The Independent-Julie Burchill on MJ/Kids-Quite Enraging.

  • 48 Replies
  • 4228 Views

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
OOOH! Here it is!
This is what needs to happen in order to complain about this article:

1. The UK press is loosely bound by the Press Complaints Commissions Editor’s Code of Practice
http://http://www.pcc.org.uk/

2. In order to complain you need to either feel a form on line (It took me a couple of minutes see website link above) or send them an email at
Complaints @pcc.org.uk

3. I also believe that it is worthwhile to send an email to the columnist editor of The Independent: Johann Hari
j.hari@independent.co.uk

Souza/Mo - Do you wish to do anything through the Army of Love again?

With L.O.V.E

Oohhh indeed lol I can be quite empowering when I get into it haha.
Thanks for the emails and links RunningGirl  =]
I suggest filling the online form out,sending the email to both J.Hari and the complaints emails and saving it as a draft for future letters that will surely need to be written the more that Michael is talked about over the coming months.

Regarding the arm of love part,do you mean send out a mass message to all members on this forum like for the McKenzie complaint ?If so that would be an awesome step forward with it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline voiceforthesilent

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5485
    • Show only replies by voiceforthesilent
I'll send a personal complaint as well. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
I'm proud to be a child of God and a member of MJ's Army of L.O.V.E.
 
"Press coverage of my life is like [watching] a fictitious movie...like watching science fiction. It's not true." ~Michael Jackson (2005)

"You should not believe everything you read. You are missing the most important revelations". Craig Harvey 3-15-2012

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "voiceforthesilent"
I'll send a personal complaint as well. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Well,you are the voice for the silent..it's all on you
haha :P

<3
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
I hope everyone is doing this for Michael...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Anyone heard back or got a 'thanks for your email' email?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline trublu

  • *
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoaxer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1178
    • Show only replies by trublu
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Anyone heard back or got a 'thanks for your email' email?

Nope I got nothing  :|
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ER911

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 248
    • Show only replies by ER911
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Source:http://http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-sight-of-next-jackson-generation-makes-me-pine-for-the-x-factor-2130620.html


Quote
Michael Jackson has been dead for more than a year but there was a stir of echoes recently when, to mark the forthcoming release of the first new material since he bowed out, both his children and father spoke up from their different sides of the grave.

The children – so light-skinned that they resemble the result of an illicit liaison between Nicole Kidman and Casper The Friendly Ghost – were cool, calm and collected as they paid tribute to their dear old dad who, despite his habits of dangling babies over balconies and having sleepovers with rug-rats, turns out to have been just plain folks at home. "He tried to raise us without [us] knowing who he was, but that didn't go so well... I kind of felt like no one understands what a good father he was," Jackson's daughter Paris told Oprah Winfrey, touchingly. "I'd say he was the best cook ever. He was just a normal dad, except he was the best dad."

Meanwhile, Jackson's own dad, the horrifying Joe, popped up like a Demon King, also on Oprah, to recommend the strap as a surefire way of keeping one's kids on the straight and narrow. On hearing that MJ's children are now living with their grandmother, the long-suffering Katherine, I did wonder whether that meant this slap-happy old maniac had access to them and whether the reason MJ might have made them wear masks was to keep them safe from their own grandpa as much as from the prying eyes of Looky-Lous.
And despite seeing the darker side of fame played out on their father's poor ruined face, they told Oprah they plan careers in showbiz – Paris, 12, as an actress and Prince Michael (good try, but not as classy as his uncle Jermaine's son's name: Jermajesty), 13, as a director.

I've noticed this about showbiz dynasties. The parents always give interviews about how lonely it is in the limelight, and how they were just going about their business helping puppies cross the road when the Fame Fairy came down and thrust herself upon them, and how civilians don't understand the pressure (of being caked in make-up and having their photo taken on a daily basis – sort of like being a brain surgeon crossed with a coal miner, pressure-wise) and how they'd give it all up like that for a little house on the prairie and true love.

Then they have a kid – and for all their talk about paparazzi intrusion they thrust that tot into the spotlight as soon as it can scribble its childish scrawl on the dotted line. Look at Madonna – boasting recently about how strict she's been with her 13-year-old daughter Lourdes, never letting her watch television and forbidding such fun teen pastimes as hair-dying and hottie-dating. But she's bragging about her daughter's alleged down-to-earthness at the launch of their junior clothing line, Material Girl, at Macy's.

The message is clear; life beyond showbiz is barely worth living and the best start you can give your brats is to make sure they stay firmly within the limits of the plush playpen. All across the trashy/classy scale, from the ghastly Osbournes to the vile Redgraves, this rule holds – no wonder popular culture often seems so exhausted and uninspired, weighed down as it is by so much lucky sperm and afterbirth washing around.

In light of this the recent hysteria about the authenticity of TV talent shows seems naive and reactionary to say the least. The X Factor, far from being some sort of imperialist Zionist plot, is one of the few places where the unconnected, non-famous-named performer can actually be heard. It doesn't matter who goes home or who stays; if they have a voice, chances are they'll have a career at the end of it.
If he was alive, it's pretty certain that Michael Jackson would be appearing on the season finale; as it is Prince has been tempted out of retirement. To be sung off the stage, no doubt, by Rebecca Ferguson – not Sting's or Adrian Edmondson's or Jools Holland's daughter for a change, but an artiste of amazing skill and promise who, without The X Factor, would probably get no nearer to fame than handing back some dumb WAG's dry cleaning.
Ruled by Etonians as we are once more, with social mobility slowed to an all-time low, the sense of entitlement for the few and jam tomorrow for the many hanging over this country like a suffocating smog slips away, for a few hours on a Saturday night, for a handful of people who would otherwise be condemned to spend their lives doing boring jobs that Kelly Osbourne and Jade Jagger would be far more suited to. You'd have to be a real lemon-sucking killjoy – or else the spawn of a useless mob of free-loading no-marks with a famous name – not to get that.



Someone wanna pass me a bat?
If all it takes to be called a 'journalist' in 2010 is to write some lies and bitter jealous remarks about someone you have ZERO knowledge of then I know plenty of people who are in the wrong career.Half of facebook should be writing articles for the media.
Julie B....you are a disgusting excuse for a human being.
That is all.

I totally agree. I am all for freedom of speech, however any journalist or person for that matter that elects to write an article should be able to present that article without including statements that deter from the actual subject. Make sense? LOL

I think what bothers me the most is that anyone that chooses to write about people, tend to forget words CAN & DO HURT.

Sure, in this case celebs are used to being slammed, but that does not mean it doesn't have an impact on them.

In this case, particularly, I find it to be very mean spirited to attack the children. I wonder if people that write articles about children realize the impact it has on that child? I wonder if they really, truly realize it can change the way they think about people?

We all want to believe that some will rise above such attacks & some do, but as proven with Michael, some do not.

Perhaps we can take this letter as a lesson to us all to be kinder to one another & realize that words hurt people & there shouldn't be the need to be cruel in order to get our points or opinions across to one another.

I cannot imagine what articles these children may or may not read now or in the future. I do know that it will hurt them, even if they try to ignore it. Hopefully, since Michael was forced to endure so much, they will be able to forgive those people & move forward in a positive light.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MissG

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 7403
  • We are always in our own company
    • Show only replies by MissG
Quote from: "trublu"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Anyone heard back or got a 'thanks for your email' email?

Nope I got nothing  :|

Nope  :|
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
("Minkin güerveeeee")
Michael pls come back


"Why a four-year-old child could understand this hoax. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head nor tail out of it"

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl
Quote from: "Gema"
Quote from: "trublu"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Anyone heard back or got a 'thanks for your email' email?

Nope I got nothing  :|

Nope  :|

I got an acknowledgment by the PCC that my complaint had been received and asking me to provide a hard copy of the article.  Nothing since then.
Same with the ITV one, I got a complaint number from OFCOM and nothing since then... but I understand they took the video with the part under complaint from their website!

Lets see!

With L.O.V.E
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
I got one back from the PCC to say they had recieved it and asking to provide either a link to the online article which I gave or post a hard copy.
I have sent them the link again and from what I understand it may take up to 7days as that is the time given to provide the article.

This week should give some sort of response to what has been sent as it will have been a week since it was written.Just keep on top of it and if nothing I will happily keep emailing everyone involved until they do something :)

No rest for the wicked ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MFFreedom

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 273
    • Show only replies by MFFreedom
I just got an answer back from ITVs Mark Sunderland. Here it is:


Thank you for your letter, which has been passed on to me for response.
 
We are very sorry that you were offended by the comments made by Kelvin McKenzie on This Morning on 9 November. We accept that his comments about Michael Jackson caused offence to some viewers, which we regret.
 
However, when Mr McKenzie gave his opinion on the safety of children formerly in the care of Michael Jackson, and referred to the well known allegations that were made about him, the programme’s presenter Philip Schofield did point out immediately that Michael Jackson was not found guilty in relation to those allegations, and that no-one knows that any children in his care would be at risk.  Following Mr McKenzie’s further comment that Michael Jackson’s children will have a better life without him, Philip challenged him again, and said the children would obviously disagree with Mr McKenzie’s “tough words”.  He also invited viewers to give their views on Mr McKenzie’s comments, making clear that these were not expressed by the programme but by Mr McKenzie in a personal capacity.  Later on in the programme, a comment was read out from a viewer who strongly disagreed with Mr McKenzie’s views.
 
Although we acknowledge Mr McKenzie’s comments were offensive to some viewers, they were challenged and contextualised immediately by the presenter.  In the context of a spontaneous live discussion about a highly controversial (and deceased) celebrity, arising from a talking point in the news (namely the Jackson children’s recent TV interview with Oprah Winfrey), we consider that the programme overall exhibited balance.  Whilst we appreciate that some viewers, particularly fans of Michael Jackson, would strongly disagree with Mr McKenzie’s personal opinions, we do not agree that the programme was inaccurate as such (as the comments were clearly expressed as opinion) or that it breached generally accepted standards.  Overall the presenters and the other contributor (Lesley Joseph) were supportive of the children’s decision to be interviewed and stated that they were well-adjusted and had expressed their love for their father.
 
Thank you for taking the time to contact ITV.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Mark Sunderland
Head of Legal Compliance
 
 
Mark Sunderland | Senior Programme Lawyer | Legal | ITV plc
Tel: 020 7157 3253  |  Fax: 020 7157 3274  |  Mark.Sunderland@ITV.com  
ITV plc Head Office Tel +44 (0) 20 7157 3000 itv.com


So, as I expected he talks about a 'balanced' airing ...  :? What I can't stand is how much time and words they invest to water everything down, justifying everything just to make the reader feel he/she's not in the right.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"... and the truth shall set you free" David Icke

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl
I have now received a personal reply from the PCC.  The main element of it are highlighted below.  To summarise:

1. The PCC will usually only upheld a complaint of this type only if it is raised by people who are directly affected. In this case the Jackson Family would need to do so
2. Only under exceptional circumstances where Public interest can be demonstrated, would a third party complaint be considered
3. I have been given the option to call the PCC to discuss their feedback (and will do so) and raise a third party complaint, I however believe that the family getting involved is the most likely way to reach a positive outcome and get the Independent to issue apologies.  

Please do let me have your thoughts.  I personally would like to see the family getting involved to put more waits on this complaint and get apologies issued.  To go through the third party complaints route is most likely to get nowhere; there will need to be an exceptional public interest! (their words... not mine!)

Quote
Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your complaint about the Julie Burchill article in the Independent about the children of Michael Jackson. We have received a number of complaints.

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.



Additional information about third party complaints can be found here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html#faq4_7


You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will then decide whether it wishes to take your complaint forward.

If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us.  

A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

Our aim is to resolve all complaints that raise a possible breach of the Code amicably and quickly. It might be useful if I therefore set out a number of points about our procedures.

-     As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say.  

-     The Commission has a commitment to deal with all complaints as speedily as possible. It expects both complainants and newspapers – and their representatives, legal or otherwise – to cooperate with that commitment. Any unreasonable delay on either side may be taken into account by the Commission.

-     We will usually send a copy of each letter of complaint to the editor even if the complaint does not raise a breach of the Code.  It is important that editors are aware of criticisms of their publications. Similarly, any substantive decision made by the Commission under the terms of the Code will be sent to the editor.

-     The Commission is not able to deal with all complaints.  Some of the circumstances in which we may not be able to pursue a complaint are set out on our website.

-     It is possible that the Commission may find that your complaint does not amount to a breach of the Code.  If this is the case we will explain to you why the Commission took this decision.

-     If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the independent Charter Commissioner who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. Further details are included on our website.

Further information about the complaints process can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

Information about our service commitments to complainants can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html.  

Further information about the PCC can be found on our website http://www.pcc.org.uk .

Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further advice.  When you write to us, please quote our reference number on this email.

Yours sincerely

Simon Yip
Administrator

With L.O.V.E
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
I will go look in my inbox now to see if I got the same.

It isn't fabulous...BUT...it's a start!!
I think a good idea would be to get Taj involved,he's direct family.

Quote
You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will then decide whether it wishes to take your complaint forward.

Are you down to take it further with me and outline our argument?and in the meantime get Taj on the case xo
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl
Quote from: "Sinderella"
I will go look in my inbox now to see if I got the same.

It isn't fabulous...BUT...it's a start!!
I think a good idea would be to get Taj involved,he's direct family.

Quote
You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will then decide whether it wishes to take your complaint forward.

Are you down to take it further with me and outline our argument?and in the meantime get Taj on the case xo

Yes! Absolutely.  Maybe worthwhile to reach to the brothers and sisters as well. I am also wondering who this Jackson PR team (referred to in the PCC email) is and why they DID NOT act on this.

With L.O.V.E
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
I will go look in my inbox now to see if I got the same.

It isn't fabulous...BUT...it's a start!!
I think a good idea would be to get Taj involved,he's direct family.

Quote
You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will then decide whether it wishes to take your complaint forward.

Are you down to take it further with me and outline our argument?and in the meantime get Taj on the case xo

Yes! Absolutely.  Maybe worthwhile to reach to the brothers and sisters as well. I am also wondering who this Jackson PR team (referred to in the PCC email) is and why they DID NOT act on this.

With L.O.V.E

I think it would be extremley worthwhile!
Well,I did see a comment from someone who asked for a post to be removed due to it being wrong info and it came from a member who appeared to be from some sort of external source so i'll go find that again and see if he/she is part of the PR team,if not...google and my phones contact list are going to be busy tonight haha.
Then we can ask them if they are even aware of the article which they should be as they should be checking news sources every day for new articles referencing his name and if not..give them the article,our emails etc and get to running Julie Bullshit into the ground.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Snoopy71

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 952
  • Life isn't a rehearsal the camera's always rolling
    • Show only replies by Snoopy71
Quote from: "Gema"
I stopped reading from the Casper and Nicole Kidman kids  :roll:


Me too...after that remark, I knew where she was going with this....next! :roll:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "Snoopy71"
Quote from: "Gema"
I stopped reading from the Casper and Nicole Kidman kids  :roll:


Me too...after that remark, I knew where she was going with this....next! :roll:

Nono,not next...JB needs to be dealt with.You can't just ignore these people because they are the ones who have ruined his life since day 1 and since he is absent atm,anyone who can,needs to stand up for him.
It was hard to read past those remarks but we are taking this as high as we can,read the posts above.

Julie Burchill isn't going to be very sorry she wrote that entire thing.Believe.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
I will go look in my inbox now to see if I got the same.

It isn't fabulous...BUT...it's a start!!
I think a good idea would be to get Taj involved,he's direct family.

Quote
You will note that the Commission does, occasionally, decide to waive its third party rules in situations where an exceptional public interest can be demonstrated. I would be happy to ask the Commission to consider waiving its normal rules and considering the matter – would you be able to outline your argument for it to do so? The Commission will then decide whether it wishes to take your complaint forward.

Are you down to take it further with me and outline our argument?and in the meantime get Taj on the case xo

Yes! Absolutely.  Maybe worthwhile to reach to the brothers and sisters as well. I am also wondering who this Jackson PR team (referred to in the PCC email) is and why they DID NOT act on this.

With L.O.V.E

I think it would be extremley worthwhile!
Well,I did see a comment from someone who asked for a post to be removed due to it being wrong info and it came from a member who appeared to be from some sort of external source so i'll go find that again and see if he/she is part of the PR team,if not...google and my phones contact list are going to be busy tonight haha.
Then we can ask them if they are even aware of the article which they should be as they should be checking news sources every day for new articles referencing his name and if not..give them the article,our emails etc and get to running Julie Bullshit into the ground.

Agreed! In theory they should be checking news sources on the regular basis but this one may have gone through the cracks as it was a column item! First step is to understand whether they were aware of it and next whether they want to take action. If they don't want to take action, what we can achieve through formal channels will be limited. I also have PR "supply" who have got a thing about MS BS uneducated arrogant perspective on life... that goes far beyond MJ.
 
With L.O.V.E
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
I think it would be extremley worthwhile!
Well,I did see a comment from someone who asked for a post to be removed due to it being wrong info and it came from a member who appeared to be from some sort of external source so i'll go find that again and see if he/she is part of the PR team,if not...google and my phones contact list are going to be busy tonight haha.
Then we can ask them if they are even aware of the article which they should be as they should be checking news sources every day for new articles referencing his name and if not..give them the article,our emails etc and get to running Julie Bullshit into the ground.

Agreed! In theory they should be checking news sources on the regular basis but this one may have gone through the cracks as it was a column item! First step is to understand whether they were aware of it and next whether they want to take action. If they don't want to take action, what we can achieve through formal channels will be limited. I also have PR "supply" who have got a thing about MS BS uneducated arrogant perspective on life... that goes far beyond MJ.
 
With L.O.V.E

They should if they are any kind of decent PR team...I will reserve judgement atm but they should well be on top of all new articles,especially regarding his children.
Yes,so find the people in the know is step 1 and make everyone who needs to know aware of this woman's trash.
I can't imagine why they wouldn't when it is blatent racism,slander and blasting Michael and his children.
Taj will have something to say i'm sure.
Let's pool resources and see what we can work with
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline xxmjxx

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 304
    • Show only replies by xxmjxx
Quote from: "Gema"
I stopped reading from the Casper and Nicole Kidman kids  :roll:
I did too,  :evil:  :twisted:  :evil:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Enraging yes,but we're working on it ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Enraging yes,but we're working on it ;)

Sinderella - see other thread for some of the actions being taken.

http://http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15668&p=267163#p267163

With L.O.V.E
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"
Quote from: "Sinderella"
Enraging yes,but we're working on it ;)

Sinderella - see other thread for some of the actions being taken.

http://http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=15668&p=267163#p267163

With L.O.V.E

Noted and commented on :)
I will put the same here

I have taken this and added my own which I will put up asap and the article/reply from PCC etc...basically all of what has been sent/recieved and sent it to Taj
I will be busy all day/night as it's my birthday but on Friday I will send it to whoever I can get a contact for via my own sources and see where we are all up to with it x
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Sinderella

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1334
    • Show only replies by Sinderella
Will get back to working on this asap this week x
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »