Roman Polanski

[Dashing Bob S]

Throw this pedo in prison and all the mealy-mouthed Hollywood trashbags who think that somebody's star status gives them the right to rape children.

I can't believe they are saying his holocaust survivor status and the murder of Sharon Tate 'excuses' him abusing a 13 year old.

[Betty Boop]

Throw this pedo in prison and all the mealy-mouthed Hollywood trashbags who think that somebody's star status gives them the right to rape children.

I can't believe they are saying his holocaust survivor status and the murder of Sharon Tate 'excuses' him abusing a 13 year old.

Spot on Bob. He has also allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old in France. Was Woody Allen not accused of paedophilia with his own children? I seem to remember the Hollywood clique queuing up to defend him also. :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Throw this pedo in prison and all the mealy-mouthed Hollywood trashbags who think that somebody's star status gives them the right to rape children.

I can't believe they are saying his holocaust survivor status and the murder of Sharon Tate 'excuses' him abusing a 13 year old.

Holocaust survivors are not slow to try people 60 years after their crimes, it's a pretty lame excuse.

Tin helmet on here, I don't know the facts, but is it possible that the lady in question was, in the words of Randal J. McMurphy, 14 going on 43? By that I mean did she enter into the relationship with full knowledge of what she was doing? If that's the case I don't think this is as much child abuse as statutory rape.

[hibsdaft]

he was initially charged with rape by use of drugs but pled guilty to statutory rape.

i really have no idea where his supporters are coming from on this.

[the_ginger_hibee]

Cant believe theres a news piece on the BBC about 'Hollywood defends Polanski'. What? :confused:?

Some day and age we live in where 'star status' exceeds basic laws and morality. Truly baffling.

[Gus]

It is shocking that Hollywood seem to want to sweep this under the carpet. The guy couldn't pick up his Oscar as he didnt want to go to America (would of been arrested) so Harrison Ford accepted it for him.........this is wrong

But

the girl in question, wanted the case dropped in 1993 as she had accepted a financal settlement. Although I believe she should of been compensated for her ordeal doesnt seem correct also

Roman Polanski should be in jail

[(((Fergus)))]

Holocaust survivors are not slow to try people 60 years after their crimes, it's a pretty lame excuse.

Tin helmet on here, I don't know the facts, but is it possible that the lady in question was, in the words of Randal J. McMurphy, 14 going on 43? By that I mean did she enter into the relationship with full knowledge of what she was doing? If that's the case I don't think this is as much child abuse as statutory rape.

the court transcript is available on the web. he basically drugged her with quaaludes and champagne and took advantage of her. she had been lured to jack nicholson's house on the pretext of polanski taking photographs of her for vogue magazine. as she was only 13 years old, the fault on her side lies with her parents for leaving her unattended with this person.

ironic that polanski got nicked when trying to pick up a lifetime achievement award. going to jail will be just reward for this particular achievement.

[(((Fergus)))]

Cant believe theres a news piece on the BBC about 'Hollywood defends Polanski'. What? :confused:?

Some day and age we live in where 'star status' exceeds basic laws and morality. Truly baffling.

It's the casting couch mentality. Guys there regularly riding girls young enough to be their (grand) daughters. Their tacky films are the same - no shame.


It is shocking that Hollywood seem to want to sweep this under the carpet. The guy couldn't pick up his Oscar as he didnt want to go to America (would of been arrested) so Harrison Ford accepted it for him.........this is wrong

But

the girl in question, wanted the case dropped in 1993 as she had accepted a financal settlement. Although I believe she should of been compensated for her ordeal doesnt seem correct also

Roman Polanski should be in jail

:agree: Her accepting money for it turns it into a prostitute's transaction. What he took was priceless.

[Killiehibbie]

Holocaust survivors are not slow to try people 60 years after their crimes, it's a pretty lame excuse.

Tin helmet on here, I don't know the facts, but is it possible that the lady in question was, in the words of Randal J. McMurphy, 14 going on 43? By that I mean did she enter into the relationship with full knowledge of what she was doing? If that's the case I don't think this is as much child abuse as statutory rape.

It comes down to seedy old men taking advantage of young girls who want to be famous.
McMurphys middle name was Patrick.:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

the court transcript is available on the web. he basically drugged her with quaaludes and champagne and took advantage of her. she had been lured to jack nicholson's house on the pretext of polanski taking photographs of her for vogue magazine. as she was only 13 years old, the fault on her side lies with her parents for leaving her unattended with this person.

ironic that polanski got nicked when trying to pick up a lifetime achievement award. going to jail will be just reward for this particular achievement.

Thanks, that clarifies it for me.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------


It comes down to seedy old men taking advantage of young girls who want to be famous.
McMurphys middle name was Patrick.:wink:

Of course it was, blasted keyboard, they have a J where the P should be. :greengrin

[JE89]

It's the casting couch mentality. Guys there regularly riding girls young enough to be their (grand) daughters. Their tacky films are the same - no shame.


:agree: There should be a law against it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1215992/Ronnie-Wood-takes-girlfriend-Ekaterina-meet-son-13-years-older-her.html)

As for Polanski - jail is too good for him. Anybody who abuses children should be castrated :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree: There should be a law against it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1215992/Ronnie-Wood-takes-girlfriend-Ekaterina-meet-son-13-years-older-her.html)

As for Polanski - jail is too good for him. Anybody who abuses children should be castrated :agree:

Is there evidence that castration works? If there is then we should seriously consider it.

Not sure what your point about Ronnie Wood is though. The woman he is seeing isn't a child, and if she wants to go with him that has to be her own business, does it not? Maybe she finds older men attractive, maybe she likes the lifestyle, maybe she likes him because he is rich. Why should there be a law against that?

[BravestHibs]

Read these.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-lets-not-forget-what-polanski-did-1794717.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html

[--------]

Read these.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-lets-not-forget-what-polanski-did-1794717.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html


What does Weinstein mean - "so-called crime"?

[BravestHibs]

What does Weinstein mean - "so-called crime"?

I can only take that to mean that he thinks the wee girl got what she deserved for leading our esteemed holocaust survivor on.

[hibsdaft]

The theory going around is that the reason Switzerland cooperated and acted on a longstanding extradition order with the United States this time was because of their own troubles in the financial crisis.

:faf::faf:

never heard such ridiculous self-important ***** in all my life.

[--------]

I can only take that to mean that he thinks the wee girl got what she deserved for leading our esteemed holocaust survivor on.

Maybe someone should have a wee look at how Mr Weinstein amuses himself of an evening....

His argument appears to be that since Polanski is a Holocaust survivor he should be allowed to rape teenagers. And then of course his wife and friends were murdered horribly. So he should be allowed to rape teenagers.

And he's a movie celebrity, and a REALLY close pal of Jack Nicholson, Steve Martin, Harrison Ford, Warren Beatty, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and no doubt hundreds of other Hollywood Luvvies - so he should be allowed to rape teenagers.

But hey - when you're a celebrated, talented, Holocaust-surviving, lucky-enough-to-be-out-of-the-house-the-night-your-wife-got-butchered Hollywood Luvvy, you can get away with anything.

Once upon a time, I thought James Ellroy wrote fiction. Now I'm beginning to think he's writing fact.

[gringojoe]

.

Not sure what your point about Ronnie Wood is though. The woman he is seeing isn't a child, and if she wants to go with him that has to be her own business, does it not? Maybe she finds older men attractive, maybe she likes the lifestyle, maybe she likes him because he is rich. Why should there be a law against that?

Ronnie Woods pal Bill Wyman was involved with Mandy Smith when she under the legal age.

[hibsdaft]

wasn't that Bill Wyman

[gringojoe]

wasn't that Bill Wyman

Sorry wrong Stone but they do look alike:duck:

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I have heard that Graham Rix is a big fan of his work.

[ancient hibee]

Maybe someone should have a wee look at how Mr Weinstein amuses himself of an evening....

His argument appears to be that since Polanski is a Holocaust survivor he should be allowed to rape teenagers. And then of course his wife and friends were murdered horribly. So he should be allowed to rape teenagers.

And he's a movie celebrity, and a REALLY close pal of Jack Nicholson, Steve Martin, Harrison Ford, Warren Beatty, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and no doubt hundreds of other Hollywood Luvvies - so he should be allowed to rape teenagers.

But hey - when you're a celebrated, talented, Holocaust-surviving, lucky-enough-to-be-out-of-the-house-the-night-your-wife-got-butchered Hollywood Luvvy, you can get away with anything.

Once upon a time, I thought James Ellroy wrote fiction. Now I'm beginning to think he's writing fact.

Well that seems fair enough-after all he is very small.

[--------]

Well that seems fair enough-after all he is very small.


A sort of "Peter Pan", never-grew-up character? :cool2:


Unfortunately for him, that defence is taken already. :devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ronnie Woods pal Bill Wyman was involved with Mandy Smith when she under the legal age.

Got you, er....

[PeeJay]

Holocaust survivors are not slow to try people 60 years after their crimes, it's a pretty lame excuse.

Tin helmet on here, I don't know the facts, but is it possible that the lady in question was, in the words of Randal J. McMurphy, 14 going on 43? By that I mean did she enter into the relationship with full knowledge of what she was doing? If that's the case I don't think this is as much child abuse as statutory rape.

FR - I find this an astonishing comment! Underage girls cannot consent; it is irrelevant if the child is aware of what is going on; it is irrelevant if she even likes what is going on: the law - and I feel society - is quite clear about this. Adults are not allowed to have sexual relations with underage children, they are breaking the law EOS. The law has to apply to all children under the age of consent, so it doesn't matter that some girls at the age of 13 are more advanced than others, we (society) have to protect those that aren't so far "advanced", that's why we have the law, which obviously is a blanket one.
Your statement seems to be encroaching on highly contentious ground if you ask me: one where we men all know that girls professing to have been raped really wanted it after all! I don't think so!

As to the Polanski case, it seems to be a highly complicated one, as some sort of deal was done originally and the judge in charge of the original trial seems to also have been an undesirable character. I think under Swiss law he would normally not have been arrested for the US or extradited. But at the moment Switzerand seems to be trying to polish up its highly tarnished image with the USA, based on the recent banking scandal involving UBS and others and Polanksi may be part of some dealings - who knows - it's 32 years!
I'd lock him up BTW!

[Steve-O]

FR - I find this an astonishing comment! Underage girls cannot consent; it is irrelevant if the child is aware of what is going on; it is irrelevant if she even likes what is going on: the law - and I feel society - is quite clear about this. Adults are not allowed to have sexual relations with underage children, they are breaking the law EOS. The law has to apply to all children under the age of consent, so it doesn't matter that some girls at the age of 13 are more advanced than others, we (society) have to protect those that aren't so far "advanced", that's why we have the law, which obviously is a blanket one.
Your statement seems to be encroaching on highly contentious ground if you ask me: one where we men all know that girls professing to have been raped really wanted it after all! I don't think so!

As to the Polanski case, it seems to be a highly complicated one, as some sort of deal was done originally and the judge in charge of the original trial seems to also have been an undesirable character. I think under Swiss law he would normally not have been arrested for the US or extradited. But at the moment Switzerand seems to be trying to polish up its highly tarnished image with the USA, based on the recent banking scandal involving UBS and others and Polanksi may be part of some dealings - who knows - it's 32 years!
I'd lock him up BTW!

Surely you can see that a forced rape on a 13 year old is worse than a case where consent was given?

As for Weinstein's argument where you are all totally paraphrasing his argument to suit your own, the following is his ACTUAL argument -

The deal was that if he spent time in prison, which he did pre-sentencing, his sentence would be commuted but when he came back to sentencing the judge went back on the deal.

[Dashing Bob S]

FR - I find this an astonishing comment! Underage girls cannot consent; it is irrelevant if the child is aware of what is going on; it is irrelevant if she even likes what is going on: the law - and I feel society - is quite clear about this. Adults are not allowed to have sexual relations with underage children, they are breaking the law EOS. The law has to apply to all children under the age of consent, so it doesn't matter that some girls at the age of 13 are more advanced than others, we (society) have to protect those that aren't so far "advanced", that's why we have the law, which obviously is a blanket one.
Your statement seems to be encroaching on highly contentious ground if you ask me: one where we men all know that girls professing to have been raped really wanted it after all! I don't think so!

As to the Polanski case, it seems to be a highly complicated one, as some sort of deal was done originally and the judge in charge of the original trial seems to also have been an undesirable character. I think under Swiss law he would normally not have been arrested for the US or extradited. But at the moment Switzerand seems to be trying to polish up its highly tarnished image with the USA, based on the recent banking scandal involving UBS and others and Polanksi may be part of some dealings - who knows - it's 32 years!
I'd lock him up BTW!

I like the way the American system works on this one (practically the only issue). If you are under the age of consent, you cannot give your consent. Therefore the sex cannot be consensual. The crime is described by its more accurate term 'statutory rape'.

Yes, many young girls, usually through a combination bad parenting, the increasingly sexualisation of society and commodification of childhood may often appear more knowing and sexually advanced than they are, but these are precisely the arguments used by paedophilles to justify their crimes against them. The bottom line is, however such kids think of themselves, they are still children, and should be protected under the law as such.

I don't think there is any room for ambiguity on this, and certainly not in this case, where the then 13 year old was anally raped by Polanski.

[JE89]

Is there evidence that castration works? If there is then we should seriously consider it.

Not sure what your point about Ronnie Wood is though. The woman he is seeing isn't a child, and if she wants to go with him that has to be her own business, does it not? Maybe she finds older men attractive, maybe she likes the lifestyle, maybe she likes him because he is rich. Why should there be a law against that?

Not been proved to be 100% succesful unfortunately.

The Ronnie Wood bit - Someobody mentioned people going out with somebody who is old enough to be their grandad/mother. There shouldn't be a law against it but I feel it is wrong. However this is what I think and obviously that is judging a situation I know nothing about. I just can't imagine me going out with a 60 year old lady.

[Phil D. Rolls]

FR - I find this an astonishing comment! Underage girls cannot consent; it is irrelevant if the child is aware of what is going on; it is irrelevant if she even likes what is going on: the law - and I feel society - is quite clear about this. Adults are not allowed to have sexual relations with underage children, they are breaking the law EOS. The law has to apply to all children under the age of consent, so it doesn't matter that some girls at the age of 13 are more advanced than others, we (society) have to protect those that aren't so far "advanced", that's why we have the law, which obviously is a blanket one.
Your statement seems to be encroaching on highly contentious ground if you ask me: one where we men all know that girls professing to have been raped really wanted it after all! I don't think so!

As to the Polanski case, it seems to be a highly complicated one, as some sort of deal was done originally and the judge in charge of the original trial seems to also have been an undesirable character. I think under Swiss law he would normally not have been arrested for the US or extradited. But at the moment Switzerand seems to be trying to polish up its highly tarnished image with the USA, based on the recent banking scandal involving UBS and others and Polanksi may be part of some dealings - who knows - it's 32 years!
I'd lock him up BTW!

I am comfortable with the law as it stands, I would hope that judges would use a bit of common sense at times though. Maturity isn't something that happens on the mornng of your 16th birthday. it is a gradual process and comes sooner to some than others.


Not been proved to be 100% succesful unfortunately.

The Ronnie Wood bit - Someobody mentioned people going out with somebody who is old enough to be their grandad/mother. There shouldn't be a law against it but I feel it is wrong. However this is what I think and obviously that is judging a situation I know nothing about. I just can't imagine me going out with a 60 year old lady.

I can see me doing it in a few years time! :greengrin

[shamo9]

I like the way the American system works on this one (practically the only issue). If you are under the age of consent, you cannot give your consent. Therefore the sex cannot be consensual. The crime is described by its more accurate term 'statutory rape'.

Yes, many young girls, usually through a combination bad parenting, the increasingly sexualisation of society and commodification of childhood may often appear more knowing and sexually advanced than they are, but these are precisely the arguments used by paedophilles to justify their crimes against them. The bottom line is, however such kids think of themselves, they are still children, and should be protected under the law as such.

I don't think there is any room for ambiguity on this, and certainly not in this case, where the then 13 year old was anally raped by Polanski.
You can't honestly say that there is absolutely no room for ambiguity on this issue.

Example? My girlfriend who had been 16 for four long months suggested and then instigated fornification and I was *gasp* only 10 months younger than her. RAPE!

And on your little tidbit about the 'increasingly sexualisation of society'. This society equips girls (and boys) with devices to 'sex themselves up'. It can be pretty easy to mistake a 14/15 year old as, say, a 17 year old - particularly if they've 'matured' quickly (in both the physical sense and in their knowledge of such frivolous activities).

A society that punishes a young man or women (teens to early twenties) for having a night of casual and consensual sex with a partner who both says, acts and looks older than 16 is wrong.

If you want such incidents to decrease then a more effective avenue to explore would be punishing those surrounding said boy or girl who encouraged or even informed them of this behaviour (young people don't just get ideas, they are influenced). In essence this tackles the problem at the roots and stops it before, rather than punishing someone after (which is a poor consolation).

Society doesn't change people, people change society.

[the_ginger_hibee]

You can't honestly say that there is absolutely no room for ambiguity on this issue.

Example? My girlfriend who had been 16 for four long months suggested and then instigated fornification and I was *gasp* only 10 months younger than her. RAPE!

And on your little tidbit about the 'increasingly sexualisation of society'. This society equips girls (and boys) with devices to 'sex themselves up'. It can be pretty easy to mistake a 14/15 year old as, say, a 17 year old - particularly if they've 'matured' quickly (in both the physical sense and in their knowledge of such frivolous activities).

A society that punishes a young man or women (teens to early twenties) for having a night of casual and consensual sex with a partner who both says, acts and looks older than 16 is wrong.

If you want such incidents to decrease then a more effective avenue to explore would be punishing those surrounding said boy or girl who encouraged or even informed them of this behaviour (young people don't just get ideas, they are influenced). In essence this tackles the problem at the roots and stops it before, rather than punishing someone after (which is a poor consolation).

Society doesn't change people, people change society.

Tut tut. A middle aged man forcing and drugging a 13-year old into anal sex is just wrong and indefensible in any society or language. God knows what or why you felt the need to digress into talking about punishing a 'teens to early twenties' who sleeps with someone who looks at least 16, with consent.

A totally different issue for a totally different thread. DBS said 'I don't think there is any room for ambiguity on this' (meaning this case/example) you said 'no room on the issue' which isn't even the issue we are talking about here. When the '20 year old beds 16 year old who was asking for it with her wylie 19 year old looks and her sexual device that sociaty has 'given' her (ohh sex-o-meter whats that?)' thread pops up we will give you a shout, otherwise 'Middle aged man rapes 13 year old' threads are not for you.

As an aside just watched Chinatown today and for the pedo bassa that he is he cant half make a film.

[--------]

Tut tut. A middle aged man forcing and drugging a 13-year old into anal sex is just wrong and indefensible in any society or language. God knows what or why you felt the need to digress into talking about punishing a 'teens to early twenties' who sleeps with someone who looks at least 16, with consent.

A totally different issue for a totally different thread. DBS said 'I don't think there is any room for ambiguity on this' (meaning this case/example) you said 'no room on the issue' which isn't even the issue we are talking about here. When the '20 year old beds 16 year old who was asking for it with her wylie 19 year old looks and her sexual device that sociaty has 'given' her (ohh sex-o-meter whats that?)' thread pops up we will give you a shout, otherwise 'Middle aged man rapes 13 year old' threads are not for you.

As an aside just watched Chinatown today and for the pedo bassa that he is he cant half make a film.


It's convenient for Hollywood to paint Polanski as a martyr and as the victim - maybe not exactly in the specific case of the sodomy of an unconsenting teenaged girl, but as 'victim' in the sense that "He lost his family in the Holocaust and then his wife and friends were all butchered by that horrible manson family".

In the 1960's when this sodomy was committed, Polanski was a member of a circle of friends and associates with a lot of close contacts in some very dirty places. I'd be very surprised if Polanski himself or his associates have cleaned up their act since, unless of course the flesh (with the advance of years) is no longer capable of doing what the spirit seeks to do.

But then in the 1960's the same crew were well into chemical stimulants, and again I doubt they've changed THAT record since then, either.

My understanding of the case was that Polanski copped a plea in front of an over-sympathetic judge (one who shared some of Polanski's interests, perhaps). When the word got out that he was going to plead guilty on the basis of time served - in other words, walk out of the court with no further punishment - another judge was appointed and Roman, realising that the game was up, fled the country to avoid having the cons in San Quentin do to him what he had done to the teenage girl.

This isn't about premature teenaged groping and fumblings, it's about statutory rape of a minor by a man who knew well how to use his position, connections and celebrity to avoid punishment. Bob's absolutely right - there's no ambiguity in the case, and no defence for what Polanski did all those years.

If Demjanjuk can be hauled into a courtroom and convicted for what he did in the 1940's, old and demented as he is, I see no reason why Roman Polanski shouldn't have to answer as well.

[Dashing Bob S]

Tut tut. A middle aged man forcing and drugging a 13-year old into anal sex is just wrong and indefensible in any society or language. God knows what or why you felt the need to digress into talking about punishing a 'teens to early twenties' who sleeps with someone who looks at least 16, with consent.

A totally different issue for a totally different thread. DBS said 'I don't think there is any room for ambiguity on this' (meaning this case/example) you said 'no room on the issue' which isn't even the issue we are talking about here. When the '20 year old beds 16 year old who was asking for it with her wylie 19 year old looks and her sexual device that sociaty has 'given' her (ohh sex-o-meter whats that?)' thread pops up we will give you a shout, otherwise 'Middle aged man rapes 13 year old' threads are not for you.

As an aside just watched Chinatown today and for the pedo bassa that he is he cant half make a film.


Many thanks for this post. It saved me the bother. I was talking about this particular case, as you said, perhaps didn't express myself accurately enough.

[s.a.m]

You can't honestly say that there is absolutely no room for ambiguity on this issue.

Example? My girlfriend who had been 16 for four long months suggested and then instigated fornification and I was *gasp* only 10 months younger than her. RAPE!

And on your little tidbit about the 'increasingly sexualisation of society'. This society equips girls (and boys) with devices to 'sex themselves up'. It can be pretty easy to mistake a 14/15 year old as, say, a 17 year old - particularly if they've 'matured' quickly (in both the physical sense and in their knowledge of such frivolous activities).

A society that punishes a young man or women (teens to early twenties) for having a night of casual and consensual sex with a partner who both says, acts and looks older than 16 is wrong.

If you want such incidents to decrease then a more effective avenue to explore would be punishing those surrounding said boy or girl who encouraged or even informed them of this behaviour (young people don't just get ideas, they are influenced). In essence this tackles the problem at the roots and stops it before, rather than punishing someone after (which is a poor consolation).

Society doesn't change people, people change society.


I think I'm right in saying that the statutory rape law only relates to females being raped by males, and a female cannot carry out a statutory rape on a male. If she had been in her mid-twenties, there are other offences she could have done for (I think), and if she had forced or exploited you, at any age, she would have had a case to answer - but I don't think, legally, you were raped.

The law - and practice - already recognises a difference between consensual sex between like-aged teenagers, and cases where an adult has sex with a child. I seem to remember that there are relative age guidelines for police and prosecutors. Perhaps someone knows more specifically?

[lEXO]

Hope he gets serious time in jail for this.How embarrasing that all these hollywood stars gave a standing ovation to a peado.How out of touch and sick are these dicks.:jamboak: