Jump to content

You're currently viewing the forum as a Guest
register-now-button_orig.png
and join in with discussions   
ask migration questions
message other members

..and much much more!

simmo

Michael Jackson songs banned

Recommended Posts

Michael Jackson songs banned from NZ, Canadian radio

Michael Jackson, the once King of Pop, has been banned from radio stations as the backlash against the latest allegations begins.

Will you stop listening to his music? I never did anyway but if I did I would have stopped long ago..

Related image

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/michael-jackson-songs-banned-from-nz-canadian-radio/news-story/dc6046476d13c9a0ed196deca6f4cf21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had some catchy tunes but can't say I'm a fan.  I thought he was on the dodgy side years ago.  Who knows what went on.  If all this is true, why wasn't he exposed years ago instead of all those hints.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toots said:

He had some catchy tunes but can't say I'm a fan.  I thought he was on the dodgy side years ago.  Who knows what went on.  If all this is true, why wasn't he exposed years ago instead of all those hints.

They were silenced with payoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, simmo said:

They were silenced with payoffs.

Big ones! Plus threatened lawsuits.

Quote

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a big fan of MJ's music but watching the recent documentary aired which has caused all this controversy, I have to question, at what point did trial by media replace our judicial system?

Why should his songs be removed from air or his statue be pulled from a museum based solely on media coverage of allegations made towards someone who is no longer alive to defend themselves. 

MJ was tried and acquitted of allegations in 2005 and the two men featured in the documentary stood up and gave evidence in support of MJ innocence at that trial. 

There is a lot of background information that is not featured in the documentary which questions the integrity of the people making these allegations and the director admitted he did not attempt to interview anyone that could give a counter to the biased narrative featured in the documentary.  

It does not give a balanced representation of both sides, it certainly does not bring to light any evidence that proves his guilt, it is circumstantial storytelling and if it wasn't then these people should have come forward before now when MJ was alive to take him to trial. 

Why is it all of these people are seeking monetary compensation for the alleged abuse? Surely if it's true, the main basis of coming forward should be to prevent it happening to anyone else and to protect other children whilst MJ was still alive... but they didn't... this is because their preoccupation is with receiving a pay out and not preventing other victims from experiencing what they allegedly went through. 

For most people the have suffered any abuse of this nature, monetary gain is secondary to ensuring no one else is at risk from the alleged perpetrator.

As they never came forward when MJ was alive (when they had prime opportunity to in 2005)... you have to question their motives for doing so now. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

 

She slept with wolves without fear, for the wolves knew a lion was among them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following the MJ controversy so can't comment on what is happening just now but you would have thought the parents of those boys must have had an inkling of what was going on at the time.  If they received a big payout - surely that is an admission that they did know.  Disgusting.  There is no way I would have let my two boys anywhere near MJ.  You just kind of have an instinct about things like that.

Good post Captain Tor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

An issue with banning MJ songs though would be consistency of approach. I mean it's not like Led Zep, The Stones, Bowie etc. didn't all pass underage groupies around, that's all well documented. And are you telling me Elvis was clean in this respect? As if. Maybe Michaelangelo or Da Vinci transgressed? Why are Polanski films still on the telly?

Is all that stuff going to be banned as well? I'm not saying Yea or Nay, I just don't see how it's different.

Edited by s713
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, s713 said:

I'm not saying Yea or Nay, I just don't see how it's different.

With out resorting to whataboutery do you think that MJs music should be played on radio or should it be banned like Gary glitter's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, s713 said:

An issue with banning MJ songs though would be consistency of approach. I mean it's not like Led Zep, The Stones, Bowie etc. didn't all pass underage groupies around, that's all well documented. And are you telling me Elvis was clean in this respect? As if. Maybe Michaelangelo or Da Vinci transgressed? Why are Polanski films still on the telly?

Is all that stuff going to be banned as well? I'm not saying Yea or Nay, I just don't see how it's different.

Exactly.  One thing I've noticed about artistic genius, is that if a person is extraordinarily gifted in some way, they're often extremely flawed in other ways - and often not very nice human beings. I suspect if we banned the music, paintings and sculpture of every single artist who ever committed a heinous act, we wouldn't have very much left.

  • Like 3

Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband applied UK spouse visa Jan 2015, granted March 2015, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016

"The stranger who comes home does not make himself at home but makes home itself strange." -- Rainer Maria Rilke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, simmo said:

With out resorting to whataboutery do you think that MJs music should be played on radio or should it be banned like Gary glitter's?

Probably not. Unless you are going to ban the work of every other artist with similar indiscretions in their personal lives; which doesn't happen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, s713 said:

Probably not. Unless you are going to ban the work of every other artist with similar indiscretions in their personal lives; which doesn't happen.

I think they should ban all peadophiles work form radio/tv etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, s713 said:

Probably not. Unless you are going to ban the work of every other artist with similar indiscretions in their personal lives; which doesn't happen.

You don't hear wanna be in my gang played much these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, simmo said:

With out resorting to whataboutery do you think that MJs music should be played on radio or should it be banned like Gary glitter's?

Was GG's music banned?  It was pretty atrocious anyway.  Horrible, horrible man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Captain_Tor said:

I've never been a big fan of MJ's music but watching the recent documentary aired which has caused all this controversy, I have to question, at what point did trial by media replace our judicial system?

Why should his songs be removed from air or his statue be pulled from a museum based solely on media coverage of allegations made towards someone who is no longer alive to defend themselves. 

MJ was tried and acquitted of allegations in 2005 and the two men featured in the documentary stood up and gave evidence in support of MJ innocence at that trial. 

There is a lot of background information that is not featured in the documentary which questions the integrity of the people making these allegations and the director admitted he did not attempt to interview anyone that could give a counter to the biased narrative featured in the documentary.  

It does not give a balanced representation of both sides, it certainly does not bring to light any evidence that proves his guilt, it is circumstantial storytelling and if it wasn't then these people should have come forward before now when MJ was alive to take him to trial. 

Why is it all of these people are seeking monetary compensation for the alleged abuse? Surely if it's true, the main basis of coming forward should be to prevent it happening to anyone else and to protect other children whilst MJ was still alive... but they didn't... this is because their preoccupation is with receiving a pay out and not preventing other victims from experiencing what they allegedly went through. 

For most people the have suffered any abuse of this nature, monetary gain is secondary to ensuring no one else is at risk from the alleged perpetrator.

As they never came forward when MJ was alive (when they had prime opportunity to in 2005)... you have to question their motives for doing so now. 

Can you be tried posthumous in the USA? You also have double jeopardy.

I know in OJs case, financial compensation was the only avenue left. They didn't do it for the money, and they received very little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, newjez said:

You don't hear wanna be in my gang played much these days.

No you don't (thankfully). But you do hear Led Zep, the Stones and Bowie (and others). That was my point. Seems to be pick-and-choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross- funny how people like him and Jimmy Saville had a certain look about them.  Evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, starlight7 said:

Gross- funny how people like him and Jimmy Saville had a certain look about them.  Evil?

I grew up in Australia, and had never seen Jimmy Savil. First time I saw him it was like the emperors new clothes. Couldn't understand why people couldn't see it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Captain_Tor said:

I've never been a big fan of MJ's music but watching the recent documentary aired which has caused all this controversy, I have to question, at what point did trial by media replace our judicial system?

Why should his songs be removed from air or his statue be pulled from a museum based solely on media coverage of allegations made towards someone who is no longer alive to defend themselves. 

MJ was tried and acquitted of allegations in 2005 and the two men featured in the documentary stood up and gave evidence in support of MJ innocence at that trial. 

There is a lot of background information that is not featured in the documentary which questions the integrity of the people making these allegations and the director admitted he did not attempt to interview anyone that could give a counter to the biased narrative featured in the documentary.  

It does not give a balanced representation of both sides, it certainly does not bring to light any evidence that proves his guilt, it is circumstantial storytelling and if it wasn't then these people should have come forward before now when MJ was alive to take him to trial. 

Why is it all of these people are seeking monetary compensation for the alleged abuse? Surely if it's true, the main basis of coming forward should be to prevent it happening to anyone else and to protect other children whilst MJ was still alive... but they didn't... this is because their preoccupation is with receiving a pay out and not preventing other victims from experiencing what they allegedly went through. 

For most people the have suffered any abuse of this nature, monetary gain is secondary to ensuring no one else is at risk from the alleged perpetrator.

As they never came forward when MJ was alive (when they had prime opportunity to in 2005)... you have to question their motives for doing so now. 

I haven’t yet watched the leaving neverland show, but I’ve read all about it, I’m in two minds, you make excellent points and it cannot be overlooked that the 2 guys now accusing MJ did actually defend him in 2005 at the Jordy Chandler trial and did categorically state they had not been abused.  In today’s society, when we look at the video footage of his ‘frienships’ With young boys, we can look back and cringe and say without a doubt it was all very weird, and I believe it was, truly weird, and there has to be some pertinent questions levelled at the parents.  I do not know what the answer is,  I’m assuming the MJ estate is now literally bankrupt, so there is no financial incentive, it’s shocking to see his daughter covering her face and apparently distraught that her whole future career as an actor is over. From my perspective, I feel if that it can be proven beyond doubt in a court of law then he’s guilty, fact.  I don’t subscribe to the trial by media/social media of today, and as far as his daughter goes, talent will conquer, if she is a talented actor in her own right her fathers issues shouldn’t impede her. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix16 said:

I haven’t yet watched the leaving neverland show, but I’ve read all about it, I’m in two minds, you make excellent points and it cannot be overlooked that the 2 guys now accusing MJ did actually defend him in 2005 at the Jordy Chandler trial and did categorically state they had not been abused.  In today’s society, when we look at the video footage of his ‘frienships’ With young boys, we can look back and cringe and say without a doubt it was all very weird, and I believe it was, truly weird, and there has to be some pertinent questions levelled at the parents.  I do not know what the answer is,  I’m assuming the MJ estate is now literally bankrupt, so there is no financial incentive, it’s shocking to see his daughter covering her face and apparently distraught that her whole future career as an actor is over. From my perspective, I feel if that it can be proven beyond doubt in a court of law then he’s guilty, fact.  I don’t subscribe to the trial by media/social media of today, and as far as his daughter goes, talent will conquer, if she is a talented actor in her own right her fathers issues shouldn’t impede her. 

Completely agree 

  • Like 1

 

She slept with wolves without fear, for the wolves knew a lion was among them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phoenix16 said:

I haven’t yet watched the leaving neverland show, but I’ve read all about it, I’m in two minds, you make excellent points and it cannot be overlooked that the 2 guys now accusing MJ did actually defend him in 2005 at the Jordy Chandler trial and did categorically state they had not been abused.  In today’s society, when we look at the video footage of his ‘frienships’ With young boys, we can look back and cringe and say without a doubt it was all very weird, and I believe it was, truly weird, and there has to be some pertinent questions levelled at the parents.  I do not know what the answer is,  I’m assuming the MJ estate is now literally bankrupt, so there is no financial incentive, it’s shocking to see his daughter covering her face and apparently distraught that her whole future career as an actor is over. From my perspective, I feel if that it can be proven beyond doubt in a court of law then he’s guilty, fact.  I don’t subscribe to the trial by media/social media of today, and as far as his daughter goes, talent will conquer, if she is a talented actor in her own right her fathers issues shouldn’t impede her. 

No he makes more money now he's dead than he did when he was alive. He still makes $800 million a year or so.

No shortage of money for his estate.

  • Like 1

I want it all, and I want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Parley said:

No he makes more money now he's dead than he did when he was alive. He still makes $800 million a year or so.

No shortage of money for his estate.

Wow, didn’t realise that, so yeah there is a financial incentive then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×