Janet Jackson Headlining?

[Matt42]

I for one have no knowledge about Janet being distant from Michael. That’s actually the first time I’ve heard about it.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Again I'm not an expert but part of why she got a bit of attention in the first instance - at least in the UK - is that she more or less told them all to do one and went off to work with Jam & Lewis on her own.  Granted she did Scream with Michael....but if we're going to bin all his collaborators then we also need to bin Macca, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger and Freddie Mercury.

 

And Siedah Garrett.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, H.M.V said:

People must be dumb as fuck if they think that Janet is even remotely associated with any of this. She was always detached from the family. I actually remember being rather surprised when she did scream with Michael. If she is booked I for one will be welcoming it. She would be a brilliant addition. 

Beggars belief that anyone would backlash someone for the alleged crimes of another. 

For what its worth, I think Michael is guilty. I believe those lads absolutely and evidence to me is irrefutable. 

Emphasis added. Presented without comment.

[Matt42]

1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Again I'm not an expert but part of why she got a bit of attention in the first instance - at least in the UK - is that she more or less told them all to do one and went off to work with Jam & Lewis on her own.  Granted she did Scream with Michael....but if we're going to bin all his collaborators then we also need to bin Macca, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger and Freddie Mercury.

 

And Siedah Garrett.

It’s nothing to do with collaborators though. My point right now is the Jackson family themselves aren’t the darlings of the press at the moment and Glastonbury booking Janet is likely to rub a lot of people up the wrong way.

In no way am I excusing or even agreeing with the criticism it would recieve but it’s going to happen if it does. It also might leave a really sour taste on the crowd over the weekend when she does perform. A lot of people don’t like the Jackson family for what they have done and they might wish to boycot because they don’t want to provide them any platforms.

Unfortunately Janet is completely innocent in this situation yet she will receive backlash from this. Because this is unfortunately how our world is.

[CaledonianGonzo]

In that case it seems to me that the morale of the story is not to give an inch to c**ts.

"c**ts will hate it" is a reason to do keep on doing something, not to stop doing it.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Where is this anti Jackson family stuff by the way? I’ve not actually seen any.

[DJL]

14 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

In no way am I excusing or even agreeing with the criticism it would recieve but it’s going to happen if it does. It also might leave a really sour taste on the crowd over the weekend when she does perform. A lot of people don’t like the Jackson family for what they have done and they might wish to boycot because they don’t want to provide them any platforms.

People have been angry about Jay-Z, U2, The Stones, Metallica, Kanye, The Who etc... and to varying degrees this received some attention. Didn’t really affect most people’s enjoyment of them (or what they chose over them) and it was largely forgotten by, or soon after, the show with them being judged mainly on their actual performance.

I don’t see how this would be any different.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t judge acts on their actions but in this case we have no reason to believe she has done anything wrong.

[Matt42]

6 hours ago, DJL said:

People have been angry about Jay-Z, U2, The Stones, Metallica, Kanye, The Who etc... and to varying degrees this received some attention..

I do think this is a lil bit different to people just disliking their music or their personality though.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, Matt42 said:

I do think this is a lil bit different to people just disliking their music or their personality though.

different, cos they are alive and the geezer you think there'll be a protest about is dead?   

There will probably be some pricks on social media, but those pricks are on social media being pricks every day. 

[morph100]

I think it will all amount to someone thinking it funny to create an offensive flag with Michael Jackson some kids and Jimmy’s saville on it alongside a witty slogan.

to be fair when I was in my younger years I would have found it funny but as you get older you tend to be more considerate of people’s feelings.

Expect it to cause much hilllarity on Facebook, be divided on twitter and generally thought of as a dick move on here.

[eFestivals]

hey if Glasto's going to have trouble cos of Janet, it's going to kick off at four times the level at Hampton Court Palace festival for having The Jacksons.  

[GMF]

Kicking off at Hampton Court, only if they run out of blinis or the champagne is not chilled properly.

[DJL]

9 hours ago, Matt42 said:

I do think this is a lil bit different to people just disliking their music or their personality though.

I wasn’t really referring to people disliking their music or personality. I meant U2 and Rolling Stones’ tax evasion, Metallica’s hunting, (arguable) racism towards Jay-Z and Kanye and Pete Townshend’s  (allegations of) downloading child pornography. 

Sure these aren’t the crimes that Michael is accused of but it isn’t Michael it’s Janet. There may be an idiot or two with a flag and there may be a frustrated response from people around them which would affect atmosphere in that area... but I think that would largely be lost in a pretty busy and otherwise enthusiastic pyramid crowd?

[Amy Lawn]

The Jacksons played in 2017, and a huge section of the public has believed MJ was a nonce for about 30 years. This doc has only made it more difficult for some people to refute and brought it back into the public eye again. It's not like this is new and sudden information, the two guys in the doc have been talking about it for 3 or 4 years now.

[CaledonianGonzo]

True enough, but this still feels like a tipping point.  Going forward I suspect he's gonna be a taboo figure in a way he wasn't before the film.

[eFestivals]

according to today's Scum, relatives of Michael Jackson are angry at Janet Jackson for refusing to speak out in defence of her brother.

[shuttlep]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

according to today's Scum, relatives of Michael Jackson are angry at Janet Jackson for refusing to speak out in defence of her brother.

Why woudl she, I don;t think she is certain that it didn;t go on , or she knows it did.

 

this whole defense of Michael saying "he didn't have a child hood, so it's OK for him to want sleep overs with 7 year olds" doesn't wash with me.

 

Janet is not guilty of anything that i know of, except getting her nip out ( hope she does it again) wouldn't mind her playing doubt she would headline

[stuartbert two hats]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's all going to be fine:

• She's not the headliner.
• It's her brother that's being accused, not her.
• Her brother is dead.
• As observed, she's not been defending him.

It's actually the first point that is being underplayed on here - all the other protests people can think of have been in relation to the headliners.  I'm doubt Neil Lonsdale has been keeping up with his GOLD membership, so probably doesn't have a clue she's playing and still won't once the festival is over.

Nothing to see here.

 

BTW - if the latest revelations have really changed your view about Michael Jackson, then you're probably a bit too good at lying to yourself than is healthy.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Or that you've not really paid that much attention to the details of all the various claims and counter-claims over the years but recognise that 4 hours worth of fairly harrowing testimony is probably going to be a game'changer in terms of how he's going to be perceived going forward. 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

11 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Or that you've not really paid that much attention to the details of all the various claims and counter-claims over the years but recognise that 4 hours worth of fairly harrowing testimony is probably going to be a game'changer in terms of how he's going to be perceived going forward. 

Yes, I very much fall into this category. That documentary was an extremely difficult watch at times

[stuartbert two hats]

10 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

Yes, I very much fall into this category. That documentary was an extremely difficult watch at times

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

[Username taken]

22 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Or that you've not really paid that much attention to the details of all the various claims and counter-claims over the years but recognise that 4 hours worth of fairly harrowing testimony is probably going to be a game'changer in terms of how he's going to be perceived going forward. 

Agree with this.  Obviously, I had a basic knowledge of the allegations but tbh, I was very much of the school of thought that he'd stood trial and been acquitted so that was good enough for me.  The documentary has changed my view on MJ and I 100% believe Robson and Safechuck

[shuttlep]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

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

I have always thought there was something in the rumours, 

[CaledonianGonzo]

I didn't have a strong view either way.  I knew I probably didn't know enough about it to make a decisive judgment.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

6 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

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

I knew he was a paedophile but I suppose I never looked into in what depth his behaviour went. Given the very detailed and strikingly similar testimony of the two guys in the documentary, now I'm convinced of what he was and to what level