SideshowBob

I was told he used to smear soft cheese triangles on his genitalia.

Wasn't he found not guilty in court?

FFS wesdaq obviously he f ucking wasn't because he paid them off, if he was INNOCENT hw would have fought to clear his name, I would hazard a guess Jimmy Saville was a poor man's Jackson, plenty more s hit to hit the fan, only been 5 years since death

you know which one i'm talking about FFS

Can You Feel It

You lot are as bad as the bbc ....apologists for the King of the Paedophiles.

Sick mind Leopard.

As a man thinketh...

He was taken to court by the Jordie Chandler and they paid him off near $20m ....not the actions of someone who is innocent .

...and there were many others.

Choice was stay and fight a court case rather than go on tour and lose say $200m.

Or pay $20m.

That was the choice roughly.

.
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/05/michael-jackson-accused-pedophile-pepsi-james-safechuck/

You have got to be joking....too many allegations against him.....guilty !

Hmm.

So at what point does one become guilty?

After 1 allegation? Or maybe 2? How about 5?

However, thankfully, we do not have a system of law which is based on guilt by allegation or accusation.

That's why we have courts to test the voracity of any such allegation/accusation.

It scares me that some of the people on this forum could find their way onto a Jury .

I admit, I admire MJ's music but I certainly did not worship him!

Simply, I just happen to be old-fashioned in that I do not believe in guilt by accusation.

MJ was an exteremly rich extremely famous celeb who was also pretty damned wierd.

He's going to attract rumours like flies to sh*t, regardless.

No smoke without fire, sorry, I hate that expression :(

How could you trust Jacko to tell the whole truth about what they got up to with young boys staying in his bedroom when he denies he has had any plastic surgery!

Jackson had maybe 30 complaints against him....he wore out his benefit of doubt long ago.

From a forum :

We all know Harry's alleged to be the progeny of a certain Major Hewitt, but were we also aware of the much older rumours of the Queen's dalliances of the extra-marital variety that resulted in Princes Andrew and Edward?

The story begins way back when in ye olde times (the 1950s) when the Queen discovered her husband's affair with her cousin Princess Alexandra. Accoring to the story, the Queen was extremely upset by his philandering but of course divorce was out of the question. The love, however, was gone, and the marriage fell into the usual royal convenience arrangement with Phillip continuing his adulterous liasons while Lizzie sought psychiatric treatment for depression and banned him from the royal bedchamber.

Lord Mountbatten intervened at this point, ordering the **** to stop the affair and being promptly told to fark orf. By 1956, the couple were living separate lives, with Phillip's affairs numerous and Liz to all intents and purposes a free agent.

Lord Porchester

WIth the death of her marriage, it seems Lizzie is alleged to have sought comfort in ther arms of royal stablemaster Lord Porchester. References to the exact start date of the affair are scarce, but it is thought to have begun in the late 1950s. Allegedly, the two would spend hours talking about horses and go for romantic walks in the grounds of the Queen's various palaces.

Naturally, this didn't last long before royal busybody Lord Mountbatten stuck his oar in. He's alleged to have written a letter to the Queen giving her a good ticking off and urging her to be more discreet in the relationship. And then Prince Andrew appeared, looking strangely like Porchester and unlike Phillip.

Cabinet papers of the 1959 government were released in 1990, and the royal family figured in three discussions. However, the exact references were blanked out for reasons of national security; one of them being held under a 50 year rule and the other two held under 100 years - the earliest date the public will learn of these discussions and their content is 2059.


When Andrew was born, it was rumoured amongst those in the know that Phillip had not been around in the period when the baby had been conceived. Coupled with a lack of public exposure of the newborn, which included a suspicious lack of photographs, and the rumour was entrenched.

Nigel Dempster referred to the rumour in an early 1990s issue of the New York Times, leading journalist Fiammenta Rocco to ask Prince Phillip if it was true during an interview in 1993. He did not answer the question, and Dempster's article was not challenged by the royals.