Little of this article is stuff not already in the public domain. I applaud the Independent for daring to publish it at a time when most of the population is blind to the reality of what went on. I have pronounced my views as have many others on several postings on this site. At the end of the day they are only opinions and I guess in the grand scheme of things they don't matter one iota. However the dual standards are hard to swallow - I doubt Gary Glitter will get any credit for the music he made. Okay his stuff wasn't groundbreaking but it had a significant place in the history of seventies pop in this country. Is there a reason why the murky past of one is ignored whilst it will be cited as a prominent reason for not mourning the passing of the other? Surely the two have relevant similarities?

That's an interesting read and contains a few specifics I was unaware of. It did seem strange that these issues were largely brushed under the carpet this past week. The writer does let himself down a little though, when previously having backed up his statements with child psychologists he then makes claims such as "what real concept of money does a 13-year-old have anyway?", which doesn't seem to be a very convincing argument.

Ultimately, I find it difficult to understand how people can commit so strongly either way on someones guilt, purely on media information. The difference with Glitter, mentioned above, has to just come down to the fact that he was actually convicted.

Irrespective of whether or not Jacko was convicted, if, say, Bono decided to put a fairground in his garden so that he could hang out with the local pre-teens, do you think his career would survive it? Why was Jackson repeatedly cut such slack for his behaviours?

I did wonder how long it'd take...

I was accused of this "Godwin's law" last week. And what does "I wonder how long it'd take mean"? I imagine you are rolling your eyes and tutting as you type it?
Some professor decides to claim an (accurate) analogy as a "law"? It's official! We can sneer and point and say "that didn't take long to appear".
Jackson was a disgusting, wretched piece of human detritus. No more, no less.

The analogy, though, still stands.

It's written by friend of The Word, occasional podcast guest and author of Kill Your Friends, John Niven. Excellent - maybe it'll feature in the Smash Hits cash-in? Sorry, tribute,

Yes, it's entertaining and well-written enough, and probably also very informative for many people, but I think that as a piece of journalism, even op-ed journalism, it's as flawed as a diamond bought from an upturned cardboard box.

First off, the Evil Monster in question isn't even in the ground yet. All the hagiographic hoo-ha that Niven complains about has been about the artist who died, not the man. Surely the Albert-Goodmaning - which does have its place; I'm not saying it doesn't - can wait until all the fuss has died down.

Second off, if John Niven firmly believes that Michael Jackson was a nasty bit of goods, I firmly believe that he was mentally ill, and I think anyone who has read Danny Baker's grade-A recollections of his 1981 interv...er, audience with His Gloveliness would agree. In other words, even 30 years ago it seems there were ample grounds for Michael Jackson to have been sectioned.

Third off, when you strip away all the menageries and epaulettes and keypad-controlled bedroom suites, Jackson's (most likely) crimes are depressingly commonplace in our society. Why choose him as the effigy to burn in represention of our anger? Merely because of his stature as a celebrity? It would seem so. Why don't I remember any long harangues in The Independent a week after the death of Peter Adamson (Len Fairclough) about what an Evil Monster he might have been? This leaves us with no option but to infer that, yes, it's only Jackson's status as a hyperceleb that interests us, not the actions of a private individual, however reprehensible some of those actions (most likely) were. And that brings us full circle. In which case, fine; let's talk about moonwalks, and forget the Jesus juice and the juvenile erections. Please.

Fourth off, something doesn't quite square with an approach that illustrates strong disapproval of somebody's behaviour by setting out every last prurient detail. Doing so has invariably has a whiff of the News of the World about it.

And fifth and finally off, John Niven should know more than anyone that the cosseting of pop stars by their "enablers" often leads to a Rift Valley-sized schism between the real world and their perception of it. Niven does hint at this himself, to be fair, with that "Because I don't want to" quote towards the end, but that should have been the core of the piece, not a tacked-on afterthought. He could have written about that, but either chose or (most likely) was commissioned not to.

All this left me with the feeling that the piece has no proper focus, no particular point to make and no real reason to be written. It's just an inchoate kick against the pricks (piebald or otherwise) - a "look at ME! I can be edgy and relevant too!" plea for attention from a (most likely) dying newspaper.

But, to be fair, that's not John Niven's fault; it's his editor's at the Indy - truly the Daily Getsmuchworse of our times.

with racism?
Or am i reading it wrong?

I think the reason most media commentators haven't mentioned the peado stuff is that none of it's been proved. Seems like a fair enough reason to me,certainly while it's nary a week after the man's death.

I think this guy's got... issues.

as i've been waiting to hear/read a mj article which mentioned anything more negative than a stupid-looking nose for a few days now, and had missed this excellent piece.

but, come on. ok, so larkin was racist. so were 90% of the population of his age at the time. and racism, while certainly wrong-headed, isn't illegal, at least not in attitude.

and masturbation, serial or otherwise, is also common and, in your own home, legal.

there really is no correlation.

Niven is entitled to his views on Jackson - however - I would have expected a better written and argued article - commissioned it seems to be provocative and controversial

The separation of the art from the artist is a multi-tiered and complex issue and ultimately I believe that it is a subjective decision one makes dependant on how much one values the art produced.

An illustration by way of absurd parallel. Ezra Pound was a dreadful old cunt - anti-semitic to his core and a propagandist for the Axis powers - but he is quite the most brilliant poet I have ever read. For me, however, his crimes and his life are sufficiently remote to allow me to judge the poetry separately from the man.

I raised the issue of whether it's possible to enjoy Jackson's music untainted by his alleged crimes in a blog I wrote here a few weeks before his death.

I wasn't sure then and I'm not sure now - but until he is in the ground - I want to be able to relive the simple thrill I had when I heard "ABC" or "Don't Stop..." for the first time.

That as he attempted to make his skin whiter , his soul was getting ever more dark - I have no doubt. That much of what is alleged is true I have no doubt. However, that he was a pop genius, I also have no doubt. And it's that part I want to enjoy and celebrate for just this week or two

As we know "the evil that men do lives after them ...the good is oft interred with their bones".

Let the monster's effigy be hanged after and evermore in rites of expurgation

But for now, let's sing, dance, shake our bodies down to the ground.