Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson Leaves Animals Out of the Act

AppleHeadPro

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
459
Points
0
From the PETA Blog

After we heard about Michael Jackson's apparent desire to include exotic animals in his upcoming London concerts, my heart sank. As superfan of MJ's music since birth and also a staunch animal defender, I'd never felt so conflicted. Luckily, after PETA Europe sent a letter regarding the King of Pop, we got word that he will not be using any live animals in his concert series at London's O2 arena.

Too bad he still has a spotty past when it comes to compassion for animals. It had been widely reported that Jackson planned to ride an elephant on stage and use panthers, but subjecting animals to amplified noise, bright lights, and the fast pace of a massive concert production is cruel. Plus, his rap sheet from the not-too-distant past includes dumping his chimpanzee, Bubbles, with a Hollywood trainer. And many of the animals he left behind at Neverland Ranch ended up being sold at auction, despite repeated offers from PETA to help place them in sanctuaries. His orangutans were reportedly sold to a private owner in Connecticut, two of his alligators are languishing at the disgusting G.W. Exotic Animal Park, his giraffes in the care of a private owner in Arizona are on the verge of being evicted, and more.

Michael, it's bad, it's bad, and you know it.

We know that Michael's "Off the Wall," but his treatment of animals crosses the line to cruel and unacceptable. Hopefully, this new announcement is a sign that things are moving in a new direction. I mean, this is a man who holds the Guinness World Record for giving more to charities than any other entertainer, so you'd think he'd be generous with animals, too … but as much as I love singing "Dirty Diana" into my hairbrush, his cruelty toward animals leaves me less than "thrilled."
Click to expand...
 
this whole things come out of nowhere anyone who actually believes there were ever plans to use animals in the shows needs their head checked by a professional
 
As much as I love Michael I have to take PETA's stance on his treatment of animals. I dont believe he means any harm but just I just dont believe in keeping wild animals as pets or being used for entertainment.
 
VeganMatt said:
As much as I love Michael I have to take PETA's stance on his treatment of animals. I dont believe he means any harm but just I just dont believe in keeping wild animals as pets or being used for entertainment.
Click to expand...

Now I don't say this lightly, considering myself and my girlfriend are both vegan, but peta give us a bad name. They are entirely hypocritical and kill animals rather than finding good homes for them 'because keeping pets is bad'.

If it's a choice between killing an animal or finding a kind home I know which I'm in favour of.
 
oh please they're just using his name to get some attention :smilerolleyes:
 
they did the same thing to britney, started slating her because of stupid rumours she was going to use elephants and lions in her circus tour
 
I cant take Peta serious....attentionseekers, blegh.

Anyone who took that rumour of Michael using animals for his concerts serious should check themselves...
 
Sorry but the PETA are a load of rubbish because all they seem to do is start slamming people based on tabloid rumours before even checking anything. How can they be taken seriously when they behave so childishly? Don't get me wrong I think its important to protect animals and their rights but if you are going to do that then make a legitimate case rather than go all out bashing people using whacked out stories that have no substance as a basis.
 
Yes, using song titles as puns is a great way to enhance a press release.

Morons.
 
PETA is a sect. i am ABSOLUTELY sure about that. their newest craving is for PET SHOP BOYS to change their names into PET RESCUE BOYS... WHAT? THE? FU#K?!
 
VeganMatt said:
As much as I love Michael I have to take PETA's stance on his treatment of animals. I dont believe he means any harm but just I just dont believe in keeping wild animals as pets or being used for entertainment.
Click to expand...

Mm yeah that's what I thought too.

PETA makes me mad.. I totally lost respect for them after they used the beheading of Tim in the Greyhound bus murder to advertise for their campaign and they've just gone too far with a lot of other things.
 
well considering there was never a plan to even include animals in the first place i think PETA should be ashamed they even tried to drag Mike through the mud about this ridiculous rumour.
 
AGB said:
Sorry but the PETA are a load of rubbish because all they seem to do is start slamming people based on tabloid rumours before even checking anything. How can they be taken seriously when they behave so childishly? Don't get me wrong I think its important to protect animals and their rights but if you are going to do that then make a legitimate case rather than go all out bashing people using whacked out stories that have no substance as a basis.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. PETA never seem to be able to back anything up using facts (even the whole KFC argument is flawed. There are hens treated like that everywhere, so why not start small and end big?) They need to get their facts straight before acting.

Mystic said:
Yes, using song titles as puns is a great way to enhance a press release.

Morons.
Click to expand...

Well said!

dangerous_88 said:
PETA is a sect. i am ABSOLUTELY sure about that. their newest craving is for PET SHOP BOYS to change their names into PET RESCUE BOYS... WHAT? THE? FU#K?!
Click to expand...

Seriously?!?! IS this true, or was it just said by someone who's anti-PETA?
 
blue_eyed_belle said:
Seriously?!?! IS this true, or was it just said by someone who's anti-PETA?
Click to expand...

No it was real, It was said in satire though not as a serious request.

Pop group Pet Shop Boys have revealed they have turned down a request by animal rights group Peta to rename themselves the Rescue Shelter Boys.

"Peta Europe has written to Pet Shop Boys with a request they are unable to agree to," reads a post on the band's official website.

But the band admits the request "raises an issue worth thinking about".

Peta's letter requests the name change because of the cruelty it alleges takes place in the pet trade.

If the band were to agree to the name change, it continues, it would "encourage your millions of fans to consider giving a home to an abandoned or unwanted animal from an animal shelter".

'Bizarre'

In her letter, Peta's special projects manager Yvonne Taylor admits that her request "may at first seem bizarre".

It goes on to list a series of criticisms against the way pet shops obtain, maintain and house their animals.

Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe were inspired to call themselves the Pet Shop Boys by friends who worked in a pet shop in west London.

Originally named West End, the electronic pop duo won a Brit award for their outstanding contribution to music earlier this year.

The group - whose hits include West End Girls, Heart and It's A Sin - released Yes, their 10th studio album, last month.
Click to expand...
 
Idiots i saw his animals when i went to nevvy and they were all well cared for, his sheep even had their own music playing, surreal i know but true, And Gypsey had her own home with her name on the door.
 
PETA slating Britney for using elephant...and didn't work and now they try to slant Michael? Hah!!

i work in fashion industry, no matter how i love animals...for me PETA action against fur by running around naked on fashion catwalk is completely jerk!
 
i can hardly imagine he would do that, because it is cruel, yes.
but i dont know anything about peta, so i dont know, if its true or not =(
 
I wrote this in another thread regarding PETA.

PETA needs to back off. Michael had people at Neverland taking care of those animals. He was, unfortunately, even being sued at the time by someone who claimed to have been hired to take care of them and was not getting paid. And the guy ended his claim still being friendly toward Michael. So how does this abuse/neglect crap make sense? People need to wake up. Michael is not this evil man they insist that he is.

PETA also needs to learn to blame the right people for the right mess. I'm already sick and tired of them going after Michael every time there is some issue with the animals that are no longer his. Once those animals were out of Michael's hands and into another place, it was the owner of that other place that had 100% of the responsibility to handle them with care. How was Michael supposed to know whether or not the owner was going to be nasty to those animals? I'm sure if Michael knew better he wouldn't have given those animals to an (alleged) jerk like that. PETA needs to stop badgering innocent people (celebrity or not) and go after the abusers themselves. People who USED to own animals that are abused only after they are moved to a new home and away from said former owner don't count for villification. Period.
 
Last edited:
mjfan4ever2009 said:
I wrote this in another thread regarding PETA.

PETA needs to back off. Michael had people at Neverland taking care of those animals. He was. unfortunately, even being sued at the time by someone who claimed to have been hired to take care of them and was not getting paid. And the guy ended his claim still being friendly toward Michael. So how does this abuse/neglect crap make sense? People need to wake up. Michael is not this evil man they insist that he is.

PETA also needs to learn to blame the right people for the right mess. I'm already sick and tired of them going after Michael every time there is some issue with the animals that are no longer his. Once those animals were out of Michael's hands and into another place, it was the owner of that other place that had 100% of the responsibility to handle them with care. How was Michael supposed to know whether or not the owner was going to be nasty to those animals? I'm sure if Michael knew better he wouldn't have given those animals to an (alleged) jerk like that. PETA needs to stop badgering innocent people (celebrity or not) and go after the abusers themselves. People who USED to own animals that are abused only after they are moved to a new home and away from said former owner don't count for villification. Period.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right :yes: :clapping:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top