Michael Jackson could he paly Glastonbury

[biscant]

OMG MY NAN KNOWS BUBBLE'S CAGE CLEANERS EX FIANCEE'S BOSS'S UNCLE AND HE SAID MJ IS DEFFO PLAYING!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!? ZOMGZ!@!@!£@!@£"!$@!%"!@%"!£@%!@@%"@!5

[sdaveak47]

A lot of commentators, including some of the jurors, had grave doubts about the case's outcome. However, they were not allowed to take into account new evidence which emerged. I don't want a mob, but if there is new evidence then he should be tried again. If there is a chance that this man is a paedophile, then he should not get away with it. Now, this may or may not turn out to be true, but I do not believe he was ever proven innocent - there was just "reasonable doubt" based on the original evidence. If you read my posts, you will see I have never stated that I think he is guilty (though I stick by my assertion that sleeping with young boys is f**king creepy, even if you don't have sex); he may be weird and melty looking, but that's no indication of guilt.

I stand by the OJ parallel; the point is about wealth and inequality in the American Judicial system.

And I don't really care if he plays Glasto or not (though he won't, of course).

[beergut100]

So you don't like MJ or OJ you're obviously such a racist !

you probably wouldn't have wanted Ike to play either

[gizmoman]

I'm not getting personal. People are - and continue to - say that a man is guilty of something that he has been found innocent of. And the prosecution looked very very hard - the DA involved spent ten years of his life trying to pin something on Jackson?

I'm not going into the technicalities of the case, but you paint a very simplistic and distorted picture here of what happened. The point is he is not guilty of abusing children - and there is the suggestion that he shouldn't play because of that accusation.

Didn't OJ pay out in a civil case? I don't think Jackson has gone through that has he? That being the case, I can't see any parallels.

[DiscoDolly]

A lot of commentators, including some of the jurors, had grave doubts about the case's outcome. However, they were not allowed to take into account new evidence which emerged. I don't want a mob, but if there is new evidence then he should be tried again. If there is a chance that this man is a paedophile, then he should not get away with it. Now, this may or may not turn out to be true, but I do not believe he was ever proven innocent - there was just "reasonable doubt" based on the original evidence. If you read my posts, you will see I have never stated that I think he is guilty (though I stick by my assertion that sleeping with young boys is f**king creepy, even if you don't have sex); he may be weird and melty looking, but that's no indication of guilt.

I stand by the OJ parallel; the point is about wealth and inequality in the American Judicial system.

And I don't really care if he plays Glasto or not (though he won't, of course).

[beergut100]

Well for a start off im sure most people iincluding myself thinks sleeping with young boys is creepy but does it directly infer he ws molesting them? its definately creepy BUT its not a crime.

He has been tried and found innocent, after years of work done by the prosecution but suddenly on his aquittal there is new evidence?....why should we believe that this evidence which suddenly appears is genuine as much as we believe that he did not commit the crimes?...they could carry on bringing him to trial again and again, as new evidence is found each time a not guilty verdict is reached, The very nature of the charges means that he is hounded constantly because some people cannot believe that he didnt do it and they wont be happy until something thrown at him sticks.

Not guilty was the end result, right or wrong, but thats the result and no amount of moral indignation can change that.

[DiscoDolly]

The evidence was not found "suddenly on his acquittal"; it emerged during the case. As Gizmoman pointed out, he was not found "innocent" he was found "not guilty" as there was reasonable doubt - there is quite a big difference. As the new evidence could not be considered during the case (and even some of the jurors feel the outcome would probably have been different if it was) then he could and should be tried again under different charges. It's not a case of "mud sticking" but there are questions which need answering. Do you really want him to have access to children if there is a chance that he has abused?

[The Nal]

the law of his land found him not guilty. end of.

[scudetto_boy]

This is a difficult one cause we don't really want paedo's playing Glasto & he did only get off on a technicallity i.e. the 1st witness was unrealiable (victim's mum) & regarding the Jordan Chandler case, he paid the victim's family more money than they could ever need to drop the case, while putting pressure on them from outside sources to say they wouldn't win any way.

[dvjj]

i heard he was gonna perform in the Kidz Fields.

(don't worry parents, it's a joke! )

[dvjj]

Still the magority of the "info" you give out is from nme.com.

Also, you forgot the rule!

taken from nme.com

Cheers,

BlackHole2006

[bunchy]

Most child abusers were themselves abused as children, why one rule for one and another for another.

if you want to have sex with kids you're basically fooked in the head, because one person got like that and his story was branded all over the media and some other guy didn't doesn't make a difference. They're all in the same pot. - Basically they need help.

On topic, i'd go and see him if he played, and i think he'd probably be terrible and i'd regret it.

didn't EM say she'd secured someone 'they never thought would play' if you ask me the curry rumours for the last slot are a bit tame. neil young fits the bill though, as they've been trying to get him for years and mj but not the white stripes.

[Moon Monkey]

Anyway lets not argue and talk about the music.

Anyone know if Gary Glitter is playing....

[b26354]

He has never been convicted of sexual abuse-Fact.

Evidence suggests he has sexually abused-Fact.

Also, his behaviour and profile suggests that he has paedophilic tendencies and may be a risk to children....Therefore it is reasonable for anyone on the forum to at the very least think he has sexually abused children.I'd be very careful about categorically calling someone a paedophile even on a forum by the way...particularly as he has never been convicted in a court of law.

[LostRiot]

...you missed my point. I am not saying it's one rule one and a different rule for someone else. I am saying that I don't actually believe he was guilty of anything other than trying to be a child. I don't believe he abused anybody.

All abusers are the same, whatever their past, no exceptions. Yes, there is always deep rooted reasons why these 'people' do this, but there is never, ever any excuse, it is disgusting.

I personally do not believe he is a child abuser (but that's only MY opinion).

...erm...ROLL ON JUNE!!!

[GINGERWILDCAT]

Put him on the main stage on Sunday afternoon,i'm filling my pi$$ bottles now!!!

[ralph250]

always just reminds me of the monkey dust sketch with the paedofinder general; example of a few quotes being:

"I am the Paedofinder General and by the powers vested in me by a phone poll in the News Of The World, I declare you guilty of being a Paedophile"

"By the power vested in me by that bloke I met in the pub - who said he knew for definite - I now pronounce you...a paedophile"

"everyone is innocent until speculated guilty"

[Wanderlei]

He's touring in July. A warm-up at Glasto in June?

[rolfester]

Ignoring all the child abuse allegations I think his music is a bit rubbish (yes, even the early stuff). I quite like the Shinehead version of Billie Jean though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6jsPm7r7_Y

If he were to play though I'd just go and watch something else.

[Wanderlei]

Yeah, he's massively overrated. Some people seem to compare him to McCartney, etc, which is rubbish. But it'd be a huge spectacle and he has some classic pop hits.

[sdaveak47]

Yeah, he's massively overrated. Some people seem to compare him to McCartney, etc, which is rubbish. But it'd be a huge spectacle and he has some classic pop hits.

[ralph250]

he was a legend in his pomp, simple as.

thriller, don't stop til you get enough, bad, smooth criminal, billie jean, dirty diana, beat it, gotta be starting something, liberian girl etc

even some of the later stuff like scream, stranger in moscow and blood on the dance floor were still superb.

Edited March 5, 2009 by ralph250

[sifi]

Michael Jackson paid Jordy Chandler $20 million after a civil case, so yes he did go through that, there is a big difference between being found 'not guilty' and 'being found innocent of' only the most deluded Jackson fan believes he is totally innocent.

Edited March 5, 2009 by sifimaster

[ralph250]

I think sifi makes a very valid point;

paying up doesn't necessarily make you guilty in all cases, as other considerations could come to play. At the time, jacko was still a huge star, off the back of "dangerous", winning grammies and doing the superbowl etc. Settling out of court at the time would have been a decision seen far less damaging to his career that a protruded court case, and at the time jacko was incredibly wealthy and so £20m wasn't going to cause much of a dent to his fortune.

Whilst he could have done it, equally he could've been exploited, especially in the subsequent case given the history of the first case.

[beergut100]

No-one's going to agree on this, so why bother. There are those who are so blinded by their allegiance to him that they really believe he is just a child in a man's body (even though his ruthless business dealings would suggest otherwise) and even though they really know very little about him and couldn't possibly know whether he is guilty or not, they do not believe he is guilty; at the other extreme there are those who believe he is guilty with no real proof. I believe that none of us know the truth; but there seems to be lots of issues which were not resolved. As he is not likely to ever be tried again, there seems to be little point to these circular arguments.

Will he play Glastonbury? I don't care, he's crap!