I think it's valuable for history. These allegations should be part of any exhaustive historical account of the man. If nothing else to better understand the times of his day.

Edit to clarify my point:

should we erase from history books accounts of baseless accusations of prominent people? People accused of being witches, accused of being traitors because they subscribed to the wrong beliefs etc.

Regarding Clarke, I can easily imagine people having a beef with his (also alleged!) homosexuality prefer to smear him as a paedophile. Indeed the term is used interchangeably by many to this day, by malice or lack of knowledge or both.

If he actually was one, well we may never know. Knowing the nature of mankind, he would not be the first. But we have not been presented with evidence of wrongdoing, so, the allegations are baseless.

>I find it very suspicious that a wealthy European man would choose to live in a wartorn country.

This is the classic example of: "Out of ignorance comes certainty."

You're essentially saying that because you cannot explain the behavior of one individual, then the explanation is likely/must be X.

You don't know = ignorance

It must be X = certainty.

Just as an FYI, he moved there long before it was a wartorn country. He chose to stay. Just as so many wealthy Sri Lankans who could have left did not. Why focus on the wealthy European and not the wealthy locals?

Pretty much yeah, unless you have other evidence this Michael Jackson (who is that anyway?) did horrific acts.

Well it may be perhaps not suspicious but intriguing. There may be any number of reasons for such a move. (For instance he may have felt more at ease fraternising with boyfriends away from prude old England.) Look, I am not trying to whitewash him. But saying: wealthy european moves to wartorn country, therefore paedophile, is using the "jump to conclusions mat" a bit too much.