cHARLIE
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 12:09
|
hE IS A FUCKEN CHILD SHAGGING Pig and i WOULD LUV to see him put away for life!
Thats after I gave him a good kicking!
I hope he rots in hell!
Pissedoffyali*
P.S....HIS music is rubbish as well!
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 12:12
|
>>rot in hell
Not much chance Yarles. I don't really see him as the biodegradable type.
|
Nat
|
Arrest Warrant issued!!
Nov 19, 2003, 12:50
|
Aparently!!
But his best mate Uri Geller says he's ok!! Phew thats a relief huh.... money and fame will buy him freedom... nowt will happen!
|
cHARLIE
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 12:53
|
O yea I fergot Plastic stays around fer a while like a bad smell!
Fair point dude!
Yali*
Hay maybe we should flood his web sites with hate?
|
cHARLIE
|
Re: Arrest Warrant issued!!
Nov 19, 2003, 12:55
|
It will if I ever lay sight on the bugger!
Hang him high I say!
YaliJAcKOhater*
|
cHARLIE
|
Yali says....
Nov 19, 2003, 13:33
|
.....Kill KILL kill Jacko! KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL hIM! and his music is crap!
Yali*
|
Merrick
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 13:36
|
I find it odd that Charlie can be so sure of Jacko's guilt. This subject, like no other since the OJ Simpson trial, has 99% of people with a definite opinion one way or another about an issue that they have no direct evidence or knowledge of.
He may be a paedophile, he may not. We are really not in a position to say, and any strong opinions either way say a lot about the speaker and nothing about Jackson.
|
stray
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 13:40
|
|
Agreed. Charlie, you are sounding more than a bit like a Sun Newspaper Column
|
Toni Torino
|
Re: Yali says....
Nov 19, 2003, 13:44
|
|
I like "Off The Wall", though........
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: Jacko is at it again (uh oh)
Nov 19, 2003, 14:00
|
I don't know one way or the other whether he's guilty or not, but enough's been said on one side of the argument here that I'd just like to say: Hasn't it occurred to anyone that since there is a precendent of Jackson paying a very large sum of money to the parents of a previous boy who made allegations to avoid a court case, that any unscrupulous parents of any of the kids Jackson invites to Neverland ranch could assume they could get the same if they made false allegations?
In my opinion the balance of evidence in previous cases points towards guilt then, but that STILL doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty in this instance.
As serious and damaging a crime as paedophilia is I wouldn't want to be part of a lynch mob that prejudges before seeing/hearing any evidence whatsoever.
|
