Roman Polanski ‘in fighting mood’ says the BBC in a piece heavily larded with comments by people who are shocked – shocked – by the fact that the Swiss authorities should have arrested him and also be considering an American request for extradition.
The Beeb finds a lot of people in the arts world eager to condemn, not just the arrest, but the idea that the US should still be chasing him for something that happened over thirty years ago. The Swiss press is quoted directly
Switzerland let a guest walk into a nasty trap. We should be ashamed,” said tabloid newspaper Blick.
Daily paper Le Temps said Switzerland had “shocked film buffs and friends of the arts with its kindly and efficient co-operation with US justice. It has angered Poland and France”.
It almost smells like Rendition…
Strangely enough, even though Polish and French diplomats are mentioned adding their protests, the BBC fails to complete all the dots – so let’s ask Kate Harding of Salon.com to add the little bit the BBC forgot, the bit that got him convicted…
Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
Now that makes the whole thing better balanced, doesn’t it?
maybe also look at all the related stories on the sidebar – there are half a dozen being used for this one story, all updated yesterday
like this one:
“The incident which sparked the long battle took place in 1977, when Polanski had unlawful sex with 13-year-old Samantha Gailey at actor Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood home.
The film-maker was arrested and charged with a string of offences, eventually admitting to having sex with a minor.”
“…Ms Geimer, now a mother of three, reflected on her experiences, saying it was “scary, and looking back, very creepy”.
She maintained that her liaison with Polanski had not been consensual, and he would “not take no for an answer”.”
He should do his time, his films are largely pretentious trash anyway unlike Gary ( Nonce ) Glitter who at least had a few catchy tunes in his day.
THe leftist arts types are always willing to forget one of their own. I’m betting some white working class builder who was wanted for raping a girl wouldn’t get such an easy ride off the media.
If Polanski was a white working class builder he wouldn’t have had the resources to run to France and support himself there. There would be no story as Bob the Builder
Couple of things: Bob has a valid point. Looking at the two articles, the one he links to and Davids, it’s not possible to identify the BBC’s stance in this matter. Now many people here know the BBC well enough to be pretty sure that a majority in the corporation would be sympatheic to Polanski. Taken in isolation, David’s article appears to confirm the typical unwritten lefty rule: never give details of the crime of the convicted, but paint a rosy picture of him in order to win support for him.
But from a look at ‘World Have Your Say’ last night, the BBC does not appear to be taking a position sympathetic to Polanski here. The host, Ros Atkins, from his challenges to various contributors, appeared if anything to be aligning himself with those against Polanski. The thread appeared to be uncensored, with a broad range of opinion posted. A podcast is also available for a week. (Right sidebar):
Another point: Polanski was found guilty of statutory rape of a minor, not rape, so Kate Harding, linked above, is inaccurate in that respect.
What I find appalling about this case is the amount of outrage against his unrest. At most, Polanski’s supporters should be maintaining silence, not campaigning as if he has suffered some injustice. The complete lack of a sense of proportion here is truly astounding, with France and Poland even getting involved at an official level to castigate the US for requiring the extradition. There is a case to be made for leniency for Polanski but certainly no justification to rail against the US authorities.
As a poster, Steve from the US, wrote on WHYS:
<i>Ah, the “enlightened” europeans don’t seem to have a problem of a man in his 40s sodomizing a 13 year old. I’ll take being a backwards, “ignorant”, “cowboy” any day of the week.</i>
Succinct, and so true.
Polanski was charged with violent rape. The carnal knowledge conviction was probably a plea bargain but may have been a tactical decision by the DA to ensure a conviction by going for a lesser but more provable charge. Polanski pleaded guilty but bolted the country before sentencing.
TooTrue said it’s not possible to identify the BBC’s stance in this matter. On the contrary. As a general rule-of-thumb the BBC reports the charges when the defendant is unpopular e.g. a Republican (US), a Conservative (UK) and reports the supporters when they favour the defendant or his politics.
I didn’t know he was charged with vioent rape initially.
I have no agument with the perception of the BBC as generally soft on crime and sympathetic to the criminal before the victim – as long as the criminal belongs to a group favoured by the BBC. The BBC has proved time and again that this perception is justified.
When I said It’s not possible to identify the BBC’s stance in this matter, I was talking about what I’ve seen of the reporting on this specific case. I’m open to correction here because I haven’t been exposed to all BBC output on the case.
From what I have seen and read on the BBC they are being very careful in how they report this story. Although stopping short of blatantly supporting Polanski, there is a definate tone of – why are they doing this, after all these years – about their reporting.
“Unrest” in my post at 08:33 should of course be “arrest.”
One thing in Polanski’s favour (though I’d be the last to defend him) is that the original judge aparently reneged on the plea bargain agreement. I don’t know the legal ramifictions of that but I can understand Polanski fleeing because he feared that he would face a miscarriage of justice and that they would lock him up and throw away the key.
On the other hand, he almost certainly would have fled anyway.
On ‘World Have Yor Say’ they questioned whether he should be treated leniently because his victim has forgiven him. Someone should point out to WHYS that neither Swtzerland nor the US operate under Sharia law.
The response from sophisticated Europeons is genuinely very odd. You would think that poor old Roman was being hounded over a misdemeanour by a bunch of half-witted rednecks. Until I read this article I had no idea how awful an offence it was. It’s just as ghastly as anything that Gary Glitter got up to. And what does dear old Aunty tell us about the background to this case? Sweet fanny!
The girl who he raped, who is now a middle aged woman, either wants the charges dropped or has made it clear she no longer wants charges brought. That’s quite a key part of this story isn’t it? Mr Riddick didn’t think so though.
Sorry – can’t repeat this often enough but Polanski is not being charged – he has already been found guilty and convicted and he jumped bail so the victim’s wishes are legally immaterial. If he feels that his conviction was faulty he has a simple legal redress…he can voluntarily return to the US and appeal. That he has never done this must say something about the strength of his case.
The victim has said that she doesn’t want to be put in the public spotlight over this. And who can blame her? That is not at all the same thing as saying that she is over it and no longer wants Polanski to face sentencing for his conviction. To say otherwise is the biggest lie of all in this story. The fact that you believe she “no longer wants charges brought” is proof of how far this bit of misinformation has spread, and has altered perception.
Of course, there is the whiff of anti-Americanism in this as well. Oh, yes we backwards, puritancial United Statesians just want our blood. We don’t care about the victim, otherwise we’d let the rapist continue to live free and rich and famous, because the victim doesn’t want it to get brought up again, yeah. We just want revenge because we’re stupid that way.
We really do need to get over our narrow-minded, too-Christian, unsophisticated morals, I know. I mean, it was just a bit of child rape, and it was a long time ago. Who cares? Polanski’s art outweighs any crime here.
Fat Faced Penguin, a 44 year old man drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl.
Q: Did you take a quaalude?
A: I took part of it.
Q: Where did you get this part?
A: [Polanski] gave it to me.
Q: After he kissed you did he say anything?
Q: Did you say anything?
A: No, besides I was just going, “No. Come on, let’s go home.”
Q: What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?
A: He said “I’ll take you home soon.”
Q: Then what happened?
A: Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness.
Q: What does that mean?
A: It means he went down on me or he placed his mouth on my vagina.
Q: What happened after that?
A: He started to have intercourse with me.
Q: What do you mean by intercourse?
A: He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A: I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.” But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
Q: What did he say, if anything?
A: He didn’t answer me when I said, “No.”
A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then.” And I just went–and he goes–and then he put me–wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A: He put his penis in my butt.
Q: Did he say anything at that time?
Q: Did you resist at that time?
A: A little bit, but not really because–(pause.)
Q: Because what?
A: Because I was afraid of him.
Q: Do you know what a climax is?
Q: Do you know whether he had a climax?
Q: And how do you know that?
A: Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my butt and stuff.
Q: When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your anus?
Thats an excellent post.
I saw this story on BBC news on Sunday, but was not aware of the full detail of his crimes, until reading the above.
There was no detail in the BBC report and the story was one, largely portrayed as sympathetic to Polanski, complete with skit of outraged “artists”.
It says something about the BBC that they could report the views of people “outraged” at the detention of a child rapist in the first place. There was no counter argument from child protection groups etc.
That was very indicative.
One more thing: contrary to the impression the BBC gives that, hey, Polanski was just a little loaded at a wrap party and got bamboozled by a teenage temptress and her surprising deep knowledge of the Kennedy years, he had to ask the vic’s mother for permission to use her as a model because she was so young.
In other words, Palanski knew full well that his victim was below the age of consent.
Adults who have merely fondled a child or just looked at photographs of nude children are classed as paedophiles and hounded years after their offence and the liberal media join in the witch hunt against them Now one of their own, who committed a paedophile rape and has been convicted, is arrested and the attitude is turned round 180 degrees!!