roman polanski

[xenophon]

A nonce 30 years ago is still a nonce now

If he had done time back then he would have repaid his debt to society and his victim, and carried on with his life a reformed character worthy of the respect he demands from those left liberal bubbleheads who infect Hollywood. But he didn't, he f***ed off, so he's an unsentenced nonce

 

[dougdeep]

Nobody seems to have answered the obvious question though. Who would gain from a court case? nobody seems to want one.

 

[coventrygull]

It's rather like the current debate over whether the BNP should be allowed on Question Time; do you give these people a platform or just ignore them?

My personal opinion is that you should allow people these platforms, just so you can highlight how silly/short-sighted their viewpoint is. I think the Indy, by simply having the article there with no commentary, have allowed Weinstein to make himself look very silly.

Why bring up the BNP in this thread

 

[Simster]

Its astonishing that people are prepared to defend this sex offender, I keep thinking that it's some sort of wind up.

Spot on. Really and truthfully, why have the French backed him up in this way? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[coventrygull]

Nobody seems to have answered the obvious question though. Who would gain from a court case? nobody seems to want one.

He commited a crime. The fact that no one apparently wants a court case is irrelavant

 

[little al]

Nobody seems to have answered the obvious question though. Who would gain from a court case? nobody seems to want one.

The court case happened in 1978, he was found guilty, the only thing he has to go to court for is sentencing.

I personally think that the Swiss will be forced to bail him and he will f*** off to his French bolthole and get away with it again.

 

[Simster]

Nobody seems to have answered the obvious question though. Who would gain from a court case? nobody seems to want one.

Blatently, society would. Otherwise the message is "if you for long enough, we'll lose interest"

f*** that. The American people want justice.

 

[little al]

Why bring up the BNP in this thread

To be fair, he was making a comparssion for me, and it worked.

 

[little al]

Spot on. Really and truthfully, why have the French backed him up in this way? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

The French really don't come out well do they? Neither does the film industry, or anyone who has starred in his films, like Harrison Ford et al.

 

[coventrygull]

To be fair, he was making a comparssion for me, and it worked.

Very poor comparison. Don't think the BNP have ever defended a paedo

 

[xenophon]

Nobody seems to have answered the obvious question though. Who would gain from a court case? nobody seems to want one.

It sends out the signal that some criminals can get away with it, if they're rich enough. Watching the glitterati defend this little creep is puke-making.

Bottom line - a 13 year old girl was plied with alcohol and forced into sexual intercourse with a fully grown man who knew exactly what he was doing. He then fled the country and justice has yet to be served on him. The fact she now doesn't want him prosecuted because it happened 30 years ago is irrelevant.

We would ALL gain from seeing justice being served in this case.

 

[sten_super]

Very poor comparison. Don't think the BNP have ever defended a paedo

Did you actually read my initial post? There has been, over the past couple of weeks, a debate in the mainstream media over whether the BNP should be allowed on Question Time. The two sides to the argument seem to have run; i) they should be ignored or ii) give them a platform so that their views can be confronted.

This runs directly in parallel to my argument that Weinstein was given a platform so that his views can be confronted. The alternative was to ignore him.

See the parallels?

 

[Common as Mook]

Very poor comparison. Don't think the BNP have ever defended a paedo

That wasn't the comparison.

The comparison was around what is WORTH debating. This clearly isn't as it is open and shut. The BNP thing is in the news and clearly worthy of colum inches and more debate.

 

[little al]

Very poor comparison. Don't think the BNP have ever defended a paedo

He never said they did, it was a media type comparison, it worked.

 

[coventrygull]

Did you actually read my initial post? There has been, over the past couple of weeks, a debate in the mainstream media over whether the BNP should be allowed on Question Time. The two sides to the argument seem to have run; i) they should be ignored or ii) give them a platform so that their views can be confronted.

This runs directly in parallel to my argument that Weinstein was given a platform so that his views can be confronted. The alternative was to ignore him.

See the parallels?

No mate. Its like your saying that the BNP veiws need to be confronted because their views are wrong. Which is a matter of opinion.

Weinstein's on the other hand are very wrong end of

 

[sten_super]

No mate. Its like your saying that the BNP veiws need to be confronted because their views are wrong. Which is a matter of opinion.

Weinstein's on the other hand are very wrong end of

*sigh*

I will keep this as simple as possible.

There has been a debate as to whether to allow the BNP on Question Time.

Amongst the mainstream media, the vast majority of whom do not like/accept the BNP, the following two arguments have been raised

i) allow them on the show, as it gives other mainstream politicians the opportunity to defeat their arguments in a rational fashion
ii) don't allow them on the show, as it gives them publicity

Do you follow so far?

The parallels to the merits of the Weinstein argument are clear (to me, and at least two other posters).

i) allow him to publish his view, as it gives others (in this case you and me) the opportunity to defeat his arguments in a rational fashion
ii) don't allow him to publish his view, and it gives it publicity

I DELIBERATELY attempted to not give my viewpoint on the BNP debate as I didn't want this to descend into the BINFEST which it is now well on its way to becoming. The FACT, whether you like it or not, is that the majority of the media view the BNP's views as ridiculous, not quite as ridiculous as Weinstein's I grant you, but pretty ridiculous none the less. So from their perspective it is completely about showing them up to be invalid, in exactly the same way that I want Weinstein's arguments published so that we can see just how invalid they are.

 

[little al]

Weinstein's on the other hand are very wrong end of

Not in HIS opinion, and there are plenty more sympathisers out there.

It was a very good comparison imho.

 

[El Presidente]

Not long to go now El pres , 17 oct , cant wait

3 points at Tranmere in the afternoon, and wall to wall clunge in the evening. Result

 

[coventrygull]

*sigh*

I will keep this as simple as possible.

There has been a debate as to whether to allow the BNP on Question Time.

Amongst the mainstream media, the vast majority of whom do not like/accept the BNP, the following two arguments have been raised

i) allow them on the show, as it gives other mainstream politicians the opportunity to defeat their arguments in a rational fashion
ii) don't allow them on the show, as it gives them publicity

Do you follow so far?

The parallels to the merits of the Weinstein argument are clear (to me, and at least two other posters).

i) allow him to publish his view, as it gives others (in this case you and me) the opportunity to defeat his arguments in a rational fashion
ii) don't allow him to publish his view, and it gives it publicity

I DELIBERATELY attempted to not give my viewpoint on the BNP debate as I didn't want this to descend into the BINFEST which it is now well on its way to becoming. The FACT, whether you like it or not, is that the majority of the media view the BNP's views as ridiculous, not quite as ridiculous as Weinstein's I grant you, but pretty ridiculous none the less. So from their perspective it is completely about showing them up to be invalid, in exactly the same way that I want Weinstein's arguments published so that we can see just how invalid they are.

But a political opinion is different from a moral one. We can argue the toss about the best way to run a country etc but there is no way you can defend the druging and raping of a 13 year old girl. I do understand what you are trying to get at.

 

[little al]

I do understand what you are trying to get at.

Good stuff. Can we all get along in our common hatred of this vile man now.