Jump to content

The Celebrity Sexual Harassment and Rapists Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 812
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Eat Out to Help Out endangered countless more people than all the protests put together but I don't remember Johnny Law raiding Nando's.

It's always amazed me how many excuses people use when it comes to Michael Jackson. His house is a millionaires nonce cave. Everything from WrestleFest in the arcade room to the flying Scotsman in the

Obvious troll is obvious.    Regarding that curfew thing, it’s switching the narrative. Since forever, it’s always been about what women and girls can do to prevent getting attacked and not wha

Posted Images

  • Paid Members
31 minutes ago, King Coconut said:

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? 

The Jacksons was probably the last album, at least partially, recorded before he was 18.

Blame it on the Boogie and Can You Feel It are iffy by that marker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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  🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

I've now seen the documentary.

Despite it being clearly biased towards those with the story to tell (and are still alive to recount it), I found the two at the centre of the allegations believable and found nothing about what they said or how they presented themselves to be phony.

However, I'm curious as to why now, if it isn't about money. If it's all genuine, then I can see how the battle is probably easier for them to stomach now given Jackson isn't around to defend himself and as they're also older and more emotionally mature may be more comfortable with coming forward, but I still don't fully know why they'd want to thrown themselves in front of the World rather than getting on with their lives. Justice can't be done, as the supposed perpetrator is dead. So it has to be about money and that's what makes me feel uncomfortable about families coming forward on camera telling this story now.

One thing that is most fascinating about this, is that the stories that have come out (Savile, Harris, Jackson) where all from an era when these people were genuine stars and felt removed from everyday folk. Nowadays, whilst I'm sure a fan would feel bloody excited about meeting, say, Justin Beiber, the world is so much smaller now thanks to the internet, and celebrities are so accessible (it seems like everyone is a celebrity these days, anyway), that I think the whole "star struck" thing is less likely to happen and so the power to commit such crimes is so much more diminished.

When Savile was at the height of his fame, there were 3 or 4 channels on TV. If you were on TV back then, you were huge deal and would've seemed like someone from another planet to a random person in the street. In 2019, would people be so amazed to bump into and interact with Stephen Mulhern, Ollie Murs or whomever presents Blue Peter these days? People on TV today seem very small-time and, dare I say, "normal", compared to mega stars from the 70's and 80's. Celebrity has been so watered down, that the word is pretty meaningless now. That added to the fact that ideas and awareness have moved forward would make me believe these are stories left well in the past.

However, and what does alarm me, though, is that when Savile is called "the worst offender", it does seem a massive coincidence that the man who did the most wrong also happened to be very famous. Out of 65m people in this country, the worst was the one we all knew? Maybe his celebrity and power opened more doors of opportunity for him , but I fail to accept that there aren't horrible things going on (or have gone on) with people that are totally anonymous to most and that's quite a horrible thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
16 minutes ago, scratchdj said:

However, I'm curious as to why now, if it isn't about money. If it's all genuine, then I can see how the battle is probably easier for them to stomach now given Jackson isn't around to defend himself and as they're also older and more emotionally mature may be more comfortable with coming forward, but I still don't fully know why they'd want to thrown themselves in front of the World rather than getting on with their lives. Justice can't be done, as the supposed perpetrator is dead. So it has to be about money and that's what makes me feel uncomfortable about families coming forward on camera telling this story now.

Isn't destroying his legacy and getting everyone else to realise he was a monster some kind of justice or closure enough? As an aim, rather than money... Getting the rest of the world to see him like they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine the reasoning behind them coming forward now is to make sure everyone is aware of what a disgustingly horrible person MJ was, and as they have said on the documentary, to hopefully give other people the courage to come forward. Not just about MJ, but about anyone who has abused them. 

As far as the money goes, that's the only option they have now in terms of reparation. Wade Robson can't be short of cash given his career. I can't imagine he wants to come forward now just for money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

 

21 minutes ago, scratchdj said:

However, I'm curious as to why now, if it isn't about money.

Why do people keep asking the question about why they're choosing to talk now? This is another reason why survivors don't come forward, or at the very least take so long to come forward. Their motives will always be questioned. It doesn't seem to occur to so many people that getting to the stage of actually talking about abuse is the biggest step of all. There's no set time limit. They will talk when they can. Some people, unfortunately, never reach that stage. The question of time is NOT IMPORTANT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, scratchdj said:

I've now seen the documentary

... 

However, I'm curious as to why now, if it isn't about money.

If you've seen the documentary you wouldn't need to ask. 

Wade is because of his child being born and the imagery going round his head. Something he actually spoke about first in 2013.

James because Wade came out and was looking to find solace in other survivors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

 

Why do people keep asking the question about why they're choosing to talk now? This is another reason why survivors don't come forward, or at the very least take so long to come forward. Their motives will always be questioned. It doesn't seem to occur to so many people that getting to the stage of actually talking about abuse is the biggest step of all. There's no set time limit. They will talk when they can. Some people, unfortunately, never reach that stage. The question of time is NOT IMPORTANT.

My question, and apologies if this has been answered, is why did they testify, under oath, of nothing untoward happening? I haven't yet seen the doc, though I have it recorded, and I am not really a Michael Jackson fan, so I am not trying to defend him, I am just genuinely curious. All the other cases we have seen, Weinstein, Spacey, Saville etc have all had people who reported crimes be ignored or covered up. So why now? Why have they now decided to tell the truth after lying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

My question, and apologies if this has been answered, is why did they testify, under oath, of nothing untoward happening? I haven't yet seen the doc, though I have it recorded, and I am not really a Michael Jackson fan, so I am not trying to defend him, I am just genuinely curious. All the other cases we have seen, Weinstein, Spacey, Saville etc have all had people who reported crimes be ignored or covered up. So why now? Why have they now decided to tell the truth after lying?

They were groomed kids. It's pretty much brainwashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
33 minutes ago, Chris B said:

They were groomed kids. It's pretty much brainwashing.

And there's also the added element of pressure via leveraged gratitude, from all the gifts he lavished on them before this happened - they seemed to feel they couldn't say anything at the time as a result of it. I daresay that, during the court cases where they testified for him, they were probably terrified that they wouldn't be believed, because they'd accepted houses and whatnot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
4 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

And there's also the added element of pressure via leveraged gratitude, from all the gifts he lavished on them before this happened - they seemed to feel they couldn't say anything at the time as a result of it. 

Not unlike the Savile case with all the charity work. Seems that type of thing is/was a tactic among the rich and famous nonces to both get close to victims initially and then to make them feel like they can’t say no or that nobody will believe them if they do speak out. Nonces are as manipulative as they are sick and perverted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members
54 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

My question, and apologies if this has been answered, is why did they testify, under oath, of nothing untoward happening? I haven't yet seen the doc

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Paid Members

It should also be noted, when asked "why didnt he molest such and such", one of his accusers was defending him a few years back. Just because we dont know he fiddled with a certain person doesnt mean he didnt.

If Hulk Hogan invited me around to Clearwater, Florida back in 94 to look at his memorabilia room, it might have taken me until my 40s to go "maybe it wasnt just a shirtless grapple afterall." And he wouldnt have put me over, knowing him.

Edited by IANdrewDiceClay
Link to post
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...