Terrible statue.

Uuummmmm!! "Does Jackoson deserve the tribute?" Michael Jackson deserves the tribute and much more. Michael supported everyone in their life, for whatever they did. He believed in perseverance and be the best that you can be. be a soccer player, a singer, docotr, teacher or accountant. Of course he deserves it. I love the idea. The statue is just fine and it's placed in an appropriate place.

 Creepy, very creepy not Michael the statue....

I'm loving this man more and more :)
I may be in the minority but I really appreciate his love for MJ and wanting to honor him with a statue. I don't agree with fans from either side telling him how or where he should do that. It tickled me that he said they could go to Hell or to Chelsea if they don't like it. The man loved Michael and was his friend. I commend him for staying his ground and find fans from both sides arrogant for trying to derail his effort.

The statute isnt an exact replica of Michael but it is a good likeness and its cute. I especially LOVE LOVE the costume they chose. Its gorgeous and those who dont like it can go to "Hell or Chelsea" your choice LOL .. I LOVE that he said that

But hey you dont have to like it, If you dont it probably wasnt for you anyway .. It was for people who appreciate Michael being honored and Al Fayed for doing so ~ Qbee

I agree. Terrible idea.

I guess the people of England have forgotten a top rock group from England who wrote and sang the two top rock stadium anthems in the world for soccer, football, basketball or any other game. I don't even have to say their name.

A monument to a child molester? What is this world coming to?

What a terrible thing ! Looks like the the statue of a very bad impersonator ! Nothing to do with the legend and the magic !

I'm loving this man more and more :)
I may be in the minority but I really appreciate his love for MJ and wanting to honor him with a statue. I don't agree with fans from either side telling him how or where he should do that. It tickled me that he said they could go to Hell or to Chelsea if they don't like it. The man loved Michael and was his friend. I commend him for staying his ground and find fans from both sides arrogant for trying to derail his effort.

The statute isnt an exact replica of Michael but it is a good likeness and its cute. I especially LOVE LOVE the costume they chose. Its gorgeous and those who dont like it can go to "Hell or Chelsea" your choice LOL .. I LOVE that he said that

But hey you dont have to like it, If you dont it probably wasnt for you anyway .. It was for people who appreciate Michael being honored and Al Fayed for doing so ~ Qbee

Have people forgotten he was a child molester. He dies and immediately has God status, but when he was alive he was a pervert, degenerate, etc...

Hmm. Don't ever recall him being convicted of molesting any child. In fact, I know he was never convicted.

There's absolutely no proof that he was a "pervert, degenerate, etc.". If your idea of "proof" is because someone else "said so", then I'm not buying it. If your idea of proof is the fact that he settled lawsuits against him, again, that's not proof enough. Any lawyer or accountant can tell you it's cheaper to settle without admitting anything than to fight a long, drawn out lawsuit where the jury only needs to A) be in the majority and; B) believe the rumors and innuendo. And everyone loves to watch falling stars.

I think he was naive and emotionally immature, but I don't believe he was ever a molester. .

"Does it belong outside a stadium visited by families?"

I am amazed when I read a comment like this. Michael Jackson was one of the largest philanthropists in the world. I highly doubt the person writing this article has done even 1% of what he has to make charitable contributions. Before you go spouting off about him being a criminal, remember that not only was he found not guilty in a court of public opinion, but if you actually bothered to read the court transcripts and know anything about the reality of these charges (not what the tabloids where telling you to capitalize), both of these families already had criminal records for suing for false claims and extortion in their past. Coincidence? I think not. Obviously, he still has a lot of fans, especially in the UK. That statue has every right to be around families, like any other.

Wonderful.....a new place for pedophiles of the world to untie and worship one of their gods. Just curious, what did they spend on that thing? Maybe $100?

Michael Jackson deserves a tribute and so much more. He was an amazing man, person, singer. He was so generous and he was never convicted. He was not a molester, or a pervert and I think some people should shut their mouths because they don't know nothing. Michael was one of the sweetest people that ever lived and people judged him and made false accusations towards him. I think if someone wants to make a statue in tribute to him then that is awesome. and people who don't like it can get over it.

I was appalled at the two questions used to end this piece, namely, "Does [the new Michael Jackson statue] belong outside a stadium visited by families?" and "Does [Michael] Jackson deserve [such a] tribute?," both of which appear to be veiled references to the allegations made against him. Mr. Jackson was never guilty of pedophilia. The 1993 "payoff," contrary to popular belief, was not paid by Mr.Jackson personally to silence anybody but by his insurance company on the grounds of negligence. Mr.Jackson himself later stated to a friend that he regretted, and did not agree with, the company's decison to pay the money as he felt it made him, look guilty. The 1993 incident was a clear case of extortion, a point made clear by the comments made by the accuser's father in a taped phone conversation in which, when asked how certain situations will affect his son, he states, "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record." This is clearly not the heartfelt statement of a man seeking justice for his son. Several sources have in fact suggested that Jordie Chandler came forward to admit he lied when he accused Mr.Jackson, and, it is also telling that he refused to testify against him during the 2005 case.
In terms of the 2005 trial, that again was a clear case of extortion, a family driven by avarice, and a corrupt judicial system willing to support them. Mr.Jackson invited the Arvizo's to Neverland because he was told that one of the young boys, Gavin, was dying of cancer. In his kind, loving way, Mr.Jackson offered them free rein in his house, amusement park, cinema, in a bid to offer this child a chance for a normal and happy childhood given the daunting propspects he faced. However, when Gavin recovered the Arvizo's started to exploit Mr.Jackson's generous and kind nature, routinely using his credit cards, his cars and vandalising his property. When Mr.Jackson attempted to distance himself from the family, they, anxious perhaps that they would lose monyed priveleges, invented their accusations. (All of this evidence is available in Larry Nimmer's "The untold story of Neverland", which was used as evidence in the 2005 court case. ) The family's accusations were used by DA Tom Sneddon, who, it is clear, had a vendetta against Mr.Jackson for many years. Mr.Sneddon, throughout the course of the case, exhibited all the signs of malicious prosecution, abusing his power, and, engaing in illegal acts such as evidence tampering, (eg. putting fingerprints on evidence, fabricating phone evidence,) in order to try and convict Mr.Jackson for a crime he did not committ. His motives foe these actions I can only put down to jealousy and deep seated prejudice. A full discussion of Mr.Sneddon's illeagel behaviour during the trial is avaialble here, as discussed by Mr Wagener, who attended the trial and has studied it in great depth:

I think, and I hope that I have made it clear in this email that Michael's only "crime" was caring too deeply about his fellow man (He donated an estimated 1/2 billion dollars to charity,) of being so kind that people constantly took advantage of him, of extending a helping hand to those in need. The central ideas which governed his many humanitarian efforts concerning children are summarised in the tenets he himself proposed for the Children's Universal Bill of Rights, which he expressed during a speech delivered in Oxford on parent/child relationships, in support of the Heal the Kids organisation. These are as follows:

1. The right to be loved, without having to earn it
2. The right to be protected, without having to deserve it
3. The right to feel valuable, even if you came into the world with nothing
4. The right to be listened to, without having to be interesting
5. The right to be read a bedtime story, without having to compete with the evening news
6. The right to an education, without having to dodge bullets at schools
7. The right to be thought of as adorable, (even if you have a face that only a mother could love).

I think you will agree these are not the words of someone who is a threat to the "visiting families" you discuss. Quite the opposite. They reflect a man deeply concerned with the state of the world and the future our children are likely to inherit. He believed that we need to change our values and attitudes and learn to place emphasis on compassion, caring and understanding rather than ruthless material gain.

Perhaps this statue will lead to this man gaining some of the respect and appreciation he deserved, and was so brutally and tragically denied, in life. When people look upon it, let them think not on the negative fabricated stories and the grossly inaccurate caricature, but rather on the kind-hearted man they helped destroy, a man whose heart beat in common time with multitudinous charitable organisations across the world. Think, instead, on the man who lived almost entirely to serve others, who dedicated most of his free time, not to self indulgent activities, but to the visiting of hospitals and orphanages in order to bring some magic to those in dire need of a little escapism. Think on the man who spent an entire day encouraging a young child, ashamed of the physical effects of chemotherapy, to feel proud and comfortable with who he was. Think on the man who poured millions of dollars of his own wealth into his home, Neverland, to ensure it was safely maintained for visiting underprivileged, and terminally ill children. Think on the man who was so brutally and relentlessly mocked, vilified and hunted, for choosing to care too deeply, for letting his humanity shine too brightly and encouraging others, through often stifled cries, to illuminate the world’s darkness.

Most importantly, think on humanity who stood back in muted acceptance and allowed this gentle man to be destroyed. “I fear not the words of my enemies, but the silence of my friends,”

I

I was appalled at the two questions used to end this piece, namely, "Does [the new Michael Jackson statue] belong outside a stadium visited by families?" and "Does [Michael] Jackson deserve [such a] tribute?," both of which appear to be veiled references to the allegations made against him. Mr. Jackson was never guilty of pedophilia. The 1993 "payoff," contrary to popular belief, was not paid by Mr.Jackson personally to silence anybody but by his insurance company on the grounds of negligence. Mr.Jackson himself later stated to a friend that he regretted, and did not agree with, the company's decison to pay the money as he felt it made him, look guilty. The 1993 incident was a clear case of extortion, a point made clear by the comments made by the accuser's father in a taped phone conversation in which, when asked how certain situations will affect his son, he states, "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record." This is clearly not the heartfelt statement of a man seeking justice for his son. Several sources have in fact suggested that Jordie Chandler came forward to admit he lied when he accused Mr.Jackson, and, it is also telling that he refused to testify against him during the 2005 case.
In terms of the 2005 trial, that again was a clear case of extortion, a family driven by avarice, and a corrupt judicial system willing to support them. Mr.Jackson invited the Arvizo's to Neverland because he was told that one of the young boys, Gavin, was dying of cancer. In his kind, loving way, Mr.Jackson offered them free rein in his house, amusement park, cinema, in a bid to offer this child a chance for a normal and happy childhood given the daunting propspects he faced. However, when Gavin recovered the Arvizo's started to exploit Mr.Jackson's generous and kind nature, routinely using his credit cards, his cars and vandalising his property. When Mr.Jackson attempted to distance himself from the family, they, anxious perhaps that they would lose monyed priveleges, invented their accusations. (All of this evidence is available in Larry Nimmer's "The untold story of Neverland", which was used as evidence in the 2005 court case. ) The family's accusations were used by DA Tom Sneddon, who, it is clear, had a vendetta against Mr.Jackson for many years. Mr.Sneddon, throughout the course of the case, exhibited all the signs of malicious prosecution, abusing his power, and, engaing in illegal acts such as evidence tampering, (eg. putting fingerprints on evidence, fabricating phone evidence,) in order to try and convict Mr.Jackson for a crime he did not committ. His motives foe these actions I can only put down to jealousy and deep seated prejudice. A full discussion of Mr.Sneddon's illeagel behaviour during the trial is avaialble here, as discussed by Mr Wagener, who attended the trial and has studied it in great depth:

I think, and I hope that I have made it clear in this email that Michael's only "crime" was caring too deeply about his fellow man (He donated an estimated 1/2 billion dollars to charity,) of being so kind that people constantly took advantage of him, of extending a helping hand to those in need. The central ideas which governed his many humanitarian efforts concerning children are summarised in the tenets he himself proposed for the Children's Universal Bill of Rights, which he expressed during a speech delivered in Oxford on parent/child relationships, in support of the Heal the Kids organisation. These are as follows:

1. The right to be loved, without having to earn it
2. The right to be protected, without having to deserve it
3. The right to feel valuable, even if you came into the world with nothing
4. The right to be listened to, without having to be interesting
5. The right to be read a bedtime story, without having to compete with the evening news
6. The right to an education, without having to dodge bullets at schools
7. The right to be thought of as adorable, (even if you have a face that only a mother could love).

I think you will agree these are not the words of someone who is a threat to the "visiting families" you discuss. Quite the opposite. They reflect a man deeply concerned with the state of the world and the future our children are likely to inherit. He believed that we need to change our values and attitudes and learn to place emphasis on compassion, caring and understanding rather than ruthless material gain.

Perhaps this statue will lead to this man gaining some of the respect and appreciation he deserved, and was so brutally and tragically denied, in life. When people look upon it, let them think not on the negative fabricated stories and the grossly inaccurate caricature, but rather on the kind-hearted man they helped destroy, a man whose heart beat in common time with multitudinous charitable organisations across the world. Think, instead, on the man who lived almost entirely to serve others, who dedicated most of his free time, not to self indulgent activities, but to the visiting of hospitals and orphanages in order to bring some magic to those in dire need of a little escapism. Think on the man who spent an entire day encouraging a young child, ashamed of the physical effects of chemotherapy, to feel proud and comfortable with who he was. Think on the man who poured millions of dollars of his own wealth into his home, Neverland, to ensure it was safely maintained for visiting underprivileged, and terminally ill children. Think on the man who was so brutally and relentlessly mocked, vilified and hunted, for choosing to care too deeply, for letting his humanity shine too brightly and encouraging others, through often stifled cries, to illuminate the world’s darkness.

Most importantly, think on humanity who stood back in muted acceptance and allowed this gentle man to be destroyed. “I fear not the words of my enemies, but the silence of my friends,”

Hmmmm... Did he get a tan??? Artist made him look like a monkey.

WTF!

Nothing against Michael Jackson, but what the hell has he got to do with us???

Fulham have never had the slightest contact with him, for f**k sake!!!

One question.....How much money wouldit take for YOU to sell out YOUR kids???

Just clarify with Buddy C in case you forgot or just being a hater, MJ was never convicted of any child molestation case. Why do people choose to focus on the negative things that he had been criticized of and overcame. Let the man rest in peace and stop hating on him. He's done more for humanity than you'll ever come close to.

Bunch of HATERS. Keep your negative comments to yourself. No one cares.

The King Of Pedophilia gets his own statue.

Money can buy you anything, even after death.

Thank you very much Tori Tompkins for that information. Very well put.

Weird

So, who sculpted that statue, Stevie Wonder?

The facts of the cases are clear to those willing to actually seek them out instead of relying on tabloids, word of mouth and conspiracy theories.

Jackson was a weird dude. Theirs no denying that. He went from being black to white, had some really bad plastic surgery, talked funny and obviously didn't really comprehend how a grown adult should behave.

Arguing this is like an atheist trying to convince a Muslim there is no god. Once you believe something, truly believe it facts/reality/reason no longer matter because nothing will change what you believe.

The same could be said for what I believe. That he was a troubled individual to be sure, but never committed any crime against any child. All I can do is take comfort in the fact that I have done my research. It doesn't mean that I'm right, doesn't mean that I'm wrong either. It simply means that based on the evidence and what actually happened in those cases I believe he was simply an easy target that was taken advantage of.

In any case the statue should not be there. Not because I think he was a child molester but because it looks like about $20 worth of crappy plastic. Hardly befitting the king of pop.