acassola

[ozimagines]

The Trouble with Robson…

So… I’ve seen some discourse on this site about James Robson… and I want in lol.

I’ve got a lot of thoughts about this man, and based on everything I’ve read from other Oz fans, I might have an unpopular opinion.

Please don’t get me wrong! Season 2-Season 5 he was a tremendous piece of shit. Like in every way possible it is to be a piece of shit. But that said I have two points: 1) that’s what makes him an good CHARACTER, not a good person, and 2) a redemption arc doesn’t mean that person is automatically forgiven, but are going down a better path and MIGHT be forgiven for their actions at a later date. It is with this, your honor, that I submit that Robson’s redemption arc was actually one of the better plot lines in Oz. (Please don’t hate me lol)

Okay, so Robson season two, pretty easy to characterize. He’s a Nazi. He’s violent. He’s a rapist. Very easy to hate. Season three, he’s lieutenant to Vern Schillinger in the Aryan Brotherhood. He boxes and such. In season four, he’s a menace, coming into his own character. He threatens on his own and has his own plot lines now. Season five is more of the same, at first, he rapes Peter Schibetta, he tries to ruin Beecher’s life, etc. He commits one of the more heinous of his crimes in my book when he kills the young Muslim man in the store room. A long, drawn out process that James is smiling through. He LOVES violence. More than anything he seems like he was made for prison. Then he learns about his gums, makes racist remarks to the doctor, one thing leads to another, he has black man gums and gets kicked out of the brotherhood.

He’s destitute and alone, which is all he deserves. But even Kareem Said finds pity for him and says “God is trying to teach you something. Please be smart enough to learn.”. What can even God attempt to teach someone like James Robson? He does what he needs to survive. He joins Cutler and agrees to be his prag. Here’s where some views from other Oz fans and I start to diverge. You look at videos on YouTube, many of the comments you’ll find say “good, he deserved it.”. The best argument I heard for this was actually from Funky Frog Bait on YouTube talking about misgendering murderers. Many people misgendered the nonbinary Nashville shooter. Why would you respect the pronouns for a person that horrible? Because, as Funky Frog Bait said in their video, it revolves around your opinion of gender as a whole. If you can just revoke someone’s preferred pronouns when they’re bad people, how “bad” does a trans person have to be to not have their pronouns respected? People of differing “politics” (morals) say different things, but if we apply this argument to Robson’s situation, I think it has to do with one’s overall view of rape. How “bad” does someone have to be before being raped is considered a reasonable punishment? For me, it’s never. For me, just as in never revoking someone’s right to their preferred pronouns, I also think it’s never justifiable to rape someone. So, no, I don’t think Robson deserved to be raped, even though he was a serial rapist himself, because there’s no situation where I think rape is a justifiable response. People may disagree with me, but I think it’s a slippery slope when you can deem someone as deserving of rape.

We learn during this time, as he’s being beaten and abused sexually by Cutler, that James was beaten and abused by his father as a kid. He confirms that this occurred while he was only five years old. His first introduction to life and sex was violence. Maybe this gives you sympathy for him, as it did me, but maybe you say fuck him, it doesn’t excuse anything. But I don’t think that it was meant to be an excuse, I think it was meant to be an EXPLANATION. I think we were learning how he became James Robson of unit B, not justifying his actions as James Robson of unit B. He was a child and the person he was supposed to trust most in this world gave him very harsh lessons very early on: no one cares about you, and do what you need to do to survive. He becomes demure and pitiful in Sister Pete’s office. One line that stuck with me was “here I am, 35 years old and I have nowhere to run.”. He’s been running his whole life. Running away from an abusive father and running away from his own actions. “I shame to think of what I’ve done. Look on it again, I dare not.” Is Cutler’s line as MacBeth in the play. It is an apt line for James. He’s been running from his own actions for as long as he could remember. Like I said, none of this justifies the lives he’s ruined and taken, but it does explain the inter-workings of a character that was pretty static for four seasons. That he survives. He tells Sister Peter Marie that all he does is run from things. I truly believe that some of the reason he was able to be as ruthless as he was is because he doesn’t let himself think about his own actions.

Finally season 6! He kills Cutler with some kinky play, joins the brotherhood, and it seems like he’s back, right? Only when he sees his wife, we see some of the shame come back. Some of the embarrassment of being taken in that way. If he feels this way now, he felt this way for however long his dad was abusing him. He loses it with her for calling him a “cock sucker”, which CLEARLY he’s embarrassed/ashamed about. He hurts her, and immediately, instantly, feels bad about it. I love learning the morality of immoral characters. With everything he’s done, why was hurting his wife crossing a line? Because she trusts him, just like little James trusted his dad. I think, personally, that he sees himself as her personal protector. Since he couldn’t protect himself, he became the protector for her, and then for Vern, but James isn’t stupid enough to think Vern can’t take care of himself. I think hurting his wife tore him up so much because he remembers when he relied on his dad for everything, and his father took advantage of his state.

Then he finds out he has AIDS. He joins a support group for rape survivors. They talk about their experiences and James listens to all of them. He thanks them towards the end, saying it was good to “hear it from both sides” which we know is something he knew already since he was at least five. But hearing those stories, all of which are upsetting but some are straight gruesome, puts FORCES him to face his actions. He can’t run anymore, his lifestyle caught up with him. Am I saying he deserves AIDS? 🤷‍♀️ Chissà. Who’s to say? He has it though. There’s a deleted scene where he lets Clarence rape him (I understand “lets” and “rape” don’t make much sense together but I don’t think coerced consent is consent at all so it’s still assault), and it gives Clarence AIDS. Robson says something interesting, with his classic smile on his face. “Retribution. It’s all about retribution.”. That’s what Oz is about. Retribution. It should be about Rehabilitation, but it’s all about Retribution. This is where James’ story ends on the show. With him moving to unit F, the AIDS unit. Finally, even if only physically, is he forced to face his actions.

This is why I think his story was beautifully written. He’s just a meathead in the beginning, but we learn about his morality -because he does have a code, even if it’s not a good one-, his past, and his future. They took a character that was frankly very flat and gave us a wide enough view on his life and character to confuse our anger into sympathy into more anger and into sadness. I don’t know if anyone else felt this way but my heart just dropped when he mentioned his dad. James Robson never stood a chance. He was a monster in training since he was five. But no one deserves to be raped. (A good reference is Adam Gunzel who was a BIG prick… but never deserved that shit.) Anyway these are just some of my thoughts on one of the most interesting characters in Oz (to me at least) and gave us an actual character out of a plotless muscle man.

One thing I think we can all agree on:

Retribution. It’s all about retribution.

[scurvyratt]

[hello-nichya-here]

My love for MJ aside, speaking purely as someone who is looking into all the accusations against him and trying to be as unbiased as possible, it's CRAZY how the fans are labeled as being "in denial about the truth" when they are clearly correct in saying there's more than enough proof of his innocence.

Literally EVERYTHING is on Michael's side: eye-witnesses, videos, recorded phone calls, documents, and well-over a decade of FBI investigations, all of which contradict every single part of the stories about the supposed child abuse.

The proof of his innocence goes from "The pictures police took of Michael's genitals did not match the description the kid provided" to "This family that claims Michael kidnapped them and forced them to sell all their stuff, including their house, so they'd be dependent on him was confirmed to be lying since they still owned all the things they said they were forced to sell", all the way to "Michael wasn't even in the same country as the supposed victim at the time, and in fact, the very ROOM in which the the abuse allegedly happened did not even exist yet"

Not to mention proof that first "victim" (Jordan Chandler) was coerced by his abusive father into accusing Michael, that the family of the second "victim" (Gavin Arvizo) already having a history of scams that included lying about sexual abuse, and the Leaving Neverland documentary (that talks about the alledged abuse of James Safechuck and Wade Robson) was discovered to be copying an erotic book written by a confessed pedophile that wanted to share his fantasies about Michael abusing children.

Meanwhile all the people who say he was guilty have as proof is "Well, I saw an interview with the pedo that wrote that pornographic book and assumed it was true" or "I heard on a TV show 30 years ago that he was guilty and paid hush money to the victims and never checked that the investigation was still going and that the boy was even allowed to testify in court if he wanted to" or "This maid that was fired for stealing stuff from Michael's home claims she saw him molesting Jordan Chandler in Neverland - even though Jordan says he was abused during the tour, not in Neverland, so even if you were to believe his story you'd still have to assume this woman is lying."

It really is no wonder the 1993 and 2013 allegations did not even managed to get a proper trial with how little there was to work with, and the 2005 one led to Michael being found innocent of all charges in record time - I strongly suspect that if it wasn't for the former case, it wouldn't even have made it to court in the first place either with how nonsensical it was.

[brokehorrorfan]

The Boy will be released on 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray on September 3 via Scream Factory. The 2016 horror film was an international co-production between the US and China.

William Brent Bell (Orphan: First Kill, The Devil Inside) directs from a script by Stacey Menear. Lauren Cohan, Rupert Evans, Jim Norton, Diana Hardcastle, Ben Robson, Jett Klyne, and James Russell star.

The Boy is presented in 4K from the original elements with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. Special features are listed below.

Disc 1 - 4K UHD:

Audio commentary by film critics Julia Cunningham and Emily Higgins (new)

Disc 2 - Blu-ray:

Audio commentary by film critics Julia Cunningham and Emily Higgins (new)

Interview with William Brent Bell (new)

Interview with writer Stacey Menear (new)

Interview with cinematographer Daniel Pearl (new)

Interview with doll designer Todd Masters (new)

Interview with doll handler Tannis Hegan (new)

Theatrical trailer

Greta (Lauren Cohan) is a young American woman who takes a job as a nanny in a remote English village. She soon discovers that the family's 8-year-old is a life-sized doll that they care for just like a real boy, as a way to cope with the death of their son 20 years prior. After she violates a list of strict rules, a series of disturbing and inexplicable events bring Greta's worst nightmare to life, leading her to believe that the doll is actually alive.

Pre-order The Boy.

[geordieandhisvicars]

this man. i love this man.

[dukeofdelirium]

You ever done a summary of all the allegations, about all the accusers? Like, what they alleged? Did there seem to be any pattern? Were any of them somewhat believable? Did any witness seem credible?

I have made threads for both the Chandler allegations as well as the Arvizo allegations. I was going to make threads on Safechuck and Robson but then I had a death in the family and never got around to it. I could still make them if I have enough interest and engagement. Lemme know if y’all want me to, and I will.

My Chandler thread ☝🏻

My Arvizo thread ☝🏻

Here’s another post I made talking about the “documentary” Leaving Neverland though I didn’t go into extensive details because that would be quite a long read.

I have lots of other posts but nothing compiled as extensively like the above threads.

As for your questions, yes I have extensively researched these allegations and each individual case. The accusers all paint Michael in very different lights with different abuse patterns and grooming habits. They often contradict one another’s allegations.

For example: Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo never claimed they were anally raped by Michael. They just said they were touched by him. The only individual that ever claimed anal rape was Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA member and “journalist” that MJ sued for slander and libel and won… fyi NAMBLA stands for “North American Man Boy Love Association”. As in, it’s a pro-pedophilia group… he was a self admitted pedophile and made up lies that MJ anally raped Jordan Chandler, despite Jordan never saying this. Jordan even signed legal declarations saying this was untrue…

So isn’t it strange then, that Wade and James allege that MJ anally raped them? The first two accusers never said that. But suddenly they switch up his alleged abuse habits.

They stole the stories from Gutierrez, who wrote a child porn book full of lies like this. They also stole many other stories from this book.

In order to attack the allegations against MJ, you must aim for the origin. The first allegation. The Chandler allegations. Which I have thoroughly discredited on here in numerous posts. If that allegation is false, and there is every reason to believe it is, then every other one crumbles. They’re all built off of that first allegation.

And lastly, no, there are no credible witnesses. The prosecution of 2005’s trial were so lacking in evidence that they brought in witnesses that even the tabloid media didn’t trust. All of these witnesses (including the Neverland 5 that I have a link to in my Chandler thread) splattered under cross examination. They sold stories to tabloids, and depending on the amount of money being offered, the stories would change or grow in intensity.

The prosecution had witnesses that all claimed they witnessed with their own eyes Michael molesting Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes.

The defense then had their first three witnesses testify: Mac, Wade, and Brett. All three vehemently denied being molested, and Wade Robson himself testified as Michael Jackson’s star witness.

To entertain Michael Jackson’s guilt is insanity. No rational, sane person could believe these allegations when seriously scrutinizing them. They require time travel and teleportation to be truthful. They don’t conform to the facts of these cases, they don’t conform to reality, and they don’t conform to logic.

[morse-perez-and-davenport]

James Norton with Robson Green on his last day of filming Grantchester

[citizenscreen]

Stars gather to celebrated Frank McHugh’s birthday in 1935.

Pictured: Mrs. James Gleason, Ben Alexander, Anita Louise, Frank McHugh, Jimmy Gleason, Ginger Rogers, Pat O'Brien, and May Robson as Frank prepares to slice the cake.

[miriam-heddy]

It’s not a slashy show, but if you like watching really deep male friendships develop, you should absolutely watch Grantchester (2014-2025). The entire thing is brilliant.

[anatomyofjamesyates]

[ozimagines]

K so this one was too fun to write and now y’all will be mentioned in therapy this week😋

[scurvyratt]

Oz text posts!

[applesdefinitely]

aand that's it, that's the show (okay, seasons 1-3)

[geordieandhisvicars]

the thing is sidney, some days i find it harder surviving than others. and truth be told, i’ve been a bit lost without you.

i’m here now. i’m here.

[dukeofdelirium]

I hope I’m not the only one that got so pissed at the part of the film where they were like “The fans were so mean boohoo”, like I was pissed at most of it but that part really irked me. First of all, they had Robbery’s wife who knew jackshit about what was going on, then they had his sister who just went “These people didn’t even know him.” Obviously, she didn’t either if she thought he was so great up until that point. They even added people’s reaction: cursing him out and saying he keeps changing his story, which just made us look crazy.

Wade Flopson can take several seats.

He and James have changed their stories so many times that it’s genuinely hard to keep track of it. They’ve filed 11+ versions of the same civil lawsuits lmao.

And Wade’s wife is a stupid ass bitch. She and Wade literally ASKED MICHAEL if they could get MARRIED at his ranch, the very place he now claims he was serially raped at, DURING MJs criminal trial. They even made videos using the ranch’s land and in said videos, they thank Michael directly for allowing them to use the property.

Wade’s dumb ass wife tried to claim in Leaving Neverland that she wasn’t a victim of child sexual abuse, but on the website her and Wade operate asking for donations so they can skirt taxes, it stated that she WAS a victim of CSA. So of course, once fans realized that and called them out, they quickly deleted this from the site.

Wade and James are also grifting money off the backs of REAL csa survivors and trying to give life coach and therapy sessions for HUNDREDS of dollars, when neither of them are licensed or certified. This is why on their sites, they make you sign a legal disclaimer that it’s for entertainment purposes, so that no one can sue them. Because it’s fucking ILLEGAL to do what they’re doing.

They’re literally criminals. All of them. They’re all proven liars, too. They aren’t survivors of jack shit, and I’m saying this as a man who HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED! They’re full of it.

Ppl have been trying to make us fans seem crazy for decades, but especially during that 2005 trial where media mouthpieces hired paid actors to go to the court house pretending to be MJ fans just to make us look insane.

But what’s really insane is proclaiming a man is guilty of abusing children when all evidence proves otherwise.