Quote from: stephenite on July 01, 2009, 01:37:33 PMBut behaviour not being acceptable is a long way from behavious being criminal.Quote from: Hound on July 01, 2009, 01:19:32 PMQuote from: Main Street on July 01, 2009, 12:28:38 PMSo if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?
Nevertheless, Jackson's personal conduct did not meet even the common standard of decency. Much of his personal life centered around (prescribed) drugs and an obsession with children and childhood. By his own admission, Jackson repeatedly "slept" with unrelated children at his mansion in "Neverland". Perhaps as a form of compensation, those children and their families enjoyed luxurious benefits.
Are courts with juries the only way in which someone may be recognized as a pedophile? Is there no common definition that might apply based
on undisputed facts? if this was a priest would such leeway be given by the public? Nowadays pedophilia is high profile. Everyone is sensitive about it.
Perhaps not - but you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who'd find that sort of behaviour acceptable.
As somebody said on the previous Wacko thread, society seems to look for the badness in people rather than goodness/innocence.
Kids generally love sleepovers, whether it be with their parents or their friends.
My belief is that is all this was. Innocent. Unacceptable, naive and idiotic, but no harm meant.
From what I read there was no accusation of sexual intercourse, no physical evidence of abuse.
The accusations were of inappropriate touching, something that could not be proved, one person's word against another, so impossible for any of us to know the truth. But when I saw him interviewed on the subject he convinced me that he did no wrong to any child.
As for Gandhi. That's a new one for me!