The Tube.

[Pedrito]

Finished up the Ted Bundy Tapes last night. Other than him being a serial killer I didn't know too much about him, was shocked at the extent of his crimes, and how he was able to get away with it for so long

You should read the book The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule..bonkers book

[Pedrito]

So watched the first episode of Leaving neverland and I don't need to see more. The guy was a fiend. Doesn't mean I think we should ban his music or anything, he's dead, there's no going back and rewriting the past. The parents were blinded by the light of his burning star. That episode combined with the allegations over the years, including his own sister saying he was a pedophile and a tonne of other stuff..case closed. A ranch, which I flew over when I did my J2 in Santa Barbara back in the year 2000. It stretched as far as the eye could see..a massive property filled with merry go rounds, houses and out houses filled to the brim with toys and all sorts to entice children. I was there again in Santa Barbara over the following 2 Summers. There were a lot of rumours going around even at the time. People can make up their own mind but mine was made up a long time ago. He paid the kid 20+ million to shut him up back in the original trial saying that he just wanted it to be over. A man with all the money in the world won't fight to clear his name? Nonsense. Anyway, worth a watch the programme.

[John Kimble]

I'm noticing an odd inconsistency in the reaction to the Michael Jackson doc on facebook, particularly from female acquaintances. There seems to be an overwhelming majority in the pro-MJ camp. Much of it bemoans the trial by media aspect, and refers to the fact that he was never convicted in court of any offences. Fine. No issue with that. However, the very same people were convinced that another person with the same surname, and much closer to home, was completely guilty of a sexual offence despite being cleared of doing so by a jury quite recently. What exactly that means I'm not entirely sure, but I'm wondering if MJ's accusers weren't male, would we even entertain the notion that these allegations were false?

[Pedrito]

You're definitely not the only one who noticed that.

[John Kimble]

That's good to know because, without sounding flippant about it, you never heard the same level of uproar about, say, the Louis Theroux doc (or any other one for that matter) on Jimmy Savile. I know there are differences between the two, but essentially, neither were ever convicted in court yet there is absolutely no doubt in the hearts and minds of the general public that the latter was guilty. And to hark back to the Paddy Jackson case, it even goes to show that being proven not guilty in an actual court case is not always sufficient as far as the public are concerned, particularly if the verdict doesn't tally with the general consensus.

To be clear though, not that it matters, I have no doubt that Savile was guilty and I'd be similarly convinced of Michael Jackson's guilt. I think it may be lost on this generation how much of a powerful figure this guy was back in the day. Growing up in the 80's, he was easily the one of the most recognisable persons on the planet. A lot of the anger now is deflected towards the actions of the two mothers (in the doc) , but I don't think it's that unbelievable that they too were equally taken in and groomed, albeit in a different manner, and given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to escape their humdrum lives. It's a very sad story either way, even if you're not inclined to believe the allegations, as lives were certainly destroyed in the process.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Re Paddy Jackson, I don't think these "very same people" you're talking about would be defending MJ if there were messages written by him that could compare to those from the rugby rape case. Paddy Jackson was revealed to be scum, certainly from a female point of view, by his own words. Not criminal words, as it turned out, but at least as incriminating with respect to a rape allegation as a manifestly weird obsession with kids is to a child abuse allegation. At least as incriminating, but ten times as bald-faced and instantly offensive. Don't think it's in any way a mysterious "double-standard", viewed that way.

[John Kimble]

Well, it still is a double-standard. I mean, those texts were utterly deplorable. There's no doubting that. And while they are evidence of an extremely misogynistic attitude, they aren't evidence that a sexual assault happened. Even if you don't focus on the Paddy Jackson case, the whole notion of "I believe her" is based around the idea that if a female makes a complaint of sexual assault, then regardless of the legal process, we should automatically presume she is telling the truth. My point here is that two males (and not the only two males to have made accusations) have been dismissed all too easily because...it's really the parents fault, they're only after the money, they previously spoke in his defence, the guy was just an innocent eccentric, etc. In this particular case, they enjoy no such presumption and the only acceptable level of proof is that of the criminal standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

[John Kimble]

Re Paddy Jackson, I don't think these "very same people" you're talking about would be defending MJ if there were messages written by him that could compare to those from the rugby rape case.

Actually, the more I think about this...well, obviously not. Ignoring the derogatory language used and the offence generated, the PJ texts confirm that sexual activity took place but in no way address the issue of consent. The MJ allegations relate to kids...there's no ambiguity surrounding the issue of consent when it comes to sexual activity between an adult and a child.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I meant if there were texts from MJ which in some form indicated that he clearly viewed children sexually.

[John Kimble]

I get that. Apologies, maybe I'm not explaining myself properly.  Let's go back to this...
"if there were messages written by him that could compare to those from the rugby rape case"

There are no possible hypothetical messages that MJ could have written which could have compared to those in the PJ case. Let's imagine that MJ wrote notes or messages which confirmed that he engaged in some form of sexual activity with a child. Now let's compare that to PJ's messages which suggest that some form of sexual encounter happened between him and the female involved. The former clearly indicates a criminal offence; there is no legally acceptable sexual contact with a child. The latter does not indicate a criminal offence. It is not illegal to engage in sexual activity with another adult, apart from instances where there is no consent.
I get that both may be viewed as incriminating in the context of wider allegations. But my point here is that, even when PJ was cleared of his charge, it didn't go far enough. He was still guilty in the eyes of social media. MJ, too, was cleared of charges in the past, but for many, it's an automatic 'case-closed' scenario.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Agreed. Though I meant similar in this way: PJ made himself appear more than capable, morally at least, of the rape he was accused of by his words in the texts. Most defenders of MJ claim he was emotionally incapable of the acts he's accused of. If something were seen, that came from his hand, clearly showing he was indeed capable of viewing children in a sexual manner (this wouldn't have to relate to any acts of his own), then that "innocent" image of him would disintegrate in the eyes of most of his current defenders.

[Pedrito]

Paddy Jackson's case involved adults, copious amounts of booze, sexist texts on his side but also there was the sense that the lady involved had been deliberately following him and her behaviour around him.appeared quite suggestive. There's a reason the case was complex, revolving around a threesome, consent etc...the circumstances sounded very consensual and it came down to who was believed more from what I can tell. It became very hard to stay neutral and all because from the get go he was deemed guilty, guilty, guilty. The amount of venom surrounding it all was shocking. It smacked of alot of enviousness in the general public trying to pull down 'one of those wanker rugby lads'. Also, despite the verdict in what seemed a very complicated case, Paddy jackson is tarred for life, guilty or not. I would also add that men say crazy shit in texts that they would never dream of acting out..that's got nothing to do with guilt.

MJ is very different. Yearz of grooming, ranches with Peter Pan everywhere, a whole kimgdom set up where he would regularly hold court to countless little boys all of the same age, all dressed the same, a number of whom have now come forward alleging horrible, horrible shit about him. If it's a set up, it's the most elaborate set up I've ever heard of, whereby little boys somehow got coose to him at the age of 7, all tnrough their parents' ingenuity, to one day try and sue him for child molestation  30 years after the fact. The more you try to imagine scenarios like that, the more nonsense it all becomes. I say watch the doc and other's like it. Thrre's a truly harrowing one all abojt Corey Haim and all the abuse conducted in hollywood by Brian Singer and the like...men in positions of power, surrounded by lots of underage boys..where have we heard of that before?

[Ollkiller]

Finished Formula 1: Drive to survive. Very good watch. Haven't watched F1 in years but this is a good behind the scenes doc with some great access.

Dog eat dog world for the drivers, some of the camera work is savage and the in depth look at some of the crashes is fascinating. Well worth a watch.

[mickO)))]

I was enjoying True Detective the whole way through but the ending was terrible. The whole way through the season they made it seem like the motives were going to be something similar to the first season so what a disappointment.

[Paul keohane]

Im 3 episodes into Sex Education  on Netflix,very good so far,some hilarious scenes in it.