Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

PoP;4276324 said:
My account got locked out and then 2 weeks later my account got suspended for no fricking reason. It's gotta be a hater job.

Oh. And no help from support? :eek:
Can’t you just start a new account? I mean, of course it sucks, but maybe still better than not being able to do anything on Twitter until you get your account back?
 
ScreenOrigami;4276325 said:
Oh. And no help from support? :eek:
Can’t you just start a new account? I mean, of course it sucks, but maybe still better than not being able to do anything on Twitter until you get your account back?

I told them the reason, but I got nothing from them and no response. They screwed me and I don't know what else to do and even Hotmail screwed me, I can't get to my inbox. I'm not starting a new account and I'm not having another email account to Google or Yahoo. I can log in to Twitter just fine, but I can't do anything else.

Makes me hate them both now.
 
PoP;4276331 said:
I told them the reason, but I got nothing from them and no response. They screwed me and I don't know what else to do and even Hotmail screwed me, I can't get to my inbox. I'm not starting a new account and I'm not having another email account to Google or Yahoo. I can log in to Twitter just fine, but I can't do anything else.

Makes me hate them both now.

Just a thought, but if you can log in to Twitter and Hotmail but can’t do anything after that, could it maybe be a technical issue on your end? Maybe start a new account just to see if that works? How are you accessing their services?
 
ScreenOrigami;4276332 said:
Just a thought, but if you can log in to Twitter and Hotmail but can’t do anything after that, could it maybe be a technical issue on your end? Maybe start a new account just to see if that works? How are you accessing their services?

I don't think so. As for Hotmail, the real issue is that stupid security verification, they keeps saying I need a security code and I don't need it, I bypass that without any issues, but when I get to inbox, I'm back to Overprotective thing again. I may have to get an iPhone. And now I'm not making new accounts.
 
PoP;4276334 said:
I don't think so. As for Hotmail, the real issue is that stupid security verification, they keeps saying I need a security code and I don't need it, I bypass that without any issues, but when I get to inbox, I'm back to Overprotective thing again. I may have to get an iPhone. And now I'm not making new accounts.

To be honest, up until an hour ago, I didn’t even know Hotmail still existed. :laughing:
So not sure what’s up with that. Although most mail services nowadays require some kind of extra security code, so it may actually be a small thing to fix.

And what happens once you logged on to Twitter? What does it say or do?
 
ScreenOrigami;4276336 said:
To be honest, up until an hour ago, I didn’t even know Hotmail still existed. :laughing:
So not sure what’s up with that. Although most mail services nowadays require some kind of extra security code, so it may actually be a small thing to fix.

And what happens once you logged on to Twitter? What does it say or do?

Well Hotmail is Outlook. Even if I wanna have security codes, that won't help anything for me, I just wanna give Microsoft a complaint over this.

Nothing, but everytime I log in I keep getting "Your account is suspended and is not permitted to perform this action." what's weird is I got 1 message which I can't get to because of that and 3 notifications which are all "Was this you?" Of course it is me. Idiots! How can confirm this if you idiots suspended my account!? Huh!?

This is why those suspended or banning accounts for no reason is stupid.
 
I really don't understand why genuine victims settle. It really DOES seem to be 'all about the money', not about justice, or getting the full facts aired in a court of law. Doesn't the new statute of limitations apply to these claimants too?

Weinstein and His Accusers Reach Tentative $25 Million Deal

Dec. 11, 2019
Updated 4:16 p.m. ET

After two years of legal wrangling, Harvey Weinstein and the board of his bankrupt film studio have reached a tentative $25 million settlement agreement with dozens of his alleged sexual misconduct victims, a deal that would not require the Hollywood producer to admit wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations.

The proposed global legal settlement has gotten preliminary approval from the major parties involved, according to several of the lawyers. More than 30 actresses and former Weinstein employees, who in lawsuits have accused Mr. Weinstein of offenses ranging from sexual harassment to rape, would share in the payout — along with potential claimants who could join in coming months. The deal would bring to an end nearly every such lawsuit against him and his former company.

The settlement would require court approval and a final signoff by all parties. It would be paid by insurance companies representing the producer’s former studio, the Weinstein Company. Because the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, the women have had to make their claims along with its creditors. The payout to the accusers would be part of an overall $47 million settlement intended to close out the company’s obligations, according to a half-dozen lawyers, some of whom spoke about the proposed terms on the condition of anonymity.

Representatives for Mr. Weinstein declined to comment. Lawyers did not respond to requests for comment for board members and other parties.

Mr. Weinstein is scheduled to be tried in Manhattan in early January on charges of sexual assault involving two women. On Wednesday, a state judge raised his bail after prosecutors accused him of mishandling his ankle monitor. While his criminal prosecution has drawn public attention, the largely hidden negotiations over civil claims have been far more consequential for many of his accusers, who include women from the United States, Canada, Britain and Ireland.

More than $12 million — a quarter of the overall settlement package — would go toward some, but not all, legal costs for Mr. Weinstein; his brother, Bob; and other former members of their company’s board, the lawyers said. The board members would be insulated from future liability, and the alleged victims would drop their claims against Mr. Weinstein and other executives.

Several plaintiffs’ lawyers said Mr. Weinstein, who would avoid making a personal payout, had claimed that he might soon file for personal bankruptcy.

Katherine Kendall, 50, an actress who accused Mr. Weinstein of luring her to what she thought would be a work discussion in 1993 and then chasing her around his New York apartment while he was nude, said she was disappointed by the terms but had agreed to them partly because she didn’t want to block fellow plaintiffs from getting whatever recompense they could. “I don’t love it, but I don’t know how to go after him,” she said in an interview. “I don’t know what I can really do.”

Genie Harrison, a sexual harassment lawyer representing Sandeep Rehal, a former Weinstein assistant who is part of the proposed settlement, said that holding out for more favorable terms might have left the alleged victims empty-handed. A combination of preliminary legal rulings against various plaintiffs, laws that protect boards against liability, and previous failed settlement efforts had put the women in a weaker bargaining position.

“I don’t think there’s a markedly better deal to be made,” Ms. Harrison said. “We have really, truly done the best we can under the circumstances, and it’s important for other victims to know this, come forward and be able to get the best level of compensation we were able to get.”

The settlement would resolve lawsuits filed by dozens of women since 2017, when The New York Times exposed allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by Mr. Weinstein. Although the producer’s accusers include some of the highest-profile women in the entertainment world, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek, none have joined the proceedings. A lawsuit by the actress Ashley Judd, who has said she intends to take Mr. Weinstein to trial, would not be part of the deal.

The process has been long and complicated, involving lawyers for the women, Mr. Weinstein, his former board members, creditors, insurers and the New York attorney general’s office. Last year, when the Weinstein Company entered bankruptcy, the accusers watched a potential settlement payout dwindle from a projected $90 million victims’ fund that had been discussed as part of a possible sale of the studio. Then Eric T. Schneiderman, who as state attorney general had sued the studio and the Weinstein brothers and was steering settlement talks, resigned amid allegations that he had abused women.

Even if the proposed deal goes through, its terms would come with uncertainty. Eighteen of the alleged victims would split $6.2 million, with no individual getting more than $500,000. A separate pot of money, $18.5 million, would be set aside for those who were part of a class-action case, the New York attorney general’s suit and any future claimants, with a court-appointed monitor allocating payments based on the severity of the harm alleged.

Two women who have brought civil suits against Mr. Weinstein — Alexandra Canosa, a producer who used to work for him, and Wedil David, an actress — intend to challenge the tentative agreement, according to their lawyers. Douglas Wigdor, who represents Ms. David, said he objected to the current deal because of a clause saying that if the two women did not participate, $1 million from the fund could be used instead by Mr. Weinstein for his own defense costs. He added that they would be precluded from pursuing board members or the insurance companies.

“What’s most offensive is that they’re trying to force our client to settle,” Mr. Wigdor said.

Now that most of the participants have agreed to go forward, the lawyers can work to turn the preliminary term sheet into an official settlement agreement — a longer, more detailed document that will require approval from at least two judges, one from the federal court in Delaware overseeing the Weinstein Company’s bankruptcy and the other from a federal court in New York. But it could still fall apart because of objections by lawyers representing the dissenting women.

The narrow scope of Mr. Weinstein’s upcoming criminal trial only heightens the significance of the civil settlement, likely to be the only legal recourse for many of the women who said he abused them. Because some alleged victims have declined to participate in a criminal trial, or have complained of offenses that are not criminal or fall outside the statute of limitations, the court case in New York centers on just two people.

One woman accused Mr. Weinstein of raping her at a Manhattan hotel in 2013, and the other claimed he forced oral sex on her at his townhouse in 2006. Mr. Weinstein has denied any nonconsensual sexual activity.

He also sought to have insurance companies cover the cost of his criminal defense if he were acquitted. They refused.

Zoe Brock, 45, a former model who has accused Harvey Weinstein of sexually inappropriate behavior, said in an interview that agreeing to the settlement terms made her feel “defeated and hopeless,” because neither Mr. Weinstein nor his former board members would be required to pay the alleged victims. But when she looked for legal alternatives, she found none.

Other plaintiffs said they were trying to find value in the tentative agreement.

“Many of us are outside the statute of limitations, and we can’t have our day in criminal court with Harvey,” said Caitlin Dulany, 56, who has accused Mr. Weinstein of sexually harassing and assaulting her in the mid-1990s. Even a flawed settlement, she said, might “bring some justice and relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/harvey-weinstein-settlement.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: it looks as though one lawyer/ client at least will reject the settlement:

Attorneys for alleged Weinstein victim reject tentative settlement

Updated 2329 GMT (0729 HKT) December 11, 2019

Attorneys for one of Harvey Weinstein's alleged victims on Wednesday rejected a tentative deal between the disgraced movie producer, his bankrupt company and dozens of his accusers.

A source with knowledge of the deal confirmed to CNN a tentative deal has been reached. In the agreement, which needs sign off from all parties and a bankruptcy court, Weinstein does not have to admit to any wrongdoing, according to the source.
The source would not disclose the amount of the tentative deal, but according to The New York Times which first reported the deal, $25 million would go to his accusers. Weinstein has always maintained that any sexual encounters he was involved in were consensual.
In a statement Wednesday, Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who represent an alleged victim said: "We reject the notion that this was the best settlement that could have been achieved on behalf of the victims."

"It is shameful that $12 million of the settlement is going to the lawyers for the directors who we alleged enabled Harvey Weinstein and it is even more outrageous that the proposed settlement will seek to bind non participating members by providing a release to the insurance companies and the directors of the Weinstein Company itself," the statement said.

"While we don't begrudge victims who want to settle, we plan to vigorously object to any provision that tries to bind victims who want to proceed with holding Harvey Weinstein accountable for his actions which is exactly what we intend to do," the statement said.

The settlement is separate from the criminal case pending against Weinstein.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/us/harvey-weinstein-tentative-deal-rejected/index.html
 
Last edited:
myosotis;4276339 said:
I really don't understand why genuine victims settle. It really DOES seem to be 'all about the money', not about justice, or getting the full facts aired in a court of law. Doesn't the new statute of limitations apply to these claimants too?

Weinstein and His Accusers Reach Tentative $25 Million Deal

Dec. 11, 2019
Updated 4:16 p.m. ET

After two years of legal wrangling, Harvey Weinstein and the board of his bankrupt film studio have reached a tentative $25 million settlement agreement with dozens of his alleged sexual misconduct victims, a deal that would not require the Hollywood producer to admit wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations.

The proposed global legal settlement has gotten preliminary approval from the major parties involved, according to several of the lawyers. More than 30 actresses and former Weinstein employees, who in lawsuits have accused Mr. Weinstein of offenses ranging from sexual harassment to rape, would share in the payout — along with potential claimants who could join in coming months. The deal would bring to an end nearly every such lawsuit against him and his former company.

The settlement would require court approval and a final signoff by all parties. It would be paid by insurance companies representing the producer’s former studio, the Weinstein Company. Because the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, the women have had to make their claims along with its creditors. The payout to the accusers would be part of an overall $47 million settlement intended to close out the company’s obligations, according to a half-dozen lawyers, some of whom spoke about the proposed terms on the condition of anonymity.

Representatives for Mr. Weinstein declined to comment. Lawyers did not respond to requests for comment for board members and other parties.

Mr. Weinstein is scheduled to be tried in Manhattan in early January on charges of sexual assault involving two women. On Wednesday, a state judge raised his bail after prosecutors accused him of mishandling his ankle monitor. While his criminal prosecution has drawn public attention, the largely hidden negotiations over civil claims have been far more consequential for many of his accusers, who include women from the United States, Canada, Britain and Ireland.

More than $12 million — a quarter of the overall settlement package — would go toward some, but not all, legal costs for Mr. Weinstein; his brother, Bob; and other former members of their company’s board, the lawyers said. The board members would be insulated from future liability, and the alleged victims would drop their claims against Mr. Weinstein and other executives.

Several plaintiffs’ lawyers said Mr. Weinstein, who would avoid making a personal payout, had claimed that he might soon file for personal bankruptcy.

Katherine Kendall, 50, an actress who accused Mr. Weinstein of luring her to what she thought would be a work discussion in 1993 and then chasing her around his New York apartment while he was nude, said she was disappointed by the terms but had agreed to them partly because she didn’t want to block fellow plaintiffs from getting whatever recompense they could. “I don’t love it, but I don’t know how to go after him,” she said in an interview. “I don’t know what I can really do.”

Genie Harrison, a sexual harassment lawyer representing Sandeep Rehal, a former Weinstein assistant who is part of the proposed settlement, said that holding out for more favorable terms might have left the alleged victims empty-handed. A combination of preliminary legal rulings against various plaintiffs, laws that protect boards against liability, and previous failed settlement efforts had put the women in a weaker bargaining position.

“I don’t think there’s a markedly better deal to be made,” Ms. Harrison said. “We have really, truly done the best we can under the circumstances, and it’s important for other victims to know this, come forward and be able to get the best level of compensation we were able to get.”

The settlement would resolve lawsuits filed by dozens of women since 2017, when The New York Times exposed allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by Mr. Weinstein. Although the producer’s accusers include some of the highest-profile women in the entertainment world, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek, none have joined the proceedings. A lawsuit by the actress Ashley Judd, who has said she intends to take Mr. Weinstein to trial, would not be part of the deal.

The process has been long and complicated, involving lawyers for the women, Mr. Weinstein, his former board members, creditors, insurers and the New York attorney general’s office. Last year, when the Weinstein Company entered bankruptcy, the accusers watched a potential settlement payout dwindle from a projected $90 million victims’ fund that had been discussed as part of a possible sale of the studio. Then Eric T. Schneiderman, who as state attorney general had sued the studio and the Weinstein brothers and was steering settlement talks, resigned amid allegations that he had abused women.

Even if the proposed deal goes through, its terms would come with uncertainty. Eighteen of the alleged victims would split $6.2 million, with no individual getting more than $500,000. A separate pot of money, $18.5 million, would be set aside for those who were part of a class-action case, the New York attorney general’s suit and any future claimants, with a court-appointed monitor allocating payments based on the severity of the harm alleged.

Two women who have brought civil suits against Mr. Weinstein — Alexandra Canosa, a producer who used to work for him, and Wedil David, an actress — intend to challenge the tentative agreement, according to their lawyers. Douglas Wigdor, who represents Ms. David, said he objected to the current deal because of a clause saying that if the two women did not participate, $1 million from the fund could be used instead by Mr. Weinstein for his own defense costs. He added that they would be precluded from pursuing board members or the insurance companies.

“What’s most offensive is that they’re trying to force our client to settle,” Mr. Wigdor said.

Now that most of the participants have agreed to go forward, the lawyers can work to turn the preliminary term sheet into an official settlement agreement — a longer, more detailed document that will require approval from at least two judges, one from the federal court in Delaware overseeing the Weinstein Company’s bankruptcy and the other from a federal court in New York. But it could still fall apart because of objections by lawyers representing the dissenting women.

The narrow scope of Mr. Weinstein’s upcoming criminal trial only heightens the significance of the civil settlement, likely to be the only legal recourse for many of the women who said he abused them. Because some alleged victims have declined to participate in a criminal trial, or have complained of offenses that are not criminal or fall outside the statute of limitations, the court case in New York centers on just two people.

One woman accused Mr. Weinstein of raping her at a Manhattan hotel in 2013, and the other claimed he forced oral sex on her at his townhouse in 2006. Mr. Weinstein has denied any nonconsensual sexual activity.

He also sought to have insurance companies cover the cost of his criminal defense if he were acquitted. They refused.

Zoe Brock, 45, a former model who has accused Harvey Weinstein of sexually inappropriate behavior, said in an interview that agreeing to the settlement terms made her feel “defeated and hopeless,” because neither Mr. Weinstein nor his former board members would be required to pay the alleged victims. But when she looked for legal alternatives, she found none.

Other plaintiffs said they were trying to find value in the tentative agreement.

“Many of us are outside the statute of limitations, and we can’t have our day in criminal court with Harvey,” said Caitlin Dulany, 56, who has accused Mr. Weinstein of sexually harassing and assaulting her in the mid-1990s. Even a flawed settlement, she said, might “bring some justice and relief.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/harvey-weinstein-settlement.html

Oh you've got to be kiddin' me.:no:
 
Quoting this (old) article for irony:

Gloria Allred Responds to Criticism of Confidential Sexual Assault-Case Settlements

12:09 PM PDT 9/24/2019

In an opinion piece published Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times, women's rights attorney Gloria Allred responded to criticism from New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, who have called her out in their new book, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement, for assisting clients in entering confidential agreements during the legal course of fighting sexual assault cases. The reporters argue that this action "silences" the victims and keeps their stories quiet, which can protect the investigation into the predator.

Allred's law firm has come under the microscope in recent months for negotiating confidentiality agreements for victims of Harvey Weinstein in particular. Since the case opened, she has represented several Weinstein accusers, including actress Heather Kerr, who claimed that Weinstein forced himself on her during a private meeting. Allred's daughter is civil rights attorney Lisa Bloom, who advised Weinstein before she withdrew from his legal team amid backlash.

In August, Weinstein pled not guilty in a new indictment that includes revised charges of predatory sexual assault. Because of this development, his trial has been delayed until 2020.

In her opinion piece, Allred explains her decision to support victims who choose to enter confidential agreements. "The MeToo movement has elevated the voices of sexual assault victims," she wrote, "making it more likely that victims will come forward. But movement supporters are wrong to attack confidential settlement that can help vulnerable victims get a measure of justice."

Allred goes on to say, "Some people may be shocked that lawyers, especially a feminist lawyer like me, would ever assist a client to enter a confidential agreement. The alternative, however, would be to insist that victims be denied the choice to settle their case, and be forced to file lawsuits, appear for depositions, answer interrogatories, testify publicly under oath and take the risk that a jury will not believe them. Even if a jury finds in the victim's favor, the defendant could appeal and the victim may never collect anything at all if the defendant is successful."

Allred has been practicing law for 43 years, and in that time has represented numerous victims of rape and sexual assault. She explains that each victim should have choices when asserting their legal rights, and that includes entering into a settlement that avoids litigating their case publicly: "I fully support victims who choose to go public with their claims and I equally support victims who want to maintain their privacy and confidentially settle their claims. As a private victim’s rights attorney, my duty is to support my client in the choice she makes."

Allred emphasizes that many victims choose to enter these confidential agreements because they do not want family members, friends or members of the public learning of their case. "Advocates who call confidential settlements 'hush money' are ignorant of the law," writes the attorney, noting that even if a victim has entered into such an agreement, she may still testify in a criminal case against the predator and share what happened to her with law enforcement.

Concludes Allred: "We believe victims should have the right to choose whether or not to enter into a voluntary confidential settlement and no one, including the press and politicians, should take that right and choice away from victims."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...ntial-sexual-assault-case-settlements-1242940
 
myosotis;4276343 said:
Quoting this (old) article for irony:

Gloria Allred Responds to Criticism of Confidential Sexual Assault-Case Settlements

12:09 PM PDT 9/24/2019

In an opinion piece published Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times, women's rights attorney Gloria Allred responded to criticism from New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, who have called her out in their new book, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement, for assisting clients in entering confidential agreements during the legal course of fighting sexual assault cases. The reporters argue that this action "silences" the victims and keeps their stories quiet, which can protect the investigation into the predator.

Allred's law firm has come under the microscope in recent months for negotiating confidentiality agreements for victims of Harvey Weinstein in particular. Since the case opened, she has represented several Weinstein accusers, including actress Heather Kerr, who claimed that Weinstein forced himself on her during a private meeting. Allred's daughter is civil rights attorney Lisa Bloom, who advised Weinstein before she withdrew from his legal team amid backlash.

In August, Weinstein pled not guilty in a new indictment that includes revised charges of predatory sexual assault. Because of this development, his trial has been delayed until 2020.

In her opinion piece, Allred explains her decision to support victims who choose to enter confidential agreements. "The MeToo movement has elevated the voices of sexual assault victims," she wrote, "making it more likely that victims will come forward. But movement supporters are wrong to attack confidential settlement that can help vulnerable victims get a measure of justice."

Allred goes on to say, "Some people may be shocked that lawyers, especially a feminist lawyer like me, would ever assist a client to enter a confidential agreement. The alternative, however, would be to insist that victims be denied the choice to settle their case, and be forced to file lawsuits, appear for depositions, answer interrogatories, testify publicly under oath and take the risk that a jury will not believe them. Even if a jury finds in the victim's favor, the defendant could appeal and the victim may never collect anything at all if the defendant is successful."

Allred has been practicing law for 43 years, and in that time has represented numerous victims of rape and sexual assault. She explains that each victim should have choices when asserting their legal rights, and that includes entering into a settlement that avoids litigating their case publicly: "I fully support victims who choose to go public with their claims and I equally support victims who want to maintain their privacy and confidentially settle their claims. As a private victim’s rights attorney, my duty is to support my client in the choice she makes."

Allred emphasizes that many victims choose to enter these confidential agreements because they do not want family members, friends or members of the public learning of their case. "Advocates who call confidential settlements 'hush money' are ignorant of the law," writes the attorney, noting that even if a victim has entered into such an agreement, she may still testify in a criminal case against the predator and share what happened to her with law enforcement.

Concludes Allred: "We believe victims should have the right to choose whether or not to enter into a voluntary confidential settlement and no one, including the press and politicians, should take that right and choice away from victims."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...ntial-sexual-assault-case-settlements-1242940

Get that man hating sexist b:cecsored: out of this!
 
Hypocrite Gloria. That all of what she said can be same "belief" that works and to why a defendant settle along with avoiding expensive court cost. And people who want say people are guilty because they settle are also ignorant as well and do not law. And again, Settlements do NOT stop the criminal. NOW she finally say it now that the spotlight is on her and the table has turned.
 
IDA HQ is on Wilshire Boulevard, LA. The website spells programme as 'program'. It funds grants in dollars. It's a 501c3 public charity.
It's as American as The Stars and Stripes.

https://www.documentary.org/contact-us

https://www.documentary.org/fiscal-sponsorship

My bad, I got it mixed up with another award thing. I'm an idiot...
There's some award show being held in the UK next month called the National Television Awards. LN is nominated for one of those also, and the show being held at the O2. Yes, THAT O2.

I really don't understand why genuine victims settle. It really DOES seem to be 'all about the money', not about justice, or getting the full facts aired in a court of law. Doesn't the new statute of limitations apply to these claimants too?

Weinstein and His Accusers Reach Tentative $25 Million Deal

(cut for space)

So... assuming this goes through, are we gonna see the same "he bought their silence!1!!" crowd like with Michael? No? Hmm, wonder why...
 
So... assuming this goes through, are we gonna see the same "he bought their silence!1!!" crowd like with Michael? No? Hmm, wonder why...
There will be some in the general public I guess, but CNN certainly makes it clear that "the settlement is separate from the criminal case". As they should BTW, I just can't stop thinking about if only MJ received the same fair reporting starting from 93... we wouldn't be here now.
 
Amaya;4276355 said:
My bad, I got it mixed up with another award thing. I'm an idiot...
There's some award show being held in the UK next month called the National Television Awards. LN is nominated for one of those also, and the show being held at the O2. Yes, THAT O2.



So... assuming this goes through, are we gonna see the same "he bought their silence!1!!" crowd like with Michael? No? Hmm, wonder why...

I think I missed the NTA noms. Thank you for that info. :)
The O2 showed no love for MJ after 25 June 09. When fans held tribute events there, they were barely tolerated and moved on by staff as soon as possible.

Unbelievably LN is also nominated for yet another USA award, The American Cinema Editors 'Eddie' Award. (They must be considering awards for 'deceptive editing', drone shots and adding clips from the internet while removing context):
(PS we have already read from the 'ITA award' press that LN was not submitted for an Oscar).

The nominations for the 70th Annual ACE Eddie Awards are hereby announced.
American Cinema Editors recognizes outstanding editing in 11 categories of film, television and documentaries. Winners will be revealed during ACE’s annual black-tie awards ceremony on Friday, Jan. 17 in the International Ballroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel. It is presided over by ACE President, Stephen Rivkin, ACE.

BEST EDITED DOCUMENTARY (NON-THEATRICAL):

Abducted in Plain Sight
James Cude


Bathtubs Over Broadway
Dava Whisenant

Leaving Neverland
Jules Cornell


What’s My Name: Muhammad Ali
Jake Pushinsky, ACE`

https://americancinemaeditors.org/eddie-awards/eddie-nominees/

I wonder if they've already booked their sponsorship table at the event?
https://americancinemaeditors.org/eddie-awards/sponsorships/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1951, American Cinema Editors has celebrated the best in television and feature film editing at the annual ACE Eddie Awards gala. More than a thousand of the entertainment industry’s most accomplished editors, filmmakers and Hollywood elite attend the black-tie event held each year at the famed Beverly Hilton hotel.

A prelude to the Oscars, the Eddies are considered a barometer for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Best Picture and Best Editing categories. The ACE Eddies is one of the longest-running awards shows in the entertainment industry.
 
If that bull$#|^ film get another award I'm kicking their @$$es.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Despite this horrible year, Michael Jackson's streaming is up. His Vegas shows sell out. His Broadway show is coming. The mockumentary was disproven. Michael Jackson WON in 2019, and will only get better in 2020. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJ2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJ2020</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1204870174806925313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">11. Dezember 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is something every single person, MJ fan or not, should read. This is why in the end, Robson and Safechuck will both lose and wind up owing Michael Jackson's Estate hundreds of thousands of dollars. <a href="https://t.co/FWiqBOjkXW">https://t.co/FWiqBOjkXW</a></p>&mdash; andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1204910212466925568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">11. Dezember 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Join, <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tajjackson3</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/jzohny?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jzohny</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/JennyW526?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JennyW526</a>, and myself for the final premiere of Square One 2.0 in Amsterdam on January 18th! Can&#8217;t wait to meet everyone. This is it. See you in the new year. &#55357;&#56495;&#10084;&#65039; <a href="https://t.co/F8oSCsOAm7">https://t.co/F8oSCsOAm7</a></p>&mdash; Danny Wu (@dannywuyue) <a href="https://twitter.com/dannywuyue/status/1205223797147623424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
There will be some in the general public I guess, but CNN certainly makes it clear that "the settlement is separate from the criminal case". As they should BTW, I just can't stop thinking about if only MJ received the same fair reporting starting from 93... we wouldn't be here now.

Damn, man... if only the headlines back then said something like "Jackson settles civil suit, but willing to fight in pending criminal trial". One tiny change like that could've made a pretty big difference.
 
The only ones who feel that are non black people. Blacks know what this feels like. It has been the life of many blacks. Image those who have this and went to prison and now being let out after 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years for a crime they did NOT commit. And when u see some blacks go along with this (very few but their are some Like Oprah, Ava), it is to "think" they will stay in good grace with whites and the powers that be. WELCOME TO BLACK AMERICA or just being black.

Yes, it's a reality for us. People don't remotely understand.
 
Damn, man... if only the headlines back then said something like "Jackson settles civil suit, but willing to fight in pending criminal trial". One tiny change like that could've made a pretty big difference.
Yep. Or perhaps even "Jackson is forced to settle civil suit (explanation of the legal situation), but willing to fight in pending criminal trial."

And then: "Accusers who filed civil suit against Jackson refuse to cooperate with the ongoing criminal investigation after reaching settlement. The settlement is separate from the criminal case."

And finally: "The two independently held grand juries refused to indict due to lack of evidence. The investigation lasted x months, involved x police officers, interrogated x witnesses and costed x $ for taxpayers."
 
Ever since LN Michael's music sales have increased, so why are some radio stations still refusing to play his music? It's pretty clear by now that the public has spoken and wants to hear his music. My guess is that these radio stations are afraid of being attacked by the ''Me Too'' crowd.
 
analogue;4276398 said:
Ever since LN Michael's music sales have increased, so why are some radio stations still refusing to play his music? It's pretty clear by now that the public has spoken and wants to hear his music. My guess is that these radio stations are afraid of being attacked by the ''Me Too'' crowd.

And it´s not just radio stations. At least in my country MTV and VH1 don´t play Michael´s music. The only one playing his music is MCM Pop.
 
DifferentKindOfLady;4276399 said:
And it´s not just radio stations. At least in my country MTV and VH1 don´t play Michael´s music. The only one playing his music is MCM Pop.

Worst thing about this is that people see this as proof of Michael's guilt. I've heard people say ''If he's innocent, then why was his music banned from the radio?''
 
Worst thing about this is that people see this as proof of Michael's guilt. I've heard people say ''If he's innocent, then why was his music banned from the radio?''

One or two stations does not speak for the 98 percent of stations around the WORLd who are playing it.
 
Worst thing about this is that people see this as proof of Michael's guilt. I've heard people say ''If he's innocent, then why was his music banned from the radio?''

His music being banned from the radios doesn't mean he is guilty. They banned his music because they are stupid people, and the people who think like that are stupid too.
 
I know but what makes me sad is MTV. Michael preety much launched that channel and now they don't even play his music, they don't even said nothing on June 25.

Does MTV even play music any more?

All I ever notice is a bunch of "Teen Moms" and how folks are STILL being Catfished (LOL).
 
Worst thing about this is that people see this as proof of Michael's guilt. I've heard people say ''If he's innocent, then why was his music banned from the radio?''
That's the reason for the ban in the first place, to confuse cause and effect (and rely on circular logic). It's not a genuine concern just a tool in order to control the narrative.

There are some who fell for the trick but I think there are even more who begins to see through the obvious. And that's why there's a gap between major public reaction (rise of online streams, Thriller celebrations at Halloween etc) and MSM/radio/TV ban - as you said, the "the public has spoken" and doesn't care about the "gatekeepers".
 
Back
Top