Janet Jackson Headlining?

[H.M.V]

Personally always thought he was a wrong 'un. Nobody pays millions in pay offs if they are innocent and sharing beds with kidders is just wrong. I don't care if you are a 'childlike' adult. You are a man with a grown up mans body regardless of where your heads at. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Aye - but there's still a mental leap from a bit dodgy / a bit of a wrong 'un to almost certainly a paedophile.  Short of a court conviction and in the absence of any actual evidence, the documentary makes the case in a way that most casual observers won't have seen before.

[FloorFiller]

45 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Did you believe he wasn't a paedophile before the documentary came out?

I think a lot of people knew he was a paedophile but were under the misguided impression that his childlike demeanour and obvious troubled upbringing made it less abusive and more ‘innocent’ (for lack of a better word), which was obviously foolish to think. Him admitting to sharing beds with kids also put a whole ‘why would he admit that if there was something so sinister to it?’ doubt over the whole thing. Hearing about his actions in pretty graphic detail from his victims put to rest any notion of it being innocent and confirmed that he was a full blown predator who sought out to abuse kids and brainwash them in to thinking it was all okay. 

[H.M.V]

9 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Aye - but there's still a mental leap from a bit dodgy / a bit of a wrong 'un to almost certainly a paedophile.  Short of a court conviction and in the absence of any actual evidence, the documentary makes the case in a way that most casual observers won't have seen before.

Aye I hear what you're saying but in the absence of an actual conviction I'll stick with publicly saying wrong 'un while thinking yes he's definitely a paedophile. 

This whole thing has played with my imagined principles in different ways. I've always had a problem with trial by media as its impossible to look at things objectively and also when people are proved innocent there are always the ones who say 'oh well no smoke without fire'. I dont thinks it in our interest for media to whore out somebody who has been questioned but not charged or tried. It has ruined many lives but in light of this case it has made me wonder. No conviction was ever made but that's money and power for you. 

Urgh I'm not really expressing myself as well as I would like as there are so many variables to question and we live in a very corrupt world. 

[WS_Jack_III]

Most people I've spoke to since the doc aired are more convinced he didn't do any of it 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, H.M.V said:

Aye I hear what you're saying but in the absence of an actual conviction I'll stick with publicly saying wrong 'un while thinking yes he's definitely a paedophile. 

This whole thing has played with my imagined principles in different ways. I've always had a problem with trial by media as its impossible to look at things objectively and also when people are proved innocent there are always the ones who say 'oh well no smoke without fire'. I dont thinks it in our interest for media to whore out somebody who has been questioned but not charged or tried. It has ruined many lives but in light of this case it has made me wonder. No conviction was ever made but that's money and power for you. 

Urgh I'm not really expressing myself as well as I would like as there are so many variables to question and we live in a very corrupt world. 

I think you put it very well. It's something I've been conflicted about too - I've been convinced about Jackson for years, but similarly have a distaste for trial by media. It's a tricky one for sure.

[clarkete]

There is a lot of unusual use of the word "knew" in this thread. 

Has it changed definition in the last few days and I didn't get the memo? 

[H.M.V]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

There is a lot of unusual use of the word "knew" in this thread. 

Has it changed definition in the last few days and I didn't get the memo? 

I'm presuming you mean in reference to 'knew' he was a wrong un? Can't speak for anyone else but I'm in my 40's and I remember the court cases back in the day and the fact it was publicly accepted by all he slept with children. He also paid millions in out of court fees. Sorry but for me at the time it screamed guilty. Problem is, is that people are so fanatical about the whole thing that I have always chosen not to bother getting into a shouting match with people over it. If a court case and public interviews didn't sway them then I was hardly going to make any difference. Then he passed away and it all seemed to die down till recently. 

[stuartbert two hats]

Let's be honest. He's had a very easy ride because he made some absolutely incredible music.

[zico martin]

7 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Let's be honest. He's had a very easy ride because he made some absolutely incredible music.

Gary Glitter had some bangers anarl mind.

[StupidDream]

At the time of the first court cases I was too young to really think much of it. So from the non-conviction I probably made that he hadn't done it, or at least didn't have bad intentions. Didn't know any details and those kind of acts were beyond imagination anyway. And for the last 10 years I wasn’t really bothered. So yeah, it is sort of new to me, but still not that shocked now that I know it (maybe the scale and grand scheme of it). It now sort of all makes sense now. Also still feel a bit of resistance due to 'trial by media' and the sort of single perspective used in the documentary. I'm not in the slightest surprised people have 'ignored' his wrong-doing as it's hard to believe a person you know (as is the case for fans with their hero, it is as if is one of your best friends) has committed such acts. Plus, I think with the #MeToo and years prior something has probably changed in how we look at victims and the accused. 

Feel conflicted about listening to Michael at the moment, but no problem at all with Janet or other Jackson brothers. That said, I'm still not convinced about Janet being at GF at all. Seems an unlikely act, but it just may be one of those 'weird' bookings that make festival unique.

[Mr.Tease]

12 hours ago, H.M.V said:

Personally always thought he was a wrong 'un. Nobody pays millions in pay offs if they are innocent and sharing beds with kidders is just wrong. I don't care if you are a 'childlike' adult. You are a man with a grown up mans body regardless of where your heads at. 

I've no idea whether he did anything or not, but what I always found bewildering, even when the first claims started surfacing at the time, was why parents still sent their kids there to stay with him after the rumours started- why even take the risk? Why let your kids have a sleepover and share a bed with a man just because you like his music?! Absolutely shameless stuff. 

[H.M.V]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I've no idea whether he did anything or not, but what I always found bewildering, even when the first claims started surfacing at the time, was why parents still sent their kids there to stay with him after the rumours started- why even take the risk? Why let your kids have a sleepover and share a bed with a man just because you like his music?! Absolutely shameless stuff. 

I can only explain the utter cult of the mega celebrity which he was at the time. The most untouchable biggest selling star. Full of mystique and enormously wealthy. 

For the parents. Have you seen abducted in plain sight. Maybe watch that then discuss parents motivation. Being able to procreate is not a licence to good parental behaviour. 

[clarkete]

7 hours ago, H.M.V said:

I'm presuming you mean in reference to 'knew' he was a wrong un? Can't speak for anyone else but I'm in my 40's and I remember the court cases back in the day and the fact it was publicly accepted by all he slept with children. He also paid millions in out of court fees. Sorry but for me at the time it screamed guilty. Problem is, is that people are so fanatical about the whole thing that I have always chosen not to bother getting into a shouting match with people over it. If a court case and public interviews didn't sway them then I was hardly going to make any difference. Then he passed away and it all seemed to die down till recently. 

Aye, people saying they "knew he was a paedophile". 

I don't really have a personal view, but didn't the FBI at the time find no evidence of criminal wrongdoing? 

[Mr.Tease]

8 hours ago, clarkete said:

Aye, people saying they "knew he was a paedophile". 

I don't really have a personal view, but didn't the FBI at the time find no evidence of criminal wrongdoing? 

For me, even if he didn't do what he was accused of (I've no idea as I haven't watched the film), some of the stuff he did do crossed a line into dodgy and I find it bewildering parents went along with it. Just to see how messed up it was:

Think if your favourite male artist 

He then asks you to send just your child over for sleep over at his house 

WTF?! and parents just went along with it?! Who in their right mind agrees to that?! 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

I say I "knew" because of the admitted activity that took place. I've spoken with a number of people, experts within this particular field, who have quite clearly stated that this behaviour was not simply overly-friendly, inappropriate or the act of an innocent man whose childhood was stolen from him but that of a paedophile. I'm satisfied with the opinion of those trained to identify this kind of behaviour, people much smarter than me. I don't draw that many conclusions from any payments made to silence certain parties but I can see how those actions may arouse further suspicion. 

I'm as uncomfortable with trial-by-media as everyone else but in my opinion there was already enough information available for me to make my own judgment. What has been made public since his passing, particularly recently, only further emphasises my belief. 

Unfortunately there are no winners in this case and unless irrefutable evidence is made public there will always be a discussion to be had with no conclusions, between those that condemn him, those who support him and those who choose to keep an open mind until they are presented with something more conclusive. I've made my choice but I can absolutely see why some would choose at least one of the other two opinions.

Anyway, back to Janet. I do hope the rumours of her playing are true, she's absolutely earned the right to step out of her family's shadows. And if she plays "Go Deep" it will bang.

[clarkete]

3 hours ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

Anyway, back to Janet. I do hope the rumours of her playing are true, she's absolutely earned the right to step out of her family's shadows. And if she plays "Go Deep" it will bang.

Same, I'd really like to see her play too. 

[zero000]

15 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

I've no idea whether he did anything or not, but what I always found bewildering, even when the first claims started surfacing at the time, was why parents still sent their kids there to stay with him after the rumours started- why even take the risk? Why let your kids have a sleepover and share a bed with a man just because you like his music?! Absolutely shameless stuff. 

He essentially groomed the families too. First class travel around the world, staying in the best hotels, buying them cars and homes and taking them on tour with him. Logically it seems ridiculous they allowed their children to sleep with him, but in the midst of all that chaos and novelty it probably didn't appear that odd or strange. Particularly given this carefully cultivated image of him being an innocent man-child who was deprived of a childhood. It's a narrative they sadly bought into.

[CaledonianGonzo]

As has previously mentioned, Abducted In Plain Sight explores an even more out-there scenario. 

[H.M.V]

15 hours ago, clarkete said:

Aye, people saying they "knew he was a paedophile". 

I don't really have a personal view, but didn't the FBI at the time find no evidence of criminal wrongdoing? 

I think this is normally accompanied by the found no child pornography. They found plenty of 'regular' porn which has been brought up in interviews that he showed the children and also contradicts the general thing of MJ being childlike. As I said a grown man sleeping with children. Enormously wealthy, the candyman. 

[H.M.V]

Janet Jackson though, hugely successful, lots of hits and some Hollywood stuff. Loved her reciting all that Maya Angelou poetry in that movie with Tupac. If she's on the farm then I'm there watching her. 

[Dangletang]

Janet is a headliner in the US - she just headlined the most successful festival of 2018.  

Glad she’s playing Europe, hopefully you all enjoy her show - it’s pretty great, a real throwback to a time when there were mega pop stars.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Billed above George Ezra, Liam Gallagher, Tame Impala etc.

[H.M.V]

3 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Billed above George Ezra, Liam Gallagher, Tame Impala etc.

Yup sitting comfortably in headliner row. Not a notion where she'll be playing. 

[FloorFiller]

3 minutes ago, H.M.V said:

Yup sitting comfortably in headliner row. Not a notion where she'll be playing. 

Subbing The Cure i’d say.