Wacko Jacko

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,172
Likes
30,439
Points
284
Why would Feldman still be defending Michael Jackson after his best mate Corey Haim committed suicide after being groomed and raped by older industry men? .. why would Feldman be funding his own documentary about Hollywood abuse of children and talking about the issue so fervently in interviews (Feldman says he was also raped as a child actor) any yet still say he wasn't abused by MJ? .. because it didn't happen. If anyone was going to go after MJ, it surely most certainly would be Feldman at this stage in his life?.

Fedman wants to name the person who did rape him

https://movieweb.com/corey-feldman-haim-rapist-truth-documentary-death-threats-video/

edit: Now Feldman's admitting MJ attacks might have happened to the other kids but still maintains MJ didn't abuse him.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/corey-feldman-michael-jackson

 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159
Surely it's not impossible that Jackson might abuse some children and not others? If nothing else, they might act as a "smokescreen" to protect him from accusations from those he did abuse.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,172
Likes
30,439
Points
284
Surely it's not impossible that Jackson might abuse some children and not others? If nothing else, they might act as a "smokescreen" to protect him from accusations from those he did abuse.
Something that did cross my mind was that Feldman and Caulkin were probably substantially richer as famous child actors at the time than the kids who went on to make accusations of abuse. It could be possible that MJ didn't interfere with the connected 'rich kids' out of fear that that would have been more risk of getting caught and higher exposure in the media should they have made allegations. Just a theory.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159
Something that did cross my mind was that Feldman and Caulkin were probably substantially richer as famous child actors at the time than the kids who went on to make accusations of abuse. It could be possible that MJ didn't interfere with the connected 'rich kids' out of fear that that would have been more risk of getting caught and higher exposure in the media should they have made allegations. Just a theory.
I agree, that certainly sounds possible and even likely.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,172
Likes
30,439
Points
284
I agree, that certainly sounds possible and even likely.
In one of Feldman's media interviews (I haven't got the link to it sorry), Feldman said he'd started hanging around with MJ after a different man had raped him because he wanted MJ to be an older brother type friend. Perhaps Feldman confided in MJ about the assault and MJ felt a tinge of guilt ? .. or perhaps MJ realised Feldman was clearly the sort of kid to tell someone if MJ had assaulted him so chose not to? .. again just theories.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159
In one of Feldman's media interviews (I haven't got the link to it sorry), Feldman said he'd started hanging around with MJ after a different man had raped him because he wanted MJ to be an older brother type friend. Perhaps Feldman confided in MJ about the assault and MJ felt a tinge of guilt ? .. or perhaps MJ realised Feldman was clearly the sort of kid to tell someone if MJ had assaulted him so chose not to? .. again just theories.
Hard to say, it's still not impossible (though increasingly unlikely to near that point) that MJ wasn't a nonce and was just a deeply damaged man who was obsessed with hanging around young boys, or at least that the ones he abused were the exceptions and not the rule. Cold comfort for the survivors there.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,172
Likes
30,439
Points
284
Hard to say, it's still not impossible (though increasingly unlikely to near that point) that MJ wasn't a nonce and was just a deeply damaged man who was obsessed with hanging around young boys, or at least that the ones he abused were the exceptions and not the rule. Cold comfort for the survivors there.
Just found this '96 interview released about a month ago of an MJ deposition in which he gets the giggles while being questioned about the serious allegations .. I've head of gallows laughter but it's still weird .. nervous 'gallows' laughter?

 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159
Just found this '96 interview released about a month ago of an MJ deposition in which he gets the giggles while being questioned about the serious allegations .. I've head of gallows laughter but it's still weird .. nervous 'gallows' laughter?

Only watched the first few seconds, even ignoring the context he's creepy and palpably odd. No surprise there though.
 

brownmane

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
565
Likes
1,074
Points
133
Location
Ontario, Canada
In one of Feldman's media interviews (I haven't got the link to it sorry), Feldman said he'd started hanging around with MJ after a different man had raped him because he wanted MJ to be an older brother type friend. Perhaps Feldman confided in MJ about the assault and MJ felt a tinge of guilt ? .. or perhaps MJ realised Feldman was clearly the sort of kid to tell someone if MJ had assaulted him so chose not to? .. again just theories.
Or Feldman wasn't "pure and innocent" because of what he'd reported to MJ happened to him? So, maybe not the type of child that suited him?
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,281
Likes
26,645
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I don't know enough about the specifics, but--like most right-thinking people--think that some of the 'eccentric' behaviour Jackson engaged in with children is highly suspect regardless of his own non-childhood.

WITH AN EXTREME EXTREME-LANGUAGE WARNING, this YouTuber has some very specific objections to some of the allegations.
I present them without endorsement.

Two Years Ago (you might want to skip to 7:34!):

Earlier This Year:

Today:
 

Shady

Mary Queen of Scots...temping as DEATHS Kitty
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
7,584
Likes
9,002
Points
284
That guy in Swiftys vid has a lovely voice, he does sound like Jackson, but different, if you know what I mean
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
27,656
Likes
12,371
Points
284
Why would Jackson be interested in Culkin and Feldman if he wasn't abusing them? He could do whatever he wanted around children, especially if their parents were pushing their careers. That's what was described as happening in Leaving Neverland.
All the 'childlike' behaviour - riding on roundabouts, watching kids' movies, having sleepovers with children - turned out to be ways to groom potential victims.

One can perhaps see why men who've been so thoroughly used and compromised as children, and who then go on to a career in the public eye, might not want to talk about it.
Culkin seems to be fairly well-balanced for one who was so famous, so young, and is content to stay out of the limelight. He doesn't seem the sort to be in denial (I don't know the guy, obviously, but that's how he comes across).

Feldman is a different case, he closely identified with Jackson to the extent of dressing up like him and trying his dance moves in public, and it could be a case of him protecting his idol. But as stated, he is preoccupied with a conspiracy of Hollywood child abusers who may or may not be in his head, it's plain he is a deeply troubled man, so if he says it wasn't Jackson who abused him, I tend to believe him.

I'd say Jackson liked the famous kids because he identified with them, being a kid in his own mind and idolising them himself. But he was not a kid in his body, and that's where the problems arose. This is all armchair psychology, you understand, but that's what the internet is for.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,657
Likes
8,493
Points
234


Apparently MJ fans have crowdfunded a series of similar adverts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/08/uk/uk-michael-jackson-bus-adverts-scli-gbr-intl/index.html

Interesting that Sadiq Khan considers that ads for takeaway foods are bad and to be banned, yet approves of others that defend a man who took underage boys to bed, paid massive hush money to one of them and is credibly accused of paedophilia by others. Perhaps the effort of solving his city’s knife and firearm murder problem is affecting his judgment.

maximus otter
 

Shady

Mary Queen of Scots...temping as DEATHS Kitty
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
7,584
Likes
9,002
Points
284
What were the facts?, and who said they were facts?, people, but they lie. I don't know if it's cause it is early, or I am thick, but I cannot get my head round that bus Ad.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159


Apparently MJ fans have crowdfunded a series of similar adverts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/08/uk/uk-michael-jackson-bus-adverts-scli-gbr-intl/index.html

Interesting that Sadiq Khan considers that ads for takeaway foods are bad and to be banned, yet approves of others that defend a man who took underage boys to bed, paid massive hush money to one of them and is credibly accused of paedophilia by others. Perhaps the effort of solving his city’s knife and firearm murder problem is affecting his judgment.

maximus otter
I had no idea old Sadders assessed each individual advert, must keep him very busy, perhaps he has delegated the murders and whatnot to the police?
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,657
Likes
8,493
Points
234
I had no idea old Sadders assessed each individual advert...
From the article linked above:

"Junk food adverts will be banned on London Underground, train, tram and bus services from February under plans announced by London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan.

The mayor had previously announced his intention to restrict advertising for foods high in fat, sugar and salt but has now confirmed the ban will take effect..."

maximus otter
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,236
Likes
3,639
Points
159
From the article linked above:

"Junk food adverts will be banned on London Underground, train, tram and bus services from February under plans announced by London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan.

The mayor had previously announced his intention to restrict advertising for foods high in fat, sugar and salt but has now confirmed the ban will take effect..."

maximus otter
He's made a generalised ban on junk food ads, I mostly agree with it but think it's a futile gesture; however, your post implies that he approved of the MJ advert, which I very much doubt. I don't think you actually think that he did but the implication is there. If he (or someone else) did ban it specifically, various people would no doubt have their pitchforks out about the curtailment of free speech.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,281
Likes
26,645
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
He was onto the "Beach Body Ready" campaign like a duck on a June bug though, wasn't he?

maximus otter
I saw that on one of my rare stays in London and was rather struck by it.

I've got to say, you've got your work cut out for you if you intend to prohibit they promotion of looking stunning; it's kind of the basis for the whole modern fashion and cosmetic industries. You've got a whole lot more work cut out for you if you intend to rid advertising of dishonesty; that's the whole basis for modern advertising!

My own reaction was to wonder how much bloody hard work in must take to maintain such a figure.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,182
Likes
2,541
Points
154
During a trial, people are under oath and there are consequences if they lie. During a documentary about a dead guy, not so much.
 

Cochise

Antediluvian
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
5,070
Likes
4,865
Points
234
During a trial, people are under oath and there are consequences if they lie. During a documentary about a dead guy, not so much.
There would certainly be consequences if they now changed their story - perjury and all that. So they won't.
 

pandacracker

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
435
Likes
844
Points
124
Wade testified in support of Jackson twice in the past. He couldn't possibly go back on his story now.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,458
Likes
20,224
Points
284
Location
Eblana
An article which addresses some issues of double standards.

Following fresh allegations of sexual abuse in the documentary Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson’s music is being removed from many of the world’s radio stations prompted by listener complaints.

It’s a natural and understandable response: in the just released documentary, two men who were part of Jackson’s entourage allege that they were sexually abused in a most violent and horrific manner by the singer while they were children. But if we are to act on the basis that the sins (alleged or proven) of the artist necessarily invalidate the art, we must consider who gets to decide that an artist’s work is no longer fit for public consumption? And should the level of public outrage be the overriding factor in banning an artist? There are hypocrisies and inconsistencies aplenty here. There is one rule for the popular culture figures of “low art” and another for the revered icons of “high art”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...+s+death&utm_campaign=morning_briefing_digest
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,891
Likes
10,233
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
And should the level of public outrage be the overriding factor in banning an artist? There are hypocrisies and inconsistencies aplenty here. There is one rule for the popular culture figures of “low art” and another for the revered icons of “high art”.
Indeed. I enjoy Wagner; I don't enjoy Jackson. Neither is a person I regard as a model human. I don't want either banned per se. If someone is still alive and benefitting I think I might feel differently and withdraw my money even if I did appreciate the art.

Would I want a "ban"? No.
 
Top