Though he was never convicted, is the general concensus that Michael Jackson was in actual fact a serial child abuser or is it totally open for debate? If it is the case then why is it okay to play his music still on tv and radio but not Gary Glitter's?
My gut instict is that he was a boy that never grew up, deep psychologocal issues, but a serial child abuser.... I really hope not.
Never convicted so in the eyes of the law, certainly not. If enough evidence surfaced during his life, a conviction would have been sought surely? Unless the "pay off" to the parents rumours are true
If Baby Sham has kids (sorry I dont know) would you be comfortable leaving them with Michael Jackson (hypothetically) overnight?
Too much of a stigma attached to him, rightly or wrongly, most parents would not!
I'm not sure if that is the right label but there's no doubt he was unbalanced. No-one misses Gary Glitter's music either but that wouldn't be the case for MJ.
I don't know. But paying off accusers looks suspect if you're innocent. Jimmy Saville isn't shown on TV any more, but he couldn't have been convicted, either. So i don't understand the different standards.
grasscarp if I truly beleived that my child had been assaulted/abused I am not sure if all the money in the world would stop me from seeking justice? Ofcourse I can have these morals not having $38 million waved under my nose