The Celebrity Sexual Harassment and Rapists Thread

[Really Big Shoe]

34 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

This is ridiculous. Someone getting their day in court and having the wrongdoing against them being legally recognised is incredibly important in itself and it doesn't necessarily have to be tied to the punishment that the person who wronged them receives. I can give a million example of this off the top of my head but hopefully just stating it like that makes you realise how wrong what you've said is.

Another example of flame baiting/trolling. It's getting incredibly tiring now so I'm done here. I'll give you the courtesy of a reply though without resorting to name calling, attempts at "humour" and sarcasm.  

Both Safechuck and Robson had ample opportunity to take Michael Jackson to court, yet they didn't. They could have assisted the FBI with their in depth multi year investigation, but didn't. Both had lawsuits against the estate thrown out of court. So obviously they are looking for money. 

That they weren't successful in their attempt to extract money from the estate and a new documentary appears with sensationalist allegations should say it all. But everyone is free to believe what they want. Personally I don't believe a word, not because it's Michael Jackson and he should get a free pass cause he made Thriller, Off the Wall etc. 

Its because both are known liars and have fabricated stories to masquerade as the truth. I think if they were questioned in depth their stories would falter under questioning. If they are telling the honest truth, which I strongly doubt, but if they are, they have my sympathy and full support. Sexual abusers are the very lowest form of pond scum and should be brought to justice and punished to the fullest extent of the law, celebrity or not. What they were saying sickened me but I couldn't buy a word because they said it so matter of factly and showed not one iota of aggression or distress. No one would want to publicly talk about abuse in front of millions where the alleged abuser cannot be prosecuted as he's deceased. Again they had at least a decade plus to speak out and actually go into court during the Gavin Arvizo case and put Michael Jackson behind bars. But they didn't, Wade Robson testified on his behalf saying he never touched him. 

Here's a good example of how the media can sway opinions just by a video title alone

Theyve headlined this video to put across that Corey Feldman isn't defending him anymore. Yet he says their friendship was innocent. A guy called Ron Newt was offered $200,000 to say MJ abused his children but spoke out about it. Plus one of the accusers is now accepting donations apparently with the minimum being $250, so make of that what you will.

Feel free to dissect everything I've written, take it out of context etc. I'll not be around to read it or reply because I see no sense continuing on a forum where if you have a different opinion you're trolled and made fun of. 

 

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Innocent of abuse or not it's hard to say it was not damaging. Not only to the kids involved but to future cases with other people accused, 'it was innocent friends and bed sharing between 30 year old me and a 7 year old, your honor'

[Chest Rockwell]

36 minutes ago, Really Big Shoe said:

Another example of flame baiting/trolling

What the fuck are you talking about? I wasn't trolling in any shape or form. I wasn't even talking about MJ so I've not even bothered to read the rest of your post. I think I explained pretty clearly what my point was. If you couldn't understand it then I've no interest in continuing a discussion with you.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Corey smells a payday there, with this change in attitude. He was all "MJ is innocent" until the other day, and now he wants that sweet Sony money, he's all over him. But when you are that close to selling your own teeth on ebay to get by, I can hardly blame him for being so lax with what his stance on anything is. Jacko's abuse of C-Feld is probably lodged deep into his brain of things he refuses to remember, sitting kindly next to Friday the 13th Part 4 and the time Dick Miller told him to shut his fucking mouth on the set of the Burbs.

[Chris B]

12 hours ago, Really Big Shoe said:

They've headlined this video to put across that Corey Feldman isn't defending him anymore. Yet he says their friendship was innocent.

These aren't contradictory points. He can accept that Jackson abused other boys, even if he wasn't a victim. 

[David]

17 hours ago, Really Big Shoe said:

Great points David. I do believe it will affect Michael Jackson though in terms of attempting to destroy his legacy and for the accusers to try and get a percentage of his royalties.

The thing is, in reality it was Jackson who opened himself up to all of this, be he guilty of molesting anyone or not. He wasn't an idiot, he was a grown man, and he must have known the position he was putting himself in, surely? You live that kind of life and you're opening yourself up to all kinds of trouble.

17 hours ago, Really Big Shoe said:

They said they weren't paid for participating but they don't need to be if they end up potentially getting hundreds of millions from his estate in damages. TV stations have already dropped The Simpsons episode "Stark Raving Dad" and no doubt Spotify, Tidal, Amazon Music, YouTube etc will probably drop his music from their services. 

By the same token, you can bet that all of this will only make his fans actively make a point of buying more of his stuff, right? Besides, what does it really matter? In reality, the guy died on the verge of bankruptcy from what I've seen, and the money only really started flowing in again when he died? So, there's going to be people out there besides his kids who are benefiting from the cash that has come in following his death.

Should his fans be concerned if some hangers-on who are cashing in post-death lose out now? I certainly wouldn't be.

17 hours ago, Really Big Shoe said:

There is little to no coverage about the Weinstein doc whatsoever, especially in the British press. I believe it only aired on PBS in the US. When Rose McGowan spoke out about Weinstein they said she was crazy etc. Corey Feldman has tried to speak out about the sexual abuse that goes down in Hollywood but was portrayed as crazy etc too. 

As for Oprah, yes she's very close to Harvey Weinstein, same with David Geffen and her best friend is Gayle King. Weinstein apparently paid gossip website/mags to plant MJ stories to stop his own wrongdoings make the press. Oprah said she watched Leaving Neverland with Geffen. David Geffen wanted to sign MJ to Geffen Records. Oprah of course famously interviewed MJ in the 90s. She also interviewed Katherine Jackson and his children after he passed away so she used him and his family for TV ratings yet has thrown him under the bus to protect her friend Harvey Weinstein.

Look, I don't think you're really telling most of us anything that we don't already know. Anyone who thinks that powerful people like Weinstein doesn't have a very influential network of friends in high places who can help him with damage limitation or to deflect some of the shite that's been falling on him from a great height are either incredibly naive or are being disingenuous. 

People like Oprah don't get to where they are in life without being sneaky, cunning and calculated. She was on the Jackson bandwagon when it suited her and was working in her favour, and now she's attacking him because it'll serve her better now. Jackson is dead, and there's no benefit in siding with the dead guy!

Another important point that many Michael Jackson fans are glossing over is that while there's a good chance Weinstein's friends are partaking in a bit of "don't watch this! Watch that!" it doesn't remove from the fact that the Jackson documentary is relevant. It's not as if they've decided to create the whole thing with the intention of overshadowing Weinstein's documentary, they've just capitalised on an opportunity to shift the limelight from Weinstein a little. It won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things though in all honesty, that dude is still in the shit regardless of how popular his own documentary is. No amount of Oprah interviews can really change that.

16 hours ago, Really Big Shoe said:

He's earned $825m since 2009

Forbes magazine has quoted Jackson's entire career earnings at $4.2 billion, of which half has been earned since his death. 

It's insane really, he earned $825 million in 2016 alone, which is the highest single-year payday ever recorded by a "front of camera" celebrity up to 2018. Considering he done that while he was dead, that's pretty incredible.

His estate sold his half of the Sony/ATV catalogue in 2016 for $750 million, and his estate earned $360 million for his Immortal tour in 2014.

In short, there's money there. 

2005 sees Jackson hit with 14 charges of child molestation, and he's acquitted of all 14. James Safechuck and Wade Robson testify that Jackson never acted inappropriately with them. 

Fast forward eight years, four years after Jackson's death and their story changes entirely, quickly followed by a couple of lawsuits, which just happen to coincide with the cash starting to flow.

Maybe they're telling the truth, and they just happened to find the courage to speak out (and the courage to launch a few lawsuits) at the same time as the finances started to pick up for Jackson's estate. maybe that's true.

I'm a cynical type though, and I tend to believe that while there's every chance that Jackson did molest children during his life (none of us will ever know for sure), I think these two dudes are a couple of chancers looking to cash in on the money train. It seems they left it too late though, and had their lawsuits thrown out.

This documentary is going to be making money, that's for sure. A decent plan B I guess.

[Steve Justice]

Watched part 1 of Leaving Neverland this evening. Very difficult and uncomfortable viewing. 

Whilst I don't disbelieve them, what I struggle to comprehend is if he didn't do the same thing to Makauly Culkin and his nephew (I forget his name), then what stopped him? He was clearly lonely and extremely childlike and craved that friendship, and if what the two guys saying is true, he also used his position to fulfill his adult sexual tendencies. So why not do the same to MC and nephew? Were they perhaps more protected because of who they already were, so he had to limit his relationships with them to just friendship? Or, which is incredibly upsetting, they were abused in the same way and simply cannot bring themselves to come forward about it. 

From what I've seen so far, there's nothing that makes me think these guys are lying. I'm also contemplating not watching part 2. I don't think I can watch any more of it. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by Steve Justice

[Astro Hollywood]

39 minutes ago, Steve Justice said:

Watched part 1 of Leaving Neverland this evening. Very difficult and uncomfortable viewing. 

Whilst I don't disbelieve them, what I struggle to comprehend is if he didn't do the same thing to Makauly Culkin and his nephew (I forget his name), then what stopped him?

For one thing, as prolific an abuser as he obviously was, he's not going to do that to every kid he meets. Savile's victims are probably in the thousands, but there are still plenty of stories from people who met him that weren't abused by him. Generally, other celebrities, who he wasn't able to exert a level of power or control over. There's a reason he groped dying kids in hospital beds, Nurses, and wayward children from homes, rather than Thatcher when he went there for Christmas dinner.

Plus, the two victims the story focussed on were 'normal' families who got pulled into the madness and intoxication of his celebrity lifestyle. Far easier to groom someone who's wowed by flying first class, let alone getting attention from the world's biggest star, and less likely to have anyone listen to or believe them if they did speak up. Culkin was the most famous kid in the world at that point; a huge, huge name on his own. That would've been much harder for him to get away with, and a far bigger risk of getting caught. Imagine the fallout if the Home Alone kid had accused him rather than some random boy nobody had ever heard of.

One thing that wasn't really touched on in the film, which I've always been really fascinated by, is to what level the public character of MJ was the real him. He definitely contrived the whole 'Wacko Jacko' deal, with all those mad rumours about buying the elephant man's bones and whatnot, but was that part of his grooming, to create the perception of a sexless manchild it's fine to leave your kids with, or a deliberate marketing act too? Like was he selling more shirts that way? Did he do better in business because people underestimated the shambling Skeleton creature that probably made out he didn't even know what money was? There are a few videos knocking about of his 'real' voice. I'm sure that Mickey Mouse voice was the equivalent of Nikita Koloff talking gibberish faux-Russian when he went to the supermarket.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Astro Hollywood

[Steve Justice]

That's pretty much what I was getting at and what I wanted to say. But you have articulated it much better than my attempt. 

[ColinBollocks]

10 hours ago, Astro Hollywood said:

For one thing, as prolific an abuser as he obviously was, he's not going to do that to every kid he meets. Savile's victims are probably in the thousands, but there are still plenty of stories from people who met him that weren't abused by him. Generally, other celebrities, who he wasn't able to exert a level of power or control over. There's a reason he groped dying kids in hospital beds, Nurses, and wayward children from homes, rather than Thatcher when he went there for Christmas dinner.

Aye. Just going by the stories in the documentary, Jackson spent ages working on the family and kid until they let their guard down and he could get all the alone time he wanted with the children. It was a proper twisted plan he had to get to the children. He tried not to be sloppy because he was fully aware how such claims will kill his career.

I wonder how many families are out there that turned down his advances? Fully aware he's a bit mental and didn't give a shite about his fame, so he had no chance of working his way in.

[Carbomb]

12 hours ago, Astro Hollywood said:

Plus, the two victims the story focussed on were 'normal' families who got pulled into the madness and intoxication of his celebrity lifestyle. Far easier to groom someone who's wowed by flying first class, let alone getting attention from the world's biggest star, and less likely to have anyone listen to or believe them if they did speak up. 

This also touches on what someone else was saying earlier, about raking the parents over the coals for letting their kids stay with him.

It's Michael Jackson, the biggest star in the world, and a huge part of that is that, like most elite performers, he has a presence, charisma, and aura about him that a lot of non-celebrities would've been overwhelmed by, especially given his level of stardom at the time, and the sheer near-surrealism of the lifestyle he was living as well. How many people like him does an ordinary person come into contact with during their lifetime, and who would instinctually know how to deal with someone like that? Another major factor was that he was very good at cultivating images of himself through blurring fiction with reality in the videos and music he was putting out, so they could be forgiven for thinking he was the child-protecting Peter Pan that he portrayed himself as.

12 hours ago, Astro Hollywood said:

One thing that wasn't really touched on in the film, which I've always been really fascinated by, is to what level the public character of MJ was the real him. He definitely contrived the whole 'Wacko Jacko' deal, with all those mad rumours about buying the elephant man's bones and whatnot, but was that part of his grooming, to create the perception of a sexless manchild it's fine to leave your kids with, or a deliberate marketing act too? Like was he selling more shirts that way? Did he do better in business because people underestimated the shambling Skeleton creature that probably made out he didn't even know what money was? There are a few videos knocking about of his 'real' voice. I'm sure that Mickey Mouse voice was the equivalent of Nikita Koloff talking gibberish faux-Russian when he went to the supermarket.

Yeah, I think there's even some footage on the documentary very early on, of him standing with Robson - his voice definitely sounded a bit deeper.

[Steve Justice]

We just finished part two. I was in tears with that. 

I hope the cunt suffered a long and painful death. 

[King Coconut]

We're still allowed to listen to the Jackson 5 though, right? Can't be a paedo when you're a kid. What's the last 'legal' song I can listen to? 

[Loki]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:17 PM, Chest Rockwell said:

Wrong. Everyone should have Ignition remix on their playlist, nonce or not. 

Chest likes 'em hot and fresh out the kitchen  🤔

[Jazzy G]

I presume by worst they actually mean most prolific? I'll bet there are plenty of people who've committed fewer, but worse crimes than what Savile had been up to during his tenure, but most prolific almost sounds like they're celebrating the number of incidents he was involved in. It's probably a semantics thing.