MJ may or may not be a peado, but he certainly was a child abuser, maybe not physically but almost certainly emotionally...so if we talk about child abusers then yes MJ can and should be used in the same sentence as any child abuser.

You still don't admit to his sleeping with children as wrong though, you sort of do but then try and defend him by saying "probably not the best judgement he made even if his intentions were honest" there is no probably not about it, it was wrong.

In the eyes of the law though, it wasn't. You have to concede that, surely?

Your spot on, when people use the words "not normal" it has to be asked well whats normal and are we not behaving "not normal"!

Would i sleep with kids other than my own...no due to lots of reasons.

theres a difference between being wrong and being illegal.

its not illegal to sleep with little unrelated kids.

who tf would say its not wrong?

ffs stop making excuses.

of course its not 'normal' for an unrelated middle aged man to sleep with unrelated kids.

stop fudging the issue and condemn the action.

There's laws against child abuse, if they had gone after him with regards to that of emotional child abuse, rather then molestation, then a different verdict may have been given...highly doubtful though, as it was MJ, not just some random person in the street.

In the eyes of the law, just sleeping with children may not be seen as a unlawful, but I don't need the law to tell me what is right or wrong, and what he did was wrong...as unique said he abused his power.

I gave my view and my feelings enough said.

no, he didn't say that at all. have a look back at post number 78

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...6&postcount=78

look at the first two lines which I have cut and pasted below...

""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence. It may be be that Jackson committed offences but we only know he's guilty if he is actually convicted."

so you are clearly mistaken by reading words that haven't been said, and ignoring the key word or words that were said that make him wrong.

you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms

so wrong again. plus off topic. I suggest if you need help with the dictionary, ask one of the teachers at your school.

so Michael Jackson or Gary Glitter can be guilty, without being convicted of an offence. I think you said a member of your family was a lawyer so in addition to checking with a teacher you can confirm this with your lawyer relation.

you mean you fudged it and fell short of condemning his behaviour... 'not the best judgement' isnt exactly saying he was wrong. in fact its rather ambiguous.

you didnt quote 2 lines, you told him he was wrong for the first bit... see post 86 where you waded in. it was YOU that split the quote, YOU that ignored the second line where he actually agrees with you, and YOU that created the argument by doing so ...then you turn around and say i did it! PMSL youre bonkers! its all there for everyone to read!

you told him that he was wrong for saying "guilty means that someone has been convicted of an offence"

they were NOT wrong as ONE of the definitions of guilty confirms that as described in the dictionary definition.

now if inkblot had said "guilty ONLY means convicted of an offence" then i agree that they would be wrong.


true, i agree, but the dictionary definition ALSO includes being convicted.


says the person who created the argument about guilt!


true, but in the eyes of the law they are not guilty.

Fudged it??? You can take what you want from my comments but they wont change

It wasn't poor judgement though was it? he knew exactly what he was doing.

you mean you wont say catagorically that jackson was wrong to sleep with unrelated kiddies?... ok...

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...0&postcount=86

post 86 - he said ""Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence." - which is wrong. - I said "no it doesn't. I suggest you have a look at a dictionary" which you incorrectly said in post 89 that he was right

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...2&postcount=89


the second line is irrelevant. the part I initially quoted is simply and factually wrong


you are the one arguing about it. I was correct in what I said. you were incorrect when you said he was right, you were also incorrect when you misquoted him in post 99 as I mentioned before

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...9&postcount=99

so it was you that started the argument and you who is wrong, and you who is continuing yet another bickering off topic rant because yet again you've been proven wrong about a simple thing


yes they were. as you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty. you don't seem to understand how the English language works or how to understand a dictionary. you can check with the teachers at your school and with your lawyer relative who will both be able to confirm yet again you are wrong


I said "you don't have to be convicted of an offence to be guilty - which the dictionary confirms "


so if you agree with that, which is the point I was making in the first place, you are arguing over nothing



no. you did. my post was on topic. your posts are all about arguing about the meaning of a word which you don't seem to understand, or how to understand how a dictionary works. that's off topic. people shouldn't have to explain simple English to someone online in a UK based English speaking forum


it's actually innocent until proven guilty as far as the law is concerned

however I hope this is now settled. you surely can't have anything more to argue about now. you seem to have more comebacks than gary glitters wig

ive not even bothered reading your guff...

i dont have to, its all there above in black and white in chronological order, you waded in saying he was wrong when by the terms of the dictionary he wasnt.

end of.

wrong again. and anyone that understands English and how a dictionary works will know that, and know you are wrong and notice your attempt and failure to win an argument by misquoting

now to get back on topic, as presumably you've stopped waffling


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27917993


so it seems there will be a comeback, but not one that gary glitter is likely to be happy about

youre funny.

Deleted, wrong thread.

Long live Gary Glitter love his music allways have allways will

Come on troll, you can do better than that.

No you got it wrong It's Come On Come On you troll