Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Share a bed in the USA. Is it OK?
Does it mean that any male in the USA can give a child alcohol and share a bed with that child without fear of charges? Now that Michael Jackson has bean cleared of all charges.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tanyavee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The questioner's logical perspective is in fact broadly correct: if a near-identical set of charges were brought forward on anyone else in the future, and 'sharing your bed with children' were seen as a major piece of evidence to support a conviction of suspected child abuse, then the Michael Jackson case would be introduced as 'premise' in court. This judgement has changed the 'law'. This would happen also in England, but never in Scotland.
Lillylampost. I wouldn't let anyone other than trusted close friends and family babysit my children. Would you let any single 41 yr old man who is obviously not all there look after your kids, famous or not. That is a completely stupid question to ask me. It is also a question of individual parenting and not of MJ's alleged crime.
You say that everyone can se what a shame this case has been. Wrong! You have only seen what the media want to show you in order to sell newspapers/gain interest in their tv programmes etc. Do you really think it would sell as many papers if the front page said nothing bad about MJ or the case in hand. Wake up and smell the coffee! Were any of us in the court room looking at all the evidence? NO! Do any of us know anybody involved? NO!
The fact of the matter is that none of us know what really happened, none of us know the intimate details of anyone involved, none of us have witnessed anything for ourselves, none of us have seen any of the evidence presented in court, none of us have spoken to anyone involved, none of us know anything substantial about the whole situation. The only thing you do know is that he was cleared of ALL charges. The fact is you are basing your opinions on your own personal taste and judgement of the man himself. You might as well go up to a random bloke in the street who you see behaving strangely and accuse him of abusing children. Keeping up these allegations and passing such derogatory comments is pathetic, leave the guy alone and get on with your OWN sorry little lives.
And no I am not a fan hiding behind my CD collection just someone who has the ability to look at things objectively
Are you sure Gevs 1966 I think most murders are committed by close family and friends and sexual crimes as well? I think Lillylampost was asking if you trust MJ and if that is what she meant then Lillylampost the answer is no not for any poor child that has the misfortune to come across this despicable person in the future. I bet thousands of MJ fans would let him babysit their kids.
Gevs, I don't think it's based on speculation, and I don't think we should respect the court judgement. The fact that the jury have emerged as a bunch of clowns, and the system grossly unfair, has led to the revulsion of many especially in the UK, and to a justifiable re-examination of the plentiful facts in the case:
-MJ DID share his bed regularly with young boys (exlusively young boys)
-He was filmed holding a young boys hand in a very intimate way, the hand of a boy who went on to accuse him of abuse
-Pornography (including 'barely legal' porn) was found around his house, destroying any defence that MJ is 'asexual'.
-Previous allegations of abuse have resulted in MJ paying people off.
Now, I'm not saying that this all shows that he is guilty of abuse. But certainly, it does lead to reasonable suspicions which no reasonable person can put to rest on the basis of the recent court pantomime. Although MJ is a larger than life weirdo, his profile based on the above elements do give grounds for some serious questions to be presented.
'' Were any of us in the court room looking at all the evidence? NO! Do any of us know anybody involved? NO! ''
Spot on gevs, theres a culture spread by a twisted media that has a sort of you're guilty until you are proven guilty attitude...as mathew kelly and the leicester city footballers who were falsely accused of rape can testify.
Agreed.
Like it or not, an accusation, true or false, in particular child sex abuse, defines one's life, no matter what that life, priest or nun, artist or writer, father or mother. One now resides in a place of shame, especially in the meida.
And being human, once accused, that person may never feel safe again. Every knock on the door could be the police calling. If one or two can make false allegations, why not others? And what person today reading this, who has never had the experience of allegations against them, can be sure that no-one ever will ever make such an allegation, for profit perhaps, or out of malice or revenge?
MargeB I cant stand people like you who condemn someone so easily without knowing any of the REAL facts. Like I said before you cannot possibly make an objective impartial judgement based on what the media lets you see.
The fact MJ shared his bed with boys IS strange but so is his whole lifestyle, maybe it is more a case of his mental state and thinking he is a child then one of intimate abuse. You just don't know do you!! I regularly had sleepovers as a child.
The porn thing proves absolutely nothing, millions of people have porn, many people who use this site no doubt have porn, The fact he is may or may not say he is asexual is irrelevant, lacking a desire to have sex does not mean you can't own porn.
MJ has indeed in the past "reached an out of court settlement" with an accusing party on the advice of his lawyers in the same way that a company may settle out of court in order to avoid a long drawn out, expensive and obviously embarrassing ordeal. This (despite popular belief) is not an admission of guilt and thousands of companies/people do it every year. A statement attributed to him close to the time said that he was prepared to go to court to fight it but was advised to pay out to preserve dignity and reputation by his advisors.
People who keep going on and on with these allegations even though he has now been cleared make me sick. A close freind of mine was falsely accused of rape and it has completely destroyed his life. He was cleared (rightly so) of any wrong doing but his life is in tatters.
Get ALL the facts before you judge people! If you can't get ALL the facts, then don't judge people, it's as simple as that!
I do have all the facts I need and I stated them, and made inferences from them. Being 'asexual' was an important defence for Jacko (I'm just reliving my childhood, etc). Well, if you have quantities of porn, you're unlikely to be asexual, so out goes that defence.
Being 'innocent until proven guilty' is a nonsense in this situation, because the court proceedings are a nonsense, the whole trial would have been thrown out in the UK and with good reason. You now have jurors stepping forward and themselves demonstrating that they had weak reasons for rejecting witnesses. So this process does not exhonerate him.
I seem to be out on a limb on these issues by always taking the perspective of the children in this case: I do NOT think it is ok for a 40 something non family member to share a bed with a young child. I do NOT see the alleged sexual act between an adult and a child as being the core error (although I think this is wrong). What I see as the core error in such an act is that it abuses the obvious power and knowledge difference that exists between an adult and a child, and it is this which does damage: the exploitation of the difference by an adult subverts the natural trust that any child should have of any adult. As such, whether MJ was aquitted or not, I think that his actions with children exist on a continuum with the actions of a 'classic child abuser' and that crucially, the effects of his actions on children exist on a continuum with the effects of those who have been 'classically' sexually abused by an adult.
Now, will someone kindly show me the apology that came from the weirdo's camp where he apologized for these actions? No. It's all about Jacko and the recovery of his career.
Gevs1966, I have to say that after reading your posts I found you to be quite rude and aggressive. Just because people don't agree with you it does not give you an excuse to be rude. It is true, no one was in the court room to hear all the evidence so no one really knows. But you have to except that everyone has got an opinion on the case and MJ whether its the same or different to yours. Personally, I think there is no smoke without fire...but that is my opinion and you have yours. Excepted. He has been declared innocent but I'm afraid he will never be left alone and it will hang over him probably for the rest of his life as he is in the public eye but I don't think he has helped himself with certain things. So, everyone has a right to their opinion, no one thinks the same.
Butter1, I completely agree with you, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I'm arguing about is the fact that people make up these opinions without knowing everything they need to and in that situation they are judging people unfairly. That is what I have a problem with.
I never once condoned any of MJ actions in any of my posts, I think the guy has serious issues and I don't agree with some of the things he reportedly does. However this is no justification for labelling someone a paedophile or child abuser! Then to carry on with these accusations after he has been cleared and still without knowing all facts relating to the case is just bang out of order.
I apologise if I have appeared rude or agressive but as I have said this subject cuts very deep with me for the reason mentioned above. I wonder how fair anyone on here would think it is to judge someone if you were accused of something dispicable and then cleared of it. I think it that was the case you would have a different response.
Butter1 - if you delve into another thread on this site, the correct phrase is "hear hear", although the phrase itself refers to listening to a brilliant and eloquent speaker, so I doubt it really applies here at all.
Of course MargeB, because we disgree with your learned and in depth knowledge of the specifics of the MJ case and his odd lifestyle, it means that we condone it doesn't it. Not.
Does this mean that I had the last word?
MargeB, what a ridiculous question! Of course I don't think it is ok. At no point in this entire debate have I once condoned anything that MJ has done.
There is a massive difference however between not condoning his odd and sometimes disturbing behaviour and accusing someone of child molesting! Especially once they have been found NOT GUILTY of the alleged offences by a jury who know a hell of a lot more about it than you do!
Do you think it is ok to publicly condemn someone and make allegations that can ruin peoples lives without full knowledge of the situation or any proof?
Obviously you do!
Octavius, thank you for pointing out that insignificant fact. Forgive me for that incorrect spelling.
Gevs1966, I totally understand why you feel so strongly towards this and i do agree with "innocent until proven guilty". I just don't think MJ helps himself with his weird and sometime erratic behaviour. I do think that the case has now ended and he has been proven innocent in a court of law. Lets just hope that he learns from this and changes some of the things he does.. i.e. inviting children into his home, showering them with gifts and letting them sleep in his bed.
