This was posted 5 years 9 months 15 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free - Michael Jackson Live at Wembley (July 16, 1988) @ Michael Jackson Estate via YouTube

600
Free - Michael Jackson Live at Wembley (July 16, 1988) @ Michael Jackson Estate via YouTube
Go to Deal
alvian on 07/03/2019 - 03:42 youtube.com (1238 clicks)
Last edited 08/03/2019 - 10:41

As reported, the second Michael Jackson concert film Live at Wembley Stadium is available for free for a limited time on YouTube to "celebrate" the screening of Leaving Neverland part two in the US.

The DVD version of the concert costs $18.85 plus delivery from Amazon, and the SD streaming version costs US $12.99 from Prime Video.

Channel 10/HD TV will screen Leaving Neverland part one on Friday 8 March from 8:30 pm and part two on Saturday 9 March.

Leaving Neverland now streaming on 10 play

Leaving Neverland part one
Leaving Neverland part two
(Thank you Heybargain for the links).

Michael Jackson Live in Bucharest is available free for a limited time as posted by dealbot to "celebrate" of the screening of Leaving Neverland part one in the US.

Entertainment Concert Michael Jackson Music

Related Stores

Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson
YouTube
YouTube

closed Comments

  • walshy1009 on 07/03/2019 - 04:02
    -8

    “As reported(theindustryobserver.thebrag.com), the second Michael Jackson concert film Live at Wembley Stadium is available for free for a limited time on YouTube to celebrate the screening of Leaving Neverland part two in the US.”

    Please change this as that’s VERY much not the case!

    The very first paragraph of the article states…

    “As the controversial Leaving Neverland documentary is set to air in Australia this week, Michael Jackson’s Estate is doing its very best to distract the King of Pop’s declining fans.”

    • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 04:03
      +10

      Ever heard of sarcasm? Happy now with the quotation marks?

      • walshy1009 on 07/03/2019 - 04:05
        -6

        Yeah thanks :)

        • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 04:10
          +7

          The Estate offering up these free concerts only serves to draw more attention to the screenings of Leaving Neverland, and I have helped publicise the TV screenings with schedule info and streaming link (something dealbot didn't do with his post). The strategy of distraction is having the opposite effect.

          • walshy1009 on 07/03/2019 - 04:17
            -4

            @alvian: I agree. Access to a free film of one of his concerts certainly won’t bring back any of his fans disgusted by his alleged actions. I just finished watching the doco myself and it’s very hard to not believe the events that Wade and Jimmy described from their childhood, growing up with Michael in their lives.

            • RockyRaccoon on 07/03/2019 - 06:10
              +10

              @walshy1009: Of course the doco will give you that impression, that was it’s aim.

              This btw doesn’t mean it’s true or not.

              Unfortunately given the way things can be presented, can we truly judge. Who is the liar? Michael, Wade or Jimmy?

              Only real way would be for one to admit to lying. And we know that’s now impossible.

              • Cheep Charlie on 07/03/2019 - 08:30
                +2

                @RockyRaccoon: Iv'e seen the doco , and when you see the lengths that Jackson went to in manipulating these kids parents , so he could get them to agree to allow their children to spend nights alone with him in his bed , it's shocking.

                Don't understand why some people give Jackson a pass , just because he was a talented entertainer . Even with all the evidence , from the kids that were abused , and what the staff that worked for Jackson witnessed.

                And for anybody that says the accusations are all made up , if MJ was still alive , and you had a 7 year old son , would you be happy for your boy to have a sleepover with Jackson…..would you be OK with that?

                • RockyRaccoon on 07/03/2019 - 12:34
                  +4

                  @Cheep Charlie: I can’t dispute that, the point I am making, is that a doco doesn’t mean it’s true. That’s all. When we try anyone based on a documentary we lose all sense of justice. Remember Lindy Chamberlian was originally found guilty on many people’s “facts”.

                  I am not defending MJ or giving him a “pass” also I don’t find much of his music to my taste. All I did was question the comment that because it’s in a doco then it can be judged based on what is presented. That’s all I am questioning.

                  The rest of your points are just as bad as asking when I stopped beating Mrs Raccoon. It’s emotional bs and are you OK with that?

                  What I would say from the doco is that this needs more and thorough investigation to prove as much as possible the claim.

                • Pootie Tang on 07/03/2019 - 14:04
                  +2

                  @Cheep Charlie: Or on the flip side, the number of lies used to disgrace him by the parents, kids and ex-house staff that were fired for fraud and theft. All disproven. I look forward to watching the documentary but as with any of this stuff, I'ts pinch of salt type material, especially since one of the wiener kids had come out and said nothing happened prior and then all of a sudden, $$$, or the maid that alleged that he sexually touched Maculy Caulkin to which he Caulkin came out and denied, these are nobodies looking for loot. Murder mountain - worked there, no murders.

            • PainToad on 07/03/2019 - 08:31
              +2

              @walshy1009:

              disgusted by his alleged actions

              Why? Do you know what alleged means? Anyone can alleged anything.

              • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 09:46

                @PainToad: Anyone can alleged anything hey? ;-)

                Also that's how it works, you need someone to allege something, literally how all sexual harassment cases start….

  • iamhurtin on 07/03/2019 - 04:29
    +1

    some people say that cucumbers taste better pickled

    • Munki on 07/03/2019 - 13:52

      Only if you're Rick.

  • TEER3X on 07/03/2019 - 04:30
    -5

    It's unfortunate, the worst kind of people seem to make the best music.

    • HugoHugo on 07/03/2019 - 05:42
      +6

      Perhaps the people who make the best music have the power and wealth to become the worst kind of people.

      • RockyRaccoon on 07/03/2019 - 06:00

        Me thinks both points cover the issue

    • [Deactivated] on 07/03/2019 - 06:04
      +58

      Smooth criminal?

      • MJ1 on 07/03/2019 - 06:12

        Nobody is perfect. I'm very grateful for the grace of people towards me in my life.

      • odc on 07/03/2019 - 06:40
        +1

        Aow!

      • Matt P on 07/03/2019 - 09:17
        +1

        So, Annie are you ok?

    • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 06:14
      +18

      And you can back up your extraordinary claim? Allegations of criminal conduct, no matter how serious or widespread, do not make one a criminal in the US justice system.

      In his 2004-5 trial, MJ was found not guilty on all 14 charges.

      • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 09:48

        Rich people get out of court and will continue to get out of court, this really means nothing in the scheme of things. You should know this. -I'm not saying he's right or wrong, black or white, but pointing out he is super rich and had great lawyers, it's generally the outcome of these cases until very recently.

        • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 10:29
          +1

          this really means nothing in the scheme of things

          It means he is not a criminal and should not be labelled as one, as Wizard has done here. If this means nothing in your scheme of things then I respectfully disagree with your scheme.

          Rich people can purchase superior legal representation and the disadvantaged are over-incarcerated. These inequalities are real and seemingly insurmountable the way the US adversarial justice system is constructed. Could it be that you prefer the Japanese, Chinese & North Korean systems with their 99+% conviction rate? Even Canada has a 97% conviction rate compared to about 90% in the US. Unfortunately MJ's trial did not take place in the former countries.

          • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 10:38
            +1

            @alvian: The only thing you can say 100%, is that MJ's lawyer won the case, this doesn't mean MJ was not guilty.

            • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 11:03
              +4

              @onlinepred: No, the only things you can say 100% are that the People had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that MJ committed the alleged criminal offences, and by definition this means MJ is not guilty in the US. Whether his acquittal sufficiently proves his innocence in your eyes really means nothing in the scheme of things, to borrow your phrase.

              • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 11:07
                -1

                @alvian: Based on what the lawyers said and presented yes.

                • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 11:42

                  @onlinepred: Based on witnesses, evidence, and cross-examinations. Lawyers interpret these facts and poke holes in each others version of probable events.

                  https://www.britannica.com/topic/adversary-procedure

                  The opposing sides present evidence, examine witnesses, and conduct cross-examinations, each in an effort to produce information beneficial to its side of the case. Skillful questioning can often produce testimony that can be made to take on various meanings. What seemed absolute in direct testimony can raise doubts under cross-examination. The skills of the attorneys are also displayed at the time of summation, especially in a jury trial, when their versions of what the jury has heard may persuade the jury to interpret the facts to the benefit of the side that is most persuasive.

                  • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 11:50

                    @alvian: Thanks for that?????

                    "persuade the jury to interpret the facts to the benefit of the side that is most persuasive" That explains it perfectly, the skill of the lawyer, and nothing to do with the actual suspect.

                    • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 12:01

                      @onlinepred: Yeah, whatever. Believe in whatever version of the world you wish to live in.

        • Tacooo on 07/03/2019 - 12:08

          I'm not saying he's right or wrong, black or white

          Good, because I think he's both black and white.

          • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 12:31

            @Tacooo: It doesn't matter, if he's black or white. What does matter, is if it's baked or fried.

  • Xizor on 07/03/2019 - 06:49
    +4

    Bit of a troll post really. Not really ozbargain spirit and deserves a nerf.

  • ElWircho on 07/03/2019 - 07:02
    +2

    Knock knock
    Who’s there?
    Little Boy Blue
    Little Boy Blue who?
    Michael Jackson

  • Markmathews on 07/03/2019 - 07:18
    +11

    In other news, Georgie Pell will be offering free childcare services.

  • dealspider on 07/03/2019 - 07:24
    +19

    Like someone mentioned here, we don't know for sure who is saying the truth here. The issue here is that person (MJ) they are accusing is dead. So he is not there to defend himself. And this is a documentary (most of them are mockumentries) not a court hearing. Oh and also don't forget people do some unbelievable stuff for some extra cash these days.

    It is long-established English common law that one cannot libel/slander the dead, and this rule has carried over to the US, as well. The logic behind such a rule is that while spreading lies about a deceased individual may cause harm to his/her memory, there is no actual damage caused to the deceased him/herself, as when you’re dead, concepts like emotional distress, loss of ability to work, damage to your reputation, etc., no longer matter, again, because you’re dead.This is one of the reasons why, for example, we often see salacious biographies of famous people (It turns out he was secretly gay! She was a drunk who abused her children!) come out after they die, as there’s no longer (as) much of a legal risk in publishing them. Some people may be highly upset or even lose money as a result of someone spreading lies about a deceased relative, and it is possible that there may be other causes of action for survivors to plead in such circumstances, but defamation isn’t one of them. Again, defamation is a cause of action based on harm caused to the person defamed, and once you shuffle off this mortal coil, words can no longer damage you personally.

    • shortblack9 on 08/03/2019 - 11:01

      Thank you for this.

    • Dorge on 07/03/2019 - 08:14
      +2

      Agreed next MJs climate cycle will be increasing the gender pay gap

    • iand on 07/03/2019 - 08:26
      -5

      It's funny how many left wing bigots don't seem to realise that they are bigots

      • bennybaubles on 07/03/2019 - 08:38
        +2

        Where does it end? I guess that makes you a bigot for being intolerant of my point of view.

        • iand on 07/03/2019 - 08:46
          -2

          I didn't say you weren't entitled to your point of view

          • bennybaubles on 07/03/2019 - 09:08

            @iand: I guess you could say I am a left wing bigot intolerant of intolerant, incompassionate right wing liberals/Abbott/trump Michael Jackson lovers

      • yanman on 07/03/2019 - 22:18

        when you don't know what words mean but think you can just use them in any context…

    • Markmathews on 07/03/2019 - 08:50
      +2

      Aboots kinks kept tightly bound by budgie smugglers and repeated genuflections to the signed portrait of Prince Phillip and beagle.

  • runamuck on 07/03/2019 - 08:19

    Anyone got a link to stream Leaving Neverland?

  • mooncake111 on 07/03/2019 - 09:00
    +15

    MJ was innocent man, the FBI was involved for so long as well and he got raided like twice. They couldnt' find anything to suggest he was guilty. You would think you would find something.

    This whole leaving neverland is just one sided and the director is a known scumbag

    Really do feel sorry for the guy, this whole debacle crushed him. Sure he had some weird mannerisms, but god he really was a once in a generation talent. Simply unmatched.

    If any abuse was going on, it would have been the children's own parents manipulating/using their own kids to try and get tangible gain from this celebrity. I mean if you as a parent had just even an inkling there was some wrongdoing, surely you would pull your kid away.

    • Andard on 07/03/2019 - 09:38
      +1

      the director is a known scumbag

      please elaborate

    • onlinepred on 07/03/2019 - 09:53
      -3

      Just listen to yourself lol.

      You don't know the truth, so don't go claiming you do mate. This "doco" is just a view point, take it as what it is. You obviously know MJ personally and was with him 24/7 and know his innocence so probably not worth watching the doco. No famous people ever make mistakes, I mean if someone said trump sexual abused someone I would say it's impossible too.

    • PleasureMe on 07/03/2019 - 10:44
      -4

      I agree with you. I also believe George Pell is innocent.

      • bohn on 07/03/2019 - 12:35
        +1

        Cosby? ;)

        • dealspider on 07/03/2019 - 13:13

          They both alive and, got what they deserve from a court. Not from HBO.

    • Ruckmauler on 07/03/2019 - 13:05
      +1

      Really sorry - I mean can't a grown man invite children into his bedroom without being accused of improper behaviour. Poor poor fella - what has the world come to.

    • bohn on 07/03/2019 - 14:32
      +4

      the FBI was involved for so long as well and he got raided like twice. They couldnt' find anything to suggest he was guilty. You would think you would find something.

      It's very common for there not to be any physical evidence in child abuse cases. What did you expect? For them to find his 'abuse diary'? One study suggests that in child abuse cases physical evidence is only available in 14% of cases, whilst medical evidence is only present in 9% of cases1. Based on that, you would think that they would not find any evidence.

      If any abuse was going on, it would have been the children's own parents manipulating/using their own kids to try and get tangible gain from this celebrity.

      But what happened is the opposite of what you are saying. Here we have one boy (Jordan) who was suing MJ in 1993 and ended up with about 15mil. Parents got 1.5mil, 5mil for the lawyers. Then you have some other boys which at the time DENIED anything happened. If the parents were manipulating their children into getting some cash from MJ, that would be the perfect time to join in with Jordan and get their millions?  This goes against your extremely tenuous argument. That was their chance for an easy payday.
       

      1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234715614_Prosecuting_Child_Sexual_Abuse_The_Importance_of_Evidence_Type ↩

      • mooncake111 on 07/03/2019 - 14:48

        i was thinking more along the lines of them finding explicit content that would suggest he had a thing for children, they raided his house and all his PCs and from what i know they couldn't find any thing that suggested it.

        didn't they also make him strip and did a thorough physical examination on him with the first allegation? and the kid's descriptions were not accurate?

        i mean, we will never know. yeah MJ was abit of a whacko, but i don't believe he ever abused children. people always mention little boys but he shared his bedroom and house with female children aswell.

        • Ruckmauler on 07/03/2019 - 16:09
          +3

          try reading back your last sentence. Totally moronic.

  • Tyson on 07/03/2019 - 09:51
    +4

    These claims are outrageous, next you'll be telling me Freddie Mercury was gay

  • [Deactivated] on 07/03/2019 - 10:22

    Thanks OP!

  • Tomika on 07/03/2019 - 10:34
    +2

    Happy to see Bubble grown up many years later and cast in planet of the apes.

  • BrainSand on 07/03/2019 - 12:42
    -1

    Is the show going to be kid friendly?

    • alvian on 07/03/2019 - 13:00
      +1

      The concert or the doco? The age of the kid? Please be specific.

  • Cluster on 07/03/2019 - 15:04
    +5

    Jackson was acquitted on all 14 charges in his 2005 trial. The man who testified at Jackson's trial that nothing happened is now the star of the documentary accusing Jackson of molestation. He was either lying then under oath or is lying now.

  • Toons on 07/03/2019 - 15:52

    Don't care about the trial or History the fact being overshadowed is the guy was an unbelievable talent and I was lucky enough to manage to see him perform live.

    The Wembley concert goes down as one of histories all time great open air concerts for a single performer.

    If your perceptions about him outweigh the awesome talent and unbelievable concert, it's a shame you will miss out on one of the worlds best performances by one of the worlds best performers.

    Hate the artist if you must but you can't deny the talent.

    I still see young kids 3-5 having a blast they love his music and try to copy some of the moves

  • Wizard on 07/03/2019 - 16:06
    -3

    Guilty or not. If he is a pedo I hope he burns in hell.

  • meatgasm on 07/03/2019 - 16:27
    +1

    Trial by media. Great -_-

  • Heybargain on 08/03/2019 - 10:21

    For those interested, here's links to watch Leaving Neverland online

    Part 1
    https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/leaving-neverland/2019/3/…

    Part 2
    https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/leaving-neverland/2019/3/…

  • MuddyClear on 09/03/2019 - 16:04
    -1

    No more sleep over kiddies

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join