I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events | Page 108 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

She didn’t exactly get what she wanted, @The Hole Got Fixed.

She wanted until the end of June, instead getting until 22 May if she can get her deal through on Meaningful Vote 3 next week (provided the Speaker allows MV3); if she cannot get her deal through, the extension is just a couple of weeks, until the 12 April, for us to come up with a way forward.

The signs on her getting her deal through still make it look highly unlikely it will pass, especially after her outbursts on Wednesday alienated many of the MPs she needs to get on side, which makes it look like all she’s got is until 12 April.

@AppleScruffJunior said in the Beatles News thread
(in response to the news that Paul had reacted to accusations against Michael Jackson)

I haven’t posted in well over a week (closer to 2 weeks) so of course it’s an MJ comment that brings me back.
Robson and Safechuck’s allegations are as baseless as could possibly be. The “documentary” ‘Leaving Neverland’ is completely emotionally-manipulative and if your sole source of identifying Jackson as a paedophile is LN, then you need to look at Robson’s continuous changing his first alleged-sexual encounter with Jackson (I believe we’re on 4 different retellings since 2013), his constant support of Jackson until 2013, and profiting from him*, suddenly remembering this horrific molestation he has allegedly undergone once he had been refused a job by Cirque de Soleil for Jackson’s ‘One’ show in Vegas.
He was ordered to produce his diary entries in his deposition where he wrote “my story of abuse and its effects will make me relatable/relevant” (page 66), and he wrote, “it’s time for me to get mine!”, and refused to explain what he meant, when questioned under oath.

Safechuck is less in the public-eye, being he isn’t really a showbiz person unlike Robson. However, he has also lied. He claimed in LN that he was asked to testify for Jackson’s defence “towards the end of the trial”, yet he refused to do so, despite the fact Robson was never asked to testify, and was literally banned from doing so because he was not one of the select named children that the Judge ruled (long before the trial started, may I add) may testify.

Both Safechuck and Robson have said they don’t care about money and are only suing the Jackson estate to give courage to other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate responsible. Well, the lawsuit was originally filed under seal, which would make it not a matter of public record, and Robson tried to get a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. It wasn’t until the estate refused to pay that he went public with his allegations.

*He sold his items to Julien’s Auction who said, “He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.”. If you’ve seen LN, the last shot is a burning sequin glove and Thriller jacket which the director Dan Reed suggested was “the real deal”, it clearly wasn’t as he tried to sell everything of value relating to Jackson.

I’m willing to go through Chandler and Arvizo’s cases, and that infamous maid (who ships her lies around to any news station who’ll give her a hunk of cash, like Jackson behaved inappropriately with Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin who have always vehemently denied any allegations of misconduct by Jackson towards them. She also said in Jackson’s 2005 trial, where he was acquitted on all counts, that she witnessed Culkin and Jackson kissing, and she then “walked off” Culkin later took the stand for the defense and said absolutely nothing inappropriate happened between himself and Jackson.

 

Yes, Jackson did weird things, and no I wouldn’t let any children of mine share a room with a 30 year old man who wasn’t a relative. But the Leaving Neverland cases are true trial by media. It’s unfortunate that so many people just swallow what they see at face value and don’t actually look beyond a show that is very carefully edited with ‘sad music’, and ‘scary’ music when deemed appropriate by director Dan Reed who has no defense when any comments are raised criticising his work, or trying to seek clarity on events where he has deliberately misled the audience. 

If a person came out about Jackson who didn’t have constant contradictory stories or didn’t seem to be financially influenced but rather interested in getting justice for sexual assault victims than I would believe them. As of now, there has been no-one who meets that criteria and I don’t know if there ever will be. 

It’s a shame that Paul like so many others has not done a bit of outside research on who Safechuck and Robson are, and what they’ve said but I bet €10, we’ll be hearing Thriller on the radio at Halloween again.

As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, denials and inconsistent accounts do not surprise me.

Strong advisory on the following…

I am not saying these two are definitely telling the truth but as a survivor, much of the “evidence” you point at is found in a lot of confirmed abuse victims. The (very incomplete) deposition you linked to, I thought he answered the question on the first, and have no idea if the second was returned to later (at the point of the second, the length of the session was pointed out, which rather derailed that bit of the conversation.

Admittedly I didn’t look at the videos you linked to. You didn’t time-link to the right part of either, and I’m not going to watch, for instance, a video that runs to over two hours to find the little bit that you say proves a point on your side of the argument.

I avoid this as a subject as much as possible because it takes me down dark alleys I try to avoid but, as a survivor, many of the flaws you find in them and their accounts of what they say happened to them, you would find in me and my account.

It doesn’t mean I’m lying.

Peace and love, my friend.