MJ has been banned from Radio ...

Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
(2 votes)
Page 8 of 9 First ... 56789 Last
Results 176 to 200 of 201

  1. Post
    Who unbanned you?

    You pathetic ****head.

  2. Post
    I stopped watching, it was pretty boring and kinda just gross.

  3. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    Kevin's still on the fence about it
    https://themichaeljacksonallegations...ated-children/

    I don't disagree he was weird as ****, but you can be weird as **** and still not necessarily be a paedophile.

  4. Post
    I think his dad had a lot to do with him being messed up later in life, Whether he was a pedo or not who knows, but he was definitely odd.

  5. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    Who unbanned you?

    You pathetic ****head.
    go eat a DonkyKong

  6. Post
    This was my turning point. After this I was convinced.

    https://dai.ly/xi63s6

  7. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    https://themichaeljacksonallegations...ated-children/

    I don't disagree he was weird as ****, but you can be weird as **** and still not necessarily be a paedophile.
    Or you can be weird as **** and also be an obvious paedophile.

    Do think Jimmy Savile should get the same benefit of the doubt? I'm pretty surprised by your take on it TBH, isn't being sensitive about this kind of stuff part of having a medical license? God forbid you'd have such a blase attitude if you were the one being confided in.

    Also MJ's record is hardly cleared, wtf would he have paid that kid $23m in the 90s if he didn't do anything. These recent two have admitted they lied in his court cases to get him off because they loved him.

  8. Post
    |icED-e@RtH| wrote:
    I think his dad had a lot to do with him being messed up later in life, Whether he was a pedo or not who knows, but he was definitely odd.
    So does "who knows" mean we should just declare that he was never a threat?

    He was a child rapist who used his celebrity to duck and weave while he was alive, just like Jimmy Savile.

  9. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Or you can be weird as **** and also be an obvious paedophile.

    Do think Jimmy Savile should get the same benefit of the doubt? I'm pretty surprised by your take on it TBH, isn't being sensitive about this kind of stuff part of having a medical license? God forbid you'd have such a blase attitude if you were the one being confided in.

    Also MJ's record is hardly cleared, wtf would he have paid that kid $23m in the 90s if he didn't do anything. These recent two have admitted they lied in his court cases to get him off because they loved him.
    Are you really so gullible that you believe everything you watch without even a modicum of doubt? Soon you'll be telling us that big pharma is hiding the truth about vaccines because you watched Vaxxed. If you can't even consider that these two might possibly have an ulterior motive then you're more naiive than I thought.

    As mentioned, his insurance company settled - against the wishes of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.

    I find it amusing that 6 weeks ago you were undecided and suddenly you're all pitchforks and flaming crosses

    PS: My medical degree has nothing to do with it, you git

  10. Post
    An insurance company still runs numbers. If the case was open and shut, hard to think they'd settle so easily. At best this sits in the realm of "creepy_

  11. Post
    Yeah, and nowhere am I denying that he was a weird dude

    I just think it's incredibly naiive to jump to conclusions based on a single documentary (even ignoring the issues around potential pecuniary gain). In the same way when patients claim abuse the job of the doctor isn't to leap to conclusions - you treat the patient, offer them support, and refer them to the appropriate people (social work, counselling, police). Judgements never occur in the absence of cold, hard facts.

  12. Post
    KevinL wrote:
    I find it amusing that 6 weeks ago you were undecided and suddenly you're all pitchforks and flaming crosses
    I should have been more critical of him earlier, it was my mistake. If anything I'm slightly embarrassed how willing I was to go along with the "we can't be sure therefore it didn't happen" bs.

    You're having a laugh comparing this to an anti vaccine "documentary".

    PS: My medical degree has nothing to do with it, you git
    Maybe not but you have a bunch of mandatory reporting rules you have to follow right. I figured appropriately responding to accusations of child sex abuse would be one of the things you're more clued up on than most by necessity.

    Anyway, if a kid accused me of raping them they wouldn't get $23 out of me, let alone $23m. There's no way his insurance company could override his veto in a situation like that and no way the money would have been paid by anyone if the accusations weren't extremely credible.

  13. Post
    What is a "cold hard fact" in a historic sex abuse case? Old pedos go to jail all the time for stuff that happened 20 years ago. Pell only had one accuser in the trial that continued.

  14. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Maybe not but you have a bunch of mandatory reporting rules you have to follow right. I figured appropriately responding to accusations of child sex abuse would be one of the things you're more clued up on than most by necessity.
    No shit, Sherlock. Mandatory reporting is exactly that - reporting. Not judgement, or picking a side, or deciding truth from fiction.

    Anyway, if a kid accused me of raping them they wouldn't get $23 out of me, let alone $23m. There's no way his insurance company could override his veto in a situation like that and no way the money would have been paid by anyone if the accusations weren't extremely credible.
    The difference is Michael Jackson the person is distinct from Michael Jackson the corporation (or whatever legal entity was set up in his name). The insurer/trustee is obliged to act in the corporation's best interest, which sometimes means settling even when innocent (i.e. to avoid the financial/reputational impact of a long court case) - this happens pretty much every day in health, whereby it's cheaper to settle (even when we've done nothing wrong) rather than the cost of a protracted court case.

    If you honestly believe these guys 100% with not even a shred of doubt that they might not be telling the entire truth, then you've drunk the koolaid and there's no point discussing it - you'll just accuse me of being some horrible person because I think there's a chance they're lying.

    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    What is a "cold hard fact" in a historic sex abuse case? Old pedos go to jail all the time for stuff that happened 20 years ago. Pell only had one accuser in the trial that continued.
    A documentary is not a court trial.

  15. Post
    I suppose it could all be a big conspiracy and he was sleeping with 10 year olds with only the best of intentions but I strongly doubt it.

    If you think there's a 50% chance he's not a child molester then I think there's about a 5% chance at best.

  16. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    So does "who knows" mean we should just declare that he was never a threat?

    He was a child rapist who used his celebrity to duck and weave while he was alive, just like Jimmy Savile.
    No, "who knows" is just ME saying I don't know for sure if he was or wasn't a paedo.

    You sound like one of those libs that believes anything bad that's said about trump.

  17. Post
    "who knows" = innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

    which is the society we currently live in. You seem shocked as if that's the first time someone has told you this

  18. Post
    If that was my kid he was fondling in the video and talking about sharing a bed with I’d have kicked Mj’s penis through his arse. I just cannot see that interaction as anything else other than predator and prey. **** him and his shit music.

  19. Post
    Mutton wrote:
    If that was my kid he was fondling in the video and talking about sharing a bed with I’d have kicked Mj’s penis through his arse. I just cannot see that interaction as anything else other than predator and prey. **** him and his shit music.
    What are your thoughts on Willy Wonka and Charlies grandad?

  20. Post
    An absolute bludger. He was obviously able bodied and just pretending to be bed ridden. Also a fictional character.

  21. Smile
    w0lfbrains wrote:
    "who knows" = innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
    Is it possible to find MJ guilty now that he's dead? i mean find evidence or find the truth?

    The guys that came forward are going to end up in court again because MJ's family are suing,

    Speaking from experience when i was sexually abused if i ended up getting sued I'd be devastated, not only because they got away with it and no one will ever believe me but the fact that they might have to pay MJ's rich family. (well they look rich to me)

    Seriously it would feel to me in their position like the rich could do what they like.

  22. Post
    y'all ever wonder if the courts are 100% accurate and like not situated within the wider political economy and maybe like jurisprudence isn't the exclusive arbiter of 'truth' and might just be ruling on operational matters for the application of jurisprudence and is kinda bounded within a particular epistemology that has limitations to be aware of lol

  23. Post
    bradc wrote:
    An insurance company still runs numbers. If the case was open and shut, hard to think they'd settle so easily. At best this sits in the realm of "creepy_
    LOL at any insurance company settling for $23 million against their customer's wishes.

    Anyone believing that would take his pants off and jump right into MJ's bed for a good nights sleep.

  24. Post
    Mutton wrote:
    An absolute bludger. He was obviously able bodied and just pretending to be bed ridden. Also a fictional character.
    Maybe they all could have jumped out of bed like that?

  25. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    Maybe they all could have jumped out of bed like that?
    Don't want to lose the sickness bene.