Micheal Jackson

He told his teacher that Jackson didn't molest him.

I'd agree with that, if he is guilty then it's the authorities that should be accountable as well as jacko, after all they new he might have done it before and they still let him have kids round to stay in his room all the time.

Plus, like you say, he was forced to be a star from the age of five by his parents - being made to perform in front of thousands of people every night, whether he liked it or not. That's no way for a child to live.

But at the same time he should understand he's an adult now, and can't go around trying to recapture his youth by sleeping in beds and hanging around with young children. And it's ridiculous that the people around him haven't been making him stop for his own sake, even if he isn't guilty.

he told his head teacher jackson didn't molest him, and that it was all fabricated..

his little brother then admitted to lying under oath..

the case should be thrown out as anything the boy or his brother have said should now be pretty much inadmissible i would have imagined?

i still think he did it.. too many things don't add up... the way bashir majorly put the shits up jackson and his cronies and the way in which they behaved after 'the programme' was aired, is far too telling..

He also lied about contacting Jay Leno about getting him to pay for his cancer treatment... more and more lies coming out... rightly or wrongly, it could get thrown out due to discrediting the witness

the problem is that, because he's such a massive super star, and has been since he was so young - your perspective on life must get very skewed. surrounded by 'yes' men and people grovelling to you, more money than u know what to do with, people adoring you - even though they've never even met you - it must fuck up you sense of reality.

i mean, he's got a tree he sits in, and has for years, where he goes and writes songs... thats very naieve and chlid like....

still - if he's done wrong - he should be punished - but as said b4 - where the other people he's attacked? surley there'd be lots of kids making allegations?

So being abused as a child by his own father isnt going to affect him in later life is it not? Is that not even partially to blame for his behaviour now? Tell us what counts as a good enough excuse then?

Silly me, Jackson should just get on with it and forgot all the abuse he got. The big girl.

but celeb or not, where there is any doubt over child molestation i think it would be better to be guilty until proven innocent. there is enough of it goes on in the world today in all walks of life for it to be the other way round.

Given the supposed evidence in this case, I can't argue with that.

What an absolute fucking pile of shite!!!

You'd have someone branded a child molester (whether he/she is guilty or not) until he/she is proven innocent???

What about a devoted father who would never lay a finger on his child (or any other for that fact) but through no fault of his own goes through a messy divorce only for his ex wife to claim he molested the child as a weapon in the custody battle? Should he be branded a filthy pervert etc until she's found out to be the liar???

Yes, the crime paedophiles commit is absolutely disgraceful and they deserve everything they get, but to tar innocent people with the same brush (until they prove they're not guilty, by which time they’ve suffered huge personal stress and hardship, leaving their reputation and sometimes life is in ruins) is terrible. People are too quick to judge!

Even if Jacko is found not guilty, he's still going to be stigmatised for the rest of his life! He's never going to lose the tag.

You can't pick & choose how to determine guilt depending on the crime they commit!

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one...

yup definatley. if the person is innocent then fair enough, they will go through the courts and sort it all out and in the vast majority of cases justice will hopefull prevail. the innocent people (unless they have a guilty conscience) will be quite happy for things to be done thoroughly in order to prove thier innocence. people are put in positions of trust with children all the time, so wouldnt it be safer to assume guilt than find out 6 months down the line, that actually, your babysitter IS guilty of child molestation?

clebrity is a whole other world when it comes to things like this unfortunatley, as they were saying on the news the other day, about a third of jurors make thier minds up on the first day, so what hope michael jackson has is debatable.

its not tarring innocent people, to my mind its more responsibility, and not automatically assuming they are innocent until proven gulity, no smoke without fire blah blah blah but in the surreal world of celebrity who the fuck knows.

maybe the question posed should have been "would you let your kids sleep at michael jacksons house".

It makes me laugh when people on here say "he is definitely guilty" or "he is definitely innocent". How the fuck do you know? All we get here is a third hand story, twisted by the press or whover you hear it from. Have opinions by all means, but saying you know whether he is guilty or not is plain stupid.

that is possibly one of the scariest things i have ever read!

how can you assume guilt without evidence? a system based on hearsay could be used to destroy lives for no good reason other than someone dislikes another person. imagine the chaos it would cause in schools if all it took was for a student to claim a teacher had behaved inappropriately and for that to automatically prove guilt!

mud sticks badly enough as it, even for those who prove their innocence, sometimes their lives are already ruined by this time.

you just cannot remove someones liberty purely on a presumption!

best thing ive read in this thread since it started , well said b.o.b

not automatically PROVE guilt, jeez that would be rediculous, i think you are missing the point of what im saying. The way the system works at the moment is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and for cases such as these i think this should be the other way around, not that as soon as you accuse someone, it proves thier guilt.

ill tell you something i wish mud stuck on the teacher i called a pervert at school. it wasnt unfounded. its a big accusation yeah, but its a big deal too. esp when you are 12/13 at that difficult age. many girls lives would have been made easier and more comfortable by having him branded a perv.

when i child goes through something like this it is difficult enough to tell someone let alone have people calling you a liar, because until the day they walk out that courtroom to freedom, or prison, they have been "innocent until proven guilty" and for this reason i think it is wrong this view should be taken.

So would you rather think that EVERY child minder, social worker etc in the country is a child molester rather than they are all innocent apart from the minuscule number who actually are guilty? If you think this, who can you trust??? Would you leave your parents/siblings in charge of your children, bearing in mind what you have said?

I’ve commented earlier on the whole “no smoke” thing. Sometimes fires can be started deliberately, yes?

Would I let my children sleep at his house? No, because I don’t know him & therefore wouldn’t trust him. Same as I don’t know you (or indeed most from the boards) so this would be likewise. If I knew him, I would be more able to form opinions about guilt/innocence and base my judgement around this. If I was a close friend of his & thought he was on the level then yes, why not? If I had no doubts, why shouldn’t they? Conversely, if I did have any doubt at all then no, I wouldn’t let them.

not at all, only that where there is a suspicion, it should be treated very very seriously, clearly not every person who works with kids is this way, im simply saying that if accused, or reported to the police, with good reason, these people should be thought of as guilty until proven innocent, not the other way round, as it places too much stock in the notion they are innocent. my parents never abused me and i have no siblings, so yes, i would leave my kids in thier care, and when it comes to your own flesh and blood i think you can never be too careful, they are the most precious things in the world, and should be treated as such.

So if you were suspected of doing something you know you hadn't done, would you rather everyone thought (and treated) you as if you were guilty until you proved otherwise?

That's basically what your argument is.... or am I wrong? :spangled:

Agreed on your last point though.

no, nobody would, but i thought it was a sensible plan to protect people just in this situation of child molestation, but in that situation if i KNEW i was in the right and was adament (sp) adament? about my innocence i wouldnt mind going through the courts, innocent people have very little to be scared of.

Well they've reached a verdict, get your votes in quickly..

When do we find out??