(Edit - Please deal with the issues raised rather than other commenters)

(Edit)

(Edit)

Naturally I am less than delighted at the thought of Roman Polanski having got-so far-away from his ‘crime’. But as someone far wiser than me once said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.

I only use the name bimbo to describe ten to sixteen year old girls whose mothers have mindlessly allowed themselves to be bullied by other mothers, and by their peers. Together with the peer group pressure of the children themselves to encourage children, to become tarty. Hell, I even seen seven year old girls wearing all the latest clothes one would expect a hooker to wear, plus makeup and tawdry jewellery, nail polish on toes and fingers at the age of seven. As yet I have not met a professional tart who would dream of looking like this. And I have met many.

I’m not trying to defend Polanski, he looks and sounds to be a man I would hate.

So who are the beneficiaries of Mr Polanski being brought to trial. The victim? No, she got over it years ago, Roman Polanski? He is too old to inflict further damage. It sets a precedent? No. However it does remind people that there are rules in society which are worth adhering to. But when, all over the world the laws on this issue are changing; why should a man be brought to trial for something which may be legal tomorrow. (I have since learned he skipped the USA defaulting on half a million dollars he should have payed the victim. This is loathsome and deserves every bit of censure which can be thrown at it).

Spare me the thought of the ‘Sisterhood’. One only had to read the comments on ‘home birthing’ to see what a sort of female speaks for them. They have a spectral shroud political correctness around them. The deliberate stupidity, their always being determined to have the last word, the fact that they have afforded themselves every advantage obtained by my generation and have demeaned it. Their rudeness to everyone who disagrees with them is unconscionable and they are devoid of humour.

Political correctness has done more to wreck our ability to think than football. All it has done is produce a society of mindless nitwits paraphrasing meaningless slogans. We have become a society who blames everything onto someone else. The very art we produce is constantly under threat by these tiny-minded, self-righteous bigots.

Sorry to be so late replying to you but I’ve only just sat down at the computer.

Most Sincerely

Venise

Firstly, the contention that the law is flexible. Flexible??? For goodness sake, he admitted to having drugged the little girl, to having sex without her consent, and agreed to being sentenced by the court by pleading guilty to a reduced charge due to a plea bargain. Where is there flexibility in that?

If it was my own daughter, I would have expected a custodial sentence of at least ten years. If he did that to my own arse, under similar circumstances, I would seek unprintable retribution.

This admitted criminal decided to skip bail and leave the country. My comments appear at the head of this article. There is no need for me to reconsider, on the basis of known facts.

Quite simply, this self-confessed criminal has no reason to be let off the charges to which he has pleaded guilty and he must now return to the courthouse from which he fled and accept his sentence.

Of course, if his sentence is excessive (!), then he has avenues for review via appellate courts.

Vernise, I don’t understand your contention that he “has no case to answer” at all.

As for your use of the word “bimbos”… I will let the sisterhood to comment further.

You disappoint.

Any one of us could ask you the same question. You’re the one quick to criticise however selectively the idea that a man with an obvious interest in children is a paedophile. “Not really.” Only by any standard or definition within a sociological context at least. If Polanski were a Catholic priest would you leap to lengths to argue otherwise? A tradesman? How about if he were an unemployed gormless and ugly sex offender in the daily news? Would you be posting on blogs and questioning the label of paedophile? Would you object to the term paedophile until shown the signature of psychiatric evaluators? Or do you reserve this service for the rich and famous? You’re still to answer this simple little question. I am serious. Sexual violence is a serious matter. There is nothing serious, nor particularly mature or humane or academic for that matter, about abstracting what constitutes paedophilia simply because Polanski makes remarkable films. Donald Friend was a great Australian painter. Nothing can change that. Neither can anything change the fact that he interfered with boys as young as 10.

Also I’m hardly defending Polanski. I’ll copy+paste this from an earlier post in case people missed it.

“Well, he (Polanski) did molest a child. This makes him a child molester/child rapist.”

Hardly a defense of Polanski.

Age of Consent laws have no bearing on what does or does not constitute Paedophilia. Paedophilia isn’t a legal term it’s a psychiatric term. A sociological term. But there is no such criminal charge.

Just because French legislators decide that the age of consent will be 15 does not make a 15-year-old an adult. Neither does it make men wanting to have sex with 15-year-olds girls particularly nice people either. You were trying to argue that Polanski was “not really” a Paedophile. I’m waiting for evidence that will prove otherwise.

Daniel,

Roman Polanski is attracted to girl children which constitutes paedophilia. A 15-year-old is still a child regardless of age of consent laws. You can talk about age of consent laws and try to redefine the definition of Child and that of Paedophilia until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that Polanski is a misogynist and a rapist. You seem perfectly happy to support his apparent right to be the former and the privileges that years of exile have accorded him with regard to the latter criminal matter. Why?

So the age of consent in France is 15? And, gee, I guess it would be crazy to suggest that legislators are simply normalising and reinforcing male privilege or anything of the sort? That would be feminazi talk of course, right? Your simplistic views about what does or does not constitute paedophilia would be a lark if they weren’t so dangerous. Go study the subject beyond the single sentence Junior Dictionary definition and you will find it encompasses much more than sex offenders. If you’re incapable of comprehending the paedophilia at the core of something as mainstream as the sexualisation of schoolgirl uniforms chances are you’re incapable of comprehending the rather obvious objectives of the director when it came to dating a 15-year-old. Simply invoking the age of consent laws in a debate about the dynamics and complexities of the Polanski and Kinski affair to attempt to vindicate the creep would have you escorted off campus to a soundtrack of laughter. Any critique of the value of consent considering the inherent power imbalance in such a relationship is conveniently swept aside to fulful your delusional white, male, liberal, bourgesois fantasies about adolescent girls and how “if the law says it’s awright then it’s awright, mate.” Sick. Plain. And. Simple. Sure, I mean it’s not illegal to be a misogynist piece of …. but then neither is it illegal to hate Jews or homosexuals but it doesn’t make it right either, does it? If you identify as left it’s time to reconsider your political allegiances. Your comments have exposed your complicity to misogyny and patriarchal hegemony which make you as bad as any bishop who hates women. Period. Fact: Polanski’s victim testified to a grand jury that she cried and told him no NO NO. If her testimony gave a truthful version of events Polanski is a rapist. If it did not he is still a misogynist piece of ….. and I couldn’t care less if he goes to goal. If you want to waste your energy defending child rapists and living in denial about Polanksi’s penchant for young girls you may as well as become a Catholic priest.

Which happens to be the age of consent in France. So unlike the incident in the USA, Polanski has no case to answer for.

He is a rapist, a criminal, and a sleazy lowlife. I was not aware of this issue until today, and any shred of respect that I may have had for Roman Polanski is out the window. As a woman who has experienced being drugged and taken advantage of, I think he is just disgusting.

The only way that a person is worthy of redemption and forgiveness is when they demonstrate remorse. And by staying out of reach of authorities symbolises his sense of justification for committing this crime. If he was sorry, he would have gone back, done the time and faced the consequences of such an act of selfishness, and disrespect. He is a pissant.

WHEN A WOMAN SAYS NO, IT MEANS NO. End of story. When are people going to stop supporting perpetrators of crime against women?!! Grrrrrrrl power roll on.

(And Nastassja Kinski was fifteen when she started a relationship with Polanski.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/a-petition-to-the-state-o_b_305017.html

Are you even old enough to know who Nastassja Kinski is?

Humour me and look up how old she was when she first started ‘dating’ Polanski.

The man is a child rapist and a paedophile.

(Edit)

2. A man who flees from the criminal justice system.

All of the above is not in dispute.

(Edit)

Well, he did molest a child. This makes him a child molester/child rapist. Does this make him a paedophile? Is Polanski sexually attracted to children, outside of this one documented case that occurred decades ago?

”, let him do the time, in a US prison filled with criminals who don’t like child rApists. Perhaps there he may have the opportunity to understand that what he did was wrong.”

I especially love veiled references to male-on-male prison rape when it comes to debates about child molestation. It really shows the hollowness of the holier-than-thou stance of some people. Apparently rape is OK if it happens to the ‘right’ people.

You are suggesting that there is hypocrisy where there is none. The contemporary Swiss government and its complacent forefathers in the war are not and never should be judged as the same entity. Blaming the Swiss authorities who arrested Polanski for the actions of their forefathers is about as rational as me blaming you for the actions of yours who in millenia past may or may not have murdered their slaves for all I know. Neither would I go so far as to say that the evils of the nazis, however undeniable, outweight those of any given rapist or paedophile. Such moral relativism is as tasteless as it is highly questionable at best.