The keen-eyed and intuitive gaze of the warrior was in evidence as Forrest read Fractelle's latest missive, he detected the internal conflict that preceded her words.

The questions, would Polanski receive a fair trial?

Weighed against the fact; Polanski sodomised an under-aged girl by 20th C standards and values; Prima Nocta an anachronism.

A line needs be drawn somewhere. Willing or no, victim or complicit, a young girl's life was changed at the whim of a successful artist; tortured perhaps, innocent most certainly not.

Fractelle notes sadly that esteemed CEO of OLO has not the vision of the warrior-wordsmith, and misses target. Once again Fractelle has proved too difficult for the conservative and, self-admitted, confused OLO editor.

In conclusion; no exclusion for artists, the law must be seen to act, and sundry other clichés may be applied.

Sad for all. Young girls still weep.

After reading as much as I could
The reason Polanski came to the notice of the US Court system is that the girl now a woman wasn't paid her compensation promised by Polanski
The girl now a woman went to the Courts to enforce the payment and when the Courts upheld her payment with interest Polanski paid her
Only after this payment was made the girl now a woman said that she didn't want it to go any further
TO LATE the can of worms was opened now the US Courts want the Law upheld
Further the Swiss consider he is still a flight risk as they refused bail pending extradition because of that very reason

Further after the abuse that has been metred out on my Son I should say it is all forgiven it's alright
If that is anybodies thinking then rot in hell
Have a good life from Dave

PS thanks Suzie

What has clearly not occurred to you, thomasfromtacoma, is that your conclusion that Polanski has done no wrong has exactly the same validity as that of someone who believes every word against him.

It is not a better view, a smarter view, a more considered view or a more logical view.

It is just your personal take on the situation, that's all.

And all your bluff and bluster cannot hide this reality.

>>Its cases such as this and blind justice simpletons like yourself take the interpretation of circumstance to such extremes<<

Leaving aside the pointless and irrelevant insult that seems to be your stock-in-trade, my concern here has nothing to do with Polanski's guilt or innocence.

I was merely looking for clarification on your definition of rape.

>>Polanski was not convicted of rape no matter how many times you say he was. He admitted to unlawful sexual intercourse, in a plea bargain to settle this case with the minimum of fuss. Read that as mutual consent , NOT RAPE , as you all so erroneosly suggest.<<

And my question - which you still have not answered - was "how many times a child has to say "no" before you accept that she is an unwilling participant?"

A subsidiary question is now on the table, prompted by your suggestion that...

>>I can’t believe there is much dialogue in a rape<<

In order to signal her unwillingness, does a child a) speak up and say "no", as the grand jury transcript suggests that she did, or b) keep quiet, on the basis that rape contains no dialogue?

I'd be particularly interested in your daughter's response. Have you shared your views on rape with her, by the way? Does she agree, that saying "no" is irrelevant?

The term pedophilia (or pedophilia) has a range of definitions. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

http://www.sarahweinman.com/confessions/2009/09/on-polanski.html

So that where California law stands or doesn’t stand at the time of the offence.
So warm up you r hangman’s noose you retrograde retards and ensure that the law is backdated so Polanski gets the chair. I am sure that will satisfy only the hardened of you o called enlighten ones.
In the Mean time whilst you sit back in your armchair explain this one.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26172085-2682,00.html

Apparently you can rape anyone in South Australia if they’re too drunk to say no
What joke!

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26173380-5005962,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26172488-5005962,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26173382-5007060,00.html

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/6110842/search-continues-for-missing-qld-cop/

Just few headlines making news in Orstrailya The lucky country
Pigs arse!
What freedom of speech
What legal system
What democracy
I have yet to see an example of Australian democracy that even come close to that allowed in the USA.

the probelm is i havent said polanski is innocent peuriles
just that he isnt a pedophile

Are you sure, thomasfromtacoma?

>>the probelm is i havent said polanski is innocent peuriles<<

But whoever wrote the following dribble clearly thought he was.

>>Are you completely thicker is this a stupidity ploy dwg. Polanski so called victim went to the producers 3 time s the third time is he rape allegation. The family was clearly attempting to extort monies from Polanski s in the settlement application which went through for an undisclosed sum Yet Polanski remains criminal due to the settlement interpretation. Talk about getting screwed by the system. The defendant consented to t he advances on each occasion if you read the transcript.<<

Signed by - thomasfromtacoma.

That would seem to be a little at odds with your new claim, wouldn't it?

Incidentally, since you have reminded me. Where exactly is the bit in the transcript that indicates she "consented to the advances on each occasion?"

To even the most casual reader, she said "no" on at least a dozen occasions.

Perhaps you are one of those guys that believe that "no" really means "I'm gagging for it, big boy".

Still no word from your daughter, I notice.

You have told her, haven't you, that in order to prove rape, she shouldn't indulge in "dialogue"? And that saying "no" is in fact a form of consent?

Good, fatherly advice, that.

Do let us know how she feels about it, there's a good chap.