Monday, 28 September 2009

How Do I Feel About Polanski ?

The guy had sex with a minor who was being pushed at him by her mother, the victim was using the age old 'casting couch' method for advancement. Polanski was abusing a minor for self gratification. All pretty vile all round.

Thirty two years on, the victim does not want charges pressed, she is happily married with children, Polanski to the best of my knowledge has not done anything similar in the last thirty two years, and has not been subject to any extradition requests either.

Suddenly the whole situation changes, as far as I can see Polanski was lured to Switzerland and arrested on an international arrest warrant. When was this issued and who is behind this ?

The only thing that has changed, is the new Obama regime. European residents are being lifted and sent to the States on an increasing rate to be tried before their Courts, like some latter day 'summoned to Rome'.

This is a sinister departure.


Anonymous said...

This bloke sodomised a 13 year old girl and rightly should be in prison.

Anonymous said...

There is no excuse he got away with in because he had money. Hes just another Garry Glitter.

Newgates Knocker said...

In my daughters school there are thirteen years olds that look twenty who instigate sex and boast about it on facebook, I don't know all the facts of this particular case but I feel it is just too easy to always blame the man>

Weston Bay said...

'This is a sinister depature* which means that none of us are* safe'.

*Spelling and grammar, dammit man!

Sigourd Shack said...

"The 5 foot Pole you wouldn't want to touch anyone with?"

Anonymous said...

"This is a sinister departure which means that none of us are safe."

Except the ones who haven't raped a 13 year old.

Sadie Mae Glutz said...

This is nothing new, and nothing to do with Obama, you fuck a girl of 13 who has been drugged up the arse in the Phillipines and you will be extradited there for trial if identified, same for Thailand, and anywhere else where there is no death penalty for the offence. Polanski committed a rape on a child, the fact the French Govt is 'outraged' is more disturbing than waht the US has done. And as for not having done anything similar since? Who knows underage incest is practically the national sport in France :)

JuliaM said...

First they came for the sleazy old men who prey on young children...

But agree with Guthrum. Why now? And why is Obama doing this?

What's he deflecting attention from?

aresholes are Brown said...

Polanski was hardly 'lured' to Switzerland. He's had a home there for many years. They could have arrested him when he was at home. Obviously they wanted a high profile arrest instead.
There's also no doubt of his guilt. We know this because he admitted it in court in 1978. He fled the US before he could be sentenced and has taken instruction from his lawyers about where he was safe to travel to.
He buggered a child after plying her with drink then fled abroad before sentence could be annonced. If his name was Glitter instead of Polanski then he would be pilloried and hectored. Strange world the luvvies live in.
The arrest is probably some US / Swiss deal to avoid an investigation into some obscure banking deal. It's definitely nothing to do with justice although hopefully justice will be done. The nonce will be getting a good buggering himself when he goes to sing sing.

Sue said...

It's ridiculous after 32 years especially if the victim doesn't want to press charges.

There has to be a time constraint put on these things and also the victims wishes need to be taken into consideration.

polaris said...

I am surprised to find myself saying this is a complicated case have a look here. It was statutory rape, with a willing participant, as OH pointed out - a girl foisted on him by her mother. Is this the same scale of crime as a paedophile guilty of grooming and subsequently raping an unwilling participant?

"A toughie"

not a luvvie said...

You will be safe OH. As long as you don't get children drunk in America and bugger them.
The arrest warrant was issued in 1978 when Polanski fled abroad. I don't think Obama had left Indonesia by then so we can't blame him.

moorlandhunter said...

He has been found guilty of the offence of having sex with a girl of 13 years of age and is therefore a paedophile and just because he is famous with the money and friends to flit the US and escape his punishment he should not expect to walk free from his conviction.
He should be sent back ASAP and jailed to complete his sentence.
The outrage from those who say his arrest is a travesty of justice are supporting a convicted paedophile and I wonder if their outrage would be so well founded if the victim was their daughter or grand daughter? I doubt it very much, but when it comes to film luvvies they can go on a bit about those who they see as visionaries instead of convicted criminals.

Edgar said...

Fair sprinkling of knee-jerk Righteous here. Nothing brings them out of the woodwork like a juicy paedophilia story. Makes you wonder how many of them 'doth protest too much'.

Who gains from 'justice' being done here?

It isn't the victim.

Mandelson's Gerbil said...

Back door Paedo gets nicked by the back door.

Oh the irony!

Just because the guy knocked out films does not mean he can go on an underage bender. Ask Glitter. Rock and roll part 2 didn't save him from jail, and that was much better than the shite Polanski dishes out.

And what the fuck was Nicholson doing when all this was going on?

Did she get any acting roles out of it, or just a sore arse?

Mandelson's Gerbil said...

As for the victim, she does not matter. Even in a Libertarian state I imagine she would not be considered mature enough to consent.

In America it is called Statutory Rape.

Good job the big-nosed Paedo loves bum sex, as the US prison system has plenty on tap.

Earthlet Nigel said...

My guess is they wish to detract from an investigation that will highlight US residents with cash in Swiss Banks. Not avoid an investigation.
Why after 32 years? Also means Obama's Health reforms will take a backstage, convinient, not to mention that which may just be appearing above the parapet.
On many crimes the statute of limitations is 30 years.

Anonymous said...

She didn't consent according to the court transcript of her testimony, she said 'no' about 100 times, she had also been drugged beforehand. And I never understood this argument that the crime is lessened because here mother was an evil cunt too?

justice for children said...

Edgar said

"Who gains from 'justice' being done here?"

Strange statement. Maybe celebrities won't bugger young children so much in the future ? Or fugitives abroad won't feel so safe ?
The victim wants to get on with her life. That's ok. There's no trial pending. Justice has been done ( in 1978) and Polanski will go to jail.

Henry North London said...

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition

polaris said...

< obviously wrong then...?

Text joke of the week (vaguely relevant)

"Poor Jack Tweedy going to prison so soon after the heart rending loss of his wife Jade Goody, on the upside at least he'll be having sex with skinheads again"

Mandelson's Gerbil said...

How does this case impact our personal freedoms?

1. He is guilty.
2. He is being legally extradited.
3. The crime was committed in America.
4. He is a fugitive.
5. The Statute of Limitations does not apply as he was charged in 1978.
6. He has been sheltered by various nations despite his fugitive status, and guilt. You have to wonder what is in his little black book to get away with it for so long.

Compare this case to Gary McKinnon.

1. Guilty under US law, but which one?
2. He is being illegally extradited, as America has no jurisdiction over him.
3. The crime happened in the UK.
4. He is not a fugitive.
5. There are mitigating factors such as his Aspergers.
6. The US claim he caused $loads of damage, although the amount was most likely arrived at to bump up the charge to something more severe. A fair trial should highlight this.
7. He will not get a fair trial in America. If political pressure can cause us to extradite him, imagine what it can do on home turf!

Gary's case is much more worrying than Roamin' Paedoski.

charles said...

Polanski drugged a 13-year-old and raped her. Would you be bothered if it was Gary Glitter getting done? Hell no. What Polanski did was wrong and then, when he realised he was about to go away for it, he fled the country for 30 years. The man is a coward and a paedophile. I hope he goes away for a long time. Just because he is famous and successful doesn't make him a martyr.

caesars wife said...

mmm doesnt look good the on the run defence does it.

how old was that mandy **** when she married one of the stones ? cough i mean when he had sex . might as well do him then

Pugwashed_out said...

Polanski's a weird guy, but fuck the Americans with their warrants. We'll all end up in the state pen (stateside).

Anonymous said...

Find it strange that this is happening such a long time afterwards. Maybe it is to create a US 'good day to bury bad news'. However, the guy's a paedo, we don't know whether or not he's continued with this behaviour - paedos don't normally give up their vile habits until they're either paralysed or six foot under. So, a stint in jail where he'll have all the bum sex he can handle is about what he deserves IMO.

Sigourd Shack said...

You haven't blamed the Jews yet...

helpful said...

I blame it on the Jews

woman on a raft said...

Why after 32 years?

Good question, given that it has been open for a long time that the US could extradite him from Switzerland and yet didn't bother to try. One reason might be: if somebody kept informing the Justice Department of where Polanski was, they could not ignore it.

One thing which changed in 2005 was that Polanski took disastrous legal advice from you-know-who to go after Vanity Fair in the English courts.

He should have been told to sling his hook and sue the publisher in New York, personally, where the US justice dept still had matters to discuss with him. Or to STFU after over 30 years, because all it would do is remind a whole new generation of cinema goers why he isn't in California.

Instead, the case went to Mr Justice Eady and, incredibly, Polanski won, getting in to all the law books and creating the English concept of libel tourism. The case also cost him a fortune and all it established was that the randy little sod didn't proposition a model on a particularly sensitive day, on account of the ancient pissed reporter was probably confusing it with some other day Polanski propositioned a model. Big fucking deal. He wasn't exactly Mr Monogamous when Tate was alive, so I'm not sure it matters what he did when she was dead.

Libel tourism has pissed-off umpteen US writers and publishers (maybe that's a good thing) and Vanity Fair necessarily keeps covering a major media figure.

So if Roman Polanski is going to Zurich to collect an award and somebody keeps ringing the Justice Department to remind them about that open case....

Kinderling said...

"The guy had sex with a minor who was being pushed at him by her mother..."

You can push a child at me, a homosexual at me, or cigarettes and illicit drugs at me, but there is nothing paedophile, masochistic, or inadequate and upset in me to be able to take it off you to replace an emptiness, the legacy of a neglected childhood.

Because Polanski was temped and then and bore it into flesh, he is a walking time-bomb. When the opportunities arose up popped the temptation, getting easier and stealthier as he gained experience. If he had replaced that darkeness-in-return-for-love he would have gone back to Justice a long time ago to show the world he had repented. He did nothing of the sort... his movies explore the sexual fascination with the abuse of power.

Better to catch this devil now than never. Or else we'll be watching 'Inglorious Kuffars' in the near future.

Ed P said...

One of the Manson gang just died.
A coincidence?

RP has a house in Switzerland and could have been arrested years ago if desired. This smacks of the USA being released from some hidden "gentlemen's" agreement to hold off until the death (above).

Anonymous said...

Obama wants his FLESH!

Daily Telegraph report said...

The 13-year-old girl was sexually exploited by the film director in the Los Angeles home of his friend, the actor Jack Nicholson, after he promised to help realise her modelling ambitions.
Polanksi, then 43, had been introduced to the teenager by her mother. He claimed that he wanted to feature the girl in an edition of French Vogue which he had been asked to guest edit.
During their first photoshoot at her home in February 1977 Polanski shocked Geimer by asking to take pictures while she undressed.
Despite her daughter's discomfort at the request, the girl's mother let her accompany the director to a private photo shoot two weeks later.
Polanski broke his pledge to bring along one of Geimer's friends as a chaperone, driving her directly - and alone - to Nicholson's palatial home in the hills of Los Angeles.
Nicholson was away on a skiing holiday, leaving Polanski free to ply the 13-year-old with glass after glass of champagne.
As the alcohol took effect he suggested that Geimer remove her clothes for a series of photos in a hot tub, where he made his first sexual approach.
"That was when it turned. He said 'come here', put his arm around me and touched me on the shoulders," she explained later.
Geimer struggled to break free but was unable to resist his advances after he gave her the powerful sedative Quaalude, which he claimed would help ease her asthma.
After having sex with the girl in a bedroom, Polanksi made her promise not to tell her mother about their "little secret".

John Bull said...

Ye Gods ,HANG THE FILTHY LITTLE SHIT,why waste tax payers money on the diirty bastard.
All those luvies supporting this child molester would soon change their tune if it was their 13 year old daughter being sodomised by this little weird prick.

Anonymous said...

Did he or did he not have sex with a teenage girl? I dont care if its 30 years or 30,000 years, lock the pederast away until there's nothing but bleached bones

Anonymous said...

Anybody know why he got arrested now?

All I can find is Susan Atkins kicking the bucket.

Perhaps the two of them went further back than the Tate murders?
Powerful interests might not have wanted her called as a witness against him, or even on his behalf, as their behaviour would be dragged into the spotlight as well. So maybe they stopped him getting nabbed while she was still breathing?

Why else wait so long to bag the dirty bastard?

Anonymous said...

Susan Atkins dying and this happening is very weird as she was supposedly the girl who delivered the killer blow to Sharon Tate, there are some pretty way out theories about Polanski - and Hollywood Satanism - the rumour that Tate and others were involved in making porn films, bestiality and snuff films with the Manson gang (including John Phillips of the mamas and papas whos daughter revealed this week she had an ongoing incestuous affair with from young) even that Polanski knew what was going to happen and that was why he was out of the country, playing the victim card while Atkins was still alive (despite the fact he fucked everything that moved while Tate was pregnant) has worked, now the killer is dead, maybe its time to pay.

Welcoming Committee... said...


Anonymous said...

I was stunned by the above link. I presume the legislation is designed to protect children in some manner which is clearly beyond me. Do all child molesters wait two hours before attacking children in their care, or am i missing something here?

woman on a raft said...

The US is saying they often tried to arrest Polanski, but apparently he wasn't in when they called.

I'm bound to note that if it takes them 30-odd years to arrest one bloke when they know where he lives and which countries he travels to, they stand bugger-all chance finding Bin Laden, with or without the might of the US forces.

Calfy said...

"victim doesn't want to press charges"- thought that the state prosecuted when it came to rape, so that seems a little irrelevant.

woman on a raft said...

Anon 19:46

Yes. What you are missing is that the legislation is built on producer interest masquerading as child protection, and the supremacy of the state masquerading as child protection.

If the childcare industry had it's way, even baby sitting would cost £16 per hour and could only be performed by registered practitioners, who would have to conform to NuLab specifications and would in fact be consumer-paid home inspectors. You would have to book three months in advance if you wanted to go out for an evening, and if you came back later than the agreed time a fine would be payable and you would be reported to the child protection authorities.

What parents actually needed was a voluntary register which was instantly checkable and provided some reassurance that the childminder had insurance, a suitable property, no relevant criminal convictions etc. They could decide to use registered or unregistered care and take their chances accordingly. But that would have been serving the consumer interest, which, dear me no, can't possibly be allowed.

Instead, a compulsory system which potentially covers all childcare was instituted and then had to have a number of exemptions when MPs realized they had picked up a couple of tar-babies. So they had to try to define babysitting, creche, short favours, family care, private nannying, etc and exempt them.

One word in particular has caused the problem: reward. It isn't defined but can mean payment by service rather than cash. The women here would not have a problem if they were each looking after someone else's baby for no reward, even if it was regular. However, mutual advantage is a reward, so it brings them within the definition of childminding.

There is one piss-easy way for them to avoid all this trouble, and that is to go to each other's houses and give the care there. That brings them within the definition of private nanny, and that's exempt.

Bet you are sorry you asked now.

Old Holborn said...


Bingo. Fucking BINGO.

Anonymous said...

K McEgan-John Steed-Wesley Groves-Ron Broxted-Hill 60 shagged his way through a whole orphanage in east europe in 2002 and only got asked to leave the country. He would think a thirteen year old was getting on a bit. Pervy little cunt. Now he thinks he is a muslim, which would fit in with his life style.

socar said...

Woman on a raft said: "What parents actually needed was a voluntary register which was instantly checkable and provided some reassurance that the childminder had insurance, a suitable property, no relevant criminal convictions etc. They could decide to use registered or unregistered care and take their chances accordingly. But that would have been serving the consumer interest, which, dear me no, can't possibly be allowed."

The main theme running through this Labour Government is that the State has usurped the public as the customer and the customer is always right. The minute the Government decided to subsidise childcare* it was in control of childcare provision.

* Ignoring the fact that Governments have no money. Taxpayers pay the piper why aren't we calling the tune?

Sigourd Shack said...

Read Sigourd Shack on "My Telegraph" also is one types in Delroy Smellie + scum it goes to my page! Brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Polanski's lawyers recently applied to the courts to have the original case dismissed. I speculate that it is one thing to have a guilty person flee abroad, quite another to allow them to come back without penalty. Perhaps someone should have left well enough alone?

In addition there are some reports (it is alleged) that Polanski had a romantic relationship with another underage girl. I could not say if this is true or not.

Kinderling said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doubting Richard said...

He drugged and persistently raped a 13-year-old girl, orally, vaginally and anally. He does not deny this. That her mother was pushing her in his direction is not relevant, and nor is the time between! Even her wishes now are not relevant - justice is not about pleasing victims it is about holding criminals to account.

Rogerborg said...

And I hear he didn't even offer her a cigarette afterwards, the utter cad.

Look, slippery slope fallacy this all you want, but until they've already got all the teeny-bumming multi-millionaires, they won't be coming for the rest of us.

Edgar said...

@justice for children.

The name you choose for your post gives you right away. It isn't justice 'for the children' that you want - you have already admitted 'The victim wants to get on with her life. That's ok'.

Your venom isn't pro-the-child, it is anti-the-man. Just be fucking honest and admit it.

So, I ask you once again. Who is the justice for?

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails