You are quite wrong there Pericles and c j Morgan.

for 1 thing I have a 15 yo daughter and we have a great relationship , in that she can tell me anything she does , and I attribute that to being confidant of her position being treated as an adult in society.
And that includes telling the truth.
Next if that that sound like a rape dialogue to you, then you got to be kidding me.
For one thing I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape, so you can interpret the dialoged another way.
But you doubt you still insist on the scenario being a rape even though, the parents brought this child to Polanski 3 times.
Why?
Would they do this, would be a wise question at this stage.
Not jump on the trail by media bandwagon, and prejudge the issues before it starts.
I am all for by pedophiles getting the book thrown at them but you can’t put Polanski in this category.
Your naiveté still showing I’m afraid.

This isn't personal, thomasfromtacoma.

I am genuinely interested in the fact that you are able to read that transcript, count the number of occasions that the child in question said "no", and still believe that Polanski's actions did not constitute rape.

>>Your naiveté still showing I’m afraid.<<

Calling me naive isn't going to divert my curiosity, I'm afraid.

Rather than simply chuck insults around, which is easy, perhaps we should hear from you how many times a child has to say "no" before you accept that she is an unwilling participant.

Maybe you should ask your daughter.

Ask her, if she were first fed champagne, then given a quaalude, whether she believes that even under those circumstances, one "no" should be perfectly adequate.

Or, let's look at it another way.

Your daughter comes home one afternoon, and shares with you (because she can tell you anything she does) the fact that she had been given champagne, then a quaalude, then sodomized.

What would you say?

Would your question be "so, did you say "no" enough times? Only ten times? My dear, that's nowhere near enough. You need to say it at least [enter thomasfromtacoma's number here] times. Less than that, it's clearly consent, I'm afraid."

But it doesn't even appear to be about numbers with you, does it?

>>For one thing I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape, so you can interpret the dialoged another way.<<

In which case, your question to your daughter would be:

"What, my dear? You didn't say no? No dialogue at all? Well, that's obviously rape, then"

That seems to be a total inversion of reality.

Or at least, your position requires a little more clarification, don't you think?

Pericles the impersonal huh
What a joke you are.
Firstly my daughter wouldn’t be out attempting to extort millions form a Hollywood film director.
Secondly my daughter wouldn’t be in such a situation because she has the integrity of not attempting to lie to a court.
So why don’t you jump on the bandwagon, the mind numbing stupidity, of the anti Semitic Nazis that want Polanski incarcerated.
Its cases such as this and blind justice simpletons like yourself take the interpretation of circumstance to such extremes.

This article would be very useful reading for thomasfromtacoma and others who sympathise with Polanski on this issue:

http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

Enough.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 6 October 2009 9:33:00 AM:

"I honestly wonder how some people here sleep at night."

So uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, eh?

O Lord High Dymo, Thread-Labeller-in-Chief of OLO, Imperial Arbiter of Morality, and Final Determinator of All that is Hateful, to thy infallible judgement we all now kowtow.

Pigs.

There is no question as to the existence of any statute of limitations, either legally or socially, with respect to pedophilia. There is none.

What the opening post of this discussion asked was why there had not been much public commendation of the arrest and proposed extradition of Polanski back to the US. GrahamY may have well got his answer from this discussion, but I suspect it is not the one he expected. That answer is that far more Australians see through a US judicial process ethically corrupted by the plea-bargaining system, the weasel-worded confusions of the term 'statutory rape' as distinct from 'unlawful sexual intercourse', the laxity of custody and/or bail in what is now contended to have been a very serious crime, the apparent lack of pursuit of persons perhaps accessory to the crime (the mother?) at the time, and the calculated opportunism of the timing of this attempted extradition as a diversion from other far more unjust extraditions to the US of persons who have never been to the US nor committed any crime in the country where they live.

For heaven's sake, people, the testimony to the grand jury is not fact, simply very serious allegation. It is taken simply to justify the issue of the warrant for the arrest of the accused and the laying of charges. It is not subject to cross-examination on behalf of the accused.

The apparent predilection of a 43-year-old man for young girls may rightly be almost universally deplored, but in this case it is perhaps understandable that what was once an 8-year-old child wandering Nazi-occupied Poland alone may have perversly sought to recapture a lost youth.

CJ Morgan
Thanks, That article explains near every question asked about Polanski's case.

Thomasinthecoma might just read it.

I now agree
Enough

Thanks have a good life from Dave