Latest on MJJC

Sun article accuses MJ of child phone sex - details on how to complain

mjlover1988

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
271
Points
0
The Sun printed an article today about the FBI file which focused on Terry George's pathetic interview about how MJ supposedly had phone sex with him.

I got an email saying Charles Thomson (the one who wrote the Evan Chandler blog) is advising fans to complain about the article to the PCC.


Here is the article:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2781952/*****-papers-reveal-FBI-probe.html


Here is the PCC complaints form:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html


Here is his complaint:

The Sun makes numerous references to a phonecall Michael Jackson is alleged to have made to a 13 year old boy.

No evidence is presented to prove that the phonecall ever took place, but the Sun repeatedly states as fact that it did.

The only basis for these statements is the word of a man who sold an interview to the Sun during the early 90s and used the payout to set up a phone sex business.

The Sun should not refer to the alleged conversation as having taken place unless they can prove that it did indeed take place.

Elsewhere in the article, the newspaper claims that Michael Jackson paid a settlement to Jordan Chandler's family. This is a ficitious statement.

Court documents show that an insurance company negotiated and paid the settlement 'over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel'.
Click to expand...


And here are the sections of the code that he says have been breached:

Clause 1 (i): The Newspaper repeatedly states as fact that the phonecall took place but provides no evidence to support these statements. This is inaccurate reporting.

Clause (iii): By stating that the phonecall took place on the sole basis of one interview and providing no hard evidence to corroborate these statements, the newspaper is misrepresenting comment/conjecture as fact.

Clause 2: The newspaper does not appear to have given Michael Jackson's family or estate their right to respond, allowing these baseless allegations to go unchallenged.

Clause 4 (i): This newspaper has repeatedly printed unsupported allegations of sexual misconduct concerning Michael Jackson. This constitutes persistent pursuit.

Clause 5 (ii): Despite knowing that the Jackson family has experienced a tragic death, this newspaper has consistently published libelous and largely unsupported allegations about Michael Jackson, which can only intensify the grief that the Jackson family is experiencing.

Clause 7: The newspaper name Jordan Chandler, who was aged under 13, as being involved in a police investigation regarding sexual abuse.
Click to expand...


NB: People shouldn't just copy and paste the above info directly into their complaints because the PCC will ignore them if they're all identical. Just change the wording so it says the same thing but it isn't exactly the same.
 
All I have to say is, F-them and haven't I heard this dumb accusation before? About the phone sex bull. I hate the media sometimes, because when it comes to Michael Jackson. They lose thier damn minds reporting things.
 
Oh, so now the Sun is retelling the silly 'phone sex story' that another UK tabloid published a while back? :huh: Good going! I knew the tabloids would try their best to turn the FBI files into a scandal. Humbug!
 
Done.

mjlover1988 said:
The Sun printed an article today about the FBI file which focused on Terry George's pathetic interview about how MJ supposedly had phone sex with him.

I got an email saying Charles Thomson (the one who wrote the Evan Chandler blog) is advising fans to complain about the article to the PCC.


Here is the article:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2781952/*****-papers-reveal-FBI-probe.html


Here is the PCC complaints form:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html


Here is his complaint:




And here are the sections of the code that he says have been breached:




NB: People shouldn't just copy and paste the above info directly into their complaints because the PCC will ignore them if they're all identical. Just change the wording so it says the same thing but it isn't exactly the same.
Click to expand...
 
No evidence is presented to prove that the phonecall ever took place, but the Sun repeatedly states as fact that it did.
Click to expand...


Well if the Sun said it, it must be true!


More ridiculous bullshit. Next.
 
By complaining through the official channels we have a chance to embarrass the Sun significently by forcing them to apologise in print.

The more often this is achieved, the more they will think in future before publishing inaccurate information.
 
Here's the reply I got:

"I should emphasise that the PCC will normally only consider complaints from people who are directly affected by the matters about which they are concerned. Indeed, only in exceptional circumstances will the Commission consider a complaint from someone not directly involved.

In this instance, an initial examination of your case suggests that you are a third party to the complaint. However, if you believe our normal rules should be waived to allow us to take your case further (or if you do not consider yourself to be a third party in this matter) we would be grateful to hear from you in the next ten days. We will then ask the Commission to make a further assessment of your case in order to decide whether to take your complaint forward. Additional information about third party complaints can be found on our website in the FAQs section. If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us. If we hear no more from you we will close our files on your complaint.

It may be for the Jackson family to pursue complaints relating directly to accounts of his life, and allegations made about him. I can clarify that we have been in touch with representatives of the Jackson family, who can complain to us about this article if they wish."
 
Just email them back within the ten days insisting that they do pursue the complaint, pointing out that who made the complaint is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Sun is overtly accusing somebody of having phonesex with a child despite having no evidence to back up their claims.
 
The Sun newspaper/organisation are a bunch of vile, low life scums. Third class people read that trash of a paper!

A question - why isn't Michael's estate keeping tabs on tabloids printing such bullshit?? The executors have been saying it's about building and protecting Michael's legacy and to do this, they have to start by discrediting all the crap & lies the tabloids print. Michael does not have any sort of representation or spokesman in the media who can defend his name against such horrible accusations.

Us fans can keep on doing our bit but Michael's estate need to step up their level and start protecting his name when it comes to the nasty media.

And the family are too busy fighting over Michael's money and not showing any concern when his name is being dragged through the mud.

*shakes head* :(
 
Just wanted to point out that the Media Advocacy will take this one on too. We're back after our Chrsitmas break and there is a lot of work to do.
I have had the same experience with the PCC as one of the poster's here so I think we will communicate our complaint to the editor of The Sun.

( The other one will be Joy Behar - totally despicable. See the e-mail alert system thread in the Fans take Action post # 12).

There are probably others as well.
Just wanted to let you know.
Happy New Year to all of you, btw
 
The PCC gives you the opportunity to respond within ten days and ask them to pursue your complaint anyway.

I responded immediately and told them that they should definitely pursue the complaint, then delivered a short lecture on why it is totally irrelevant who reports the newspaper's wrongdoing.

I told them it was ridiculous that the onus fell on MJ's family to scour newspapers for libelous articles when the onus should clearly be on the newspaper not to print the libelous articles in the first place.

This section of the PCC code is pathetic and needs to be changed. We should maybe start a campaign about it.
 
I took the trouble of reading the FBI files and it said on one of their cited tabloids that the person in question received a tape recorder for Christmas. If this is the case, why did he not tape this "conversation" and convict Michael for good? If what he says is true about the expensive phone bill, then he definitely had loads of chances to tape said conversations. Yet he failed to do so. One must ask oneself why. Methinks it's because the conversations NEVER occurred.

The second rather intriguing thing that said tabloids reported was that the person in question, once he had grown up, sought Michael out to 'rekindle the friendship'. He said that Michael had no interest in doing this and the tabloid picked up this statement to insinuate that Michael only had an interest in boys.

I think the statement, if at all true, proves the opposite. If these conversations took place and they affected the person in question in the way he alleges--why on Earth would he want to 'rekindle' that? That is beyond comprehension! If something of that nature really happened, one would think that wanting not to see or talk to Michael ever again would be the logical response of a hurt child. However, this man says he SOUGHT him out. See that, sought. Michael didn't go looking for him, it was the opposite. This in itself seems rather shady to me.

When put together with the fact that he had a tape recorder and failed to record the conversation, the possibility that the story may have contained something valid goes down the toilet.

The story is -quite obviously- false. These tabloids always print out stories which require no proof. What a surprise.

I rest my case. ^__^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top