Latest on MJJC

[Discussion] Michael Jackson Slandered By The Mirror / New assult Pg 38

analogue said:
Anyone who falsely accuses someone of child molestation needs to be thrown in jail. It disgusts me how people can throw out these disgusting false allegations and then when they are proven liars there is no consequence for their actions.
Click to expand...

This is more common than you would think especially when it come to revenage, child custody cases, and just being plain nasty.
 
@tajjackson3 “@CEThomson: @tajjackson3 But you, Taj, as a family member, can complain and they will be forced to launch an investigation.” Just made one.

@tajjackson3 Thanks @CEThomson and everyone else for your help on this matter. Enough is enough.

Anf he kept his promise, I hope it force PCC to investigate The Mirror, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail??? (sorry I forgot the name)
 
hello...., what about this.... not only Diane Dimond should have taken such a cute pic...

doozy.1.jpg


http://tabloidbaby.blogspot.ru/2005/11/diane-dimonds-book-be-careful-who-you.html
 
I had a reply from the Press Complaints Commission saying that the articles I complained about are already being investigated by them.


BUT please continue to file new complaints against these articles if you haven't already done so. The PCC has in the past sided with the newspapers when investigating articles about Michael Jackson BUT if we continue to complain there is a chance they will take this seriously.


I don't think they could just dismiss these articles, particularly as the lies are so blatant, but together we can make a difference.


http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html
 
I don't believe I posted this here before, but this is a response I had from the PCC on an article published in the Daily record comparing Jimmy Savile and Michael Jackson.

It contained several statements I thought were unfair, and most importantly misleading or inaccurate. I don't agree with the commission's response but thought some of you might find it interesting.


EDIT: Apologies for any confusion.
I should have stated that THIS email from the PCC (and the complaint it relates to) have NOTHING to do with the recent articles published by the Mirror and Daily Mail.

I just thought some of you might find it interesting to read a response from a complaint about a previous article (published in December 2012).



"Commission’s decision in the case of
[deleted surname] v Daily Record​
​
The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had published an article commenting on a number of celebrities who had been involved in sex scandals, including Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile. When repeating the allegations and evidence against Michael Jackson, the complainant considered that there had been several inaccuracies and, that the journalist had failed to distinguish between conjecture and fact on a number of occasions. The specific inaccuracies the complaint identified were: it had been inaccurate to say that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive splotches; it was inaccurate to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions; the complainant said it was inaccurate to have stated that children do not make up allegations of this nature and the journalist had stated that most experts believe Michael Jackson was an active child molester without sufficient evidence to support this statement.Under Clause 1 (Accuracy) “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment conjecture and fact”.The Commission made clear that columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments – however robust or controversial they might be – provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. It was for the Commission to establish whether readers would be misled by the article.The Commission first noted that the article had been an opinion piece, written in the first person. As such, readers would have understood that the contents of the article were likely to represent the journalist’s personal interpretation of events, rather than being statements of fact.The complainant had said that it had been inaccurate to state that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive “splotches”. The complainant said that there was not evidence to support this claim and assumed that the journalist had not seen the description or the drawing. The Commission took the view that the statement had not been inaccurate. Mr Chandler had provided a description, and although the journalist had not commented on the accuracy of the description, it was clearly his opinion that this evidence should have been taken into account. The Commission did not consider the statement to have been significantly misleading or inaccurate. It did not establish a breach of the Code.The Commission next addressed the complainant’s point that it had been misleading to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions. The Commission took the view that the journalist had been entitled to express concerns about Michael Jackson having children to stay in his room, regardless of where Mr Jackson slept. The article had not stated that Mr Jackson shared a bed with the children. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.The complainant was concerned about the statement “or you can, like me and most experts, believe that kids just don’t make this stuff up and that Jackson was an active child molester”. The complainant said that children do sometimes make up such allegations. The Commission was satisfied that readers would have understood that the statement had represented the personal opinion of the journalist. The journalist had clearly stated that this was a belief that he held.The complainant also considered that the journalist had said that most experts agreed that Jackson was a molester, without polling the opinions of a significant number of experts. The Commission took the view that readers would have understood this had represented the journalist’s personal understanding of where the majority of expert opinion lay on this matter. It was satisfied that readers would not have been misled into believing that this had been a statement of fact. It did not establish a breach of the Code.
Reference no. ??????"​
​
 
Last edited:
bobmoo79;3865069 said:
I don't believe I posted this here before, but this is a response I had from the PCC on an article published in the Daily record comparing Jimmy Savile and Michael Jackson.

It contained several statements I thought were unfair, and most importantly misleading or inaccurate. I don't agree with the commission's response but thought some of you might find it interesting.

"Commission’s decision in the case of
[deleted surname] v Daily Record​
​
​
The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had published an article commenting on a number of celebrities who had been involved in sex scandals, including Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile. When repeating the allegations and evidence against Michael Jackson, the complainant considered that there had been several inaccuracies and, that the journalist had failed to distinguish between conjecture and fact on a number of occasions. The specific inaccuracies the complaint identified were: it had been inaccurate to say that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive splotches; it was inaccurate to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions; the complainant said it was inaccurate to have stated that children do not make up allegations of this nature and the journalist had stated that most experts believe Michael Jackson was an active child molester without sufficient evidence to support this statement. Under Clause 1 (Accuracy) “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment conjecture and fact”. The Commission made clear that columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments – however robust or controversial they might be – provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. It was for the Commission to establish whether readers would be misled by the article. The Commission first noted that the article had been an opinion piece, written in the first person. As such, readers would have understood that the contents of the article were likely to represent the journalist’s personal interpretation of events, rather than being statements of fact. The complainant had said that it had been inaccurate to state that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive “splotches”. The complainant said that there was not evidence to support this claim and assumed that the journalist had not seen the description or the drawing. The Commission took the view that the statement had not been inaccurate. Mr Chandler had provided a description, and although the journalist had not commented on the accuracy of the description, it was clearly his opinion that this evidence should have been taken into account. The Commission did not consider the statement to have been significantly misleading or inaccurate. It did not establish a breach of the Code. The Commission next addressed the complainant’s point that it had been misleading to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions. The Commission took the view that the journalist had been entitled to express concerns about Michael Jackson having children to stay in his room, regardless of where Mr Jackson slept. The article had not stated that Mr Jackson shared a bed with the children. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code. The complainant was concerned about the statement “or you can, like me and most experts, believe that kids just don’t make this stuff up and that Jackson was an active child molester”. The complainant said that children do sometimes make up such allegations. The Commission was satisfied that readers would have understood that the statement had represented the personal opinion of the journalist. The journalist had clearly stated that this was a belief that he held. The complainant also considered that the journalist had said that most experts agreed that Jackson was a molester, without polling the opinions of a significant number of experts. The Commission took the view that readers would have understood this had represented the journalist’s personal understanding of where the majority of expert opinion lay on this matter. It was satisfied that readers would not have been misled into believing that this had been a statement of fact. It did not establish a breach of the Code.
Reference no. ??????"​
​
​
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info, but I'm just wondering something. When they sent you this denial, was it in response to this particular article, or different one? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ROWN-How-wily-*****-bamboozled-Ron-Nancy.html

The reason I'm asking is that Jordy Chandler is not even mentioned in this article, so why is it being brought up in their denial??? The time period of their article I posted above that mentions Savile is 1984, not 1993. I'm confused.
 
Last edited:
bobmoo79;3865069 said:
I don't believe I posted this here before, but this is a response I had from the PCC on an article published in the Daily record comparing Jimmy Savile and Michael Jackson.

It contained several statements I thought were unfair, and most importantly misleading or inaccurate. I don't agree with the commission's response but thought some of you might find it interesting.

"Commission’s decision in the case of
[deleted surname] v Daily Record​
​
The complainant was concerned that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had published an article commenting on a number of celebrities who had been involved in sex scandals, including Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile. When repeating the allegations and evidence against Michael Jackson, the complainant considered that there had been several inaccuracies and, that the journalist had failed to distinguish between conjecture and fact on a number of occasions. The specific inaccuracies the complaint identified were: it had been inaccurate to say that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive splotches; it was inaccurate to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions; the complainant said it was inaccurate to have stated that children do not make up allegations of this nature and the journalist had stated that most experts believe Michael Jackson was an active child molester without sufficient evidence to support this statement.Under Clause 1 (Accuracy) “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment conjecture and fact”.The Commission made clear that columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments – however robust or controversial they might be – provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. It was for the Commission to establish whether readers would be misled by the article.The Commission first noted that the article had been an opinion piece, written in the first person. As such, readers would have understood that the contents of the article were likely to represent the journalist’s personal interpretation of events, rather than being statements of fact.The complainant had said that it had been inaccurate to state that Jordy Chandler had given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive “splotches”. The complainant said that there was not evidence to support this claim and assumed that the journalist had not seen the description or the drawing. The Commission took the view that the statement had not been inaccurate. Mr Chandler had provided a description, and although the journalist had not commented on the accuracy of the description, it was clearly his opinion that this evidence should have been taken into account. The Commission did not consider the statement to have been significantly misleading or inaccurate. It did not establish a breach of the Code.The Commission next addressed the complainant’s point that it had been misleading to have stated that Jackson let children sleep in his bed, without clarifying that Jackson said he slept on the floor on these occasions. The Commission took the view that the journalist had been entitled to express concerns about Michael Jackson having children to stay in his room, regardless of where Mr Jackson slept. The article had not stated that Mr Jackson shared a bed with the children. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.The complainant was concerned about the statement “or you can, like me and most experts, believe that kids just don’t make this stuff up and that Jackson was an active child molester”. The complainant said that children do sometimes make up such allegations. The Commission was satisfied that readers would have understood that the statement had represented the personal opinion of the journalist. The journalist had clearly stated that this was a belief that he held.The complainant also considered that the journalist had said that most experts agreed that Jackson was a molester, without polling the opinions of a significant number of experts. The Commission took the view that readers would have understood this had represented the journalist’s personal understanding of where the majority of expert opinion lay on this matter. It was satisfied that readers would not have been misled into believing that this had been a statement of fact. It did not establish a breach of the Code.
Reference no. ??????"​
​
Click to expand...

I think to make their complanints effective fans need to be precise in how they word them. If you just wrote that "Jordan Chandler had not given a detailed description of Jackson’s genital area, including distinctive splotches" then they are right to say he did, because he did. Only it was not accurate.

If it's true the journalist did not say Jordan's description was accurate, but he said that "that this evidence should have been taken into account" then the thing you should have pointed out to them was rather that this evidence WAS taken into account. For example the Grand Jury in 1994 was looking for an answer from Katherine as to why it was NOT a match! From the LA Times on March 16, 1994:

“Jackson's mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson's physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January."
Click to expand...

That description/photos could not get Michael arrested or indicted because they did not match, not because they weren't taken into account.
 
Apologies for any confusion.
I should have stated that THIS email from the PCC (and the complaint it relates to) have NOTHING to do with the recent articles published by the Mirror and Daily Mail.

I just thought some of you might find it interesting to read a response from a complaint about a previous article (published in December 2012).
 
If only the Estate had issued this much stronger statement when this f*ckery began, well, here it is:

We know many fans have been upset by recent tabloid stories in the UK about Michael. In his song “Tabloid Junkie” Michael Jackson sings: Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen doesn’t make it factual.


Sadly, we were recently reminded of just how prophetic Michael’s lyrics were when these disgraceful, stale and discredited stories more than two decades old were published making unfounded allegations about Michael and so-called FBI “files.” It should be no surprise that one of the authors of this rehash has a long history of writing tabloid articles about Michael. It also should be noted that he formerly was a top editor at a scandal-ridden British tabloid that folded following revelations that the phones of celebrities, public figures and even a child murder victim were illegally hacked. Even more unseemly was one press account in which the tabloid’s source was identified as a former investigator whose license was revoked and who also has filed for bankruptcy. He isn’t denying that he was paid to tell these falsehoods, but he is boasting about his pornography career. It goes without saying that this callous and brazen disregard shown Michael’s children, family and fans is beyond reprehensible.


We believe unethical tabloid journalists and publications spreading falsehoods about Michael for their own selfish reasons are best ignored. Sadly, they hide shamelessly behind a legal shield allowing them to smear those who are no longer with us. As readers abandon them and their businesses collapse, they desperately seek attention and publicity. We don’t believe they deserve it, and are confident that discredited articles such as these vanish quickly and are easily forgotten.


Rest assured that Michael’s legacy is his artistic genius. It’s his humanitarian work that touched millions, and his global messages of peace. Most important, Michael’s legacy is his enduring love for his children, his family and his fans.

- John Branca and John McClain, Co-Executors, The Estate Of Michael Jackson

http://www.legendarymichaeljackson....egarding-uk-tabloids-and-so-called-fbi-files/
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan;3865184 said:
If only the Estate had issued this much stronger statement when this f*ckery began, well, here it is:

We know many fans have been upset by recent tabloid stories in the UK about Michael. In his song “Tabloid Junkie” Michael Jackson sings: Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen doesn’t make it factual.


Sadly, we were recently reminded of just how prophetic Michael’s lyrics were when these disgraceful, stale and discredited stories more than two decades old were published making unfounded allegations about Michael and so-called FBI “files.” It should be no surprise that one of the authors of this rehash has a long history of writing tabloid articles about Michael. It also should be noted that he formerly was a top editor at a scandal-ridden British tabloid that folded following revelations that the phones of celebrities, public figures and even a child murder victim were illegally hacked. Even more unseemly was one press account in which the tabloid’s source was identified as a former investigator whose license was revoked and who also has filed for bankruptcy. He isn’t denying that he was paid to tell these falsehoods, but he is boasting about his pornography career. It goes without saying that this callous and brazen disregard shown Michael’s children, family and fans is beyond reprehensible.


We believe unethical tabloid journalists and publications spreading falsehoods about Michael for their own selfish reasons are best ignored. Sadly, they hide shamelessly behind a legal shield allowing them to smear those who are no longer with us. As readers abandon them and their businesses collapse, they desperately seek attention and publicity. We don’t believe they deserve it, and are confident that discredited articles such as these vanish quickly and are easily forgotten.

Rest assured that Michael’s legacy is his artistic genius. It’s his humanitarian work that touched millions, and his global messages of peace. Most important, Michael’s legacy is his enduring love for his children, his family and his fans.

- John Branca and John McClain, Co-Executors, The Estate Of Michael Jackson

http://www.legendarymichaeljackson....egarding-uk-tabloids-and-so-called-fbi-files/
Click to expand...

That is a really good message. But why didn't they come out like this a couple of weeks ago? Although I don't agree with them that it should be ignored.
 
GreenEyedOne said:
That is a really good message. But why didn't they come out like this a couple of weeks ago? Although I don't agree with them that it should be ignored.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lies should be countered with truth at every opportunity.
 
Just thought I would give everyone here an update who is following this. I have just been contacted again by email by the Press Commission. They have stated the Estate has also contacted them to launch a complaint against The Mirror and Sunday People. YES!!! They did not launch a complaint against the Daily Mail though, which has caused my complaint against them to be put on hold. Does anyone have contact with the estate to launch an official complaint against the Daily Mail? (My link to that article is in one of my previous posts.

I wonder what prompted the Estate to go against their own words to "ignore it"? Something must have recently changed. I did notify the FBI. I thought they should know that the British press is accusing them of multiple coverups. Maybe they contacted the estate? Ha!! That would be awesome! Hahahaha!

This is what the coordinator, Ben Gallop tells me today:

Thank you for your email.

The Commission has today been contacted by a representative of the Estate of Michael Jackson. The Estate has informed us that it wishes to make a complaint through the PCC in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mirror and Sunday People which forms the subject of your complaint.

As I am sure you can appreciate, in circumstances where articles have made specific allegation against a named individual, it is more appropriate for the Commission to consider a complaint from that individual or their representatives.

As such, we will be taking this complaint forward with the Estate of Michael Jackson. We will endeavour to let you know the outcome of the PCC’s investigation into the matter, subject to the requirements of confidentiality.

Whilst the Estate has not as yet made a complaint in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mail, we will be putting that complaint on hold pending the outcome of our investigation with them of the coverage published by the Daily Mirror and Sunday people, as this raises substantively the same concerns. Should it become appropriate for us to revert to you on this complaint at a later stage we will do so.

Thank you for raising these concerns with us.

Best wishes

Ben


Ben Gallop
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
 
Re: [Discussion] Michael Jackson Slandered By The Mirror

...................I so gonna search for it in the metro online archieve! :wub: Amazing!!!
 
GreenEyedOne;3866751 said:
Just thought I would give everyone here an update who is following this. I have just been contacted again by email by the Press Commission. They have stated the Estate has also contacted them to launch a complaint against The Mirror and Sunday People. YES!!! They did not launch a complaint against the Daily Mail though, which has caused my complaint against them to be put on hold. Does anyone have contact with the estate to launch an official complaint against the Daily Mail? (My link to that article is in one of my previous posts.

I wonder what prompted the Estate to go against their own words to "ignore it"? Something must have recently changed. I did notify the FBI. I thought they should know that the British press is accusing them of multiple coverups. Maybe they contacted the estate? Ha!! That would be awesome! Hahahaha!

This is what the coordinator, Ben Gallop tells me today:

Thank you for your email.

The Commission has today been contacted by a representative of the Estate of Michael Jackson. The Estate has informed us that it wishes to make a complaint through the PCC in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mirror and Sunday People which forms the subject of your complaint.

As I am sure you can appreciate, in circumstances where articles have made specific allegation against a named individual, it is more appropriate for the Commission to consider a complaint from that individual or their representatives.

As such, we will be taking this complaint forward with the Estate of Michael Jackson. We will endeavour to let you know the outcome of the PCC’s investigation into the matter, subject to the requirements of confidentiality.

Whilst the Estate has not as yet made a complaint in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mail, we will be putting that complaint on hold pending the outcome of our investigation with them of the coverage published by the Daily Mirror and Sunday people, as this raises substantively the same concerns. Should it become appropriate for us to revert to you on this complaint at a later stage we will do so.

Thank you for raising these concerns with us.

Best wishes

Ben


Ben Gallop
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
Click to expand...

Hi, GreenEyedOne--I made a complaint re the Daily Mail article about Ron and Nancy and got this reply from another PCC officer:

"Thank you for contacting the Press Complaints Commission.

We are currently investigating this article following an earlier complaint. We will let you know the outcome of our investigation when we can.

Yours sincerely



Simon Yip
Complaints Coordinator

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk"

I assume yours was the earlier complaint? So I wonder now about the complaint I made if that is on hold too? I haven't heard anything from Simon Yip so far.

Great news that the Estate filed a complaint! YAY!!!!!!!!! :)
 
GreenEyedOne said:
New Roger Friedman interview. He really does not believe that Michael was guilty of the pedophile accusations and does his best to fend off the radio host. But he talks about Sneedon being crazy and the false FBI files and the slander by the British media. :)


http://www.wor710.com/player/?mid=2...rogram_id=marksimone.xml&program_name=podcast

He begins at around 25:00.
Click to expand...

Why does that radio host keep saying Jordan's description of Michael's penis was correct and Roger Friedman agrees with him, making up all kinds of weird excuses? So frustrating.
 
GreenEyedOne;3866751 said:
Just thought I would give everyone here an update who is following this. I have just been contacted again by email by the Press Commission. They have stated the Estate has also contacted them to launch a complaint against The Mirror and Sunday People. YES!!! They did not launch a complaint against the Daily Mail though, which has caused my complaint against them to be put on hold. Does anyone have contact with the estate to launch an official complaint against the Daily Mail? (My link to that article is in one of my previous posts.

I wonder what prompted the Estate to go against their own words to "ignore it"? Something must have recently changed. I did notify the FBI. I thought they should know that the British press is accusing them of multiple coverups. Maybe they contacted the estate? Ha!! That would be awesome! Hahahaha!

This is what the coordinator, Ben Gallop tells me today:

Thank you for your email.

The Commission has today been contacted by a representative of the Estate of Michael Jackson. The Estate has informed us that it wishes to make a complaint through the PCC in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mirror and Sunday People which forms the subject of your complaint.

As I am sure you can appreciate, in circumstances where articles have made specific allegation against a named individual, it is more appropriate for the Commission to consider a complaint from that individual or their representatives.

As such, we will be taking this complaint forward with the Estate of Michael Jackson. We will endeavour to let you know the outcome of the PCC’s investigation into the matter, subject to the requirements of confidentiality.

Whilst the Estate has not as yet made a complaint in relation to the coverage in the Daily Mail, we will be putting that complaint on hold pending the outcome of our investigation with them of the coverage published by the Daily Mirror and Sunday people, as this raises substantively the same concerns. Should it become appropriate for us to revert to you on this complaint at a later stage we will do so.

Thank you for raising these concerns with us.

Best wishes

Ben


Ben Gallop
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk
Click to expand...

Hi, thanks for sharing this great news. By any chance, could you tell us the date the email was sent to you?
 
LindavG said:
Why does that radio host keep saying Jordan's description of Michael's penis was correct and Roger Friedman agrees with him, making up all kinds of weird excuses? So frustrating.
Click to expand...

That's how myths get cemented. Repeat it enough times until people will cite it as a fact.
 
I'm very happy with the initiative of the Estate. :clapping: I can only hope that the family follow his example and take every step they can to stop such abuse.
 
LindavG said:
Why does that radio host keep saying Jordan's description of Michael's penis was correct and Roger Friedman agrees with him, making up all kinds of weird excuses? So frustrating.
Click to expand...

Roger is just a hypocrite
 
^^He doesn't say Michael is p... anymore but thinks there's something wrong on his friendship with children and his character. How the f*ck could people expect Michael to be normal if he never knew normality and became in a hard worker being a baby? :angry:

I'm not a believer but Al Sharpton was absolutely right:
"Wasn’t nothing strange about your Daddy. It was strange what your Daddy had to deal with. But he dealt with it…He dealt with it anyway. He dealt with it for us."

P.S. That radio host is an absolute ignorant and asshole!
 
Last edited:
Finally!! Im so happy the Estate decided to take action.
 
Selling_Out_Souls said:
Hi, thanks for sharing this great news. By any chance, could you tell us the date the email was sent to you?
Click to expand...

The email I got from PCC guy Simon Yip was sent July 10th (re the Ron and Nancy story).

There's a documentary on the tabs called Starsucker in which the tabs are caught on videotape saying they don't worry about PCC complaints--they just issue an apology (somewhere in the back pages)--they say on tape that there is no fine, so they have a 'who cares' attitude.

I think now that there are actual trials of the tab editors and journos coming up in September, that the climate is different and the PCC is taken more seriously. Wish they hadn't decided to drop charges on James Desborough.
 
Last edited:
LindavG said:
Why does that radio host keep saying Jordan's description of Michael's penis was correct and Roger Friedman agrees with him, making up all kinds of weird excuses? So frustrating.
Click to expand...
:mat: That really tisk me off! Roger wanted people to get facts straight and he can't do it himself!? Oh That's just freakin GREAT! -_- If Roger gonna be agreeing with something so dead wrong and so serious against MJ, then what is he exactly defending him from? Geez! SMH No wonder he gets under my damn skin and why he never get's my support or trust!
 
I'm glad to see there is no new article from Sunday People/The Mirror or the Daily Mail today. It was becoming a pattern the last couple weeks to throw a new one out there on Sunday. Hopefully, the pressure we have applied has halted their lies and smear campaign.
 
Im guessing wade feels like no one is listening to him that why there is no new article lol aww poor wade...NOT!
 
Pleased the estate has acted, I believe they are listening to what the fans are talking about.
 
Thanks greeneyedone and jamba for posting your replies from the pcc.

jamba said:
There's a documentary on the tabs called Starsucker in which the tabs are caught on videotape saying they don't worry about PCC complaints--they just issue an apology (somewhere in the back pages)--they say on tape that there is no fine, so they have a 'who cares' attitude.

I think now that there are actual trials of the tab editors and journos coming up in September, that the climate is different and the PCC is taken more seriously. Wish they hadn't decided to drop charges on James Desborough.
Click to expand...

That starsucker doc sounds about right re the pcc. The pcc isn't taken more seriously now, the leveson inquiry sounded its death knell and a new body is going to take over. The only reason the pcc still exists is that there is no agreement on it's replacement as the media and parliament are in some kind of standoff over self-regulation or statutary regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top