We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A 29-YEAR-OLD Tibetan monk set himself on fire earlier today in an ethnically-Tibetan region of western China to protest the exile of Buddhist leader the Dalai Lama.
The London-based group Free Tibet said in a statement today that the monk, Tswang Norbu, died after he “drank petrol, sprayed himself with petrol and then set himself on fire”. It is understood that he died at the scene.
China’s official news agency Xinhua also reported the monk’s death today, but did not give further details on the incident.
Free Tibet said he called for Tibetan freedom and the return of the Dalai Lama from exile. The group says that Chinese authorities shut down local internet cafés and interfered with phone lines in an effort to stifle news of the incident.
It also claims that monks’ water and electricity supplies were cut after thousands of Tibetans defied a ban and celebrated the Dalai Lama’s birthday last month.
Chinese authorities deployed troops to Ngaba in Tibet six months ago after a 21-year-old monk set himself on fire in protest over Chinese rule in Tibet and died from his injuries. A number of monks were reportedly detained by authorities following the incident.
Earlier this month, Harvard-educated Lobsang Sangay was sworn in as the new head of the exiled Tibetan government. He is the first to take control from the Dalai Lama, who announced in March that he would give up his political role. Tibet’s government-in-exile resides in Dharamsala, India.
- Additional reporting by the AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Where were there parents during all this…
@Bobby Neary: abusers manipulate everyone . Easy to blame the parents .
@Mia Morrissey: If you watch the documentary, it will give you a good answer to the actual question you are trying to ask.
@Bobby Neary: In the next room actually on many occasions…watch the documentary.. sad.
@Bobby Neary: li Int the good life on Jackson’s credit card .
@Bobby Neary: if I sell my 10 year old child into prostitution does that mean the purchaser is innocent?
@Bobby Neary: Living the good life..Jimmys mother said he bought them a house. Unbelievable..
@Bobby Neary: watch the documentary
@Mia Morrissey: They were complicit Mia. They got handsomely rewarded for letting their children get abused by an adult man. Would you let your child sleep in an adult man’s bedroom overnight, night after night?
@Bobby Neary: put the blame where it belongs …..attacking the parents isnt helpful they were groomed they were bought by the glitter and fame ie the mothers. Safechucks father committed suicude he had no relationship with his son once they left australia and jackson preyed on the 7 yr old . Jordy chandlers father had to go into hiding from death threats from the jackson fans ……he committed suicide with gun he had for protection from those threatening him he had surgery ti ry disguise himself his son jordy lives in hiding from the jackson mob of fans . Do you align yourself with them ???? Think whos side are you on the side of” fame” or the side of” truth “?? Jackson was hiding in plain sight a vike manipulative man who destroyed many lives . his own kids are victims too .
@Bernadette Fitzpatrick: But would you allow your child to stay in a grown man’s bedroom every night if he was successful and rich? Would you allow him to take your child away to his house, where he could take your child to premieres and concerts and spend every night in his bedroom? If he was successful and rich?
It was a different time too. Nowadays, our suspicions are immediately aroused if a man shows an interest in a child, but back then, it would have been far more possible for parents to simply think him a nice man who cared about his fans and who, perhaps, wanted to ensure other children had a happier childhood than he had. And it must have been hard both to tell a child, “no, you can’t stay over at the home of your hero” and also to say no to a man so famous, who is giving your child opportunities that just seem incredible. People feel guilty too, thinking that to refuse is tantamount to accusing the person of something. Yes, that seems like a small consideration today but at a time when there was far less information out there about abuse, it would be easy for a parent to feel they were being paranoid and would be denying their child an amazing opportunity for something that was surely just in their head.
And to be honest, I’m not sure it matters anyway. While I have no reason to believe these parents in any way, were, there ARE parents who are neglectful and don’t know or don’t care where their children are. As a society, we surely have a duty to do our best to ensure those children are not endangered as a result of this. The children of neglectful parents have the same rights as those of loving and healthy parents and honestly, if anything, I feel that it is even worse if the children of neglectful parents are taken advantage of, because they already have enough to deal with and are less likely to get the help and support they need after the event.
@Tim Oconnell: no but it makes you a pimp.
@Bobby Neary: love that. No criticism of Jackson you weirdo
We are told to believe girls when they come out and tell their abuse story. We even have a #metoo movement for it. When it comes to boys making accusations about abuse, it seems people respond differently.
@Vin: yes and that’s equally wrong. Sexual abuse happens to all kinds of people.
@Vin: I don’t think that’s accurate.
No one thinks men accusing members of the Clergy are lying.
I think there are a lot of people that seem to think that just because someone had money there are people lining up to blackmail them with false stories (not accurate as false stories are nearly impossible to get past a decent investigator)
@Bob Earner: strange how every super rich rock star in the world isn’t targetted by people trying to extort money from them with allegations of a sexual nature. Just Michael Jackson and now, his estate. I wonder why?
@James Wallace: Law suit failed.
No extortion is going on.
The estate is freaking because they’re going to lose money if people stop playing his music.
@Bob Earner:
Exactly , protect the Institution and Assets and future revenue of the billion dollar industry that is the Jackson Estate.by calling the Victims Liars.
@Bob Earner: the law suit is being appealed I think. But the extortion allegation keeps being bandied about by Jacksons supporters. They’d remind you of the clergy when the church abuse scandals started to break.
@Vin: I think that’s more of a man/woman thing that you’re getting at there and I would agree that there’s an issue but I don’t think the same applies to children. This is more people being desperate to think the best of and protect somebody that they idolised.
@James Wallace: There is no lawsuit. Robson’s lawsuit failed as it fell outside the statute of limitations.
@Vin: it’s the same with regards to women being abused by their partners it’s taken seriously but often when it’s the woman abusing her partner it’s joked about or not believed!
@CrabaRev: an article I read online, dated earlier this month, said they were appealing
@Vin: I think it’s more to do with who the alleged abuser is, rather than the alleged victims’ sex. You could produce video evidence of said abuse and there are those out there who will still defend him.
@James Wallace: Do you have a link? The lawsuit was dismissed in December 2017, and Robson’s lawyer did say he planned to appeal. I cannot find any link to where he has done so. If an appeal was lodged, I think it would be very easy to find a link.
It appears that Michael Jackson’s estate are suing HBO fro breaches of previous agreements. If true, it certainly shown that Jackson liked to control the message in the media.
https://mixmag.net/read/michael-jackson-hbo-lawsuit-news/
@Aisling: no he’s 100% right.
@Anthony: She agreed with him…
@James Wallace: a fair few of them are, some found guilty some found innocent (Cliff Richards!!!)
@Vin: No idea why you say that, any examples?
Most people who watched the documentary would be in no doubt that these men lives and their families have been destroyed. I believe them.
@Aine O Connor: What you believe and what is actually true may be two completely different things. The „documentary“ played solely on emotion. There was no concrete evidence. It provided no counter balance as to people who may have had positive things to say about Jackson. There was no significant scrutiny of the accusers‘ motives. It certainly gave no consideration as to the damage that its unproven claims have done to Jackson’s children and family.
@Philip Kavanagh:
The very fact that he constantly surrounded himself with children and he only allegedly abused boys is a huge red flag . A man of 34 straight or gay and a Superstar like him could have had anyone or anything he wanted. Seems to me he thought it was ok to help himself to other people’s children.
MJ was musical genius, phenomenal dancer,and an extremely clever man . That childlike persona was an act he put on in public. Wake Up.
@Philip Kavanagh:
The concept that something needs to be proven for it to be true is very misunderstood. In legal terms proof is the evaluation of evidence against a standard. The two most common standards are reasonable doubt, in the case of a criminal case, and balance of probabilities, in the case of a civil case. Decisions on appropriate sanctions, criminal or civil, are made based on whether evidence meets the relevant standard. Truth is irrelevant
Individuals make personal judgements based on the evidence that is presented to them all the time. Most intelligent adults can draw their own conclusion and more often than not they get it right. In the case of Jackson the evidence is pretty damning. The testimony of Robson, Safechuck and their families while emotional, is also very convincing and credible.
I, like @Aine O Connor, believe Jackson is guilty. Based on the evidence from the court case and recent revelations, the likelihood that it is also true is very high indeed.
@CrabaRev:
I agree, there is the law and then there is justice.
Even if these men do get compensation they are entitled to it as there lives have been ruined by someone they loved and he betrayed their innocence.
@CrabaRev: question: were you more convinced when they swore an oath in court and said nothing happened, or when they were being paid and pampered by tv crews and cameras?
@Aidan Mitchell:
Your comment is very poorly informed. Only one gave evidence in court, Robson. He now admits he did and his reasons are very plausible and credible. The producers of the documentary have repeatedly stated that no one was paid for their appearance in the documentary.
The fact that Robson is telling what happened now, and admitting that he committed perjury, is further evidence that he is now telling the truth.
@Philip Kavanagh: The documentary is called leaving Neverland. Its about those two men when they were boys, not the Jackson family. The family just care about the estate, not the blackening of their cash cows name. They are just as in it for the money as anyone you care to mention. And why, would a man cares about these two mens story and voice, scrutinize their motives? They weren’t paid for this documentary. Only a fan of this freaks music would continuously defend a pied piper who lured little fans and their starstruck families to follow him into his life and his bed. YOU didn’t know MJ, those two men did.
@Aine O Connor: „Seems to me…..“ Exactly – it seems to you. What you think and what is reality are likely two very different things. You have no proof. You merely regurgitate what you see on TV and online. If justice was administered using your incredibly superficial analytical skills, it would be a very dangerous would.
@Pauline Gallagher: Are you that naive? The two accusers have already tried to sue Jackson‘s estate. At what point did I say that I knew MJ? Please point that out to me. Clearly these two guys knew him. So did many others. The difference is that this „documentary“ only focused on those who had negative things to say about Jackson. There was no balance. There was no critical assessment. It was reality tv rubbish at it worst.
@Philip Kavanagh: You think a man who like to be besties with little boys is innocent. Whos niave?
An awful lot of people had suspicions and concerns for these kids and chose to do nothing about it.
@The long walk home☘️: why did Dunphy & Smith not alert Social Workers or Gardaī? More interested in a story?
@SFNutters: or maybe because they knew that would have achieved nothing
@SFNutters: would you have
@Margaret Mcgarry: yep
Would like to hear what Malcauly Culkin has to say considering he was tweeting during the Oscars about all the serious abusers at the event.
@Derek Durkin: I think he mentioned on his interview with Joe Rogan that nothing untoward never happened.
Wait a second, double negative! :O
@Derek Durkin: M.C. Testified in court that he neither experienced or saw abuse happen with M.J.
@Derek Durkin: He has always stated that Michael did nothing to him
@Matt Fitzpatrick: “ nothing untoward never happened?” Well then that would be an ecumenical matter!
@Derek Durkin: I’d nearly believe that nothing happened with Culkin. Like all abusers, MJ choose his victims carefully. Safechuck and Robson, and the Chandlers and the Arvizos, came from ordinary families who felt special when he paid attention to them. They had never seen such wealth and depended on Jackson for their new found lavish lifestyles to continue. Macaulay Culkin was successful in his own right and would have been dangerous prey.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: you seem to have it all sussed out and that MJ was a abuser….case closed so, guilty by social media.
@Derek Durkin: a fan, are you? For the record, I wasn’t sure about his guilt at all, back in 2005. I thought his behaviour towards children was questionable, but couldn’t say with all certainty that he was guilty. Having watched Leaving Neverland, and in particular, the families of the two boys (look at Wade’s brother’s interview and tell me he’s not genuine), I’m firmly in the “he did it” camp. So, sue me.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: not a big fan no but i like to see justice in a courtroom, not from some doc on tv.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: Chandler came out and admitted that his father made him say those things and that it was all lies. After watching the second part I can see why people them. They are pretty convincing but then they’ve had loads of time to prepare to work it all out.
@Caroline Reid: no he didnt. This is an urban legend. Chandler has never made one comment since the day he signed the deal.
@Caroline Reid: “Chandler came out and admitted that his father made him say those things and that it was all lies.” No he did NOT
That is a lie that has been repeated by the Jacksons that stems from an email that has been proven to be fake.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: Yes i think so. Macauley had a certain degree of power and wealth. If he came out and said Michael touched him, he would be finished, whereas a low income family with the perception being that there was something to gain..easy to pay off, easy to keep in line, easy for people to dismiss them as liars.
If they were “concerned” for this boy why didn’t they call the garda or the parents? Rather than writing a stupid note! That doesn’t make sense.
@Siobhan Rosemary: It makes perfect sense. They didn’t have anything that would have come close to prompting a police response.
@Siobhan Rosemary: Also, you didn’t watch the documentary, did you.
That child believed he was in love. He would have defended Jackson to the nth degree.
@Bob Earner: There is also a part in the second episode, where it shows a news clip of Jackson’s lawyer threatening anyone who brings allegations. with the full weight of his legal resources
@CrabaRev: Yeah, that was particularly interesting. I was initialling thinking about all the Press surrounding him and I was wondering was anyone brave enough to even ask a question once he was done with that threat.
@Bob Earner: a minor left on his own wouldn’t of received a response from garda? Yes i did watch the first episode, i also read the article about him and his family which made very interesting to read and i find it hard to believe Michael did anything after reading it.
@Siobhan Rosemary: Then as Louis Theroux pointed out, you are being willfully blind.
@Siobhan Rosemary: You read one dumb article? So you think its MORE logical that the family are lying than believe that a man who invited a boy on a world tour, sleep alone with him while the families suite was booked further and further away, a man who spent ALL his free time in the company of little boys of a certain type – blonde, cute, NO girls travelling with him anywhere. Did you watch the second episode? Jury members voted not gulity primarily because there wasnt compelling, tangilbe evidence, but did you see them being interviewd?? The main reason was they didnt like one of the boys parents, the mother in particular. One jury member said that he DID believe he abused them, but unfortunately they weren’t presented with enough evidence. There was clear bias against the mother, she was arrogant and i after seeing part two, have no time for either of them, even Jimmy and Wade said they were still working on it to forgive them for not protecting them. But lets leave the parents and their awful judgement out of this. This is about Wade and Jimmy, and i believe that thing of nightmares abused them both for sure.
@Siobhan Rosemary: yea they tried all the negative comments as usual
@Pauline Gallagher: if you were truly abused why would you except money? Why would you sue now? Why would you go on tv? No action was taken when Michael was in debt but now there is money again.
The parents should be prosecuted for neglect regardless if abuse took place or not. I don’t know if these boys are telling the truth like no one else here so we can only go by prove and there is none so.
@Siobhan Rosemary: Jesus, isnt it obvious? They cant get criminal justice, so civil compensation is the norm in MANY actions taken against obviously guilty as hell people, Nicole Simpsons family won a civil suit against OJ Simpson. And what proof? testimonial? DNA evididence? What proof could there be? back in the 80s and early 90s and with a massive wall of his people protecting him, what proof would you expect to find? I cant believe you would sooner believe in the innocence of a man who couldnt live without being around little boys than several compelling accounts of abuse, that ALL corroborate the pattern, the type of abuse, the manipulation, the grooming. The video account of i think Jordy Chandler telling the cop in a taped interview how he was shown how to touch himself and MJ, the boy looked so embarrassed and traumatized recounting it. Some families acted despicably once money was thrown at them, but MJ lawyer threatened people as well, there were scare tactics employed as well as manipulation of witnesses. And you know what, who CARES if some or all are after his money? Doesnt mean they werent abused! They earned that money through their suffering more than that freak ever did
@Pauline Gallagher: calm down! Ha
I haven’t watched it tbh. I know it’s easy to blame parents sometimes but if you had a 30ish year old male wanting to hang around your child and other young kids surely that would be very concerning?
@Tipp Bhoy: maybe you should watch it, it’s explained quite well…
@Tipp Bhoy: parents like million of others blinded by fame n wealth and all that comes with it
What struck me was that SS and ED had good intentions but since the child most likely had a minder while the concert was on , the note would be confiscated , destroyed or shown to MJ.
@Martin Doogue: very interesting read
@Martin Doogue: Joe Vogel is also a massive MJ fan so…..
@Caroline Reid:
This is just an opinion piece from a third party, nothing more. It questions why Robson and Safechuck waited so long to tell their stories. The documentary answer that question, to me, quiet satisfactorily.
It also needs to be said, that the author, Joe Vogel, has a dog in this fight. He is the author of a book entitled “Michael Jackson and the Reinvention of Pop” So he has a vested interest in Jackson’s reputation. Strangely, this is only mentioned in his bio in a hidden part of in the article’s footnote.
@CrabaRev: yes it’s one sided but then the documentary is also one sided. I’ll admit they are very convincing more so towards the end of the second one and can understand why people would believe them (was totally unconvinced by the first part). Then again though it can be argued that they’ve had a long time to prepare their story. The only truth though is that we will never really know what actually happened. MJ was a disturbed individual everyone can agree to that but how disturbed I’m not 100% convinced yet
@Caroline Reid: Whether you believe them or not, these guys are telling their own stories. That adds substance to the documentary.
The author of the article is just speculating. The article carries no more weight than your or my comments.
@Caroline Reid: He was born a black man that ended up looking like a white woman.
If that is not an indication of how disturbed he was as a person then I don’t know what is?
two middle aged men, hacks trying to get a scoop sending a letter under the door of a ten year old kid, they had suspicions was being held against his will ? creepy I`d say, and hardly the way to handle the situation, why didn`t they contact the authorities if they were so concerned ?
Have a read about Gavin Orizo the cancer survivor and how he carried himself after Jackson tried to blacken his name.
Allegations!!The only thing PROVEN is that his accusers have lied before. Did the same to Cliff Richard but he was alive to defend himself, and while the moral guardians” RTE” are at it, let them ban the music of every band thats been with underage groupies,Won’t have a lot of music to play.!!!Yes M.J. was as odd as a box of frogs but let the musical genius rest in peace until proven otherwise.
@Alan Clancy: sounds like you’re one of the people letting your love of his music cloud your judgement.
@Alan Clancy: here was a big effin paedo..
@Sam Harms:No Sam you are wrong not really my type of music, but my Judgement has always been “Innocent until proven guilty” and once money is involved the truth is easily disguised.The offended hordes will listen to their tainted favorite bands while jackson the oddball was an easy target.!!So to quote a genius “Beat it”
@Carnac: The voice of reason!!!
@Alan Clancy: it’s totally different watch the documentary
@Alan Clancy: defending a guy for hanging around with 10 year olds lovely
@Jessie Ginger: Judging by your logic every primary shool teacher should viewed as suspicious.
The amount of speculation in the comments here is exactly why this documentary is so dangerous. Remember this. Michael Jackson was tried in a court of law. The jury considered the FACTS as they were presented, not speculated on hearsay and he was found to be not guilty.
@Shea Fitzgerald: OJ Simpson and R. Kelly were both found not guilty. And Michael Jackson was never in court for the alleged abuse of the lads in this documentary.
@Shea Fitzgerald: the jury did nt like Gavin Orizos mother,so they did nt believe her.They said as such,some jurors believed he had molested a sick child.So not sure about the whole facts thing.Orizo who was portrayed in court as a money grabber never sold his story for the millions that were offered,he never got the 20 million off Jackson like the dentists son did or the other cases settled out of court
@Shea Fitzgerald: so was O.J. Simpson.
@The Bloody Nine: I’m not discussing OJ Simpson or R. Kelly.
@Shea Fitzgerald: That’s fine and you don’t have to. But your reasoning in your comment applies to them also so I’ll just assume you agree with their innocence. And MJ still wasn’t tried for the allegations in this documentary so he’s never been found not guilty of these alleged crimes.
@Ciaran Foy: thank you. MJ claimed he had the back of the poor and then f^cks em as hard as they can in court. His lawyers were wicked
@Shea Fitzgerald: Don’t be silly TV companies are more trustworthy than a law court
@The Bloody Nine: If you’re happy to go on assumptions, that kinda says it all. I am not discussing OJ Simpson or R Kelly and have not given any opinion on how I feel about the cases against those two individuals.
What I am saying is that under intense scrutiny by the police and legal system of the USA, not a scrap of evidence was found to show him guilty. People say ‘Why make payments if you’re not guilty?’ One could just as easily say ‘Why take the payments if this is about justice and not money?’
I am not stating that Michael Jackson is either innocent or guilty but a court in the US did state that he was innocent on the back of an exhaustive investigation. It’s a dangerous move if we entertain the notion of trial by television. It undermines the justice system
@Shea Fitzgerald: So what? did you see the shower of jurers being interviewed in part two? The all morealess admitted that they found him not guilty because they disliked one of the boys (Jimmy i think) mother! They all bad mouthed her and one in particular gave out about how she clicked her fingers at them for some reason..she said, nobody clicks their fingers at me! One jury member admitted that he thought MJ was guilty, but apart from testimony, they had no proof of it. Sure at the end of the day, what proof? He had an ARMY of staff, press ‘people’ to do his bidding, including cleaning up, and a lot of what occurred happened on tour. Plenty of people, including a maid, later stated that they saw things that ‘werent right’ but unfortunately, none of this came out in the trial, or could be proven. He was powerful and rich, he could hide anything
@Shea Fitzgerald: OJ and R. Kelly were both found not guilty by US courts. Should we apply the same reasoning as you’re presenting for MJ to them and therefore, not entertain the possibility of their guilt. Just because MJ was cleared of previous allegations doesn’t mean these new ones are false (or true), or other allegations that never made it to trial. At this stage we’ll probably never know for sure so people are going to make assumptions based on what they see or read. In my opinion, the fact that he slept with and spent so much time with many different children is a huge red flag.
If they thought the child was in danger why didn’t they ring the police? A note and a hefty tip to a porter with no outcome?
@Eugene Tyson: why why all the stupid questions
I wonder did these two geniuses write anything at the time saying it didn’t look right or feel right that this kid was locked into a room or even relay there suspicions with the cops .The other thing is where were the kids parents while all this was going on.
Easy blame the parents, Yes it is , because they are to blame,they left the child, unchaparoned with an adult male , who they were unrelated to. But they wanted to have a relationship with his fame, money and everything else. Was the child prostituted out ? Come on now, the simple basics should have been applied, we’re none of you thought not to take sweets from strangers.
Am saving this 4 the weekend when Irish telly will b very poor as usual.add free telly is the best way to watch tv
Whoever was given that tip threw the note in the bin and enjoyed the money.
@Ed: how do you know that?
@Of a break. Of a Kitkat.: Lol your retar_ded
@Of a break. Of a Kitkat.: I am a pessimist.
Trial by Netflix, forget jury’s if you get a got enough director decision is made..
Not saying he is innocent but for people to make their judgment based on a documentary is not good, i’ve watched different documentaries on similar subjects and one would have you thinking one thing and the other would have you thinking the opposite, its all about the perspective chosen by the show makers..
This trial by netflix is absolute madness and very dangerous, this was investigated by police already but now that’s forgotten and everything people believe is based on the doc.
Again im not saying he is innocent, but if people are going to make judgments based TV on documentaries rather than police investigations then we have a very serious problem.. This is the first of quite a few different subjects Netlix will be basing trial by
documentaries on over the next year or so.
@MickN: you mentioned Netflix 3 times in your comment. So you clearly never watched the documentary. It was made by HBO and shown here on C4. Netflix had nothing to do with it.
@Ger: doesn’t matter. It’s the same thing. Documentaries taken as truth when in fact they are only presenting a story that they want us to believe is true.
@Ger: My mistake had making a murder and the likes in my head … Point is still valid though, people are deciding based on a tv show rather than a court of law.. Thats wrong on many levels.. Is that justice now? Lets scrap the court of law then…
@MickN: the court of law failed these people like countless others through the ability to be able to pay for top lawyers and advisors who will tell the suspect how to limit the damage
Example the orchestrated wedding to Presley acting as a smokescreen
Guilty until proven innocent….
@MickN: Nobody is ever “proven innocent.” It is impossible.
There was similar prog a few yrs back….shocking as welll… remember “fairytale of Katmandu”….it was v.hard to watch..
Documentaries are very important , so is the Media, many injustices have been highlighted by the Media and people are encouraged to come forward and tell their story. If victims do not speak out abusers are free to continue their crimes. The victims who have the courage to speak are doing society a great service at enormous cost to themselves.
It’s been common knowledge since he was still alive that Jackson was abusing kids and paying off the parents. Is this BBC documentary something new?
Bubbles knows what happened
Parents whare blinded by the lifestyle of jackson.
If the aligations arent true why whare so many paid off with massive settlements????
Why will our state broadcaster RTE not show this??, after all Ireland is nearly immune from this type of behaviour. It is the a “DISCUSTING” crime.
@James Reidy: it’s a disgusting allegation. NOT A FACT
@owen kirwan: so you just know this do you
When’s Dunphys book out
What were these two doing in a hotel together…
Fell he is likely to be found Guilty in the great Facebook Trial, as most of the Hangmen oops Judges seem uninterested in Evidence rather Instead in number of likes.
@Niall O Byrne: his lifestyle and unhealthy attraction towards young boys is a good start
“It is not moral rules or principles or commandments that are broken when morally wrongful things happen; it is persons—their flesh, their bones, their sense of inner worth—that get bruised and broken. In the first instance, morals concerns the harm done to persons, their pains and sufferings and indignities; morals is, minimally and if nothing else, our awareness of these violations and their hurt as what should not happen, as above all what should not happen to me. And it is because of my intense awareness—however hidden from focal consciousness—of how utterly vulnerable I am, of how I would suffer if my bodily integrity were violated if I were beaten and thrashed, that I can be brought to the thought of how (most) others are like me, vulnerable and injurable, and how they too would wish never to undergo the torments of physical harm or savage humiliation. It is not the magic of obligations, the hallucinatory power of principles, the “mesmeric force” of the word “ought”1 that move us to heed the ideal of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us; rather, it is our robust understanding of our own vulnerability, our own fear of pain and suffering, our deeply personal sense that these things should not happen, that their occurring at the hands of others would wrong me in my very being, that they would discount or injure the value I am (my sense of inner worth or dignity) and the knowledge that others are like me and share that understanding of our shared predicament of vulnerability. If moral principles matter to us at all, it is because they capture and reflect primitive experiences of individual worth in relation to experiences of moral injury, and thus of our shared awareness of a pervasive and unavoidable vulnerability. Nonetheless, in this scenario, the primitive experience of moral wrong is one of moral injury, to oneself and to others” J.M. Bernstein 2015
pity the man is dead and can’t be charged and brought to court and found gulity by a jury isn’t it. A real pity!
@Marie Broomfield: I like to believe that the stress of being a guilty POS is what killed him in the end. Maybe he couldnt live with the guilt of abusing these two boys and a cancer patient as well, among many others. Why are you and the other defenders of this creep acting like this is a witch hunt and that we are what, harassing a dead man? why should he be remembered as a musician first and foremost? Saville and Harris arent remembered anymore as being kids tv personalities and rightly so.
@Pauline Gallagher: Because it is a witch hunt, if he is guilty this should be taken to a court and the court of law can distinguish if he is guilty not a tv company plus whataboutery on news comment sections and facebook and the like…
@Pauline Gallagher: Id like to think that this has ended his legacy. And I don’t think for one minute that he felt guilty, he was too panicky for that, making sure nothing was going to come out. He’s in the best place now.
@MickN: Michael Jackson died in 2009. He cannot be taken to court and tried. His death should not prevent two victims of child sexual abuse telling their stories.
@CrabaRev: It could be investigated, trial by TV show is not how it should be done…
@MickN:
Investigated by who?
There is no trial by TV. Two people are recounting their abuse at that hands of a man who is now dead. Do you believe they should be prevented from doing so?
@MickN: WAS TAKEN TO COURT cant put a dead man on trial!
@CrabaRev: wrong. two people are accusing a dead man of abuse. It is alleged. I smell money!
We are humans are quick to believe everything we hear, even when we don’t see it or have any experience of it. There is no harm in loving kids wen, especially wen you know you can’t have any of your own. Truth be told we all know Michael Jackson has no real kids of his own flesh and blood, so he could have just love being around kids for these reasons. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t how are we to know that for sure? I am sorry to say I don’t believe any of these never land stories, as it is easy for people to come out and cry abuse these days when they have the opportunity to be close to a wealthy nd famous person… HBO has just made some good money for this documentary nd so are these fellas, if they were abused by a drunk uncle or a poor neighbour would they have also done a documentary on that??? No, I don’t think so.
@Siobhan Rosemary:
The link doesn’t work if you are not logged into Facebook. Also Facebook is a notoriously unreliable source of actual news. Do you have any links to credible sources for the same story.
Will that include Scary movie as well?
God will be the only One to Judge!
Ban this ban that he’s guilty and still Irish people went on thousands to see pope and still attending Mass on Sundays letting their children serve mass and communions conformation and all the abuse within that cult….but that’s o. K for us? NO IT’S NOT O. K
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say