Quote from Bawbag :

Huh, who cares about his personal life? I made a post last night but it was deleted, which basicly is a reply to what you said, so i'll say it a little bit nicer this time.

Because he touched young children it should be forgotten because he was a talented singer? Gary Glitter was a good singer too.

Do you have proof of this? No because he was found not guilty (I'm regretting typing this as there will probably be an influx of 12 year olds who will start giving me abuse lol).

You can't negate the fact that he was the king of pop, a great singer, an inspiration to millions of people. I can't say the same for Gary Glitter.

Just giving my opinion, believe what you want to believe.

Quote from The Moose :

Why do you have to make such jokes? We all understand now that you didn't really like him. The message is clear dude.

Quote from Bose321 :

Why do you have to make such jokes? We all understand now that you didn't really like him. The message is clear dude.

Why so serious? ...dude

Lighten up ffs

Even though I feel bad I still couldn't help laughing.

Quote from Fmylife.com :

Today, my brother and I were going to give our parents their anniversary gift which cost us over $3000. The gift was a trip to London in August to see a show on Michael Jackson's comeback tour. FML

Quote from Rappa Z :

Even though I feel bad I still couldn't help laughing.

that must suck lol

Jacko is dead, long live Jacko.

You could argue buying his CD is giving money to a non convicted paedophile (if he is one!) though, which is bad. I think that's why people are arguing about his other side. Like if I buy Amy Winehouse's album, thats kinda funding her drug abuse I suppose.

I don't think he was a pedophile, but rather suffering from the peter pan syndrome. I don't think he percieved himself as an adult being.

He used his power and fame for dubious things, he had boys in his bed, thats FACT, however, the question if anything else went on will never be truely discovered, regardless, he, or someone around him, should have made it clear that sleeping with boys in UNACCEPTABLE, no matter who you are.

I think he wasn't as innocent of "boy like" as he liked to make people believe, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

Just because he made good music, doesn't mean he was a nice person, and people certainly shouldn't say "forget the bad stuff, and concetrate on the good", thats almost inexcusable.

As for Glitter, whats the difference between him and Jackson?, IMO, a good few million record sales and not a great deal else.....

The difference is as follows

Jackson : Found not guilty by a jury of his peers - the case was a pile of turd made up by an outfit keen on making money by false accusations.
Glitter : Found guilty by a jury of his peers of posessing kiddy porn. Then convicted in Vietnam.

Therein lies the difference. One is a criminal and extremely average, the other simply had a load of guff made up about them but was one of the last pop musicians to actually produce music with merit.

Being found not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it just means it couldn't be proven.

Quote from danowat :

Being found not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it just means it couldn't be proven.

But it could've never happened, thus not proven.

Guess we never know what's the truth is
What I wondering about is if he was pedofile or just..very messed in his head. Think of this, if he just was that much messed in head, that he found it easier to be around with kids than grown up adults. Maybe he just couldn't stand the social complexity of normal people, therfor it was easier to be around kids, that doesn't ask hard questions or are too hard to understand / prejudice. If that's the case, I feel really sorry for him, due to all the shit he has been through.

When that is said, I don't know and probally we never know. I have made many pedo-jokes about MJ, but I don't feel they are any funny anymore. The picture of kids crawling out under a bench with title "you can come out now, MJ is dead" or something was purely disgusting in my eyes. Now I do know people don't care one bit, nor do really I do, but I find it funny to see how "mature" people on this forum is. LFS forum has drastically moved from a nice little community, to a big effing stinhole filled with kids with bad jokes.

There, my hangover rant, but I hope we can start seeing higher quality posting soon, because it's bugging me as hell the new "I don't give a flying fukc (Alexi comment rip-off)" attitute from many of the users here, Also funny to see that most of them has reg'ed dates at 07 and later..Enough said, he was a great artist and a messed up person. But as every dead person, let him rest in peace kids.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Jackson : Found not guilty by a jury of his peers - the case was a pile of turd made up by an outfit keen on making money by false accusations.
Glitter : Found guilty by a jury of his peers of posessing kiddy porn. Then convicted in Vietnam.

Glitter: Didn't have 20 million dollars and didn't do it in a country where greedy bastards would let you buy your way out of serious crime...

Quote from danowat :

Being found not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it just means it couldn't be proven.

It could also mean he's innocent.

This witch-hunt mentality is something very hard to understand. Many of us live in countries which respect certain rights for individuals, including the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty. While some people might think it correct to assume that an accused person is guilty without proof, those same people will do well to remember that THEIR rights are protected by the presumption of innocence, lest they find themselves wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit.

Personally, I'll take my chances with guilty criminals wrongly set free, rather than risk innocent lives with wrongful deprivation of liberty.

Quote from samjh :

It could also mean he's innocent.

This witch-hunt mentality is something very hard to understand. Many of us live in countries which respect certain rights for individuals, including the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilty. While some people might think it correct to assume that an accused person is guilty without proof, those same people will do well to remember that THEIR rights are protected by the presumption of innocence, lest they find themselves wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit.

Personally, I'll take my chances with guilty criminals wrongly set free, rather than risk innocent lives with wrongful deprivation of liberty.

If there was a thumb, smile, thank button or whatever, this post would get mine!
I totally agree with you. In my eyes, and at least most of the people I know, it's innocence until proven guilty. Just think if he's inocent..
Since he's dead i think it's time to stop dvelling over it. What makes me angry is that there probally will be a lot of idiots that will claim MJ "touched" them, and then sell the story to the paper or god knows what sue his remaining family. America is...America

Quote from danowat :

Being found not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it just means it couldn't be proven.

Shame we go by the presumption of innocence, not the presumption of guilt in our courts, eh?

Yeah, but, is it easy to believe that a man who's had boys in his bed, is not a paedophile? Not for me, anyway. I don't think he is all he made out to be, and it's all completely his dads fault.

My 2 cents.

Great music legend died but hes dead there is no turning back now we should not give a dam anymore

lol still on the MJ thing eh, It's cool people, He meant a lot to many people, just not as much to others. I bet there were more kids that never came forward, and the first time a legit one did tell someone, then I bet hella people set out to get paid and just said they got touched too.

That would explain why he paid the first, and got acquitted on the 2nd, as someone said earlier.

lol let the man die in peace already plz n thanks LFS Fam

The Thing i dont actually see is how Michael Jackson's 'Apparent' Kids are White? When he was black?

Anyone actually know if there his real kids?

debbie rowe, the mother of 2 of the kids was white, as for the other one, i dont know matey.

Wouldnt the kids be a bit darker if they were his though?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix ... 500000578-764_468x286.jpg

(Not a good picture, clear enough)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONqgh79xlo