I'm with you. Never liked him. Never liked his music.SteveShaw wrote:Somebody has to say it so I will. He was a very unpleasant and manipulative man who was, all in all, a bit of a waste of space. So carry on eulogising if you will.
Susan
I'm with you. Never liked him. Never liked his music.SteveShaw wrote:Somebody has to say it so I will. He was a very unpleasant and manipulative man who was, all in all, a bit of a waste of space. So carry on eulogising if you will.
Many evil people do good (especially if they are rich). Can't confirm MJ was evil, but I can't confirm OJ Simpson is, either.jim stone wrote: I believe jackson is counted as the celebrity who gave the most to charity. It would seem he saved countless
lives, especially the lives of children. Maybe 100,000 children's lives over his life, maybe more.
Call him a 'waste of space,'
but there would have been a lot more space on this planet if he'd never been.
Well, for the first...from what I've heard, he was extremely naive (in many ways, almost childlike himself). The real question there is, why didn't his own people -- his family, friends, agent, lawyer, etc. -- tell him "Look, Michael, you just can't do this. Grown men cannot have 'sleepovers' with children and teenagers, and that's just the way it is. If you want to befriend children who need help, that's fine, but there are boundaries, and here's what they are"?mutepointe wrote:What I never hear people say that I always say is: After the first allegations, why would Michael put himself at risk by being alone with children in suspicious circumstances again and more importantly why oh why would parents let their children ever be alone with Michael. Is money worth that much to these parents?
While you're at it, ask why someone would spend a week cavorting with his mistress and think his wife and the rest of the country wouldn't find out. Especially when his wife already knew he was having an affair.mutepointe wrote:What I never hear people say that I always say is: After the first allegations, why would Michael put himself at risk by being alone with children in suspicious circumstances again and more importantly why oh why would parents let their children ever be alone with Michael. Is money worth that much to these parents?
And as to why he did it. I don't know but this is consistent with the evidence. Jackson couldn'tRedwolf wrote:Well, for the first...from what I've heard, he was extremely naive (in many ways, almost childlike himself). The real question there is, why didn't his own people -- his family, friends, agent, lawyer, etc. -- tell him "Look, Michael, you just can't do this. Grown men cannot have 'sleepovers' with children and teenagers, and that's just the way it is. If you want to befriend children who need help, that's fine, but there are boundaries, and here's what they are"?mutepointe wrote:What I never hear people say that I always say is: After the first allegations, why would Michael put himself at risk by being alone with children in suspicious circumstances again and more importantly why oh why would parents let their children ever be alone with Michael. Is money worth that much to these parents?
For the second, I would say that yes...some parents are exactly the kind of people who would put their kids through just about anything, and use just about anybody, to get what they want. It's sad to say, but true. Not all parents, to be sure...not even all that many, when compared to the numbers of loving parents out there...but enough. Actually, when you look at the sheer number of kids who have been through Neverland through the years, with only the two accusations, neither of which resulted in a conviction (and at least one of which was dropped as soon as sufficient money was offered), I for one find myself questioning the truth of those accusations.
Redwolf