Oh what a surprise! one of Polanski's backers just happened to be a French Culture Minister who liked sodomizing young boys. It says it all really. No doubt all the arty farties will try and defend him also.

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/furore-over-ministers-sex-with-brothel-boys-20091009-gplp.html

True to form the only one that doesn’t get it its Pericles the puerile.
You Orstralians just sit back and get your $4000 bucks per child social security while the real peds out there proliferate.
Why
Because you’re judicial system sucks
Why
Because your dole bludging society demands it.
How many underage pregnancies are the in South Africa oops Orstrailya.
Wiki says 21 per 1000 that’s about 2% just in case you can’t add up Pericles the pure, and I doubt it , as the book burning , you no doubt were involved in , took up to much of your time
Here’s a joke see if you can figure it out Pericles the puerile
A pregnant 13, year old Orstralian, goes to her sister and says mummy what’s pedophile?

Pinch me if I’m lying but you are a complete moron if you think that my daughters in danger of anything but good education and thoughtful logical comment. Something I have yet to see from the trash replies in this article so far, apart from the insightful comments from forest Gump and the like the rest of you can go to a well deserve hell, and burn baby burn
And Pericles the putrid go annoy someone else you r obviously infatuated with 15 yo girls
Runner it’s obvious where you spend your time on the internet with link like that, so take my advice and stop annoying Te people who care.

What joke you ossies are.
Amen and RIP this article

Runner says:

"It says it all really."

and gives a link to an item by Paolo Totaro in 'WA Today', for which I thank him.

Its very first paragraph tells us that Frederic Mitterrand's predilections are not news, having been revealed four years ago in "... a bestseller, critically acclaimed and widely read.", and, in an attempt to explain why it has again become news, claims that it "... sparked a national storm after a political opponent read extracts on national TV ...".

The problem is that we here in Australia do not know whether there really is any 'national storm' in France as claimed, but even if there is, the hallmarks of a 'beat up' are all over this reportage. (Why there would need to be such a beat-up is an even more pertinent question.)

So what your 'It says it all really' is, is an attempt at ascribing guilt by association to Polanski because Frederic Mitterrand, whose confession to conduct in this respect has long been known, has, again claimedly, "enthusiastic[ally] defen[ded].. the film director". In the process of this reprehensible way of pursuing justice, you may be seriously prejudicing the chances of fair hearings of other persons facing extradition accused by the US justice system of offences utterly unrelated to pedophilia. You might read this:

http://bit.ly/qrRcb

The important point to remember, whether or not all or any 'arty farty types' rush to defend Frederic Mitterrand, is that Frederic Mitterrand does not stand in need of defending, whereas Roman Polanski's (and potentially anyone's) right to due process does. Much of the presumption of guilt with respect to Polanski here is based upon his being a fugitive from US justice. What if in truth that was not so? It would make his seizure and detention unlawful, for a start. Could the claim itself be a great big lie?

It is all about extradition, which is what the beating up of the quite unsurprising anti-pedophilia lynch mob mentality surrounding Polanski that we are seeing is, in my opinion, meant to smokescreen or even uncritically justify.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3050#73310

thomasfromtacoma: <<...the only one that doesn’t get it its Pericles...>>

He's not the only one, I'm afraid. I really have no idea what your gratuitously abusive and logically inconsistent rants on this thread are about, beyond the fact that you seem to think that it was OK for Polanski to drug and rape a 13-year old girl.

Forrest, did you read the 'Slate' article to which I linked some days ago? The facts of the case aren't disputed by Polanski - as is evidenced by his plea bargain. In terms of due process, he was charged soon after the event and skipped bail - so I don't see that there's any real issue there.

As for why the US authorities have belatedly decided to extradite him, perhaps it's a product of Polanski's recent attempt to have the charges against him dropped?

Incidentally, I'm probably one of the 'arty-farty' types whom Graham and you might expect to defend Polanski, but I'm afraid that I still think that he should face the music for the illegal and loathsome acts that he has admitted.

Some time shortly after his release after only 42 days of the up to 90 days for which the California court had ordered Polanski to undergo psychiatric assessment, he was able to leave the US. The sparse reporting of this period tells us that he initially arrived in the UK, from which he again departed after only a day, for France. We are told Polanski's citizenship is dually Polish and French.

That being so, should we not infer that Polanski's passport at the time he was resident in the US would have been either Polish or French? Given that Poland at that time was still part of the Soviet bloc, and that Polanski had first, after leaving Poland, lived in France, I would plump for his passport in 1978 being French. Given in turn that France does not extradite its citizens, upon Polanski's arrest under the grand jury warrant, would he not have had his passport seized, whether or not he was considered a flight risk? What were the standard procedures with respect to seizure of passports of aliens appearing before US courts, I wonder? One would think it would have been automatic whether or not bail was involved.

Are there any reports of him having used a false passport to leave the US, enter the UK, and then enter France? The French answer would have to be the most authoritative at this time, and could still be checked, presumably.

Could it be that at the time of his leaving the US jurisdiction Polanski was not in fact a fugitive, but that he was SUBSEQUENTLY branded as being so by a judge that may have been attempting to cover up possible procedural mistakes that may have resulted in Polanski's inadvertent release? Polanski himself may never have been in a position to know his true status may have been, for be it ever so short a period of time, that of a free man. After all, he is said to have learned of the intention of the judge to break the deal in sufficient time to 'flee'.

Well if you’re willing to admit complete stupidity your
Totally pathetic, Gestapo book burning morons.
Let’s just hang the pedophile because you say so.
Your just creeps under the banner of pedophile phobic cretins
Good riddanc