Terse Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 CLICK Personally, I reject the suggestion that "he has made so many valuable cultural contributions since, that the matter should be dropped." However, (LINK ) "Polanski, now 76, was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977 while photographing her during a modeling session. She said Polanski performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her after giving her champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. Polanski has called the girl a sophisticated teen who willingly had sex with him, but she said he forced himself on her. His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement. She said she wants the case to be over," does make me wonder whether or not it is still worth pursuing. As an added complication, "Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza earlier this year found there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case, he dismissed Polanski's motion to throw out the case because the director did not appear in court. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles. He has appealed Espinoza's decision, and a California appellate court is reviewing the case." So, is it simply a matter of commit the crime - do the time, or is it a complicated question involving time lapsed, morals etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Or course he should do the time. I can't understand how anyone could say otherwise. The filthy paedo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I find the difference between the coverage of Polanski and say Gary Glitter very stark indeed. He attempted to escape the consequences of his actions. Now he's been caught. I've basically no sympathy for the man - let him face the courts and take the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Of course he should. I'm so happy he's been arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I'll be happy when he's bum fodder for a man mountain doing life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Ironic, considering what he allegedly did to the 13 yr old girl he raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Seems our witchunting press is reluctant to use the paedophile word, the Guardian refering to it as "the assault" or the "alleged" drugging and raping of a 13 year old. Send the tw@ back and lock him up for his natural! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 of course he should the laws relating to underage sex do not contain a clause of exemption for famous people ! One rule for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The world of celebrity, where they break the law and get fuck all, we break the law and get the book thrown at us. He should be made to do the time, with all the " bigger " boys. * praying he gets man raped, taste of his own medicine and all that * I think all people convicted 100% with out doubt that they are dirty fucking peado's should have there hands, eyes and genitals removed. World wide law, so no one is exempt. That way when you see someone walking down the road with no hands and no eyes you can be 99% sure there a peado. It makes me sick that some of them throw money at people, Michael Jackson for one to make the case go away. When infact they should be made to face the full force of the law and then victims can claim any money, not from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenose 52 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 She was 13 he was 44, she was drugged and sodomised which he pleaded guilty to, he should be sent down for the rest of his natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 She was 13 he was 44, she was drugged and sodomised which he pleaded guilty to, he should be sent down for the rest of his natural. I agree, but the literati are aghast "but he's contributed so much to the arts..." As if that makes it all right then? Send him down, he's pleaded guilty, by his own admission he is on the run. Ergo he is a fugitive and should be dealt with as any other person would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Yep, one rule for all etc...I'm with the mob. BUT: What was a 13-year old girl doing 'being photographed' by him. Where were the parents/chaperone? Was the child a wannabe model, offering anything she had for a shot at 'fame', or one of these 'Pageant' kids made up to look 30? Whacko Jacko was clearly a danger to children, but had enough money to buy his liberty. But at the back of my mind was always the suspicion that some of these parents put their own children in harm's way in return for a bumper payday. None of which excuses Polanski - but we sometimes have to look hard to find a REAL innocent victim in these sordid stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarBee Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Yes, he should pay! What a coward! And the Hollywood stars supporting his release? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Yep, one rule for all etc...I'm with the mob. BUT: What was a 13-year old girl doing 'being photographed' by him. Where were the parents/chaperone? Was the child a wannabe model, offering anything she had for a shot at 'fame', or one of these 'Pageant' kids made up to look 30? Whacko Jacko was clearly a danger to children, but had enough money to buy his liberty. But at the back of my mind was always the suspicion that some of these parents put their own children in harm's way in return for a bumper payday. None of which excuses Polanski - but we sometimes have to look hard to find a REAL innocent victim in these sordid stories. I agree Stu, there are always two sides, however and regardless of how old she looked, he still drugged her to get his gratification. Even if she was 50+ that is still non-consensual sex regardless of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.