h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Found this story on MSN news:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=180501&GT1=6190

Whaddya all think?

I am probably gonna be shot down in flames for this, but my *personal* gut instinct opinion is that he is innocent, if somewhat eccentric and possibly rather naive.

He is definitely, but who wouldn't be, if raised in a family of musicians and promoted as the youngest, cutest member of The Jackson Five. He didn't get a childhood, he got exploitation by his own family.

Now he has lots of money, he chose to spend it on a weird mansion and invite youngsters to share his childhood fantasy stuff, llamas, chimps etc.

Maybe i too am terribly naive, but i *personally* could understand that it is possible to share a bed with another person and it NOT have a sexual connotation. I have certainly done this, although in my case it was with an adult, the problem is that kids, as we all know, can be coerced into not letting on if boundaries have been crossed.

I do wonder what the situation would be if he was just an "ordinary" person, and not a very famous star. He might get a fairer trial, there are a lot of folks out there who would love to see him suffer, he has already committed the sin of changing his body image.

*BUT* if, in fact, the kids were abused and are being silenced 'cos he has the means to do so financially, obviously he should pay the price, as should all abusers of kids.

Down to the courts really, let's hope all involved get a fair trial.

zdt

My personal opinion is also that Michael is just very eccentric. I do believe that he meant no harm, and actually meant to help and bring happiness into these children's lives.

But whether or not any actual molestation took place, I don't think it's appropriate for an adult (other than a close family member such as a parent, and not even always then, obviously) to bring a child into his or her bed. I think the boundaries are just too blurry, and too subjective, to know fully when one might be crossing them.

I also hold any of these children's parents accountable for bearing the ultimate responsibility to make sure that they were not allowing their children to be placed in any kind of danger.

Just my . I'm interested in hearing what other people think, though. And irregardless, I do hope the man can somehow get a fair trial.

I hope the right thing is done.
I sure do not know what that is.

I hope the parents would protect their children. There is enough doubt that I would not let my (imaginary)children stay at his house. Some of the parents heads were turned by his celebrity status more than the kids.

Neverland is huge. I do not see why the parents of these children did not stay there. They should have been invited and accepted and had their children accessable within moments if not at arms length at all times. Must be 100 people easily working there on any given day and it is a pedophiles dream set-up. I have always said it is just as likely that somebody else around him is THE or another culprit because of the number of children frequenting Neverland.

The DA (or other obvious and common official) has acted with disrequard for the integrity of his position at times. Several times tthe comments going to serve MJ with papers was disconcerning and preprejudiced. He made unsavory commentaries and spoke ahead of the appropriate times and as if it were his personal vendetta.

I believe MJ is ill. I am not sure how or why but I think it is not simple . It is not a single cause, maybe not one personality. He surely has a peter pan complex of not wanting to grow up and he has succeeded. Whether it is poor judgement , illness, too many yes people around him , inmaturity or hard headedness and maybe all of the above he has been an excentric fool.

That does not make him or exclude him from being a predator.
I hope the truth comes out, whatever it is.

I feel less love for his ex wife whom gave her children to him then cannot seem to decide whether he is a good father or not. I would seriously look into her history if she is ever considered for the sole parent role. She crossed some patient-nurse boundaries with MJ at the very least. To have children under a contract in the way she did does not seem the same as the other surragate stories I have read. Nobody can really know but her story is so different than any other persons- same as MJs is very unusual.

I think anybody in his family, employment, friends, children, wives should be held accountable for anything they may have known if there was wrong doing.

Many things in the Bashar video were disturbing. Not the least of which was Bashair himself. The discomfort that MJ seemed to have feeding and doing some common parental duties was odd. It was also very odd how oblivious he was to the childrens times for veils verses not having veils and why . For the memory and sorrow of his own childhood memories I find it odd that he is enforcing and teaching his his children about private-public life as he appears to be doing in a similar fashion.

Many more good points. Thank you, Abbi.

There was the one child who'd claimed to have been abused by MJ, and the parents dropped the charges, allegedly in exchange for some monetary "compensation". I don't know about the rest of you, but if it were *my* child, there isn't enough money in the world to buy my silence. I'd want to see the truth come out, and justice done.

Now...does anyone subscribe to popbitch.com. It's a scurrilous gossip newsletter (think 'American Tabloid')...but it does seem to have some credibility. It was they that covered the news about Charles Windsor going down on his footman.

Anyway...for the last few months, they've been leaking quite a lot, alleging that Jackson had collection of kiddie porn, and other children have been talking about how he'd get them drunk on 'joy juice'. I'm not saying it's true.....

But, of course, the trial is only about one incident.

I've heard some of the stories about the kiddie porn and such as well. I don't know whether or not it's true, so I can't cast judgement in that respect until I hear of concrete evidence to that effect. In which case, I'd say MJ was not only careless or reckless, but also exercised poor judgement.

Giving alcohol to young children could very well be abusive, though, whether or not the intent to harm was there. I don't always like giving alcohol to adults, to be honest. I'm a bit of a drinker myself, but have ambivalent feelings about it.

the trial hasnt started yet i think we need to be careful what we say <./>houserules</.>

I'm trying to be careful, but thanks for pointing that out. I in no way meant to violate the House Rules.

I guess we should use the usual formula: "Allegedly....."

And I should have said 'It was they that covered the news about Charles Windsor *allegedly* going down on his footman.

Isn't it lovely that the jug-eared dimwit is marrying his horse-faced girlfriend? Of course, as a republican (small R) and secular atheist, it's no skin off my nose. But monarchists should be outraged at the hypocrisy - given that he will one day become the head of the established church.

Anyway....I'm not going to vote for him!