser or less-listenable songs because of that. And if Jonathan King wrote the next 'Hey Ya' I wouldn't have a problem listening to it even if others did for some reason. Just like I've no problem listening to Huddie Ledbetter (who gets critical/historical acclaim despite his 'worse' crimes).

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:01 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Best First wrote:It may not change the quality of the song but the context provided by the performers actions may affect some people's ability to enjoy it. Which i would say is eminantly understandable rather than silly.
That reaction by some people is not unexpected but it is silly. I don't believe for a second that Townshend was looking at sexual images of minors for 'research for a book he was writing'. He is attracted to youngsters. "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Won't Get Fooled Again" don't become lesser or less-listenable songs because of that. And if Jonathan King wrote the next 'Hey Ya' I wouldn't have a problem listening to it even if others did for some reason. Just like I've no problem listening to Huddie Ledbetter (who gets critical/historical acclaim despite his 'worse' crimes).

so people who don't respond in the same manner as you are silly. i see.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:05 pm

Best First wrote:so people who don't respond in the same manner as you are silly. i see.

In this instance yes.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:12 pm

empathy is a wonderfull trait isn't it folks?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:18 pm

Best First wrote:empathy is a wonderfull trait isn't it folks?

What's the problem?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:26 pm

you labelling other people as silly because they relate to a subjective medium in a different manner to you?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:52 pm

Best First wrote:you labelling other people as silly because they relate to a subjective medium in a different manner to you?

Gotcha now. A less serpentine answer from you for once.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:01 pm

I am subtly sly and tempting aren't i?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:32 pm

*hears a tail rattle*

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:49 pm

I hate snakes actually, ever since i nearly trod on an adder as a child.

Not too fond of poor banter skills either.

On topic anyone?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:52 pm

guilty?

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:03 pm

Best First wrote:On topic anyone?

Everyone? Anyone?