The Polanski case


by Rumbold
28th September, 2009 at 11:01 am    

The film director Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland, and might be extradited to the United States, where he would probably be jailed. Many have lept to his defence, with the writer Robert Harris complaining that the arrest was “humiliating and that “it strikes me as disgusting treatment”.

Without knowing the background, one might think that Mr. Polanski was some sort of political prisoner who had escaped, or else someone who had served his time and was still being harassed by the authorities. He is neither. He is a rapist who pleaded guilty to having sex with a underage girl in 1977, and who has been on the run ever since. Nor was this some teenage fumble between a fifteen and a sixteen year old. He was forty four when it happened, while the rape victim was only thirteen years old (and it was rape since children cannot consent), which Mr. Polanski well knew, given that he had to ask her mother’s permission to let her accompany him.

Ms. Geimer, the rape victim, now wants Mr. Polanski to return to the United States and live his life in peace. I think that this is very admirable, and I am glad that she has not been consumed by hate. There has also been criticism over the handling of the case. Both points are worthy of consideration, but we are still left with a case where someone has pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen year old, and this is what seems to escape many people.

Even the Daily Mail describes the rape as a ‘sex scandal’, which always conjures up images of married MPs having affairs with glamour models, not the rape of a child. Mr. Polanski has continued to be feted throughout the movie industry, despite being a rapist on the run. I’m not given to punishment for the sake of vengeance, but it is a sad indictment of our society that just because someone is famous and successful he can get away with rape in the eyes of so many.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs






133 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Matt Borum

    Pickled Politics » The Polanski case- persephone on Glenn Beck can’t define white culture fugstar on The BNP o… http://bit.ly/JUGWV


  2. pickles

    New blog post: The Polanski case http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6032


  3. Pickled Politics » The Polanski case « News

    [...] the original: Pickled Politics » The Polanski case Comments [...]


  4. links for 2009-09-28 « Embololalia

    [...] Pickled Politics » The Polanski case Without knowing the background, one might think that Mr. Polanski was some sort of political prisoner who had escaped, or else someone who had served his time and was still being harassed by the authorities. He is neither. He is a rapist who pleaded guilty to having sex with a underage girl in 1977, and who has been on the run ever since. Nor was this some teenage fumble between a fifteen and a sixteen year old. He was forty four when it happened, while the rape victim was only thirteen years old (and it was rape since children cannot consent), which Mr. Polanski well knew, given that he had to ask her mother’s permission to let her accompany him. (tags: sexualviolence celebrities rapeapology romanpolanski) [...]




  1. Chris E — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:19 am  

    Additionally he had plied her with alcohol and drugs before making his move, and she had repeatedly pleaded with him to stop.

    I wonder what makes this different in the Daily Mail’s eyes from Gary Glitter.

  2. Leon — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:21 am  

    but we are still left with a case where someone has pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen year old, and this is what seems to escape many people.

    Yep, it’s incredible really. But you know famous people have better connections, more money and can make other people a lot of money so there’s a vested interest in protecting them…

  3. Carole Williams — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:41 am  

    unfortunately money can buy an air of respectability even when it comes to such crimes. My hopes is that people will see past the headlines and recognise that being on the run for 30 years is not the same as serving time.

  4. Gridlock — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:59 am  

    There is the other side to the tale as well, Sharon Tate and The Family – I’m not too familiar with the full story but there’s always been a perceived reticence when it comes to Polanski because of what he went through?

  5. Random Guy — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:03 pm  

    Shocking that it took this long to finally do the right thing.

  6. soru — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:27 pm  

    and it was rape since children cannot consent)

    Yes, but also because she didn’t consent – by the public facts not previously disputed by the Polanski camp, it would have equally been rape had she been 23, or 73.

    ‘crying and saying no’ is the phrase on record at his trial, at which he was convicted and found guilty. Pay that in mind when you read someone coming to his defence because ‘he has a house in Gstaad

  7. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

    I blame that under-rated singer/songwriter Charlie Manson

  8. Mrs Grundy — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:40 pm  

    I have to run out to the shops but if
    YOU
    want to REALLY know the facts – the REAL facts – go to THE SMOKING GUN website and there
    stands the charge and what Samantha said occurred

    [SOMEONE please post a link]

    AN AMUSING SILLINESS
    Either Samantha or the transcriber / stenographer got it wrong and said or typed “cuddliness” for a word beginning with cunni…

  9. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:40 pm  

    It’s a good job Mr P did not start up some religion as well.

    With his record he would not be an honourable prophet.

    Mrs A and I are not pleased with this man.
    Peace be upon me.

  10. Kulvinder — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

    I was under the impression that the ‘objection’ to his extradition to the US wasn’t that he was innocent, but that the US judicial system has what most – in Europe at least – would consider some pretty harsh sentencing practises.

    It also perhaps worth pointing out that he could have been prosecuted in France if the DAs in California had co-operated with the French authoities for the last 30 years.

    That all said Rumbold is correct; he is feted by people who would have asked for his lynching had he been anyone else, but i disagree its because of fame – Gary Glitter (whose crimes were less serious) is a tabloid bogeyman long after hes served his sentence.

  11. HERE ! — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:47 pm  
  12. YET MORE! — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:50 pm  
  13. Kulvinder — on 28th September, 2009 at 12:53 pm  

    nb there was comment that had Michael Jackson been found guilty the BBC and every other commercial network would have stopped playing his music. I’m unsure whether the BBC will now ban Polanski’s work, but i should point out that as atrocious as his crime was his work still stands as great cinema and it would be idiotic and unfortunate if we became a country that censored art because of the artist.

  14. David O'Keefe — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:02 pm  

    The man is feted because of his art, which is superior to that of Gaddis’ and because he is a holocaust survivor and the manson family murdered his wife. So good art and a sob story trump a sexual assualt of a child.

    There was a storyville documentary on this unsavory episode, expect it to be broadcast again in the near future.

    For the record Rumbold, Harris does have a vested interest in Polanski. He was going to adapt his novel Pompeii into a film.

  15. Shatterface — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

    If the victim doesn’t want Polanski prosecuted, what purpose will the prosecution serve? Is he likely to re-offend? And as Kulvinder says, this isn’t just about innocence and guilt, it’s about laws which are far harsher in the USA than Europe.

  16. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 1:47 pm  

    After reading about the drug used I am not fazed by the harsher laws.

    It appears he gave the child Quallude (methaqualone) – which does not sit well with his defence of consent since:

    In 1972 it was the sixth best selling sedative in the US and luding out was a popular college pastime. Because of its alleged aphrodisiac and euphoric qualities it was known as the love drug in the 70s.

    Some street names it has been sold as: Down And Dirtys, Lovers, Ludes, Mandrake, The Love Drug, Wallbangers, Whore Pills and so on.

    It was also used as a hypnotic drug but was withdrawn due to problems with abuse. In the US the marketing of methaqualone products stopped in 1984 and made illegal.

    It creates a feeling of euphoria, relaxation, hornyness, and/or sleepiness. Larger doses can bring about depression, irrational behavior, poor reflexes and slurred speech. Negative effects can include a high level of tolerance, reduced heart rate, reduced respiration, and reduced muscular coordination.

    Overdose by methaqualone is more difficult to treat than barbiturate overdose, and deaths have occurred.

  17. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

    And as Kulvinder says, this isn’t just about innocence and guilt, it’s about laws which are far harsher in the USA than Europe.

    Polanski committed a horrendeous crime, and yes, it was a long time ago, but then again, he escaped and lived a pretty good life in France without paying any price for his crime in the US, or in France.

    As for harsher penalties, well, he should have thought about that before drugging and raping an underaged girl in the US, as opposed to Europe, I guess.

  18. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    Blimey – I totally agree !

    Now then – how old was Aisha then the Prophet Mohammed molested her for the first time ?

    Was she 9 or 11 ?

    It must be kind of weird to know your prophet, if he was alive today, would be on the Sex Offenders Register and doing hard time as a Paedophile.

  19. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 2:55 pm  

    Rumbold, I hate to say it but he’s got a point…

    “it is a sad indictment of our society that just because someone is famous and successful he can get away with rape in the eyes of so many”

    Logically your statement here must extend to Mohammed’s intercourse with the child Aisha.

  20. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

    Yes Lee. We’re all terribly ashamed because everyone here is Muslim (hark at ‘your prophet’) and only Muslims took child brides back in the day

    http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

  21. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

    And he was 53 when the marraige was consumated when she was 9.

    They married when she was 6.

    Compare this to Jesus who said Paedophiles should be executed ;

    In the Bible’s New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”

    He didnt say this just once – but more than once.

    (see Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; and Luke 17:2)

  22. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:33 pm  

    Yes Lee. We’re all terribly ashamed because everyone here is Muslim (hark at ‘your prophet’) and only Muslims took child brides back in the day

    Crikey, thats a new one ‘Paedophile Relativism’ !

    I think thats called a diversionary tactic disguised as a straw man argument.

    Roman Emperors were degenerates, and seeing as those Roman scum massacred millions of my Germannic and Keltic ancestors, what makse you think I would defend sick, degenerate roman scum.

    Youre not just an idiot, your an apologist for paedophiles you fithy scum.

  23. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:36 pm  

    Ha, yes. Abuse a 13 year old after plying her with drink and drugs, admit it, evade custody by fleeing the jurisdiction, and then whinge when you’re finally caught.

    I read a quote from some French “justice” minister in which he said “oh obviously this is done to try to send a message to someone”. Why yes I think that might be right. I think that it is just about possible that the intention just might be to send a message to child abusers that they can’t run away from the consequences of their crimes. How unjust! How controversial!

  24. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:40 pm  

    Yeah yeah. Wasn’t King Richard I a despoiler of young Middle Eastern boys? And don’t I recall that the fact that King John’s wife was just 12 when they were married didn’t stop him from leaping into bed with her on their wedding night? And didn’t William the Conqueror accost, beat and rape the woman who eventually became his wife because when his messengers conveyed his proposal to her she said she’d never marry a bastard?

    Newsflash: you don’t have to go as far from home as Mecca or as far back as Muhammad to find examples of old men abusing young women.

  25. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:41 pm  

    Not really Lee. There was no such word as paedophile back in the day. A lot of folk used to hand over their daughters in the name of protection. You can judge people’s ways now, but it’s pointless judging the laws of ancestors because what suited them suited them and if it wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t illegal. It was just the way the world was. There was history before the Daily Express, you know

    Although I realise I’m talking to someone frothing at the mouth, so I’ll understand if you don’t

  26. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

    Roman Emperors were degenerates, and seeing as those Roman scum massacred millions of my Germannic and Keltic ancestors, what makse you think I would defend sick, degenerate roman scum.

    How about the fact they brought Christianity to the indigineous peoples of Britain?

  27. Abdul Abulbul Emir — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:52 pm  

    25.

    Newsflash: you don’t have to go as far from home as Mecca or as far back as Muhammad to find examples of old men abusing young women.

    Well I hope Mr Polanski doesn’t start up a new religion.

    Peace be upon me (and you)

  28. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

    The difference with Roman Emperors and British Kings is that they are not held up as the final messengers of Almighty God!

    Kismet Hardy, there was no such word as ‘racist’ when slavery began- does that mean we should kind of, you know, let it slide?

  29. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:08 pm  

    Yeah, I say let it slide. As long as it was legal and everyone involved consented, then it was probably fine.

    (but seriously, rape and slavery was never fine and always viewed as barbaric by, well, non-barbaric types. But the practice of offering your child to grown men was something that wasn’t seen by the non-barbaric types as being the same as whipping the shit out of someone shackled…)

  30. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

    “Yeah, I say let it slide. As long as it was legal and everyone involved consented, then it was probably fine.”

    So just to confirm, you think slavery was fine?

    You do not believe that today’s standards should be used to judge any historical event?

  31. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

    Oh, and you also believe a 9-11 year old girl is capable of consent to sex?

  32. stupidlogic — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

    Lee Barnes

    Now then – how old was Aisha then the Prophet Mohammed molested her for the first time ?

    Was she 9 or 11 ?

    It must be kind of weird to know your prophet, if he was alive today, would be on the Sex Offenders Register and doing hard time as a Paedophile.

    According to Christian sources Mary was about 12 when she had Jesus which would mean that , if Christians are correct in what they say, Mohammed would be joined on the register by God. The prophet Jacob would also be there since the Talmud says he married Rachel when she was 3. Krishna would be too (and since he had 16,108 wives he might have a bit of trouble escaping a bigamy rap). The Prophets Solomon and Abraham would also be done for bigamy (and one imagines social services wouldnt be overly keen on his attempted sacrifice of his son) etc etc

    And Jesus? Well a dark skinned Middle Eastern man with a beard and white robes turning up in the US saying “I come not to bring peace but the sword” would quickly be in Gitmo. And the strongest supporters of that would be the Christian right and the BNP “defenders of Christian Britain”

  33. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

    “According to Christian sources Mary was about 12 when she had Jesus ”

    Sources?

    Evidence?

  34. Philip Hunt — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

    “it was rape since children cannot consent”

    This is doubly wrong, because:

    1. people aged 13 who are capable of reproducing aren’t children, they are adolescents. Indeed in parts of the USA they are old enough to get married.

    2. people aged 13 can in fact consent. If the law says they can’t, the law is simply at odds with reality, the same as it would be if the law said water isn’t wet, or pi is 3.2.

    I daresay Polanski is a bad person, but that doesn’t warrant talking nonsense about this case.

  35. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

    “You do not believe that today’s standards should be used to judge any historical event?”

    I don’t believe the trial of a film director should be an excuse for a bigot bore like Lee to take potshots at a long, long dead dude who spoke to angels, which is why I’m not taking it seriously, and certainly can’t see the relevance of debating slavery as a result of it

    Polanski committed a crime in our time. Our laws should see him pay for it. The rest is just bollocks and everyone except Lee kinda knows it

    Peace

  36. stupidlogic — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    One does not need to go back to the 7th Century to find marriages at a young age being the norm or accepted in society.19th century America for example:

    “In 1889, a girl could legally consent to sex at 10, 11 or 12 in half the states, and in Delaware the age of consent was 7.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/02/18/opinion/19coontz.html

    In pre modern times there was no teenage years, simply childhood then adulthood, and people lived much shorter lives

  37. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

    The reason we hold paedophilia to be one of the worst crimes is not confined to our own age. It is because children are scarred by premature sexual activity.

    It is intimidating, painful and dangerous for a child to be penetrated, and that doesn’t become less true just because it happened a long, long time ago.

  38. stupidlogic — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:31 pm  
  39. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

    @ 38 In addition, with an underage girl, there is the added aspect that having a pregnancy can cause death if the girls body is not fully developed enough to be able to carry and deliver a baby – even after puberty

  40. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

    You know what – this thread has just defined PP forever.

    Here we can see the Paedophile Relativists, the Paedophile Apologists, the Paedophile Proponents all lining up to minimse / offer apologises / lie / prevaricate and obfuscate over the fact that the Prophet Mohammed when he was 53 years old married a six year old child and then, when she was 9, raped and sexually abused her.

    Phillip Hunt sounds the pervert in your local park, salivating over little kids and then saying ‘children can consent to sex’ – well, phillips the law doesnt say that. It called rape, you fucking sick pervert.

    Jesus didnt rape kids and Mohammed slew more Kaffir than Christ ever did – Jesus spoke metaphorically, whilst Mohammed acted and slew many infidels. Jesus never killed anyone or molested kids.

    Kismet thinks that slavery is worse than raping little kids. A slave can escape his chains, but an sexually abused child is imprisoned forever in the trauma of what they went through. A slave is free in his soul and mind, a sexually abused child is forever scarred by the pain, the abuse and the degredation of what they experienced.

    Child rape is worse than slavery, you sick prick.

    Kismet also thinks that we should not condemn paedohiles of yesterday, because it was yesterday. I say a paedophile is a paedophile regardless of whether he molested little kids in a tent in the desert a over thousand years ago or in a luxury hotel in Hollywoood.
    30 years ago.

    Katy Newton thinks that because some English kings were paedophiles that we shouldnt call Mohammed a paedophile – another Paedophile Relativist I see.

    Well Katy, you are a dumb cunt. Evil bitches like you are the sort of sicko who have polluted our country and culture from within. You, and those like you, are the real inner enemy – not the Islamist apologists for Mohammed who have to be apologists for paedophilia in order to retain a core of dignity for their absurd beliefs in the ‘morality’ of Mohammed, but you – you sell your own out and therefore you deserve nothing but contempt, and hopefully along with the rest of all your kind in the near future – a quick trial , a short rope and a long drop.

  41. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    Barnes,

    As usual with the BNP (and the same will hold true with Griffin on Question Time) you have some valid points but your nasty side makes it impossible to back you.

    You are the one who has been handed the rope here, and you have just metaphorically hung yourself.

    Just when you were getting an edge on PP as well.

    You and your crew are just not up to the job, matey.

  42. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:51 pm  

    Katy Newton thinks that because some English kings were paedophiles that we shouldnt call Mohammed a paedophile

    No, that’s not what I said. I just pointed out that sexual abuse of children didn’t start and end with Mohammed and that plenty of figures revered in English history behaved in the same way or not much better.

    Well Katy, you are a dumb cunt. Evil bitches like you are the sort of sicko who have polluted our country and culture from within.

    That’s a votewinner if ever I heard one. Please rush me details of how to join your magnificent organisation forthwith.

    You, and those like you, are the real inner enemy – not the Islamist apologists for Mohammed who have to be apologists for paedophilia in order to retain a core of dignity for their absurd beliefs in the ‘morality’ of Mohammed, but you – you sell your own out

    I’m not at all sure I am “your own”, you know. My father’s family is recorded in the North of England right back to the Conquest- but on my mother’s side it’s nothing but Polish Jewish peasant stock, I’m afraid.

    a quick trial , a short rope and a long drop.

    Is this a BNP policy that you’re unveiling here? You’re going to bring in hanging for people who point out that child brides were fairly common in the European royalty in the Middle Ages, are you?

    PS: is it just me or do you have a bit of a problem with women? Kinder, Kuche, Kirche, am I right?

  43. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

    Barnes,

    As usual with the BNP (and the same will hold true with Griffin on Question Time) you have some valid points but your nasty side makes it impossible to back you.

    You are the one who has been handed the rope here, and you have just metaphorically hung yourself.

    Just when you were getting an edge on PP as well.

    You and your crew are just not up to the job, matey.

    ####

    1) I am not your mate
    2) I dont want your support
    3) I dont want you to ‘like’ me
    4) I dont care if you despise me

    The fact is that if you think me being ‘nasty’ is more important than stating your principles or making a stand on a point of principle like this, then I wonder how you can even look in the fucking mirror in the morning.

    This is an issue of simple right and wrong – and fuck all to do with the BNP.

    If you cannot stand for what is right simply because you want to be ‘popular’ then fuck me, what sort of men are we churning out in this country now.

    I have 18 year old mates in Afghanistan right now getting shot at – and if it wasnt for lads like them then I would be ashamed to call my self British these days.

    If you really think that this is an issue of Public Relations, pussy footing around and fake niceties – then you really are a fool.

    Hate me all you like, I couldnt give a fuck.

    I am defending what I know is right because I know I am right – I dont need applause or a pat on the back.

    I still have my balls, my backbone and my beliefs – and thats all that matters to me as a man.

    If you really think that the issue doesnt matter, just me being nice to a bunch of nobody internet tossers on PP, then you really are a twat.

    Grow a set of bollocks, regain your backbone and stand up for what you believe in on your own terms – be a MAN.

    You dont seek validation from me for what you beleiev, therefore why think I seek validation from you.

    The issue is what matters and what you believe.

    History judges us on who we are and what we achieve, not on how popular we are.

  44. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:55 pm  

    That’s a votewinner if ever I heard one. Please rush me details of how to join your magnificent organisation forthwith.

    ##### I would rather the BNP had a membership of 1 than have people like you in it.

    We can see what people like you have done to our country, why would we want you in our party.

  45. BenSix — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    It’s hard to beat Ken Tynan’s description of Polanski as, “The five-foot Pole you wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

  46. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    I still have my balls, my backbone and my beliefs – and thats all that matters to me as a man.

    We’ll leave the brain and the heart out of it and stick to pure unadulterated cock, shall we?

  47. Kismet Hardy — on 28th September, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

    “Well Katy, you are a dumb c…”

    Aw, he’s really cut up you sold your ‘own’ out

    He really thought you two belonged together

    You’ve crushed the poor little fatty

    Say you’ll consider him for a sympathy shag or something. The bitter tend to calm down when they think you haven’t completely rejected them

  48. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:04 pm  

    Katy,

    on a more serious note, do you accept that other historical figures do not occupy the same position of reverence as Mohammed?

    (For what it’s worth, they’d have to get past me to get to you)

  49. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

    Barnes, you are a foul-mouthed loathsome little toad.

    Unable to come up with a cogent argument for anything on any post, you’re reduced to using the language of the gutter. I imagine you red-faced and sweating over your keyboard with drops of spittle running down your chin.

    A fine example of British Culture indeed.

  50. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    “ PS: is it just me or do you have a bit of a problem with women? Kinder, Kuche, Kirche, am I right? “

    I think his preferred catch all name for women is wench and thats the politest form he has used on this site….. says it all.

  51. dave bones — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    absolutely agree with this post. Good. Fuck him.

  52. Jai — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:16 pm  
  53. Morrigan — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

    “History judges us on who we are and what we achieve, not on how popular we are.”

    Agreed, but if you can’t understand the PR dimension of modern democratic politics, you are not going to achieve a great deal are you?

  54. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:17 pm  

    “ History judges us on who we are and what we achieve”

    When we ask you to clarify who you are ‘professionally’ and if you have achieved the requisite legal training & qualifications to be in the legal profession you refuse to answer…

  55. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    Wait. This bloke is the BNP’s legal department?

  56. douglas clark — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

    Yes

  57. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:41 pm  

    Katy – yes on press coverage Lee John Barnes is invariably cited as legal adviser / legal director.

    On his blog he also states he gives ‘legal’ advice (more like tips on what to do with nuisance callers) see here http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2008/11/legal-advice.html

  58. Random Guy — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    Thats right Katy – you have to admit, it does make some sort of twisted sense…

  59. soru — on 28th September, 2009 at 5:57 pm  

    This bloke is the BNP’s legal department?

    I think they are just using the word to mean ‘not illegal’.

  60. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:03 pm  

    Soru, he has been careful about the language he uses because I suspect he is not a qualified solicitor.

    On his blog he states:

    “Also contact us at any time for free legal advice and lawyers are ready to help you.”

    So it gives the clear message that legal advice is being offered. There is a trick in his use of the words ‘and lawyers’ – he is not stating he is a lawyer (because it would get him in trouble with the Law Society as only qualified/regulated lawyers can call themselves a lawyer in the UK) but giving the impression to members as such.

  61. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:09 pm  

    Lee John Barnes

    On your blog at the end of the post called Legal Advice you state “Also contact us at any time for free legal advice and lawyers are ready to help you.”

    http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2008/11/legal-advice.html

    Who are the ‘lawyers’ you are referring to?

    Note to BNP members and interested public: you are within your rights to request a list of the BNP lawyers and all members of the BNP legal department.

  62. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

    Ha ha ha – here we see the maggots squirm, desperatly trying to divert attention away from the issue, and onto ‘lee barnes’ the big, bad, BNP bogeyman – wooooh.

    Now then here we go again all you paedophile apologists, paedophile relativists and paedophile proponents ;

    The prophet Mohammed was 53 years old when he married the 6 year old Aisha and then had sex with her when she was 9.

    Therefore is he a paedophile ?

    Why is this paedophile regarded as prophet ?

    Is it acceptable at any time in history for a 53 year old man to insert his erect penis into the vagina of a 9 year old child ?

    If you do not answer ;

    1) Yes
    2) I dont know
    3) No

    Then you are sick.

    Yes I may be a foul mouthed yob, but foul mouthed yobs just like me from working class estates are why this country didnt have a Fuhrer instead of a prime minister after 1939 and foul mouthed yobs like me are the lads in the British Army who simpering liberals like you like to hide behind to save their arses when the shit really hits the fan – so spare me the faux moral outrage (which dahling is so passe – and you all lurve Gordon Ramsey / Bob Geldof / when thye swear dont you as they are rich you hypocrites ) and answer the fucking questions.

  63. Reza — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

    Morrigan @ 41 & 48

    You’re absolutely right in both posts.

    Comparing historical characters to Mohammad is disingenuous.

    Mohammad is considered by Muslims to be the perfect human being, infallible, and the example for all Muslims to follow.

    So on that basis, his marrying and copulating with a little girl has left an unfortunate legacy for many little girls living in Muslim societies.

    That’s why there is a culture of acceptable pedophilia in some Muslim societies. Only, in those societies the forced (or ‘arranged’) marriage of a ‘child-bride’ isn’t considered as pedophilia. Islam demands that the child should have started menstruating and therefore that little girl is no longer a child.

    I’ve tried to debate pedophilia with religious Muslims in the past and have often been left feeling rather disgusted by how some have tried to justify marrying little girls by saying that as long as they’re menstruating then that’s okay.

    I’ve even heard it said that it’s better for the little girl than growing up in a decadent Western society.

    Polanski should be condemned and prosecuted, as should any dirty pedophile that has sex with a little girl.

  64. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    Persephone ;

    1) Whats your real name

    2) Where do you live

    3) Whats your job

    4) Where do you work

    If you arent prepared to answer those questions, then fuck off you boring twat.

  65. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    I assume Barnes has neither mother, wife, or daughter as he considers it appropriate to swear at women.

  66. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:54 pm  

    I assume Barnes has neither mother, wife, or daughter as he considers it appropriate to swear at women.

    ##### What are you some sort of sexist ? Women want equal rights and that includes taking a bit of verbal when needed and especially when what they say deserves some verbal abuse. Women can certainly give it – have you been outside your box and into the real world and seen real women these days. Whilst the posh ones are snorting mountains of coke, having sex on planes, drink driving their porsches and dancing naked on tables in night clubs – the poor ones are also snorting coke, bottling people in pubs, having sex in the streets and urinating in public.

    The idea that there is such a thing as a ‘feminine’ modern woman is a joke. Equality means you get treated equally, do you understand that ?

    Now answer the questions ?

    The prophet Mohammed was 53 years old when he married the 6 year old Aisha and then had sex with her when she was 9.

    Therefore is he a paedophile ?

    Why is this paedophile regarded as prophet ?

    Is it acceptable at any time in history for a 53 year old man to insert his erect penis into the vagina of a 9 year old child ?

  67. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 6:59 pm  

    This “Mohammed is a paedophile” argument is usually the sort of dribble that comes from the embarrassingly uneducated.

    Mohammed lived in a time where the average life expectancy was considerably lower than today.
    This means that everywhere in the world – including within the Germanic tribes – people married very young, and started having children as soon as they reached puberty – from 12 years old onwards. It was not a matter of paedophilia, it was a matter of survival.

    Mary – mother of Jesus – is said to have conceived him from 12 to 15 years old. That’s underage sex from either St. Joseph or the Holy spirit depending on what you believe. It was also not unusual for men to marry with pre-pubescent girls, but wait until they reached puberty to consummate their marriage.

    So, yes, under today’s laws everyone living in places where the life expectancy was half of what it is today, every men would be a paedophile. So, what is your point again, Mr. Barnes?

  68. Don — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:00 pm  

    I don’t see how there is even a question about this. He confessed and ran, living in luxury for thirty years. It’s time to pay up. If he’d been a lorry driver caught through DNA we wouldn’t have cineastes and politicians in Europe muttering that the case was ‘sinister’. He should do his time.

    That’s no reason not to watch his films, though.

    but foul mouthed yobs just like me from working class estates are why this country didnt have a Fuhrer instead of a prime minister after 1939

    No. That is down to people like my parents, who were not foul mouthed yobs. Don’t you fucking dare try to drag that decent generation through the slime by claiming they resembled you in any way.

    Knowing someone in the army, or telling yourself that you are the kind of bloke who would put up a good show in combat, doesn’t count for anything unless you have actually served.

    On the Mohammed thing, I agree with those who find the idea of a figure being held up as perfect is never going to end well. Whether prophet or deity, it hobbles moral reasoning. As Voltaire said ‘The perfect is the enemy of the good.’

  69. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

    @ 63 Lee John Barnes (you seem to have lost your middle name? – hope it was nothing I said)

    1) Whats your real name
    Some say Summer or Spring

    2) Where do you live
    6 months in the underworld and 6 months above ground

    3)Whats your job
    Fertility but nowadays called Nature Management

    4)Where do you work
    Refer to answer at point 2)

    As you deal in myths & gods it seems natural to answer likewise.

    A real lawyer would have better qualified how my answers should have been answered.

  70. persephone — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

    Lee John Barnes

    From the lack of your response @ 63 I see that whilst victim bleating about the ‘no platform’ for BNP, when a platform is given to you that you do not answer the question.

    I take it that you are not qualified to be a lawyer or a solicitor but cannot admit this. It is part of the ‘myth’ making that the BNP specialise in.

    Well you have my answers where are yours?

  71. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:32 pm  

    This “Mohammed is a paedophile” argument is usually the sort of dribble that comes from the embarrassingly uneducated.

    Mohammed lived in a time where the average life expectancy was considerably lower than today.
    This means that everywhere in the world – including within the Germanic tribes – people married very young, and started having children as soon as they reached puberty – from 12 years old onwards. It was not a matter of paedophilia, it was a matter of survival.

    Mary – mother of Jesus – is said to have conceived him from 12 to 15 years old. That’s underage sex from either St. Joseph or the Holy spirit depending on what you believe. It was also not unusual for men to marry with pre-pubescent girls, but wait until they reached puberty to consummate their marriage.

    So, yes, under today’s laws everyone living in places where the life expectancy was half of what it is today, every men would be a paedophile. So, what is your point again, Mr. Barnes?

    ###### Aaah the Paedophile Relativist argument.

    So you are an apologist for paedophilia. Good to know who we are dealing with.

    I find the ‘people didnt live as long as they do now back then’ argument very superificial. Mohammed wasnt a teenager, he was 53 years old for fucks, so it appears that many people lived to very old age back then, as any read of the Bible will confirm.

    The average life expectancy of a scottish male in scotland is 54 – so using your sick, perverted logic the men of scotland should be free to rape 9 year old kids like Mohammed did. Some people on PP would probably agree with you, which also says it all really.

    As for mohammed, he was 53 years old, so why didnt he marry an adult of child bearing age ( say over 16) and have sex with her (there were women around then as opposed to children as well ) but instead he chose to molest a child. Says it really doesnt it.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7584450.stm

    Simple question – would you be happy to have your 9 year old daughter molested and raped by a 53 year old ?

    If you say yes, then social services need to be called in you sick fuck.

  72. chairwoman — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:35 pm  

    “Women can certainly give it – have you been outside your box and into the real world and seen real women these days.”

    No, actually I haven’t.

    And what on earth gives you the impression that I, or anyone else here for that matter, thinks that paedophilia is ever acceptable, or that the customs of bygone years has any relevance to today’s behaviour.

  73. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:40 pm  

    No. That is down to people like my parents, who were not foul mouthed yobs. Don’t you fucking dare try to drag that decent generation through the slime by claiming they resembled you in any way.

    Knowing someone in the army, or telling yourself that you are the kind of bloke who would put up a good show in combat, doesn’t count for anything unless you have actually served.

    ###### Oh fuck off you sanctimonious demented prick.

    The idea that my grandfathers generation were all Chumley warners with stiff lips who when they got shot lit their pipe and went ‘ Oh well, stick a plaster on it old bean ‘ is total bollocks. Grow up. My grandfather was a real hero. Torpedoed three times in the Royal Navy, served on HMS Hood, went onto the Russian Convoys, was wounded in the Pacific, boxed for the navy. He swore like a fucking navvy (which you prat is why the phrase swore like a navvy is used you idiot).

    I have more war heroes in my family than most people have family.

    You middle class dickheads live in a fantasy world – I have lived all my life so far near an ex-Royal Navy dockyard when it was open and two massive army barracks. My best mates are ex-squaddies. If you think squaddies dont swear, you dont live in the real world.

    I havent served in the army. Never have said I have.

    Now answer the questions ;

    The prophet Mohammed was 53 years old when he married the 6 year old Aisha and then had sex with her when she was 9.

    Therefore is he a paedophile ?

    Why is this paedophile regarded as prophet ?

    Is it acceptable at any time in history for a 53 year old man to insert his erect penis into the vagina of a 9 year old child ?

  74. Gordon Is A Moron — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:47 pm  

    I am happy to be able to tell Conference that we have brought about a 0% decrease in paedophilia under Labour, thus ensuring a fairer society for child molesters.

  75. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:51 pm  

    Women can certainly give it – have you been outside your box and into the real world and seen real women these days.”

    No, actually I haven’t.

    And what on earth gives you the impression that I, or anyone else here for that matter, thinks that paedophilia is ever acceptable, or that the customs of bygone years has any relevance to today’s behaviour.

    ##### Heres an anecdote about ‘modern women’.

    A few years ago a mate and I intervened in a fight outside a pub between a guy and his girlfriend. He had punched her in the mouth and knocked her to the ground. My mate went over to help her up. As he helped her up, the guy started throwing punches at him. I held the guy back as my mate helped pull from the ground. She got up, spt in my mates face and stuck the heel of her stilleto in his face nearly blinding him.

    Try opening a door for a woman these days. I got told ‘fuck off you sexist prick’ in London a few months ago by one dykey looking bitch. I would given her a slap if the cctv wasnt on. If a bloke had said that to me I would have done the exact same thing.

    Having a vagina doesnt make you a special case.

    If you do not agree that paedophilia is not acceptable then have the courage of your convictions and answer the questions below – or does your liberal conscience mean you are now a paedophilia relativist because it is Mohammed we are talking about (I bet if Jesus was a paedophile the entire liberal elite would be screaming at christians ‘PAEDOPHILE’.) mean you wont answer the question because you fear becoming a new Theo Van Gogh ?

    The prophet Mohammed was 53 years old when he married the 6 year old Aisha and then had sex with her when she was 9.

    Therefore is he a paedophile ?

    Why is this paedophile regarded as prophet ?

    Is it acceptable at any time in history for a 53 year old man to insert his erect penis into the vagina of a 9 year old child ?

  76. Andy Gilmour — on 28th September, 2009 at 7:53 pm  

    I believe “Morrigan” further up the thread actually suggested that Mr. Lee John Barnes (definitely named after the charming ex-Liverpool and Engerlund footballer) had made himself look foolish:

    “Just when you were getting an edge on PP as well”

    Eh?

    An edge?

    Mistaking quantity for quality, I fear…

    And it’s about time that Polanski paid the price. Several wrongs don’t make any rights, just as many posts by LJB never add up to a cogent argument…

  77. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

    What about you then andy – you gonna answer or not ?

    The prophet Mohammed was 53 years old when he married the 6 year old Aisha and then had sex with her when she was 9.

    Therefore is he a paedophile ?

    Why is this paedophile regarded as prophet ?

    Is it acceptable at any time in history for a 53 year old man to insert his erect penis into the vagina of a 9 year old child ?

  78. Andy Gilmour — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:18 pm  

    Well, dear “footballer Johnny B”, ok, I’ll answer your pathetic questions:

    This is what we regard as paedophile activity. We regard it as morally and legally wrong, and punish offenders accordingly.

    By my/our standards, he’s a paedophile. I’m not going to defend that, but then heck, I’m an atheist who finds all religions, their prophets, dogma and “miracles” a load of evidence-free superstitious hocum – but let’s also consider..

    If we had a time machine, and went back and tried to impose my standards on various societies in history, they’d probably flay us alive, then roast our flesh and feast on it. Or something similar.

    I think our definition of paedophilia is right, and they’re wrong. Aren’t I such a clever, smug C21st dude? But then homosexual activity was illegal for a very long time in this country, yet the “Sacred Band of Thebes” would be rather more in tune with modern thinking.

    Trying to impose our standards on historical societies is a pointless exercise, and as such your questions prove absolutely nothing.

    There, now, since I’ve played your little game, why don’t you answer the rather more pertinent ones about your legal qualifications and standing, hmmm?

    By the way, loved that goal Barnesy scored against Brazil in 1984, didn’t you? Possibly best goal by an Englishman of all time, no?

  79. marie-odile — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

    ” I got told ‘fuck off you sexist prick’ in London a few months ago by one dykey looking bitch. ”
    how could anyone referring to a woman as a dykey looking bitch EVER be thought of as a sexist prick?

  80. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:37 pm  

    Philip Hunt:

    In which areas of the US is the age of consent 13? I had not heard this.

    When it comes to sex, the law says that children cannot consent, in order to protect them. This seems to me to be a good law.

  81. Andy Gilmour — on 28th September, 2009 at 8:50 pm  

    Rumbold,

    Useful link here:
    http://www.ageofconsent.us/
    Legal age of consent outwith marriage doesn’t go below 16 anywhere

    And here, for minimum age for marriage (with parental consent):
    http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/marriage-marriage-age

    Goes as low as 14 in 7 states, but not 13.

  82. Don — on 28th September, 2009 at 9:00 pm  

    He swore like a fucking navvy (which you prat is why the phrase swore like a navvy is used you idiot).

    Just on a technical point: ‘navvy’ has nothing to do with ‘navy’.

  83. Rumbold — on 28th September, 2009 at 9:02 pm  

    Thanks Andy. 14 seems too low to me, even with parental consent.

  84. Andy Gilmour — on 28th September, 2009 at 9:09 pm  

    Rumbold,

    Well, from my own experience I’d argue that *any* age is wrong to get married, whatever anyone’s parents might have to say on the subject, but then I’m probably just a teensy bit biased

    :-)

  85. Lee Barnes — on 28th September, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    You are correct, I should have said swear like a sailor ;

    http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/swear+like+a+sailor.html

    Now are you going to answer the questions.

  86. Ravi Naik — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:03 pm  

    Now are you going to answer the questions.

    What is your point, Barnes? By our standards, Mohammed actions would be considered paedophilia, no question about it. He would also be in prison for having slaves and being polygamous.

    Try opening a door for a woman these days. I got told ‘fuck off you sexist prick’ in London a few months ago by one dykey looking bitch. I would given her a slap if the cctv wasnt on.

    Why do you feel the need to share these stories? Absolutely disgraceful.

  87. Katy Newton — on 28th September, 2009 at 10:31 pm  

    Try opening a door for a woman these days. I got told ‘fuck off you sexist prick’ in London a few months ago by one dykey looking bitch.

    I don’t believe it. I mean, that you’ve ever held a door open for anyone.

    I would given her a slap if the cctv wasnt on.

    Ah, now, that I do believe.

  88. Andy Gilmour — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

    Dear Lee John “World In Motion” Barnes,

    “Now are you going to answer the questions.”

    Erm, I did. So did Ravi.

    It’s actually your turn now. What are your legal qualifications and standing?

    I’m sure that can’t be too hard for you?
    You could always check with your lawyers, first…

  89. Don — on 28th September, 2009 at 11:46 pm  

    If your inter-actions with women often result in ‘fuck off you sexist prick’, you might want to consider your approach.

  90. Philip Hunt — on 29th September, 2009 at 12:17 am  

    @82: In which areas of the US is the age of consent 13? I had not heard this.

    Not the age of consent, the age of marriage. New Hampshire. See:
    http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

  91. Marta — on 29th September, 2009 at 3:29 am  

    What is amazing in this story is that France and Poland (Polanski has dual nationality) do not extradite their citizens to another country. Probably if the person involved in this case was someone not famous he will have been judged in France, but this is an artist! which in France is like a superior human being. Oh la la, the land of liberte, egalite, fraternite, what a bunch of hypocrites!

  92. Bad Penny — on 29th September, 2009 at 11:02 am  

    Look, the ‘Age of Consent’ is a cultural construct. In the U.K. it’s currently 16 but in W.T.Stead’s day it was – I thnk – twelve.

    Not long after Mr Badawi became Malaysian P.M., his mother died and it was duly mentioned in the Malaysian media that she’d given birth to him at the age of 14, after being married at 13.

    This was not uncommon practice among Malays in Malaya in those days and the British saw no reason to interfere.

    This has nothing to do – of course – with a man drugging or forcing his affections on an unwilling girl.

    Somewhere or other Gandhi says that he and his wife were having carnal relations as newly-married preteens.

  93. Amrit — on 29th September, 2009 at 6:48 pm  

    Rumbold – you are the voice of reason as ever.

    Might I suggest that the mods operate a slightly harsher policy with the rampant trolling going on here? Whether or not one thinks Mohammed was a paedophile has nothing to do with this particular article. It seems like far too much has been made, by many of our well-meaning readers, of BNP trolls’ pet obsessions.

    Just have to echo Ravi’s last sentence in post #18. Harsher US sentences aside, the man DRUGGED AND RAPED A CHILD. Then effectively got away with it for many years. I’ve heard that the Smoking Gun pieces apparently show also that Ms. Geimar was paid ‘an undisclosed sum’ to magically forgive Polanski.

    Certainly, if I was drugged and raped at 13 and watched my rapist enjoy a complete lack of judgement for years afterwards, I would be FURIOUS. Especially given that he admitted to doing it – and why DO people keep mentioning that as if it somehow absolves him of the crime?

    Shatterface at #16 – I know you’re a libertarian, but wow, your post really comes across as requiring a Missing The Point award.

    If the victim doesn’t want Polanski prosecuted, what purpose will the prosecution serve?

    Er… it’ll demonstrate that money and international acclaim doesn’t wash away personal responsibility? Getting convictions for rape is hard enough for ordinary women. Here, he admitted it, served 15 months in prison (for violating a child’s bodily autonomy, that too with the aid of drugs) and then lived it up for years. That sends a really GREAT MESSAGE. As if sexual abuse of the less powerful by the wealthy (see: Hollywood, modelling, the music industry…) wasn’t bad enough already!

  94. Ravi Naik — on 29th September, 2009 at 7:19 pm  

    Harsher US sentences aside, the man DRUGGED AND RAPED A CHILD. Then effectively got away with it for many years. I’ve heard that the Smoking Gun

    I went to Smoking Gun, and it states that Polanski also sodomised her. It’s unbelievable that the French and Polish governments, as well as many celebrities want him released.

  95. Don — on 29th September, 2009 at 7:49 pm  

    what purpose will the prosecution serve?

    My understanding is that the prosecution is over and it is the sentencing he skipped on.

    Sending him down seems to be a perfectly servicable purpose for the extradition.

    And what constitutes ‘harsh’ for drugging, raping and sodomising a child? I have my own subjective opinion on that, but Polanski is going to have to deal with the appropriate jurisdiction and I don’t wish him luck.

  96. Old Pickler — on 29th September, 2009 at 8:28 pm  

    There is a parallel in that both Polanski and Mohammed are revered, and both raped little girls. Polanski, though largely overrated, did at least make some decent films. It is difficult to see what Mohammed did that was decent, and his legacy, being disguised as a religion, has been far more pernicious.

    Lee Barnes, you make some good points, but the language is gratuitously offensive and – worse – serves no purpose. It is difficult to see someone who tosses the C-word around so readily as a defender of women’s rights.

  97. Old Pickler — on 29th September, 2009 at 8:36 pm  

    On the argument that the rape victim has “forgiven” Polanski, two points. First, rape victims need to let go, or they will spend their lives consumed with hate. She wants to put her ordeal behind her, which is understandable. But that doesn’t make it any less of a crime. Second, she is not the only voice that matters – rape is an offence against civilised society, not just against the victim. The law should be impersonal.

    A victim of burglary may feel that the burglar should be hanged. Does that make it appropriate? So if a rape victim thinks her rapist should get away with it, that isn’t appropriate either.

  98. KB Player — on 29th September, 2009 at 10:00 pm  

    comment 81:- LOL

  99. Kanga — on 30th September, 2009 at 5:56 am  

    # 96

    Ravi Naik may have misunderstood Amerikan legal lingo.

    The terms ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomize’ were banged onto statute books many decades ago to describe almost anything other than 100% straight intercourse.

    The young lady’s testimony does not support any belief that the naughty Polanski attempt to enjoy her via the crypt rather than the vestry.

    Samantha herself said that she was far more thoroughly mauled by the media brouhaha and all the fuss than by the incident itself and that she feels Polanski should face no further trial or penalty.

    To my mind, that ought to decide the issue.

  100. Kanga — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:07 am  

    #96 and #101

    MEA CULPA

    I just re-read the ‘Smoking Gun’ text.

    Ravi Naik was right and I was wrong.

    Samantha’s testimony DID specifically say “…in my butt.”

    Polanski is alleged to have done this after Samantha told him that she was not on the pill.

  101. Katy Newton — on 30th September, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

    What Old Pickler said above. It’s no longer just about his victim – if it ever was. The system of justice is there to serve justice, not to carry out the wishes of individual victims. This man raped a child. There’s no difference between him and any child rapist in any number of UK prisons apart from the fact that some people like his films. And yet, having pleaded guilty and then run away to Europe, he’s spent the last 30 years living openly in freedom and luxury and feted by people who should know a lot better in the name of art. It’s obscene.

  102. douglas clark — on 30th September, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

    What Katy Newton said @ 103.

  103. chairwoman — on 30th September, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    Yes.

  104. bananabrain — on 30th September, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

    i say go with the facts. if the conviction won’t stand up, it won’t stand up. if, on the other hand, polanski needs to face justice for what he did, then it cannot be put off indefinitely.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  105. persephone — on 30th September, 2009 at 3:12 pm  

    When did the law ever give any dispensation for a serious crime if the criminal had creative skills?

    If the victim forgives the criminal they (unwittingly) forgive and belittle the crime.

    This gives the cumulative message to other rape victims not to come forward and if they do a fear that it will not be seen as a serious crime. This also gives a message to rapists …

    Some of the coverage & response to this story gives the idea that the ‘bigger crime’ would be to imprison Polanski.

    Polanski’s cinematic expertise is not on trial here. It is Polanski the admitted rapist.

    And length of time since the crime does not matter. The law prosecutes & punishes to maintain our resolve not to sanction serious crimes.

    Remember he has choices (certainly more than his vulnerable victim). If he had a conscience he would choose to pay for his crimes not focus on continuing a jetsetting lifestyle, getting married and making high profile films. Seen like that, is he such a ‘great’ man? And certainly not one whose ‘rehabilitation’ is judged on box office hits.

  106. douglas clark — on 30th September, 2009 at 3:19 pm  

    persephone and bananabrain,

    Correct. Is this a subject on which Pickled Politics commentators all agree?

  107. stupidlogic — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    Sorry to spoil Lee Barnes and others fun but Aisha’s age when she married the Prophet is a matter of dispute because of conflicting reports

    This excellent article for example suggests she was 15
    http://www.wlsis.org/multimedia/ageofaisha.htm

    Im from the subcontinent as many on this website are and my father (who was born in the 1940s) and indeed many of his generation dont know what age they are.
    Its a common feature in non-developed countries.
    Yet we are assuming people living in 7th Century Arabia knew their exact ages. Total idiocy.

    And Barnes’ moral outrage is somewhat bizarre given the BNP’s members.
    Their 2002 Oldham organiser Robert Bennett was a convicted gang rapist

    Here are some more examples of convicted pedophiles in the BNP -maybe it stands for the British Nonce Party

    November 2008 Ian Hindle
    Jailed for three years for having sex with a child

    November 2008 Andrew Wells
    Jailed for two years and three months after admitting engaging in sexual activity with a child and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

    November 2005 Roderick Rowley
    Roderick Rowley, a former BNP candidate in Coventry, is imprisoned for 15 months after admitting 14 charges of making, distributing or possessing obscene images of children. He is also ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years.

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-a-party-of-convictions.php

  108. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:06 pm  

    As Kulvinder said up there. This case hasn’t been about Polanski’s innocence but about extradition to the US.

  109. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

    and of course the wider issue is set within the context of global governance. it is an interesting legal matter, question of jurisdiction in the end. that’s the ‘battle’. point is, in these situations, society has to be able to find an acceptable way to bring someone (like Polanski) to justice without having to send him off the US or whoever wants him the ‘most’. there’s got to be a common, global ‘humane’ way of bringing criminals to justice.

  110. 5cc — on 30th September, 2009 at 4:48 pm  

    Hadn’t seen this thread much until late, and Lee Barnes seems to have disappeared from the thread, but this caught my eye, from comment 22:

    “Compare this to Jesus who said Paedophiles should be executed ;

    In the Bible’s New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”

    He didnt say this just once – but more than once.

    (see Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; and Luke 17:2)”

    It’s not so much that to believe this passage is a call to execute paedophiles you’d have to also believe that being the victim of paedophilia is a sin that struck me.

    It’s the ‘he didn’t say this just once’ bit. Lee, if you’re reading this, the Gospels are supposed to be four accounts of the same story. Matthew, Mark and Luke are telling of Jesus saying this once.

    No wonder you’re not a proper lawyer. Did you think Jesus was born twice because the nativity is in Luke and Matthew?

  111. Soso — on 30th September, 2009 at 6:45 pm  

    Newsflash: you don’t have to go as far from home as Mecca or as far back as Muhammad to find examples of old men abusing young women

    Newflash: neither King Richard nor King John claimed to be God’s final ‘prophet’ and nor did they claim to have perfect morals…. as is the case with the Bedouin pedophile.

    Men who have sex with nine year old girls can never been seen as moral models to emulate.

    In the Hadith the age of Aisha is mentioned more than once, and so there can be no doubt she was but nine years old when raped.

  112. Lee John Barnes — on 30th September, 2009 at 7:26 pm  

    The Paedophile Apologists have been busy I see ;

    . Sahih al-Bukhari 810-870 A.D. 256 A.H.

    1a. “Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.236 p.153.

    1b. The same points are in Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.234 p.152.

    1c. “Narrated ‘Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six year old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). Bukhari vol.7 book 62 ch.60 no.88 p.65

    1d. Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida’ (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect. Bukhari vol.7 book 62 ch.115 no.163 p.119

    1e. “Narrated ‘Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), and (I don’t remember) a single day passing without our being visited by Allah’s Apostle in the morning and in the evening.” Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.44 no.245 p.158. Thus ‘Aisha was either not very old or not born yet when her parents became Muslims. This is consistent with her being a child when her marriage with Mohammed was consummated.

    2. Sahih Muslim 817-875 A.D. 261 A.H.

    This is generally considered the second most reliable collection of hadiths.

    2a. “(3309) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She too hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have shared in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.” Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 ch.548 no.3309 p.715-716

    2b. “(3310) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.”

    (3311) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married here when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and here dolls were with her: and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.” Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 ch.548 no.3310,3311 p.716.

    2c. “(5981) ’A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

    2d. (5982) This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters with a slight variation of wording.” Sahih Muslim vol.4 book 29 ch.1005 no.5981-5982 p.1299

    3. Sunan Abu Dawud 817-888/9 A.D. 275 A.H.

    3a. “(2116) ‘A’ishah said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said : Or six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.” Sunan Abu Dawud vol.2 book 5 ch.700 no.2116 p.569

    3b. “(4913) ‘A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in.” Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1769 no.4913 p.1373

    Note carefully this is NOT saying Mohammed had intercourse with A’isha while her playmates were watching. Rather it says the playmates played with her, and they went out when Mohammed came by, and could come back after he left.

    3c. “(4915) ‘A’ishah said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

    Abu Dawud said : That is to say : I menstruated, and I was brought in a house, and there were some women of the Ansari (Helpers) in it. They said : With good luck and blessing. The tradition of one of them has been included in the other. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4915 p.1374

    3d. (5916) [typo, really 4916] The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Abu Usamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators. This version has: ‘With good fortune.’ She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4916 p.1374

    3e. (4917) ‘A’ishah said: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were [sp] up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4917 p.1374

    3f. (4918) The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Hisham b. ‘Urwah through a different chain of narrators. This version adds: I was swinging and I had my friends. They brought me to a house ; there were some women of the Ansar (Helpers). They said : With good luck and blessing. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4918 p.1374

    3g. (4919) ‘A’ishah said : We came to Medina and stayed with Banu al-Harith b. al-Khazraj. She said : I swear by Allah, I was swinging between two date-palms. Then my mother came, and made me come down; and I had my hair up to the ears. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition.” Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4915-4919 p.1374.

    Conclusion on Abu Dawud: 7 references and no counter-references affirm that A’isha was nine.

    4. Tirmidhi 825-892 A.D. 209-279 A.H.

    “..Ahmad and Is’haq said that if a female orphan reaches nine years old and was wed with her consent, then the marriage is permissible and she will have no choice when she matures. The two relied on a hadith by Ai’sha stating that the prophet peace be upon him had sexual relations with her when she was nine. Aisha said, if the little girl reaches nine then she is a woman” Tirmidhi said: A good hadith. (Tirmidhi, “Marriage according to Allah’s apostle”, #1027)

    5. Sunan Nas’ai 830-915 A.D. 215-303 A.H.

    5a. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married her when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3255)

    5b. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was seven and had intercourse with me when I was nine. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3256)

    5c. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was nine and I accompanied him for nine years. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3257)

    5d. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married her when she was nine and died when she was eighteen. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3258)

    5e. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3256)

    Note that the previous are in original Arabic, but were not in the English translation. However, the English translator at the front wrote the following under #18.

    “When Hadrat ‘A’isha passed nine years of married life, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fell in mortal sickness. On the 9th or the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal 11 A.H., he left this mortal world…Hadrat ‘A’isha was eighteen years of age at the time when the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed away and she remained a widow for forty-eight years till she died at the age of sixty-seven.” Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #18 p.108-109 (English material at the front)

    Note that she had nine years of married life with Mohammed, and since he died when she was eighteen, she was nine years old when she started her married life with Mohammed.

    Conclusion on Sunan Nasa’i: Not counting English translation notes, the Arabic has 5 references and no counter-references to affirm that A’isha was nine.

    6. Ibn-i-Majah 824-886/887 A.D. 273 A.H.

    6a. A’isha was married when she was six years old, and nine when she went to Mohammed’s house. Ibn-i-Majah vol.3 book 9 ch.13 no.1876 p.133

    6b. A’isha was married at seven, went to Mohammed’s house at nine, and was 18 when Mohammed died. According to al-Zawa’id, its isnad is sahih according to the condition of Bukhari. However Abu ‘Ubaida did not hear from his father, so it is munqata (has a gap) Ibn-i-Majah vol.3 book 9 ch.13 no.1877 p.134.

    7. The Historian ibn Ishaq – died 767/773 A.D. 145/151 A.H.

    7a. “Yahya b. Abbad b. Abdullah b. al-Zubayr from his father told me that he heard Aisha say: “The apostle died in my bosom during my turn: I had wronged none in regard to him. It was due to my ignorance and extreme youth that the apostle died in my arms.”"
    (Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, page 682). A’isha said she was an extreme youth when Mohammed died.

    8. The Historian al-Tabari – died 923 A.D.

    8a. ‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.9 p.129-131. Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the transmitters.

    8b. ‘Aisha was 6-7 when married, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9-10, three months after coming to Mecca al-Tabari vol.7 p.7. The chain of transmission includes an unnamed man from the Quraysh.

    8c. Aisha died in June-July 678 A.D. (A.H. 58) at the age of 66. That would make her born in 610 A.D.. al-Tabari says she consummated her marriage with the prophet when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.39 p.171,173. (al-Tabari wrote 38 volumes of history, plus a 39th volume called Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors.)

    X 8c. On the other hand, al-Tabari also wrote that i.e. “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives — the names of whom we have already mentioned — during the pre-Islamic period.” (Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari, vol.4, p.50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979. al-Tabari vol.11 p.141 also mentions this, with footnote 766 saying al-Tabari has a conflict here. The footnote also says that al-Baladhuri’s Ansab I, p.409-411; Ibn Hajar’s Isabah IV, p.359-360 supports her being married by 9 years old.

  113. sonia — on 30th September, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    im confused as to what this has got to do with the Polanski case?

  114. Lee John Barnes — on 30th September, 2009 at 7:32 pm  

    Hadn’t seen this thread much until late, and Lee Barnes seems to have disappeared from the thread, but this caught my eye, from comment 22:

    “Compare this to Jesus who said Paedophiles should be executed ;

    In the Bible’s New Testament, Jesus tells his disciples, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”

    He didnt say this just once – but more than once.

    (see Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; and Luke 17:2)”

    It’s not so much that to believe this passage is a call to execute paedophiles you’d have to also believe that being the victim of paedophilia is a sin that struck me.

    #### Old Hamster Brain is back I see.

    The passage states that the crime is to make children sin, it says NOTHING about the victims of paedophilia are also sinners.

    Thats just your tiny hamster brain making up things because you are too dumb to understand what is written.

  115. 5cc — on 30th September, 2009 at 7:46 pm  

    Lee, I see you’ve dodged the main point of my post again.

    “The passage states that the crime is to make children sin, it says NOTHING about the victims of paedophilia are also sinners.”

    What is the sin that children commit then?

  116. Lee John Barnes — on 30th September, 2009 at 8:25 pm  

    The sin is padeophilia.

    The fact is that the sin refers to the act, not culpability on the part of the victim.

    “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”

    The words ‘whoever CAUSES … to sin’

    ‘Whoever causes’ refers to the act of the abuser, the ‘to sin’ refers to the act of paedophilia itself.

    The prefix ‘whoever causes’ shows that the act is not one of co-operation or participation, it is a forced act, a non-consensual act. The ‘to sin’ refers to the sinful act of paedohilia, to which the victim is of course a participant though an unwilling one.

    The act is sinful, not the victim.

    In many child abuse cases the victim is groomed into sexual activity and may not resist it or may even participate ‘willingly’ as a result of psychological abuse and grooming, though of course they cannot truly consent – the fact they are ‘little ones’ means they cannot consent even if they do consent.

    True consent, as the law states, only occurs after the age of 16. Until then any sex, including ‘consexual’ sex between an adult and a minor where the child may think they are consenting, is rape.

  117. Katy Newton — on 30th September, 2009 at 9:47 pm  

    Men who have sex with nine year old girls can never been seen as moral models to emulate.

    Of course they fucking well can’t. The thing that really winds me up about people like you and Lee Barnes is that if a commenter doesn’t start with “I think paedophilia is disgusting” you actually think they approve of it. As far as I’m concerned anyone who has sex with a child is committing rape regardless of whether or not they kid themselves that the child is consenting. As for Muhammad, I’m not a Muslim and I don’t particularly care what the moral landscape was when he was alive – by today’s standards, which are my standards, what he did was paedophilia, just like Roman Polanski. The difference between me and, say, Lee Barnes, is that I don’t try to make out that paedophilia is only something that dirty foreigners do, nor am I trying to use it as an excuse to chuck law-abiding British Muslim citizens out of the country.

    Richard I is often held up as some sort of ultimate British nationalist icon when the truth is that he spent less than 6 months of his 10 year reign in this country and was rumoured to enjoy fiddling with young boys. But OK, forget about Richard I. Let’s talk about Hitler, a mass-murderer who many people in the BNP revere as a fine leader – or for that matter Stalin, a mass-murderer who amazingly is still thought of nostalgically by some on the hard-left. I think it’s pretty fucking freaky that there are English people who admire Hitler and Stalin. I don’t actually think that’s very much less twisted, if at all, than admiring Muhammad. But you don’t see me trying to throw them out of their own country because of it, much though I detest it. That’s the point.

  118. 5cc — on 30th September, 2009 at 10:27 pm  

    Lee,

    Heh. Lessons in Biblical exegesis from the man who thinks that Jesus being quoted in three Gospels means that Jesus said something three times.

    The sin is padeophilia.

    So a victim of paedophilia is guilty of the sin of paedophilia. Right.

    The fact is that the sin refers to the act, not culpability on the part of the victim.

    So a victim of paedophilia commits the sin of paedophilia, but it’s not their fault. Okay.

    The prefix ‘whoever causes’ shows that the act is not one of co-operation or participation, it is a forced act, a non-consensual act. The ‘to sin’ refers to the sinful act of paedohilia, to which the victim is of course a participant though an unwilling one.

    And that’s where you lose it. ‘To sin’ does not mean ‘to participate in a sinful act’, it means ‘to sin’. That’s why it says, ‘to sin’, and not something else. Because it means ‘to sin’.

    True consent, as the law states, only occurs after the age of 16. Until then any sex, including ‘consexual’ sex between an adult and a minor where the child may think they are consenting, is rape.

    But, of course, children are never referred to as ‘participating in the act of rape’. Because they have been victims of rape, by virtue of their inability to consent.

    In real life, it’s not even clear that that Jesus is talking about paedophilia here at all, since ‘to sin’ could mean so many things that the wording differs between different editions of the Bible from ‘offend these little ones’ to causing a child to ‘stumble’ or ‘lose his faith’.

    It’s just funny how quickly you leap to the defence of someone saying that victims of paedophilia have ‘sinned’ when it’s a holy figure you like.

    You seem to have gone quiet on the thread where you’re pointed out to have equated Zionist with Jew. Care to comment on that one?

  119. Ravi Naik — on 1st October, 2009 at 1:39 am  

    Here is what Polanski said one year after fleeing to France:

    “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

    These people think they are above the law, don’t they?

    …but this is an artist! which in France is like a superior human being. Oh la la, the land of liberte, egalite, fraternite, what a bunch of hypocrites!

    Yes, and that’s why people don’t take them seriously

  120. persephone — on 1st October, 2009 at 6:57 pm  

    An article today by Jonathan Rayner 1/10/09:

    “Polanski’s supporters are indignant that, after all these years, the US authorities have now asked another country to arrest him – on a warrant extending back to 1977 – and to hold him pending extradition. Why now and not before, they demand to know?

    Except it isn’t a ‘sudden decision’ at all. …. in 2003 about how Polanski, in trying to sue Condé Nast Publications for libel, appealed all the way to the House of Lords to be allowed to give evidence by video. He wanted to testify by video because he feared that, if he set foot in the UK, he would be arrested on the warrant for the 1977 rape charge.

    The intention to arrest him has been genuine all along.

    Samantha Geimer, Polanski’s victim, is now 45-years-old and a mother of three. She has moved on and has forgiven him. But what if she hadn’t had the emotional strength to put it all behind her? What if her life had been blighted by flashbacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear of men, horror of intimacy, drug abuse, self-harm, or even suicide?

    Would Polanski’s apologists have said Geimer’s tragic life was a small price to pay for the cinematic legacy of Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby, The Pianist and the rest?”

  121. persephone — on 1st October, 2009 at 7:02 pm  

    ^^ what was interesting was the reason for Polanskis libel action:

    “Polanski brought libel proceedings over the publication of a July 2002 article in Vanity Fair.

    The article had alleged that in 1969, on the way back from London to Los Angeles for the funeral of his wife Sharon Tate, who had been murdered by Charles Manson, he had sought to seduce a young woman in the famous Manhattan bar, Elaine’s.

    It was alleged that he concluded his seduction with the promise, ‘And I will make another Sharon Tate out of you’ – possibly not the best chat-up line given the unfortunate fate of the late Ms Tate.

    The director denies this categorically and argues that the article depicts him as showing a callous indifference to the fate of his murdered wife. However, the defendant, while now stating that the incident took place not on the way to but perhaps some few weeks after the burial, continues to assert that it did occur. The publishers argue that the claimant did indeed show a ‘callous indifference’ to his wife’s memory.”

  122. Germaine — on 1st October, 2009 at 7:17 pm  

    Roman Seacole Polanski must be sent to the galleys!

  123. Wendy — on 2nd October, 2009 at 8:22 am  

    Still interested in the Trials of the five-foot-Pole you wouldn’t touch with a six-foor-pole ?

    HERE:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html

    Keep up to date by getting e-mailings from THE SMOKING GUN, chums!

  124. Binky — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:00 am  

    O MY O MY O MY O MY

    Go back to #125 and click on the link -

    ALL is explained !

  125. Binky — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:01 am  

    Plus Lee Barnes is wasting time and energy here when he could be doing useful work for the BNP !

  126. persephone — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:13 am  

    yeah you are right Binky. Useful ‘legal’ work such as what to do with nuisance calls

  127. Bobsy — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

    Samantha forgave him over a decade ago.

    Sort of, anyway …

    If you need more, here’s more:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928092geimer1.html

  128. Snapper — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:59 pm  

    YES YES YES YES YES

    Click on # 129 above

    TO LEARN ALL !

    HURRY!

  129. earwicga — on 28th March, 2010 at 10:22 pm  

    Slight correction to something said above by Amrit at 93 who stated that Polanski spent 15 months in prison. He actually spent 42 days in a prison psychiatric unit for assessment.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.