Jump to content
aberdeen-music

The 'wondering about stuff' thread


Soda Jerk

Recommended Posts

Why do people happily decide to remember Michael Jackson for his music rather than his alleged paedo inclinations whilst Gary Glitter is the complete opposite? Actual conviction make all the difference?

EDIT: For clarity, although I really like the tune 'Rock and Roll Part 2' I have no real support for Gary Glitter, I'm just interested. :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people happily decide to remember Michael Jackson for his music rather than his alleged paedo inclinations whilst Gary Glitter is the complete opposite? Actual conviction make all the difference?

EDIT: For clarity, although I really like the tune 'Rock and Roll Part 2' I have no real support for Gary Glitter, I'm just interested. :up:

Beacause Michael Jackson gave good tune, Gary Glitter was just shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beacause Michael Jackson gave good tune, Gary Glitter was just shite.

Predictable answer, well done.

GG was pretty successful in his day so you are saying that because he has dated less well than MJ he deserves to be an outcast whereas MJ is OK because people still dig his music?

Weird attitude if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people happily decide to remember Michael Jackson for his music rather than his alleged paedo inclinations whilst Gary Glitter is the complete opposite? Actual conviction make all the difference?

EDIT: For clarity, although I really like the tune 'Rock and Roll Part 2' I have no real support for Gary Glitter, I'm just interested. :up:

Gary Glitter isn't dead, so it isn't really a like-for-like comparison ;)

And yes, I'm guessing that the official-ness of Gary Glitter's indiscretions will make a difference. Without the indelible rubber stamp from the relevant authorities, all the stories about Michael Jackson remain simply that - stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think if Jacko had actually been convicted that would have made a big difference.

More tellingly, Pete Townshend got away with downloading child porn. Bill Wyman was up to stuff with a 13 year old, ditto Jimmy Page, started an affair with a 14 year old that lasted for a couple of years but he's a national hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, I'm guessing that the official-ness of Gary Glitter's indiscretions will make a difference. Without the indelible rubber stamp from the relevant authorities, all the stories about Michael Jackson remain simply that - stories.

Even if he was found guilty I reckon it would be nowhere near the witch hunt of Gary glitter.I would imagine plenty of folk protesting his innosence.

No-one stuck up for glitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the fuck did i get upto 2 rep points and not know about it, i was into the minus 30's last time i looked... when did people stop pro-activley hating me?

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be back in the minuses soon enough.

Why do people happily decide to remember Michael Jackson for his music rather than his alleged paedo inclinations whilst Gary Glitter is the complete opposite? Actual conviction make all the difference?

EDIT: For clarity, although I really like the tune 'Rock and Roll Part 2' I have no real support for Gary Glitter, I'm just interested. :up:

The difference there is that Gary Glitter actually is a paedophile, the allegations against MJ were never founded. The first case was settled out of court, and the second one he was found not guilty of. I've read a lot about both cases, there were so many holes in that second kids story you could drive a bus through them. I firmly believe he was innocent on both counts, obviously I'm biased being a fan, but it made him an easy target for jokes and sensational stories, everybody trying to make cash off selling their stories etc. I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about what happened but I would estimate 90% of the stories out there from "reliable witnesses" wre made up wither by the witnesses or the papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be back in the minuses soon enough.

The difference there is that Gary Glitter actually is a paedophile, the allegations against MJ were never founded. The first case was settled out of court, and the second one he was found not guilty of. I've read a lot about both cases, there were so many holes in that second kids story you could drive a bus through them. I firmly believe he was innocent on both counts, obviously I'm biased being a fan, but it made him an easy target for jokes and sensational stories, everybody trying to make cash off selling their stories etc. I don't think we'll ever find out the truth about what happened but I would estimate 90% of the stories out there from "reliable witnesses" wre made up wither by the witnesses or the papers.

I suspect that MJ wasn't 100% innocent. You don't make huge cash pay-offs if you are confident of innocence. But as you say we may never know.

I just find it interesting how people are willing to give some folk the benefit of the doubt but condemn others. Jerry Lee Lewis there's another one. Married his 13 year old cousin for fecks sake....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that MJ wasn't 100% innocent. You don't make huge cash pay-offs if you are confident of innocence. But as you say we may never know.

I just find it interesting how people are willing to give some folk the benefit of the doubt but condemn others. Jerry Lee Lewis there's another one. Married his 13 year old cousin for fecks sake....

To be fair to Jerry Lee Lewis though, that was legal at the time. On the MJ payoff thing, look at it this way.

If somebody was saying all these terrible things about you, and you had lots of money, if you were him wouldn't you consider spending just a bit of that money to make it all go away? Personally I would want to fight to prove my innocence, but when you put yourself in his shoes you can see why it's an appealing option.

Having watched the Martin Bashir thing (whatever happened to him?) I'm of the opinion that the stuff he was doing, ie sleeping with kids, but not necessarily in a sexual way, seemed normal to him, but not to us. And after having the life he had, how could he possibly have had a normal life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Jerry Lee Lewis though, that was legal at the time. On the MJ payoff thing, look at it this way.

If somebody was saying all these terrible things about you, and you had lots of money, if you were him wouldn't you consider spending just a bit of that money to make it all go away? Personally I would want to fight to prove my innocence, but when you put yourself in his shoes you can see why it's an appealing option.

Having watched the Martin Bashir thing (whatever happened to him?) I'm of the opinion that the stuff he was doing, ie sleeping with kids, but not necessarily in a sexual way, seemed normal to him, but not to us. And after having the life he had, how could he possibly have had a normal life?

Legal maybe but weird all the same. As for MJ and the cash payoffs, I get your point totally but to me it just LOOKS bad. Completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that MJ wasn't 100% innocent. You don't make huge cash pay-offs if you are confident of innocence. But as you say we may never know.

I just find it interesting how people are willing to give some folk the benefit of the doubt but condemn others. Jerry Lee Lewis there's another one. Married his 13 year old cousin for fecks sake....

There is that, but then if you were innocent and you had enough money to make the whole thing go away without having your name dragged through the courts, wouldn't you consider it? There was an awful lot of that story that wasn't reported in the papers, most of the allegations came from Jordy Chandler's dad, who was by all accounts a bit of a wrong un. Have a read through this if you ever get a chance:

Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness: J.Randy Taraborrelli: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is that, but then if you were innocent and you had enough money to make the whole thing go away without having your name dragged through the courts, wouldn't you consider it? There was an awful lot of that story that wasn't reported in the papers, most of the allegations came from Jordy Chandler's dad, who was by all accounts a bit of a wrong un. Have a read through this if you ever get a chance:

Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness: J.Randy Taraborrelli: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Totally understand that viewpoint but by making the payoff it cast doubt whereas true innocence could have been proven and the results through evidence would have made things more clear cut.

I may buy that book actually would be an interesting read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally understand that viewpoint but by making the payoff it cast doubt whereas true innocence could have been proven and the results through evidence would have made things more clear cut.

I may buy that book actually would be an interesting read...

At the end of the day though when you're in a situation where it's your word against somebody else's, it could go either way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...