Bashir's Michael Jackson circus......

How many financially savvy, sexually aggressive, Jacko-bashing eight-year-olds do you know?

That's what I figure Mark - which must means that at certain times of the day at least (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say *on some level*) he must be fully conscious that a great deal of his behaviour is at very least inappropriate.

I think this is true, and what I was trying to say anyway. Him believing this does not make him naive, on the contrary it's closer to pragmatism, really.

I don't know many who aren't capable of swindling someone out of money or being aggressive and predatory under the right circumstances - and I'd be prepared to bet that I don't know a single one who doesn't know who Michael Jackson is!

Five bucks is not a million dollars.

I caught the tail end of a documentary about a paedophile ring the other night. This could be a description of one of the men arrested - it was clear his view of what he had done was completely at odds with what the vast majority of people would think about it.

recognising that most people aren't going to be happy with the idea of a single adult male sharing his bed with a succession of young children probably ranks slightly above recognising that you shouldn't play on the motorway or stick your fingers in electrical sockets, as a basic survival skill if nothing else!

He's very very rich. He doesn't need to pay much attention to what anyone else thinks of his behaviour.

It might be to an eight year old! ;~)

Well, it works better for me than the assumption that everyone else in the world is entirely one-dimensional.

It's not proof that you aren't one, either. In the case I mentioned, the man arrested had taken part with others in some pretty horrific sex crimes, but he didn't see them as crimes, or even as being wrong. The outrage was a result of his being (as he saw it) persecuted for his "innocent" love of pre-pubescent children.

I think it's a fairly common pattern for some people to do things the rest of us would find reprehensible, and for them not even to recognise that their behaviour is wrong (see Ernest Saunders and the Guinness case for a less emotive example).

A great many 8 years olds, when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, will give you a look of wide-eyed innocence and say something along the lines of "what?".

Most of them do, however, do know that they shouldn't be pinching cookies.

Yes he does, since other people liking him is what made him rich.
At first, I withheld judgement of his sleep-overs, but I think he does have a problem and most likely is molesting people.
I tried to put myself in his position and give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I love children. I think sharing my bed is wholesome and forms a deep bond with a child (stay with me here).
But, after I got any grief for having children in my bed, after it caused my career to disintegrate, after I was investigated for my activities, I would come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. Sure, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, but it's just too much of a hassle. After all, it's not like I need to sleep with them.
By MJ continuing to sleep w/kids after all the trouble its caused him, it shows he can't stop and leads me to believe it's not innocent.

I'm not sure I share this belief, however I really can't believe that MJ could have been in any doubt that a great many people would reach this conclusion

"(Once again, he didn't actually say he slept in the same bed with the kids.)"

Actually, as Jody Beth rightly pointed out earlier, he did specifically say that Macaulay and Kieran Culkin used to sleep one on either side of him. I'm not sure he actually stipulated whether they did so in a bed, on the floor or halfway up a tree but then, I don't think *where* they did so is really the issue.

"Yes he does, since other people liking him is what made him rich."

In fact he is rich - and in trouble - as a result of very, very desperately wanting people to like him.

Having surrogate children in itself is not a crime. Maintaining that the mothers of these children "gave" those children "as a gift" to him, and that he "snatched" the second one "still covered in the placenta" and ran because he "didn't want to hear anything bad" is pretty much bizarre to the fuckin' letter. Did you watch the footage when he was trying to feed the baby? Did you watch him during the footage at the zoo? I think one would be very hard-pressed to call him model parent.

"Kept going on about how he likes to sit in a tree and think as if this was outrageous."

Ya gotta admit......it's pretty fuckin' weird though, eh? When was the last time *YOU* climbed a tree?

Yes he did. I have the tape. Shall we go over it together?

"I climbed a mountain recently (the base of it, anyway). Why is one acceptable and the other not?"

Lots of adults regularly climb mountains therefore it's seen as acceptable behaviour for an adult. Relatively few adults regularly climb trees therefore (unless they happen to be tree surgeons) it tends to be seen as a bit weird.

I'm not saying it's right; I'm certainly not saying it's logical; I'm not even saying that the world mightn't be a better place (hey, isn't there a song in there somewhere?) if a few more adults learned to lighten up a bit and climb the ocasional tree; but nevertheless I do think you'll find it's the current "norm." in our society.

How generous can Mr Jackson be to his little friends and their parents, I wonder?

Maybe 4 months ago. Its kinda fun, mainly just to see if you are limber enough to still do it.

What is weird about MJ is that he actually makes a point of regularly climbing trees, which few adults do. And he clearly does't do it for the physical challenge like mountain climbers.

Also, how about comin' up with some new dance moves, eh?

Absolutely not - it's merely infinitely less likely to reach a prosecution

"Deteriorating before our eyes" I buy completely: the child molesting stuff I just don't. It basically boils down to "He climbs trees: burn the witch!"

I DO believe he is suffering from a number of personality disorders; not least of which is the fact that he's emotionally retarded and trying to live out a Peter Pan fantasy (complete with delusions of invulnerability and immortality).

This does mean that he is in any way *intellectually* retarded however - it seemed significant to me that, when he was playing in the fun fair with all his little friends, he actually looked every bit as awkward as most single 44 year old men would under those circumstances.

I believe that he's fully aware that much of his behaviour will be regarded as unacceptable; and I am absolutely convinced that all the stuff he came out with about the abuse he suffered as a child was planned and rehearsed in order to play on our sympathies and try to excuse his behaviour.

That doesn't mean I believe he didn't suffer abuse as a child, because I do; I just think he was using those revelations in a very calculated manner - in fact the way he came out with some of that was so bloody hammy that it almost led me to suspect that there was some sort of complex double-bluff going on.

Then why keep buying more of them?

D'OH!

s/be "This does NOT mean...." obv.!

I watched the programme with my partner who's a State Approved Social Worker who specialises in clients with learning disabilities and psychologigal problems; and she didn't seem to be in any doubt whatsoever that there was more than enough evidence to have MJ's children taken into protective custody under UK law.

She did, however, make it abundantly clear that she wouldn't like to be the poor little Social Worker who had to take responsibility for doing so, jnowing that she'd end up having to deal with Mr Jackson's lawyers - and I'm sure she wouldn't be alone in feeling like that!

Absolutely, although they should be subjected to exactly the same scrutinies as the rest of us before they're allowed to adopt / purchase one.

I don't believe any single man who had previously been accused of sexually assaulting a minor and who clearly raised a significant number of unanswered questions about his sexuality and mental stability wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of doing so in the UK at least.

Also, I believe you'll find most celebrities send their kids away to school in order to try and make their lives as normal as possible, rather than locking them away in some fairytale castle and only letting them go out waering masks!

part of the problem i guesds i have with a situation like this is that if media intrusion is a major factor in causing — or anyway exacerbating — someone's psychological disturbance, is trial-by-TV really the fairest way to gather evidence about their fitness to whatever