Jackson's autopsy results revealed

[Captain Black]

Pharmaceutical drugs
Medical doctors 

[muppet]

What I´d like to know Seamus, is where you stand on Chappaquiddick?

Two Nurofen Plus and some vaseline will get you to the clinic.

[Seamus]

What I´d like to know Seamus, is where you stand on Chappaquiddick?

A big blooper at the very least in Ted's life. I do not know enough about it to form a proper stance. I would be interested in your views on it Main Street

[Main Street]

Mike Adams was thinking out loud, far better than following blindly.  My point is that more people should do likewise and not be afraid of the probable ridicule that may accompany it.

Adams  "thinking out loud "was part stimulated after reading a report in the Sun. He peddled a conspiracy, when the known and established facts in this case alone make bizarre reading. Adams did not add anything of substance to the event except to push his own agenda just as you are pushing your conspiracy agendas,
---------------------------

I see Obama had some moments of silence in the House of Representatives for Michael Jackson.
I find this unbelievable.
Though only one criminal case made it to the courts where it was never proven. Other cases never went that far due to lack of evidence after the principal accuser were settled out of court.
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.

Clinton had sexual relations with an assistant half his age and lied about it to everyone, yet the public in general gave him leeway and did not care as long as they credited him with a glamorous and somewhat successful administration. In Jackson's case, being an abused is not a defense, however his response to being abused was to stay like a kid with a fragile persona /delicate voice which oozed -  please do not hurt me. Maybe it was that which influenced the public,  also people do want their pop star idol besmirched.

[Minder]

All is not lost as there is talk of other Jackson family members taking Jacksons place on the tour............



I wonder will they bury him before they go on tour.

[Hound]

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.

So if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?

[muppet]

All is not lost as there is talk of other Jackson family members taking Jacksons place on the tour............



I wonder will they bury him before they go on tour.

Jebus, they might even bring him. 

[jimbo]

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.

So if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?

What circumstances exist that would say an adult man sleeping in the same bed as an unrelated child would be anything but totally inappropiate and wrong?

[stephenite]

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.

So if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?

Perhaps not - but you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who'd find that sort of behaviour acceptable.

[Main Street]

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.

So if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?

Hound you answer my question with another question.
My point was that there are some undisputed facts about Michael Jackson's habits - facts that numerous witness have testified to and
facts that Michael Jackson himself has publicly admitted. The question is: Are those facts sufficient to label Jackson as a pedophile? I am
not talking about any legal definition. Perhaps the facts do not meet the legal standard of the USA, or perhaps a jury gave more leeway to
Jackson than they would have given to, say, a Catholic priest. Still, we the general public, do have a lot of information - enough information to form our own opinion of the man.
The definition of pedophila is one who is sexually attracted to children.
By definition, sleeping in the same bed does not make definitive proof but it raises serious questions.
Coupled with the sexual abuse allegations from a number of sources  most bought off before they could come to court, leaves a serious perception issue to minds of the public. I say that Jackson was given leeway because of his pop celebrity status.
A few moments silence in honour of MJ in the House of Representatives is totally inappropriate imo.

Another famous public figure Mohandas Ghandhii has never been found guilty of incestuous pedophilia in the courts, but does that mean that people cannot consider well documented and undisputed facts regarding his life lead to the inescapable conclusion that he was not
always the saint that he has been cracked up to be. Would it be wrong to call Mohandas Gandhi a pedophile even though no court of law ever
convicted him of that? He has been given a lot of leeway.

[ziggysego]

Another famous public figure Mohandas Ghandhii has never been found guilty of incestuous pedophilia in the courts, but does that mean that people cannot consider well documented and undisputed facts regarding his life lead to the inescapable conclusion that he was not
always the saint that he has been cracked up to be. Would it be wrong to call Mohandas Gandhi a pedophile even though no court of law ever
convicted him of that? He has been given a lot of leeway.

Huh, where did that come from?

Have I missed something, or were their rumours about Ghandhi's personal life?

[longball]

ITV are gonna reshow 'living with Michael Jackson'

[Keyser soze]

Another famous public figure Mohandas Ghandhii has never been found guilty of incestuous pedophilia in the courts, but does that mean that people cannot consider well documented and undisputed facts regarding his life lead to the inescapable conclusion that he was not
always the saint that he has been cracked up to be. Would it be wrong to call Mohandas Gandhi a pedophile even though no court of law ever
convicted him of that? He has been given a lot of leeway.

Huh, where did that come from?

Have I missed something, or were their rumours about Ghandhi's personal life?

What's the big deal anyway about with this guy Ghandhi??

He made one good film ...................and was never heard of again!!!  [shamelessly plagiarised from Trigger from Only Fools et al]

[Hound]

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.

So if you sleep in the same bed as (an unrelated) child, you are a paedophile?

Perhaps not - but you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who'd find that sort of behaviour acceptable.

But behaviour not being acceptable is a long way from behavious being criminal.

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!

[Main Street]

Another famous public figure Mohandas Ghandhii has never been found guilty of incestuous pedophilia in the courts, but does that mean that people cannot consider well documented and undisputed facts regarding his life lead to the inescapable conclusion that he was not
always the saint that he has been cracked up to be. Would it be wrong to call Mohandas Gandhi a pedophile even though no court of law ever
convicted him of that? He has been given a lot of leeway.

Huh, where did that come from?

Have I missed something, or were their rumours about Ghandhi's personal life?

No rumours,, but substantial facts.

Gandhi took the vow of brahmacharya, which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual desire in his middle 30's.
He propagated this image and succeeded  in elevating his image in the eyes of many Indian people to something akin to sainthood.
It is well documented that Gandhi slept with naked teen-aged girls  including his 13 yo niece.
Gandhi claimed that it was to bolster his "self-control".
His personal life was beset with child abuse allegations and adultery with 12 year old girls.
Quite a lot revealed by his grandsons
"Sexual Antics of Gandhi:" An anthology or research based on the books by Gandhi's grandsons.
"Gandhi's Girls":- very comprehensive Time Magazine article.

Relevance is that that many people chose not to have their image of this man besmirched by these facts.