Michael, the latest Diana? Err, I don't think so...

I have taken to listening to the Vanessa Feltz Show, a phone-in, on weekday mornings but today I switched it off before it was over, once I realised that it was to be a wall-to-wall love-in for Michael Jackson fans.

One of my recent posts described the unease I feel, since the child sex abuse allegations made against him, if I happen to watch one of his videos. I needn’t have worried. Since the news of his death it has become clear that the overwhelming majority of those contacting bodies such as the BBC to express their opinions are more interested in his creativity than in whether he was a preferential paedophile.

He was cleared of the allegations and, in his defence, he had a very unusual, troubled childhood and was milked for his talent, whatever the psychological cost to him. I expect columns will be written about the form his strangeness took. Body Dysmorphic Disorder perhaps (think of the surgery he had on his face). I have found myself thinking of the reclusive Howard Hughes who probably had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and the people who took advantage of it to become his best mates.

I suspect that Jackson was, in his mind, stuck at ten years old and this probably did play a part in his need to be in the presence of younger people. The problem is that anyone else less marketable with this mindset would have been told very firmly by those around them that this would not do but there was too much to be gained by humouring him. He was clearly vulnerable if not actually predatory and I feel that, if anything untoward did take place, those who enabled it are as responsible as he might have been.

There is no doubt that Jackson had at least one or two in his circle who would cater to his every whim in order to skim off some of the wealth he generated. They must be rubbing their hands together at the royalties that are rolling in at this very moment as a result of the many tribute shows being broadcast to mark his death. I was astonished that BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme felt the need to play exerts of a number of Jackson tracks. It won’t make up for the billions they would have made had he completed the final world tour he was rehearsing for.

The moment I heard the news I felt certain that someone somewhere would allege that he is now in hiding, having faked his own death. Read the message boards across the web and you’ll see that this is already happening. I predict that someone will be selling photos of the corpse before very long. For a profit of course. The circus rolls on.

There have been a number of references to the vast amount if money that he donated to charities and while that is to his credit it I would have thought more of him in this aspect if he had paid his own bills first. As it is he died in considerable debt and I have no doubt that the three children that he somehow produced (please, no details) will suffer for this. I expect that they are being watched like hawks to see if talent is genetically transferred.

Alas, the fuss over Jackson has overshadowed the news of the death of the lovely Farrah Fawcett. I wasn’t really a fan of “Charlie’s Angels” but she was such a star that she was everywhere. My neighbour’s teenage son, Jameel, was a Farrah fan and the image of her in a clingy, revealing top, taped to the wall in his room will always stay with me. She epitomised the ‘70’s beauty and millions must have wanted to look just like her. How sad that a surgically deformed man of dubious reputation has taken some of the remaining glory that she should have been entitled to. Never mind Farrah, you’ll always be fabulous babe.

Through a glass, darkly, and whilst wearing dark glasses

I was channel surfing a few nights ago when I came across a documentary about Eric Gill, the sculptor. As I began to watch it there was something at the back of my mind, a slightly uncomfortable feeling. Eventually I remembered that Eric Gill was thought to have been a child abuser. This was confirmed by a visit to Wikipedia. These weren’t just allegations made against him, he described his activities in his own diaries.

Eric Gill was responsible for monuments, sculptures and plaques all over the country, the work of almost forty years. Much of his work is to be found in churches and he had quite a lot to say about man’s relationship with God. Some may wonder if God has had quite a lot to say to him, if there is an afterlife. As far as I know no one has asked that his work be destroyed or removed, and typefaces that he designed are still in use. Does this mean that the work of a self confessed abuser can be regarded as absolutely separate from the crimes that he has committed? Should I feel bad for liking the work of Eric Gill?

I find it difficult to sit through a Michael Jackson video, even though he was found not guilty on all charges of sexually abusing children in 2005. I wonder how many people in his entourage breathed a sigh of relief when that happened, not because they were concerned about him or believed in his innocence but because it meant that there was nothing to stop his music being played by the respectable and therefore royalties would still roll in. I’m no fan of his later stuff, but if “Don’t stop ‘Til You Get Enough” comes on I’ll watch it, feeling queasy and guilty all the way through it.

When it comes to Gary Glitter that opportunity never arises. His former backing band are till touring but I doubt if he has made much money from royalties lately. I loved Gary Glitter’s music when I was a kid and when the charges against him were first made public I couldn’t believe it. I suppose that by not buying his albums his former fans are punishing him in the only way they can. I suspect this means that the Glitter Band can’t use any material that he wrote and have to come up with their own songs. If I came across an old LP in a charity shop I might even consider buying it (not that I have the equipment to play it on any more) but I probably wouldn’t show it to anyone.

There is just something about a charge of child abuse that leaves a stain that cannot be erased or ignored. It isn’t like any other crime, partly because those who commit this kind of offence tend to keep on doing it or trying to. You can’t help feeling that even when most offenders of this nature are caught out they really don’t believe that they’ve done anything wrong. Society can tolerate a murderer who has done his or her time being amongst them but rarely a proven paedophile. The strange thing is that “Alice In Wonderland” is still a best seller when it must be obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells that its creator, Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson), had an unhealthy interest in photographing little girls. There is no evidence that he took his attentions towards his models any further but I am sure that if Dodgson was alive today he would have taken advantage of the internet in the same way that many paedophiles have.

That looking is considered to be as bad as touching means that the career of an actor like Chris Langham is probably over. He was one of the main characters in “The Thick Of It”, a very popular TV satire of the Blair Government, but since his conviction for downloading child pornography he has not been seen in anything other than vehicles clearly meant to rehabilitate his career. In Langham’s case the images in question went quite a lot further than small girls in tastefully arranged drapery. They included video clips of the most violent kind and extreme kind. The impact on his colleagues must have been devastating. To find that someone who you may have introduced your own children to has tastes of this kind must have been shattering, knowing that your very successful television career may now depend on the amount of distance you can put between him and your next great script must have been almost as unnerving.

I still don’t know how I feel about this. I am thinking of buying a DVD of “The Thick Of It”, even though it features Langham. That Glitter LP might turn up. If it does I’ll keep the volume down.