Why they harassed Michael Jackson but welcome Thomas O’Carroll. IS IT THE ANSWER?
I’ve always wondered why the UK press was so relentless in its harassment of Michael Jackson though accusations against him were never corroborated by any evidence and he was fully acquitted of all possible and impossible charges.
The answer to it may be totally unexpected.
While browsing for Thomas O’Carroll (aka Carl Tom), a self-confessed pedophile who suddenly became the talk of the internet as the author of an awfully slanderous book about Michael Jackson, I came across a wealth of information suggesting that at exactly the same time when Michael was being trashed by British tabloids the media was covering up for real pedophiles in Britain.
These people were not only involved in their pedophile activities but were also spreading their ideas all over the British society and were doing it right through Thomas O’Carroll.
It seems that the media trashed an innocent guy like Michael Jackson to divert public attention from a big number of pedophiles who permeated the British establishment up to its government offices and at the same time break barriers and prepare ground for their triumphant emergence on the publicly accepted level – which is actually the cause Thomas O’Carroll has been championing for years.
This guy was one of the founders of the ‘accept-pedophiles’ movement and was indeed miraculously given numerous chances for propagating his ideas on a really wide scale. To name only a few of them:
- In 1981 he successfully published his ‘academic’ study on pedophilia called “Paedophilia: Radical Case” where he advocated the idea of adult-child sexual relations being normal (the book is still being sold by Amazon.com).
- In 2000 he was invited to the annual meeting in Paris of the International Academy of Sex Research by sexologist Richard Green who included O’Carroll’s book as recommended reading for his criminology students at Cambridge University.
Incidentally the same sexologist is now recommending the general public to read this pedophile’s latest book (this time about MJ), see here please: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/carl-toms-book/.
- In 2003 Thomas O’Carroll was a panelist in the TV discussion program After Dark, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy QC where he championed the rights of pedophiles with so much ardor that the fellow participant Esther Rantzen proposed that O’Carroll should be committed to a mental hospital. The Guardian described the show: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/04/digitaltv.broadcasting.
- Up till now O’Carroll has been openly writing newsletters about pedophilia on their official site which gives free access to anyone willing to get familiar with their cause: http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_27/mj_1.htm.
- And today he is emerging with his most LETHAL WEAPON – a book of lies about Michael Jackson, an innocent victim of their manipulation whose incredible popularity (or rather notoriety which was most probably the result of their concerted effort) is needed by them for using him as a ‘poster boy’ for furthering their cause. What an intricate and devilish plan it is – first turn an innocent man into a ‘child molester’ and then use his popularity to propagate their ideas among the public!
If Michael Jackson were alive he would die of horror that they are throwing his innocent name into support and legalization of child abuse as a ‘norm’ of human behavior – which was something totally unthinkable for a pure guy like him.
I myself am no advocate of conspiracy theories. It is just that I’ve come across some facts that truly surprised me and also explain a couple of strange things going on now. One of those strange things is that a pedophile like Thomas O’Carroll is given a free hand in popularizing his ideas, is openly supported by acamedic scientists and is allowed to go stronger than ever before – while at the very same time an innocent guy like Jackson is still being trashed on every corner.
It is strange because it should be one way or the other, and it can’t be both and at once too.
The documents I’ve found will probably help to explain this mystery. These are top serious and well-documented materials on the so-called “Loch Ness Monster” – the Scottish paedophile nexus, as well as other cases of child abuse in Britain covered by this site: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27562&sid=ae8a0c45486ccf81fa975868da3ff38c&start=0
If this information is true (and I see no reason to doubt it as their links refer us to credible newspapers) it will become clear why various anti-pedophilia groups have been fighting a losing battle against Thomas O’Carroll and his academic supporters whose books are so widely published in Britain and now sold by the UK Amazon.com.
These people are probably too powerful for them to cope with.
* * *
This is only a small part of the materials provided by the Rigorous Intuition website mentioned above:
“The ‘Magic circle’ in Scotland is a description that some Scottish citizens assert applies to a collective ring of purported establishment individuals who have engaged in sexual deviations, homosexual practices and paedophilia.
Twinned with this assertion, there is an overall contention by these same Scottish citizens that there was/is a conspiracy by these purported establishment figures that in order to foster and further their depraved ends they pervert the course of justice.
In Scotland the level of accusations rose to a fever pitch in the late eighties early nineties. Thus Lord Nimmo Smith was commissioned as a joint author of the Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland (1993).
As a taster consider the following :
Child porn arrests ‘too slow’
Sunday Herald, Jan 19, 2003OPERATION Ore, the police inquiry which plans to arrest a further 7000 men across the UK, in addition to Who guitarist Pete Townshend, for buying child pornography online is set to end in disaster with many suspects walking free.Detective Chief Inspector Bob McLachlan, former head of Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit, told the Sunday Herald that the lack of urgency in making arrests will lead to suspects destroying evidence of downloading child pornography before they are arrested.
NOTE: Please consider the dates of the events described.
The first time the accusations reached a high fever in the UK was in 1993 when a certain (parliamentary?) report was made on “the Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland” in connection with sex abuse crimes against children.
The second piece of information refers us to January 2003 when as many as 7000 people across the UK were to be arrested in connection with buying child pornography.
These dates may not ring the bell to the general public but to every Michael Jackson’s supporter they are quite meaningful as both times coincided with huge media campaigns against Michael Jackson on similar allegations. The second date is especially interesting as Martin Bashir’s film full of innuendoes against Michael was shown at the very beginning of February 2003 and was actually made by a British journalist.
Back to the Rigorous Intuition site:
Let us begin in the 1970’s – a time of radical social ferment – where there emerged in Scotland an organisation called PIE.
This stood for the Paedophile Information Exchange
It was officially extant from 1974-82/84 ( dates vary ) , emerging as a special interest group within The Scottish Minorities Group (SMG) – a gay rights organisation founded in Glasgow in 1969. Leading figures included Tom O’Carrol, Michael Hanson , Ian Campbell Dunn, Keith Hose, Warren Middleton, Steven Adrian Smith & David Joy.
Its activities could be summarised as internal networking within the paedo “community”, publishing magazines with sociological & psychological justifications for their behaviour , international contact with people such as leading Dutch politician & “boy loving” advocate Edward Brongersma & propaganda / campaigning efforts directed towards interest-groups likely to be sympathetic & / or useful to the cause of child molestation.
In 1975 PIE attended a conference organized by MIND, the national mental health organization, where it submitted a 17-page document to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent in which it proposed that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after prohibition by a civil court.
As a little lad I recall the media storm that blew up when this organisation began to come to national attention. The story I specifically remember concerned an article written by or about O’Carroll & PIE’s ideas in a magazine for social-workers.
The general public were not, it is fair to say, receptive to the message. But its early efforts were by no means in vain however:
In 1975 it was invited to affiliate to the civil-rights advocacy NGO the National Council for Civil Liberties – a status it continued to hold whilst 3 future New Labour politicians of the most senior level held top leadership positions in the NCCL.
NOTE: The National Council for Civil Liberties is one of the eminent institutions to which Thomas O’Carroll is sending his gratitude in his ‘Paedophilia: Radical Case’ book.
Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982.
NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of the People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.
Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on. The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974.
The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate.
In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O’Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to ‘deplore’ the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.
Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a ‘straight’, in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for ‘relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.’ The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. ‘An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,’ the motion went on. It was duly passed.
Before she became an MP [currently holding the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party], Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties.
Jack Dromey, whom Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made.
NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll.”
Let’s move swiftly on to a middle-ranking mediocrity by the name of Margaret Hodge who was Labour leader of Islington Council in London before being “talent” spotted into Blair’s government.
A couple of interesting facts about Hodge … We learn from The Independent & the Wiki entry that: “Her husband, Henry Hodge, was a solicitor who gave Cherie Blair her first brief as a barrister & was also a Chairman of the National Council for Civil Liberties”
How wonderfully cosy – oh & that’d be the same National Council for Civil Liberties that invited “PIE “ to affiliate with it. And also:
Victims of child abuse say Hodge did not listen to paedophile claims by senior social workers
The Islington child abuse scandal has dogged her since 1992 when the London Evening Standard exposed how, for two decades, children in the borough’s care homes were molested, driven into prostitution and raped by people in positions of trust. Mrs Hodge initially derided the reports as “gutter journalism” but, within two years, accepted that there had been abuse and blamed her initial response on “misleading information” from officials.
Demetrious Panton, 35, Douglas Fitch, 28, and Yvonne Williams, 40….were subjected to abuse at the hands of different paedophiles in Islington children’s homes, have horrific stories of the suffering they endured in the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr Panton, who had been placed in care at the age of 10, was one of the many victims of Bernie Bain, a notorious paedophile who was head of one of the borough’s care homes. He complained about Bain on three occasions, in 1979, 1985 and 1992, but no action was taken by the council. Bain, whose predilection was for boys aged seven or eight, was never brought to trial in Britain.
Mr Fitch and his brother, Michael, were harassed by Roy Caterer, a sports instructor at a boarding school used by Islington. Caterer was sent to prison for seven and a half years for abusing seven boys and two girls.
Mr Fitch claims that Mrs Hodge should have listened to senior social workers who raised suspicions about paedophiles and has approached lawyers to sue her. He said: “I hold Hodge responsible for what happened to me and I will not rest until I get justice.”
Ms Williams was sexually abused every day from the age of 10 for six years by Jeffrey Wildjones, the superintendent of her Islington- controlled home”.
The Labour government had the ideal job lined up for this individual when a new Government post was created for which she became its first incumbent: Minister for Children”.
* * *
Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) hasn’t gone away – it has of course migrated into cyberspace. It still exists on the web under a new name. The (ex) members of PIE still come to the attention of the authorities:
Paedos’ champ arrested
Underage sex campaigner jailed for ‘abhorrent’ child pornography collection
NOTE: There is indeed a website called IPCE where newsletters from Carl Tom are published under the real name of the author – Thomas O’Carroll: http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_27/mj_1.htm
This is actually one of the ways how we learned that Carl Tom and a convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll are one and the same person.
“There’s one final full-stop to the PIE story when prosecutions started happening in 1978 :
Five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements [ ] calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.
Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies.
It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up: Mr “Henderson” had worked for MI6 and been a high commissioner in Canada”.
* * *
October 15th, 1997
PUBLIC FIGURES NAMED IN PAEDOPHILE RING
http://conformandobey.co.uk/pages/nick-davies-97.html
By Nick Davies, The Guardian (UK)
Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales. The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them. The Guardian today publishes for the first time detailed evidence about the alleged ring, which is said to have been based in Wrexham, and to have infiltrated local children’s homes over a 20 year period.
Witnesses claim that members of the ring used their connections with police and social services to conceal their activities. All of the accused have denied the allegations.
Those named to the tribunal include:
– A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.
– The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-age boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.
– A powerful public official who has previously been cleared of abuse. Six witnesses have given separate accounts to the tribunal of his alleged rape of young boys. Another has reported him attending parties in Wrexham which were supplied with boys from a children’s home.
-Two social workers and two police officers, one of whom was accused of abuse on four separate occasions and exonerated each time, another of whom has since been jailed in another part of the country for gross indecency with a child.
– More than a dozen other local men, including an executive with a local authority, a senior probation officer and a director of a major company.
The following comments come from the site: http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.com/
PAEDOPHILE POLICE ESCAPE PROSECUTION
High Level Masons such as Chief Superintendent Gordon Angelsea and at least 12 of his colleagues were “let off the hook” for sexual abuse crimes on children (some of who are now dead) in the North Wales Paedophile Ring Cover-Up.
High Level Government Masons such as Lord McAlpine, ex aid to Margaret Thatcher, was accused by numerous children of sexual crimes in the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Ups. He escaped public exposure by a specifically appointed Masonic Paedophile Judge”.
I have removed from this post the information which cannot be confirmed from credible sources, but what is left is serious enough for giving the matter a second thought.
If the scale of child abuse was really that big in Britain why was the British media preoccupied only with MICHAEL JACKSON who had only 2 accusers out of thousands possible (I mean all those who visited Neverland) and who could never prove any of their allegations either?
Was it because someone was using him to distract attention from something really serious going on? And was it because they wanted to turn him into their poster boy – a role to which he never agreed?
I also wonder why real convicted pedophiles like Thomas O’Carroll whose revelations are based on their experience with children are allowed to walk free and popularize their ideals among the general public?
Are they so powerful that no one can stop them?
* * *
ATTACHMENT February 26, 2014
Since this post suddenly got into a hit list almost four years after it was written I reread it myself and even went to the website from which information for this post had been taken.
The new thing I found there is a link to an article dated January 29, 2003. The article is very worrisome as it is about the key figures in the then UK government possibly involved in child abuse crimes and about the way this information was fully blacked out by the UK media.
But what is also extremely worrisome about this article is its date.
It is January 29, 2003 which, as you understand, was just a few days before Martin Bashir aired his slanderous documentary about Michael first in the UK and then in the USA on February 6, 2003.
What’s interesting is that information about British politicians being investigated by police of child abuse met with a media wall of silence as the journalist puts it, while Bashir’s documentary with totally groundless innuendoes about Michael Jackson was given the utmost attention possible.
What’s also interesting is that Bashir is a British journalist and that the police investigation of the worst child abuse ring in the UK had been going on long enough for Bashir to make his film about MJ.
JANUARY 29, 2003Are Pedophiles Running Blair’s War Machine?
by MIKE JAMES
A child-sex scandal that threatened to destroy Tony Blair’s government last week has been mysteriously squashed and wiped off the front pages of British newspapers. Operation Ore, the United Kingdom’s most thorough and comprehensive police investigation of crimes against children, seems to have uncovered more than is politically acceptable at the highest reaches of the British elite.
In the 19th of January edition of The Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay sensationally reported that senior members of Tony Blair’s government were being investigated for paedophilia and the “enjoyment” of child-sex pornography:
“The Sunday Herald has also had confirmed by a very senior source in British intelligence that at least one high-profile former Labour Cabinet minister is among Operation Ore suspects. The Sunday Herald has been given the politician’s name but, for legal reasons, can not identify the person.
There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects. The intelligence officer said that a ‘rolling’ Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if arrests occur.”
The allegations are the most serious yet levelled at an administration that prides itself on the inclusion in its ranks of a high quota of controversial and flamboyant homosexual men, and whose First Lady, Cherie Blair, has come under the spotlight for her indulgence in pagan rituals that resemble Freemasonic rites. Unconfirmed information also suggests that the term “former Labour Cabinet minister” is misleading and that the investigation has identified a surprisingly large number of alleged paedophiles at the highest level of British government, including one very senior cabinet minister
The Blair government has responded by imposing a comprehensive blackout on the story, effectively removing it from the domain of public discussion. Attempts on the part of this journalist to establish why the British media has not followed up on the revelations have met with a wall of silence. Editors and journalists of The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Mirror, The Sun, the BBC, Independent Television News and even The Sunday Herald have refused to discuss the matter.
Speaking from London, freelance journalist Bob Kearley told me:
“Whether or not a D-Notice has been issued is not clear. But based on some of the feedback I’ve been getting it’s apparent that editors and media owners have voluntarily agreed not to cover the story at this time. Operation Ore is still being reported, but not in regard to government ministers, and it’s taking up very few column inches on the third or fourth page. Don’t forget that the intelligence services are involved here, and Blair is anxious to ensure that the scandal does not rock the boat at a time when the country is about to go to war.”
“You can imagine the effect this would have on the morale of troops who are about to commit in Iraq. In fact morale is reportedly quite low anyway, with service personnel throwing their vaccines into the sea en route to the battlefront and knowing how unpopular the war is with the British people. And a lot of squaddies I’ve met think there’s something weird going on between Bush and Blair. If you’re then told that the executive responsible for the conduct of the war is staffed by child-molesters … well, then Saddam suddenly looks like the sort of bloke with whom you can share a few tins [beer].”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/29/are-pedophiles-running-blair-s-war-machine/
Susannerb, you must be my twin and soul sister. You’ve said exactly what I was thinking about. It also takes my breath away to read it.
LikeLike
Look, only recently we talked about the terrible double standards in treating Woody Allen’s and Michael Jackson’s cases which were running parallel in the US but were worlds apart in the way they were covered by the press.
And now we see absolutely the same with the UK press. While all UK tabloids were whipping up public hysteria about Michael fictional “crimes” and even demanded that his children should be taken away from him merely because he clumsily showed his son in that hotel window, the UK then officials were sweeping under the carpet the most terrible cases of child abuse and the media of course couldn’t care less.
And when the child victims complained you know what they said in reply? That it was “consensual sex” and that “paedophiles also have rights!”
It is the contrast between the two approaches to the same allegations which is so staggering.
Here are excerpts from one more article:
Is it possible to imagine that all of the above was going on at the same time when the same establishment and its media were not giving Michael a moment of quiet?
I cannot even imagine it. It is like two worlds apart. Like Alice in Wonderland.
I wonder how those in the media will explain this phenomenon? One day someone will guess to ask them this question.
LikeLike
It takes my breath to read all this. Just imagine how all of this was going on when the whole world was wagging the tongues about Michael Jackson. This is such an extent of overwhelming information, it should have shattered the world, but what did we really know about it? Almost nothing – while the media stuffed us with every little detail Michael’s accusers invented for them – and while Michael was vilified and hounded to death as the personified innocence. What a convenient victim to distract from the real monsters!
LikeLike
Oh God, the more I look the more I find. It turns out that the British have finally started looking into the activities of those who covered up for real pedophiles. Has God heard our prayers?
Seeing the scope of all this it is simply impossible not to notice that all these people simply used Michael Jackson as a SCAPEGOAT while they were rubbing their hands with glee that no one was looking their way!
See what the Daily Mail wrote in December 2013:
It is mind blowing!
LikeLike
Some details from Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche (the most awful details are omitted).
LikeLike
I have also looked up information on the Operation Ore mentioned in the article posted just now. Wiki says that some people were found not guilty but the scope of this police operation is still mind-boggling.
But the most interesting point about it is that the investigation of child porn purchasers and everything around that case was so extremely quiet that none of us know anything about it.
At the same time all of us know everything about the story of Bashir and Michael Jackson turning into Arvizos’s case and then into MJ’s trial, all of which was running parallel to Operation Ore.
The media case against Michael Jackson was so big that no one actually noticed a huge police investigation of thousands of people who were buying real child porn of the children really abused, molested and raped. Not fictionally (by MJ) but really abused and by real criminals too, and thousands and thousands of people in the establishment even paying money to enjoy the sight.
And the “Michael Jackson” distraction method was so effective that we are still busy discussing whether the adult magazines like Playboy sold in every store and found in Michael’s locked bag may or may not be considered “child porn”.
This is how far this brainwashing has gone!
WIKI about Operation Ore:
LikeLike
Since this post dated May 18, 2010 has also suddenly got into a hit list I reread it too and even went to the website from which information for this post had been taken about 4 years ago.
The new thing I found there is a link to an article dated January 29, 2003. The article is very worrisome as it is about the key figures in the then UK government possibly involved in child abuse crimes and about the way this information was fully blacked out by the UK media.
But what is also extremely worrisome about this article is its DATE.
It is January 29, 2003 and this, as you understand, was just a few days before Martin Bashir aired his slanderous documentary about Michael first in the UK and then, on February 6, 2003 in the USA.
What’s interesting is that information about British politicians being investigated by police of child abuse met with a MEDIA WALL OF SILENCE as the journalist puts it, while Bashir’s documentary with groundless innuendoes about Michael Jackson was given the UTMOST attention possible.
What’s also interesting is that Bashir is a British journalist and that the police investigation of the child abuse ring in the UK had been going on long enough for Bashir to make his film about MJ.
I’ve now included this article in the old post.
LikeLike
“they are selling a book that BLATANTLY promotes this cause! Here is the title: “A Pedophile’s Guide To Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct“. Oh, and it gets better! Here is a quote from the author! “Every time you see them on television, they’re either murderers, rapists, or kidnappers, and that’s just not an accurate representation of that particular sexuality!”
So they are presenting it as just another type of sexual orientation! Not accurately reported or understood! And mind it that someone has written this book, another one published it, and the third had the cheek to advertise it! So there quite a lot of people involved in the process, aren’t there? And I am sure that those who are fighting these people have a hard time proving that this book does not have the right to exist!
Don’t you guys see that the process has really gone too far?
Just imagine that while real p-les were committing their crimes the media and justice system were going crazy chasing an innocent man. To me it really looks like part of a big master plan meant to divert attention from the real problem to a fictional one. While everybody was busy hunting for MJ real p-les were publishing their books, doing their ‘research’, teaching students to be tolerant of p-lia because ‘ancient Greeks did it’ and because it is just another type of sexual orientation or because animals do it too. And by the time the innocent guy is dead everyone is almost ready to accept these ‘ideals’ and the charm of the dead man comes in very much handy to promote their cause…
LikeLike
Helena, you were right about p-es trying to sell books to promote their cause! Check out this story! People are trying to boycott Amazon because they are selling a book that BLATANTLY promotes this cause! Here is the title: “A Pedophile’s Guide To Love and Pleasure: A Child Lover’s Code of Conduct“.
Oh, and it gets better! Here is a quote from the author! “Every time you see them on television, they’re either murderers, rapists, or kidnappers, and that’s just not an accurate representation of that particular sexuality!”
Well, at least he didn’t try to use MJ as an ambassador for his cause, unlike Thomas O’Carroll, Victor Gutierrez, or NAMBLA!!
LikeLike
Jan, it seems that to be able to write a reply there you need to be a customer (I tried it but it isn’t working for me). If ANY of us is their customer, please leave a comment with a nice piece of news – that they are advertizing a book by a self-confessed pedophile.
Please congratulate them with joining the pedophile gang!
LikeLike
I wonder why play.com is still advertising this book:
http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/14871608/Michael-Jacksons-Dangerous-Liaisons/Product.html
LikeLike
@ Skeptic
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed that. Probably because of the context, which you forgot to add: that they were not credible at all. So discredible that not even Sneddon found them credible enough for a trial. And that must have been REALLY discredible, because he desperately used someone like Jason Francia, who was very discredible (and that was easily exposed by the defense and their witnesses on trial). And that was Sneddon’s “most credible” – and only – other accuser – imagine what the others could have been…. I wouldn’t be surprised if these so called other “accusers” (if they exist at all – and that’s a big IF!) had been people who never even met Michael, just saw their chance in all this. Because it’s very telling that not even Sneddon used them for anything….
Because fact is, Sneddon turned every stone to find more accusers (set up a website, made his people travel the world to look for more accusers – and spent an awful lot of tax payer money on all this), but he didn’t find anyone credible. If he had any more, just remotely credible accusers, they would have been on the trial testifying against Michael. The fact there weren’t speaks volumes….
I’m a fan of Michael but after the 90s I was a bit detached from him. So when he got accused for the second time in 2005 I really followed his trial with an open mind. I followed it because I wanted to find out the truth about him. I have to admit at the beginning I was even leaning towards him maybe being guilty, simply because of the “where’s smoke there is fire” effect and the “smoke” was to me that this was already the second time he got accused of doing this. But as the trial went on, day by day, witness by witness, evidence by evidence, it became more and more clear to me that the accusers are not credible, their case is full of holes and that Michael hasn’t got the pattern of a pedophile.
Pedophiles prey on every little boy they can prey on, not just one-two (or even five). Michael was surrounded and left alone with children, boys all the time in Neverland. If he had really been a molester I’m sure Sneddon wouldn’t have found it this difficult to find other accusers. Instead one boy after another came out saying: nothing ever happened. (Among others those about whom Jason Francia and his mother claimed that they have seen Michael molesting them – that was one of the big blows to the Francia testimony, but there were others too.) A pedophile can’t help himself when he is left alone with little boys. So it would be very non-typical for a pedophile to have them in his room or even in his bed – and not try anything with them. That’s one thing.
The other is the pornography they found in Michael’s possession. Ironically that was used by the prosecution as an evidence against Michael, but I think they shot themselves in the foot with that. Because what they found was heterosexual, adult pornography. Girlie magazines like Playboy, Hustler and others, also videos of that nature. He had 16 computers, all were confiscated and sent to the FBI for a check. The FBI checked them several times very thoroughly (this was in the FBI files those vere released last year) and found nothing incriminating! All they found were: pictures of naked women and traces to adult, heterosexual porn sites. NO child pornography at all! No traces to “man-boy love” sites. Nothing like that!
Again, that would be VERY unusual from a pedophile! In the vast majority of pedophile cases they find child pornography in the posession of the molester, they find traces to child porn websites and “man-boy love” websites (like boychat, for example). They didn’t find anything like in Michael’s posession or on his computers. Instead they found stuff that many heterosexual adult men would have.
So why did the prosecution try to use this as an evidence? That left many observers puzzled. Celebrity biographer J.R. Taraborelli was in the courtroom and he reported that they showed these magazines with graphic pictures to the court, one after another – but he didn’t understand the point why. Was it just to humiliate Michael? Because there was no other point. I remember another observer noted after this: now at least we know that under the make-up and the lipstick there’s a guy with a normal, regular, heterosexual interest. (Many people sounded rather surprised by that.)
Of course, the prosecution’s intention wasn’t to portray Michael as a normal, regular, heterosexual man. But this is all they could come up with! So not having any child pornography to show, they decided to show this on court. Their theory was that Michael had these magazines and videos not for himself but to arouse little boys. But that doesn’t make much sense. If he only had these magazines for this purpose then he would have had one or two but not almost 80, dated from 1991 to 2003! Obviously he was a regular consumer of those magazines. A pedophile would maybe have a couple of these magazines (to arouse little boys) but otherwise the vast majority of his porn collection would be made of child pornography. In Michael’s case they found heterosexual, adult porn – and no child porn. What does it tell us?
I don’t say that Michael’s porn (and lack of child porn) is a definite proof in itself, but to me it does point to a certain direction very strongly – and it’s not what the prosecution wanted us to believe. And of course, Michael wasn’t acquitted because of his porn collection. But you have to add up all these little details – together with the very questionable past and credibility issues of the accuser. All I can say: I am convinced the “non guilty” verdict was the right one.
LikeLike
Just to clarify I am not saying he is guitly – but there are some things that raise doubt. I really hope he didn’t do this.
LikeLike
Well he slept in the same bed as Jordan Chandler. And everybody is ignoring this fact that he continued to allow children into his bedroom.
Here is a clip of where Aphrodite Jones states that Michael had 5 accusers:
at 1:53 onwards.
I’m not the kind of person who would make things up.
LikeLike
@ Skeptic
“Fact is, he wasn’t just accused twice but 5 times (that I definately know of – this is stated in the Aphrodite Jones True Crimes documentary)”
I’ve just watched the Aphrodete Jones documentary to check out this claim of yours (because I have never heard of 5 accusers before) and I found there’s no such thing claimed in this documentary!
LikeLike
Pixie Dust, I agree with you ABSOLUTELY.
Michael’s belief in God is very different from conventional one – very trusting, genuine, simple and awesome in its strength and deepness. I was completely knocked off my feet when I saw THIS kind of belief in God in a man in whom I least expected it. A belief like that makes a person no longer accountable to human beings (no matter how disrespectful it may sound) as there is only one Absolute with whom he incessantly checks his feelings, thoughts and deeds and to whom he reports directly for everything he does or doesn’t do in his life.
A person like that cannot do any harm to anyone at all for the simple reason that the rules he sets for himself in his direct relationship with God are absolutely voluntary and far more strict than those which any human beings can ever devise. From the way Michael behaved and spoke the only thing he was afraid of was to let HIM down and fail to stand up to HIS expectations. And though he did suffer of all that humiliation and insults from humans like any other person would his belief made him really fearless and made him go the only unique way he was going.
How do I know all this? Just read Michael’s poems or his speech at Oxford University and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
To harm a child (or anyone at all) for such a person is UNTHINKABLE.
LikeLike
@ Skeptic
“If he hadn’t slept in the same bed as that boy then all of this would not have happened.”
But the point Helena was making is exactly that he didn’t sleep in the same bed as that boy. He slept on the floor, while the boy was in the bed. That’s what was said in the Bashir docu.
“One could argue this was down to his naivity – however after 1993 he should never have let a child sleep in his room, period.”
Yes, that’s right, he was stupid, naive and stubborn – that’s what he is guilty of, not of molesting children.
“If your child said to you that they had been molested and you knew they had slept in the same room as the alleged abuser – would it be absurd to believe that they might be telling the truth? …I don’t think so.”
Janet Arvizo KNOWS exactly that Michael didn’t molest her son. It was her idea to say he did. Just like she made her kids lie under oath in the JC Panny case.
I suggest you to watch “The Untold Story of Neverland” by Larry Nimmer:
I also suggest you to watch what Azja Pryor said about the Arvizos:
LikeLike
Skeptic, I really don’t remember 5 accusers but the number is not even the point. With all that hysteria around Michael I am surprised that hundreds of people who attended Neverland did not accuse him of unforgivable crimes like tickling their shoulder, stroking their hair or even kissing their cheek.
Let’s compare Michael’s numbers with those of a real child molester. Since the self-confessed pedophile Thomas O’Carroll openly speaks of the ‘beauty’ of sexual relations with children he must have had LOTS and LOTS of them coming his way. Where are they? If you look up the internet you’ll be surprised to see NO information about any of his actual accusers – no victims found! The only reason they managed to jail him for a year or two was because some revolting children porn materials were found by the police in a safe vault of one Anglican priest which was not even in O’Carroll’s home (don’t know how they managed to prove that he had something to do with it).
But if the experience is there where are the actual victims? The BBC news mentioned that both guys were frequent visitors to Eastern Europe in the 70s and 80s which was the time of the Iron Curtain and complete lack of communication between the police of both sides. So they committed crimes in one place and shared their experience in another… (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/coventry_warwickshire/6196811.stm)
Why am I saying all that? Because the key to this problem is COMPLETE and TOTAL SECRECY of such crimes. It would be unfathomable for any of these criminals to say, God forbid, that they ‘give their bed for children to sleep in’. These people NEVER TALK about their crimes – they are so clever and secretive about their ‘activities’ that their immediate neighbors will be the last people to know what’s going on behind their fence.
If that is the case one should be a complete lunatic to declare at every public forum that he loves children and allows a child to sleep in his bed if the kid wants it. Michael wasn’t a lunatic and it is exactly his unique openness about his attitude to children which makes him completely DIFFERENT from those people. The reasons for his behavior may give rise to various speculations but the main thing is clear about it – real molesters NEVER behave that way. Someone who believes himself even minimally guilty of such a crime will keep it hush-hush, will hide somewhere in a quiet corner and will do his best not to attract attention hoping that things will settle down as time goes by and everyone forgets…
AND WHAT DOES MICHAEL DO? Only a few months after settling that unfortunate case with the Chandlers he speaks with Diane Sawyer and, barely suppressing his indignation with her questions, practically demands that she states her case clearly about those accusations. He once again confirms it that if children want it he will allow them no matter what other people think of it. He says it with the defiance of a man who is sure of his innocence and who is deeply insulted by all those hints:
Diane Sawyer: I just want to… is it over? Are you gonna make sure it doesn’t happen again? I think, this is really the key thing people want to know.
Michael: Is what over?
Diane Sawyer: That there are not going to be more of these sleep-overs, in which people have to wonder.
Michael: Nobody wonders when kids sleep over at my house. Nobody wonders.
Diane Sawyer: But are they over? Are you… are you gonna watch out for it now?
Michael: Watch out for what?
Diane Sawyer: Just for the sake of the children and for everything you’ve been through.
Michael: No! ’Cause, it’s all… it’s all moral and it’s all pure. I don’t even think that way, it’s not what’s in my heart…
Diane Sawyer: So you’ll… you’ll do it again?
Michael: I would never ever… Do what again?
Diane Sawyer: I mean, you’ll have a child sleeping over.
Michael: Of course! If they want.
Lisa Marie: He has…
Michael: It’s on the level of purity and love, and just innocence. Complete innocence. If you’re talking about sex then that’s a nut. That’s not me! Go to the guy down the street ’cause it’s not Michael Jackson. It’s not what I’m interested in.”
Those who know WHAT makes people really fearless will also know that it is only the TRUTH which can stand behind that incredible boldness.
LikeLike
I truly believe Michael was innocent,when a man has a love for God that is so strong you know he speaks from his heart and soul.As no man that truly loves God would betray God.(Smile)
LikeLike
There’s no way to go round the issue – Michael was partly to blame for this. If he hadn’t slept in the same bed as that boy then all of this would not have happened. Him being the adult – he should have set some boundaries.
One could argue this was down to his naivity – however after 1993 he should never have let a child sleep in his room, period.
If your child said to you that they had been molested and you knew they had slept in the same room as the alleged abuser – would it be absurd to believe that they might be telling the truth? …I don’t think so.
Fact is, he wasn’t just accused twice but 5 times (that I definately know of – this is stated in the Aphrodite Jones True Crimes documentary) – so you have to ask yourself why didn’t he stop allowing children to sleep in his bedroom?
Alot of people keep saying that people who believe he molested boys have no foundation – but as you can see, what I have said above raises some doubt.
Now i’m not saying he did – I wasn’t there so I couldn’t possibly know – but you have to admit that it could be possible – just like it could be possible that he didn’t. Nobody here can be 100% sure either way.
LikeLike
Exactly I know that Michael has a soft heart especially for children,unfortunatly kids also know .As the saying goes children are the best judge of character.They definiatly know how to twist and arm to get what they want.Pure innocence.
LikeLike
Jan, this Airtrooper guy doesn’t know exactly what he is talking about. Blaming Michael for ‘sleeping with boys’ he says: “He admitted this in either the Martin Bashir or Ed Bradley interview, I can’t remember which, in which he described it as “sweet”.
Not really knowing what they are talking is typical for the majority of Michael’s haters – they’ve always heard ‘something’, ‘somewhere’ from ‘somebody’. I see only one way of handling these people – give them the definite wording. As far as I remember Michael didn’t say anything about ‘sleeping with boys’ in an interview with Bashir – he said he didn’t sleep in the same bed, he always slept on the floor, but even if he did it there wouldn’t be anything bad about it as it would all be about giving hot milk and things like that.
By the way it is a big question who slept with whom there – those children crawled into every place where Michael was, even in spite of his wish. When children get into their parents’ bed or fall asleep in their father’s arms nobody says that ‘parents sleep with their children’ – it is the wording which is completely wrong here! Of course he wasn’t their parent – he was more like a big brother to them or a foster parent – and are foster parents allowed to let their child into their bed if the child demands it?
Michael’s only problem was that he couldn’t say NO to anyone (he admitted it himself in those tapes with Shmuley). Would Michael be able to say NO to MacCauley Culkin, for example? Particularly if the latter simulated a cold and asked for some hot milk to be brought to him for his sore throat? My personal opinion is that those little monkeys could twist Michael round their little finger and could get out of him anything they wanted.
I’ve read MacCauley’s testimony at the 2005 trial and he said they would play games half the night and all of them would fall asleep everywhere around the bedroom and often in their daytime clothes – which is absolutely non-pedagogical of course but nothing criminal either. NO DOORS CLOSED, NO NOTHING – and MacCauley’s father would know where to find him in the morning and would enter the room without asking to wake him up to ride horses.
LikeLike
Jan I truly agree with you 100% (Smiles)
LikeLike
some people just won’t listen when it come to MJ it’s totally unbelievable and unjustified:
http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?page=1&thread=232def5f-a786-4262-b8a6-d77592b5843c&board=00000071-0301-0000-0000-000000000000
LikeLike
Thanks for having touched on the subject of this despicable book and its equally despicable author including those so-called ‘respected’ academics who ‘endorse’ this load of trash.
I agree with Suzy’s sentiment,exactly what kind of a world are we living in????
LikeLike
I appreciate the job you are doing here. This is very well researched and also scary. I’d like to add my small, but personal experience with all this. When I saw the book of O’Caroll and realized what it was (pedophile propaganda) I contacted several people and authorities whom I thought could help to stop this. I deliberately didn’t focus on Michael, because I don’t think he is the major issue here, although it’s bad enough that his name is getting dragged into all this. In my mails I focused on the very fact that any pedophile propaganda needs to be stopped. So I e-mailed to the publisher of the book, I also e-mailed to Julie Ovington, a local politician (local where the book is about to be published), plus this organization: http://www.cpiu.us/
NO answer from anywhere! Absolutely nothing! Not even, a “we are looking into it” or a “we can’t do anything about it”. NOTHING! Silence. Which made me wonder and reading this article of yours makes me wonder even more.
What world are we living in?
LikeLike
Wonderful and terrible investigation at the same time. We have to organize a very serious campaign about this.
LikeLike