Who knows? Who cares? The person is dead. Are there not enough live perverts to be going on with?

Jackson was rich and famous enough to get away with his crimes of buggering little boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#Renewed_allegations_and_Leaving_Neverland

"Renewed allegations and Leaving Neverland

Jackson and Safechuck (right) in Honolulu, Hawaii (1988)
In 2013, choreographer Wade Robson filed a civil lawsuit alleging that Jackson had sexually abused him for seven years, beginning when he was seven years old. In 2014, a case was filed by James Safechuck after seeing an interview with Robson, alleging sexual abuse over a four-year period from the age of ten. Both had previously testified in defense of Jackson. In 2015, Robson's case against Jackson's estate was dismissed on the grounds that it had been filed too late, and in 2017 it was ruled that neither of the corporate entities formerly owned by Jackson held responsibility for Jackson's alleged actions. Neither ruling commented on the credibility of the allegations.

The documentary Leaving Neverland (2019) covers Jackson's alleged sexual abuse of Robson and Safechuck. Its release led to an international backlash against Jackson. Radio stations in New Zealand, Canada, and the UK removed Jackson's music from their playlists in response to the renewed allegations. Jackson's family condemned the film as a "public lynching."

As of 2019, five boys who shared a bed with Jackson when they were preteens (Jordan Chandler, Gavin Arvizo, Jason Francia, Robson, and Safechuck) have alleged that he sexually abused them At least seven people formerly employed by Jackson have accused him of sexually abusing or behaving inappropriately with young boys."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Synopsis
"In 1993, Michael Jackson was accused of sexually molesting 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. Jackson denied the claims and settled the civil case out of court for a payment of $15 million plus legal fees; the settlement included a nondisclosure agreement."

Can't say much about Jackson except what 've read. I do know that his wealth and celebrity status conferred privileges few others enjoy.

Not a particular fan of his music genre and found some of his reported behaviour bizarre.

Didn't care much for Neverland, as I believed it was possibly a honeypot for a sexual predator.

I say this as someone who survived many years of Catholic care and state foster care. And Am here to tell you all of the horror stories you read are not only true but mostly understated.

The disturbing thing about Jackson would seem to be, he acted with parental consent?

If parents cannot see beyond the wealth, glitter and consequent power?

Who are we to point accusing fingers or seek to defend when we know too little about what happened behind closed doors at Neverland!

In the final analysis, the man is dead and has had to answer to the ultimate authority for whatever harm he may or may not have done!

If I had my druthers. I'd test all the accuser's evidence with unbeatable space age lie detection technology. Especially where the estate is being sued by alleged victims!

SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN!
Alan B.

CORRECTION/RETRACTION:

Jackson was rich and famous enough to get away with alleged accusations that he has sexual relations with boys.

It takes enormous courage to come forward and
speak about sexual abuse especially when you've
been in denial all these years - and that it came from
someone you not only admired but loved and came to believe
that the behaviour was normal.

I watched the documentary - "Leaving Neverland."
It left me shell-shocked. Yes, the man is now dead.
However, I believe that the film was more to do with
the two boys (now men and fathers themselves) finding
closure. I hope that they have.

What I found so hard to take in was the fact that their
parents had allowed this to happen.

I don't care how famous a person is or how attractive
the life-style on offer is made - allowing your children
to share a bed with a stranger is not something that
any normal parent would allow. Fame and wealth does not
buy a child. But in Michael Jackson's case it apparently
did - over and over again.

May this be a lesson to all those ambitious parents out
there - who want fame for their children. Think about what
you're actually doing!

That this documentary was made after MJ's death when the law of libel no longer applies about 2 boys that previously testified in court that nothing happened, and that the producer of the film freely admits that he did no research into the case and simply took the men's word as gospel makes this documentary look more like a hatchet job.

A man who invites boys into his bed...

The film was not just about two boys who came forward
it clearly showed the vast variety of boys that
Michael Jackson swapped and changed like he did his
clothes and gloves. There was an entire litany of
boys and their families that he affected - including
the financial settlements that were made to keep them
quiet and the gifts (and homes) that he bought for them.
Hatchet job?

The only hatchet job was done by Michael Jackson and his
team - to protect the man and their lucrative salaries
and life-styles - including his family of hangers on.

I just recalled an incident in a Gold Coast nightclub in about 1976 when this older bloke was carrying on like an idiot. He was swearing, swiping glasses off the Bar & being a general foul-mouthed drunk. When the cops arrived they appeared to handle him with kids gloves & someone told a few minutes later that this idiot was a very high ranking Judge from Sydney.
On another occasion at the Ambassador Pub in Canberra I won the meat raffle three times in the space of half an hour. When they put it on the Bar in front of me some irate idiot said that it was "Bull$hit" me winning three times & he whacked his fist into the tray, splattering some mince over some of us. I burred up & the idiot wanted to take a swing at me but some of his mates held him & took him outside. One of them came over & apologised & said his mate "was just pi$$ed". After they'd left the Barmaid told me that the drunk was a cop.
Another time in a Brisbane Night Club I was just standing there in a tight crowd when I was accidentally pushed against a bloke who turned around & snarled at me "watch it white $hit".
He was a member of a famous band.
Michael Jackson only sticks out because there's fame & money involved.
As ttbn said there are enough live perverts to be going on with?
Why not pick on the stand-over mutts in the Public Service ? Would prove far more interesting & ultimately beneficial for all !

Yes Individual and most of them seem to hang out in tightly packed pubs!? For obvious reasons?

I prefer an RSL club given the seating arrangements and folk who just don't bother you except to exchange pleasantries.

You raise an interesting point about public servants. And the cost of them to the public purse for basically duplication of work aand as middlemen handling taxpayer funds after they've extracted their costs, fees and charges.

State governments, the middle tier of government, extract around 70 billion per before any money is spent by them on public amenity or services.

That they and everything they do with a veritable army of public servants could be done without increasing the workforce by the Fed, long overdue simplification, automation (your call and import are important to us) and local councils, and the 70 billion we'd then save, allocated for nation-building infrastructure!

Rapid rail, MSR thorium power projects. Durable graphene highways that eliminate potholes and cracks, all transmission towers. As well as charging the electric vehicles that use them with high voltage lines and associated energy losses eliminated; and, deionisation dialysis desalination projects enabled etc-etc.

70 billion per would pay for all of it inside a decade?

Is there an election due anytime soon? And is any party now ready to break the self-imposed, insane, infantile embargo and suppression of the factual truth about nuclear power and in reference to MSR thorium in particular?

Without which, none of these nation-building projects is doable!
One wonders which one of these genius competing for power and privilege will finally get it, if ever !?
Alan B.

I prefer an RSL club given the seating arrangements and folk who just don't bother you except to exchange pleasantries.
Alan B,
Yeah, weren't you the typical 70's 21 year old eh ? ;-)

Foxy,

While not trying to defend MJ who died a decade ago, I find the complete lack of any attempt by the documentary makers to incorporate any contrary evidence or commentary to be ethically objectionable given that the potential damage and consequences will not be felt by MJ, but only by his children and family.

Being old enough to remember the original trial of MJ and the associated press, accusations and speculation, there is virtually nothing new that is in the documentary that was not aired during the 2004/5 trial. MJ undoubtedly behaved inappropriately, and if tried today would not be able to pay off the parents who in many cases took the $ms and continued to let their children associate with MJ, several of whom have subsequently tried to boost their payoff by trying to sue MJ's estate and have failed due to the statute of limitations.

Secondly, if it is OK to give an unbalanced review on MJ, then it should also be permissible to accuse other historical characters such as the prophet mohamed of pedophilia due his taking of a wife under 10 years old for just one example.

SM,

Those who try to manipulate history and accuse
Muhammad of pedophilia - want to depict Islam
as a religion that legitimises child abuse and
abuse of women. They are disregarding the times
in which Muhammad lived and his actual relationship
history. The following link explains:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

As for the documentary - "Leaving Neverland" it was more
about finding closure for the two young men. They were
entitled to have their say. As for MJ's children and family? -
that is something that they would have had to deal with -
because sooner or later the truth has a way of surfacing.
Children can't be held responsible for the sins of their
parents. As I'm sure Rolf Harris's daughter would confirm.

Foxy,

We agree then that the "documentary" was purely a platform for the 2 men to air their grievances after they said exactly the opposite on their previous platform in court.

That Aisha made the most of her "marriage" was in spite of the fact that she had bugger all options. That children were married off at six and raped at 9 was a sign of the times in Arabia and not in the rest of the world.

In Rome the practise was to arrange marriages to occur at 18, and in many other cultures marriages were arrange earlier, but very seldom consummated before puberty.

SM,

No we don't agree that the film was purely a platform
for the two men.

The film was described by the producer as a study of the
psychology of child sexual abuse told through two ordinary
families who were groomed for 20 years by a pedophile
masquerading as a family friend. The producer chose not
to comment on MJ's actions or motivations and to leave the
documentary "neutral." He wanted to present the film in a
way that was fully understandable in all its complexity.

Neither boy nor their families received any financial
compensation for the film.

As for child marriages? They were common throughout
history for reasons relating to poverty, insecurity,
as well as political and financial reasons. They were
common not only in ancient Rome but in England, Imperial
China and so on. Child marriages were always a truly
global occurrence that cut across countries, cultures,
religions, and ethnicities. Child brides could be
found in every region of the world. And they still are.

Foxy,

In your own words the producer portrayed the story as told by the two men without any feedback or criticism, that is as one sided a platform as it is possible to get.

Child marriages before 16 were common but not 6 year olds to old men.

Shadow Minister,

There's been a great deal of feed-back
concerning the film "Leaving Neverland."

It holds an approval rating of roughly 98% - and
its consensus states "crucial and careful."
"Gives emphatic breadth and depth to the complicated
after life of child sexual abuse as experienced by
adult survivors."

The reviews have been done by media outlets such as -
Boston Globe, Vanity Fair, Washington Post,
Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood
Reporter, Daily Telegraph, Rolling Stone, Chicago
Sun, and many more.

As for child brides?

In many countries -( past and present) age
requirements were/are often ignored. The UN state departments
tell us that children (including some just above
or even below the age of puberty) are often still being
force to marry - (Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia,
Ukraine, Romani communities, Pakistan, to name just a
few.

Child marriage as stated earlier was/is a truly global
phenomenon that cuts across countries, cultures,
religions, and ethnicities. Child brides were and can be found
in every region of the world as a study of history will show.

See you on another discussion. This one for me has now run
its course.

Foxy,

There have been other documentaries that have dealt with this topic. The only reason that these boys were chosen was because of their links with MJ, which made the roughly $300m for the producer along with the safety of MJ not being able to sue. While the men in the film did not directly receive cash, their fame will certainly garner them a small fortune each.

As for child marriages these seem to predominate in the muslim countries which actually strengthens my point.

"Child marriages are still commonplace in the Arab world, with one in seven girls marrying before the age of 18"

"According to the National Statistical Institute, there were 481 marriages of Bulgarian girls under the age of 18 in 2015."

7% of girls in Macedonia are married before the age of 18 and 1% are married before their 15th birthday. (35% muslim population)

9% of girls in Ukraine are married before their 18th birthday...According to a 2013 public opinion survey, 42% of respondents reported that they first had sexual intercourse between the ages of 16 and 18. Analysis shows that pregnancy is the main reason that courts grant permission for 16 or 17 year old girls to marry.

21% of girls in Pakistan are married before their 18th birthday and 3% are married before the age of 15. According to UNICEF, Pakistan has the sixth highest number of absolute child brides in the world – 1,909,000.

SM,

I stand by my facts.

Have a nice day.

SM

All your stats abouts young girls in far flung places are irrelevant.

Michael Jackson was interested in getting up close and personal with BOYS IN HIS BED not girls.

Shadow Minister, those stats are shocking. Not the sort of thing you'd expect to read about in places like Ukraine and Bulgaria.

Foxy et al,

The problem with one sided polemics that don't allow any contribution from "the other side" is the high probability of a cock up in the facts, and one monster cock up has just reared its head.

In the doco, accuser James Safechuck claims he was abused from 1988 until 1992 when he was aged 14 and was molested in a room within the Neverland station, yet Santa Barbara County construction permits show approval for the building of the structure happened in September 1993.

This and a string of other inconsistencies show that at best that JS is at best embellishing and at worst lying through his teeth.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/questions-raised-over-key-allegation-from-michael-jackson-accuser/news-story/94155c870cb03f9e87bf7ed34d8c8a54