Michael Jackson could he paly Glastonbury

[Wm.!]

Just been on sky news and confirmed hes playing o2 arena

[sifi]

the only court that counts..........

the court of public opinion.

[Tugger2k]

What a load of bollocks. The court that does matter is the one that cleared him of the charges. Pete Townsend also was accused of being a paedophile. I don't recall this kinda rubbish being flown around when he played.

The question should be whether or not he can put in a performance or not, not whether or not he was found not guilty of a crime a few years ago.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Tugger2k

[sifi]

obviously you have complete faith in the justice system.

i dont - they get things wrong as well as right. and in this case IMO they got it wrong and allowed a seriously troubled man not only to walk free, but free and unsupervised access to the children he bought a few years back.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sifimaster

[Tugger2k]

I don't have complete faith in the justice system. However, I don't tend to stigmatise people especially after they've been found non guilty after the length of investigations that he was subjected to.

You've not addressed the Townsend part of my previous question. Were you happy with the Who playing?

Edited March 4, 2009 by Tugger2k

[sdaveak47]

Off the Wall & Thriller get all the credit but for me it was all about the Bad album the 2nd half of that album is 2nd to none (well almost anyway)

[LostRiot]

...I am not a fan of Michael Jackson, but I think that this statement is cruel. He is a child himself with some serious psychological problems. He may have a strange (probably due to his own lack of childhood) way at behaving towards younger people. He craves the childhood he never had. A peadophile, he is not.

...child abusers are scum, but don't label somebody on the back of what the media say.

Edited March 4, 2009 by LostRiot

[denwyn]

No Way...Not even Mr Eavis would risk booking him

[sifi]

it doesnt matter how long the investigation is when its the best lawyer that invaribly wins cases.

as for the townsend facet, thats comparing apples with oranges

after investigation of Jackson the District Attorney's office concluded that there was suficient evidence to proceed to a trial case.

over here, the case never even got close to the CPS with the Police stating that "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." . In fact, there are even question marks as to Townsends 'guilt' of accessing the website in question and there may well have been some strong arm tactics to get him to confess to accessing said site

we obviously disagree here, and i dont want to get into the rights and wrongs of the legal system (i have personnal experience of the legal system failing me and my family).

so i will go back to the original question about performance, as long as the man stuck mainly to 'off the wall' i'd be happy for him to perform.

whether he should in actuallity have that opportunity to perform is for another thread

Edited March 4, 2009 by sifimaster

[Matt 100]

It clearly isn't for "another thread". You've just posted around one hundred and fifty odd words on the subject! And don't pull out your "experience of the legal system" card on me. I've worked with the sex offenders register and paedophiles extensively. I dislike them. However, I also dislike people stigmatising people who have not been found guilty based on a gut feeling or what they've gleaned from the media.

Two innocent people - one allowed to play, and one not just because you think one is guilty? Bonkers.

Apologies if that's over the top, I'm fed up judgemental tossers - of whom you aren't the worst offender at all - saying he's done somethings where it's not been proved he has.

[eFestivals]

as for the townsend facet, thats comparing apples with oranges

over here, the case never even got close to the CPS with the Police stating that "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." . In fact, there are even question marks as to Townsends 'guilt' of accessing the website in question and there may well have been some strong arm tactics to get him to confess to accessing said site

eh? You've been reading very wrong sources.

Townsend admitted accessing the site; it was rather impossible for him to deny seeing as he'd used his own credit card details to gain that access.

Further, while he claimed to be doing research into child sexual abuse and had informed certain places that he was doing so, he actually only informed them after he knew he was under investigation.

(Every other person who was snared via their credit card details was prosecuted, and possible 'mitigating factors' such as "doing research" were not accepted by the courts for those others. It seems that Pete could afford the very best lawyers to stop it ever getting to court ).

You don't want to go believing too much of what Townsend says - he has a very long history of saying things which don't seem to match all known facts. For instance, he is the man who claims to have become a smack addict after one hit, yet his bandmates doubt he's even taken it that once, and they say he certainly was never an addict.

[sifi]

U mean like O J Simpson, cos he obviously never touch his wife.

Edited March 4, 2009 by sifimaster

[Matt 100]

What's OJ Simpson got to do with this please?

Are we saying that all rich people found not guilty are guilty because they can afford lawyers? And any rich person who has been found not guilty is not allowed to play Glasto?

Jimmy Page has slept with many girls who are underage. So did the Stones. Are we saying no to Led Zep if they wanted to play? Are we saying not to the Stones if they expressed an interest?

[DiscoDolly]

Its a very Emotive issue, and one that folks naturally have strong opinions on but the bottom line is that the man was not found guilty of any of the charges. This whole mob mentality is a bloody dangerous route to go down, "He is guilty because it looks like he is guilty" has been the fate of way to many people over the years.

[sifi]

How many times was Jimmy Page & the Stones taken to court for this??

Edited March 4, 2009 by sifimaster

[sifi]

Its a very Emotive issue, and one that folks naturally have strong opinions on but the bottom line is that the man was not found guilty of any of the charges. This whole mob mentality is a bloody dangerous route to go down, "He is guilty because it looks like he is guilty" has been the fate of way to many people over the years.

[Matt 100]

None. But they have admitted to it, in one way or another over the years. So I'll ask again what's the difference?

Unless you are saying that only people who have been found not guilty in a court shouldn't be allowed to play?

[The Nal]

You don't want to go believing too much of what Townsend says - he has a very long history of saying things which don't seem to match all known facts. For instance, he is the man who claims to have become a smack addict after one hit, yet his bandmates doubt he's even taken it that once, and they say he certainly was never an addict.

[beergut100]

Its a very Emotive issue, and one that folks naturally have strong opinions on but the bottom line is that the man was not found guilty of any of the charges. This whole mob mentality is a bloody dangerous route to go down, "He is guilty because it looks like he is guilty" has been the fate of way to many people over the years.

Edited March 4, 2009 by stevedevine

[beergut100]

& when did I say that who can & cant play. Would not b arsed if MJ played just like I wasn't arsed when the who played I doubt if I would watch MJ just like I never watched the who.

Everyone has there own opinion & just because it doesn't agree with what ur sayin dont take it personal. No one is right & no one is wrong. About the O J comment I was just highlightin that with money comes power & more of a chance of gettin off then ur average joe.

[sifi]

& when did I say that who can & cant play. Would not b arsed if MJ played just like I wasn't arsed when the who played I doubt if I would watch MJ just like I never watched the who.

Everyone has there own opinion & just because it doesn't agree with what ur sayin dont take it personal. No one is right & no one is wrong. About the O J comment I was just highlightin that with money comes power & more of a chance of gettin off then ur average joe.

[DiscoDolly]

It is not always mob mentality. A lot of very inappropriate behaviour was uncovered in the trial, yet, because Jackson could not be proved guilty of the original charges "beyond reasonable doubt" he was indeed found not guilty. This is where the clever and expensive lawyers come in, getting people off on technicalities. Do you think that if you or I slept with small boys, feeding them wine and porn we'd get away with saying "it's OK, I'm childlike"? The trial would be a mere formality!

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, it is not acceptable for ANY grown man to sleep with young children.

[mr_bizarre]

So he's playing then yes?

[Bluearsedfly]

I bumped into Michael the other week and he said "can you swap this ten for 2 fives?"

I'll get me coat.

[beergut100]

I agree its not acceptable, i never said i agreed with the verdict but it still stands (right or wrong) that a Not Guilty verdict was reached...and so what other penalties do you think the man should face?

A lone gunman perhaps? A raving mob tearing him apart? because thats what some folks would want.

Like i say i may not have agreed with the verdict, but the alternatives to the due process of law arent really appealing to me either.