Well done with Woody Allen & Roman Polanski. Now go burn your Michael Jackson albums

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/482530-pola...chael-jackson/

A protest at the publishers of Woody Allen’s memoir and the banning of Roman Polanski’s latest film in the UK and USA are applauded, but alleged sexual predator Michael Jackson avoids condemnation: his legacy still makes millions.
Hachette Book Group announced on Friday that it is canceling the publication of Woody Allen's memoir, ‘Apropos of Nothing,’ following a staff walkout a day earlier.

As the protesters stomped in outrage outside the New York offices of the publisher, there is one question they need to be asked: Where were you when all those Michael Jackson books were being released?

Because, funnily enough, I cannot recall a similar outrage when ‘Moonwalk’ was published, or ‘Michael Jackson: the Magic, the Madness, the Whole Story,’ or ‘Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson,’ or even last year’s ‘Humanitarian: The Real Michael Jackson’ or the myriad other titles looking at the life of The Man Behind The Mask (incidentally, the title of yet another Jackson biography).

And you have to ask why it is that we can still sing along as we blast out ‘Bad’ or ‘Smooth Criminal’ or the pop classic ‘ABC’ without fear of upsetting the liberals who live next door when the singer spent the final years of his life reportedly paying out millions of dollars in legal settlements to stop the claims of the young boys he was accused of abusing from ever going to court.

And I see Stephen King stepped in it again trying to defend Allen's book as free speech on Twitter. King's bloated novel It had one of the most cringe-inducing pedo scenes of anything I ever read, so bad that I left my hardcover copy of It in a trashcan. He should step lightly.

[Moonlight]

Michael Jackson, now there's a name that should have sent shudders down most parents back, just imagine that pillock knocking on your door and asking if you needed a babysitter for the night.

Some people might have wondered why the media and Jacksons celebrity friends were always watching his back for him, did they know he was a nut job and they covered up for him.? I've been calling Jackson a pervert ever since it leaked out that he was sleeping with a bloody chimp, it doesn't take much imagination to think that he could take things further than that does it?.

No, I think the real reason is because he was black, everyone was always dancing around this issue because no one wanted to be accused of being a racist but, if he was a white guy he would have been investigated a lot thoroughly than Jackson was, and they wouldn't have been paying the victims off either, no, he'd have ended up in the bloody slammer.

[Buddahaid]

Where does that place Bill Cosby then? So much for freedom of speech which gets pushed to the side when unpopular.

[Skybird]

With the court sentence against Weinstein, dangerous ground has been entered. When guilt no longer must be proven by evidence, but can just be claimed to make it sufficient for a guilty-verdict, then this is very worrying. Unwanted opinions can easily be supressed then - not by mobbing the perosn holding that opinion or by yelling the speakign person down at a university mob meeting, but by indeed loicking this person away in prison.

This comes at a time when "micro-aggressions" are being used as an excuse for demanding the other to not voice his opinion if somebody else feels "insulted or hurt" by it, China implementing a system of social reward points for publicly demonstrated collective compliance and social sanctionising of behaviour not expressing compliance, , and in Germany the SPD tries to reach legislation that encourages mutual denounciation, developing an app for making it easy to denounce somebody, and wanting to form a full new security apparatus behind this mechanism. C claimed to be just for hunting Nazis and hate comments and racism, it in fact is open for denoucning everything and everybody which and whom you do not like and claim to feel offended by - with the state immediately jumping by your side to your rescue, so is the plan. We have had denocunciation regimes in Germany already twice, first in the third Reich, and then in the SED regime in the GDR. Now we seem to get it for the third time.

I do not like Weinstein, to make that clear. But the witchhunting mentality that is spreading in civil societies throughout the West and the systematic erosion of most profound principles of our law and order system by courts and governments themselves, I like much, much less. They are dangerous. And they are there to be abused - and they will be abused. Thats why they are being implemented. The abuse in the name of wanted opinion manipulation, is the intention. Gleichschaltung.

Dangerous grounds. And it gets worse year by year.

An evidence-.based sentence is difficult to be acchieved at times, it is hard to bear at times that sometimes it is not possible, and it means more work in general, but it is in our best interest if we stick to this fundamental principle: in dubio pro reo. Guilt must not just be claimed, but must be proven by evidence. Else we sooner or later end up in hell's kitchen. And its not as if we have not already seen claims of sexual assault dissappearing in admittance of it being a lie to just damage the accused on grounds of false claims.

[vienna]

When OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal courts (he was found guilty of wrongful death in the civil courts), I recall seeing a program where a high profile Civil Rights advocate, whose name I cannot recall, himself Black, made a statement that angered some of the other Civil Rights advocates who had been trying to frame the OJ criminal decision as a blow against perceived White injustices towards Blacks in the US justice systems; the Civil Rights advocate said the trial of OJ was not a blow for Black justice, but was simply a case of another famous, well-connected, privileged, famous person using their position to wriggle out taking responsibility for their misdeeds and/or criminality and had nothing to do with race, just more to do with wealth, power, and social standing; no Black and white, just green. The guy who made the statement took a lot of flack and was, basically, pretty much drowned out by the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and their minions. The thing is the guy was right: at the level of the wealthy, famous, and connected, the only recognized color is green. If you can make money for them or connect them to some one or something that will, a very blind eye will be turned to whatever morally, or legally, reprehensible things you do; however, if you get caught out, they will run for cover and disavow faster than a New York minute...

Living in and around Hollywood for the last half century, and having moved in some of the circles occasioned by the 'rich and famous', I can testify there is an awful lot of dodgy business going on and what you may have seen or heard of in the press is just the smallest tip of a very large iceberg. The things the privileged get away with is truly appalling and an awful lot of what they do is common knowledge in the entertainment community and, also in the legal community of the police, lawyers, and courts. Taking OJ as an example, he often had members of the LAPD, from patrol men to senior brass as guests at his home and lavished them with comforts; it is little wonder that, when calls were made from his home report instances of domestic violence, little or nothing was done by the self same LAPD. As far as the lawyers go, there is a sort of loose 'mutually assured destruction' environment in the upper circles where, if one of the members is faced with their dirty laundry becoming public, they hasten to support that member's cause, not because they care about the innocence of the member, rather it is their concern their own dirty laundry will also see light...

I have seen and heard of all sorts of dodgy or illegal activities committed by celebs and the powerful here in Hollywood. I have witnessed LAPD cops deliberately refuse to act against perpetrators because the person was 'connected' be it within the industry or within the local government. It used to be production companies would hire off-duty, but still active on the force moonlighting officers, as security on locations, as security for residences, or as "fixers", a situation leading to levels of corruption that eventually led to the imposition of a ban on active duty officers taking off-duty jobs in the industry, a decision which did not sit well with the officers, at all; now, the security positions are held, mainly, by retired LAPD officers, which means they still have connections to the force and can 'smooth over' any problems the privileged may face. The cozy arrangement also applies to the aspects such as the recording industry, etc. ...

When Michael Jackson died, there was an immediate circling of the wagons by a whole slew of interested parties. The Jackson family called in a lot of markers to ensure details of Jackson's death and any of his prior criminality didn't see the light of day. At the time of his death, he was preparing for a comeback tour; the deal also called for both live and studio recordings to be issued and documentary films of the tour and Jackson's life to be released; the deal was especially critical for Jackson who was some USD $400-500 million in debt against a net worth of about USD $230 million; just the annual interest load alone was about USD $30 million, which he was legally required to pay. The major player in the tour deal, both as a principal financier/promoter and broker for all related deals with record labels, etc., was the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), a very major entertainment and real estate firm; in Los Angeles, among its holdings, is the Staples Center arena; those in GB might know them as one of the developers of the The O2 in London. When Jackson died, AEG faced a staggering loss on their investments in Jackson. AEG immediately went on the warpath, using its sizeable power and influence to stifle reportage of anything detrimental to the Michael Jackson 'brand'; here, in LA, a never before seen campaign was waged to drown out negative press coverage of Jackson's death and life. I had never seen anything like it: it was swift, ruthless and complete as could be; AEG immediately after Jackson's death, began a full out campaign to 'immortalize' Jackson and fanned Jackson's fan base int o a frenzy. AEG was hell-bent on getting back every single cent they had invested in Jackson and more. The effort included preemptive action to squelch and/or mitigate whatever effects statements of Jackson's victims or critics might make about Jackson. There were very few who would speak up out of fear of legal action or, in the case of those in the industries, incurring the vengeful wrath of the powerhouse AEG that might affect their current or future dealing with AEG. In Jackson's case, the lack of outrage over Jackson's pedophilia wasn't due to his race and the only color that really mattered was green...

Jackson had been long engaged in suppressing negative reportage of his activities and, at the same, time seeking to self-aggrandize his reputation, a conduct well in keeping with his sociopathic narcissism. He spent a lot of money here in Hollywood, greasing the palms of local authorities and entities; back when it was easier to buy a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame, he paid off the administrators of the Walk to get his star placed squarely in front of the fame Grumman's Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd., the most prime location of all; at the same Jackson wanted to have a giant mural created of his likeness on the full side of a six-story office building located directly across the street from the Chinese theater; initially, the project was refused since the building is on the list of he National Trust for Historic Preservation and could not be altered without the approval of the Trust's administrators, the National Park Service; suddenly, and mysteriously, the project was approved, over much public objection, and the mural's base work was started; at the time the mural was reported as being funded by an "admirer" of Jackson, but it eventually it came out the "admirer" funding the mural was Jackson, himself. I remember seeing the mural work going up in the early 90s. However, a very large wrench hit the works: reports of Jackson's pedophilia and other unsavory activities, accompanied by both criminal and civil litigation, became public knowledge and the mural was stopped; the base work remained on the side of the building until the building, itself, was bought by the Disney companies and they had the base work stripped off, thus ending Jackson's self-memorial...

Jackson became damaged goods at that time and was relegated to 'back-burner' status by the industry: they didn't particularly like him, but he was still a revenue source for a lot of them. If you have enough wealth, influence, and power, those who depend on your largess will cover for you because it is also in their best interests. There is an old saying: "Money is the best deodorant". Lots of green can dull the stench of depravity, immorality, and, even, criminality to those who benefit from you; but, once your sins outweigh your worth to them, they will turn on you so fast your head will spin, and they will turn particularly fast if they can either profit from the turning or shield and/or deflect from their own dark secrets...

Harvey Weinstein was able to keep the accusers at bay due to his own wealth and the influence he held over so mny he interacted with in the business; no one wanted to risk their own fortunes by doing the right thing and calling him out; however, once he had been outed and posed a liability to their own fortunes, they ran for the hills and left Weinstein to twist slowly in the wind; Harvey Weinstein was no longer Harvey Weinstein...


A bit of irony is that many of Weinstein's, and Jackson's former supporters who turned on them are very likely guilty of the same if not worse crimes; its just that they have been able to cover theirs better because they still have power, influence, and wealth...


...and, their color is still a sweet smelling green...







<O>

[Skybird]

And still I object to an impolicaiton of that beign wekathy makes you already guilty in a criminal sense. I stick to it. Guilt muts be proven by evidence at a court, else we all get into hell'S kitchen. Whjat yioud escribe doe snot neutralise what I say, vienne, it only says that another law principle is heavily violated all the tiem as well: that is that before the law all and everybody, no mmatter their skin colour and gen der, age and social class, wealth and power, have to be equal, and that the law must treat them all equal.

This cannot be repaired by just committing another violation of law: claiming a claim as valid evidence for the supect's guilt already, that justifies that no evidence must be shown for the charges.

We have red about enough cases where somebody saw his career ruined already by somebody else raising chrages that later showed to be untrue. Legally, the accused was fully rehabilitated, and still his career was damnaged and social repuation was in ruins. But if evidence no longer plays any role, than even the legal rehabilitation is no longer possible, and ev erbyody can accuse just everbyody else, and he who yells the liudzest and has the kost wolved howling with him, wins. Volume then is the new standard by which to judge "jutsice".

And if you think of it, this is what already happens in the media's propaganda on daily politics and world issues, opinion streamlining and politically correct mind education.

Believing is not knowing. Claim is nto evidence. Mobbing is not justice. Accusation is not guilt.

[vienna]

Cool your jets, Skybird. As often happens with you, you are arguing against something that wasn't said, just what you want argue...


At no point in my post did I say wealth automatically makes one guilty, in a court of law, nor did I even infer such. In the US, a verdict of "not guilty' is not necessarily a finding of actual innocence, merely that the prosecution has not sufficiently presented its case so as to warrant a finding of "guilty". There are a lot of cases, many more than should probably be, where a defendant is blatantly guilty, but is found not guilty by a technicality of law, malfeasance of the court and/or court officers, or some other factor not related to the defendant's actual guilt...

The next time you want to argue your point(s) effectively, it is probably best to not try to do what you have, in the past, objected to so strenuously and accused others of doing to you: putting words in other people's mouths. My post stands as it was written and intended and your response has nothing to do with that content and intent; it appears you had no place to argue your point, so you made up 'fake content' as an excuse for your argument. Cowboy up and make your own arguments without the cheap crutch of trying to force perceptions of others' post that don't actually exist...


Ta...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Why does justice take so long for the rich and famous?
From accused, to prove it, to the news media, to the court, to the sentencing, to the time behind bars.

The other cases of unknown people (men and women) might make it to the news for a shocking truth to
be revealed that day, but how long till the justice system has them behind bars to serve their time?

Is it fair? Does anyone believe everything they hear in the news? Do we judge them guilty till proven innocent in our own hearts and minds?

I think we do ... I know I have