Mumsnet Talk

I saw that. What a prat.

Oh fab. Now we're getting called trolls over there.

Good post, Festivia. Fancy c&p-ing it over on the BFI FB page? Just Jo keep up the trickle...

Re. other not-one-offs, see what Charlotte Lewis has had to say about her experiences with RP. Fits in very well with your analysis above.

"Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

That quote ... it demonstrates Polanski's attitude to women doesn't it. That if they're young enough, they're there to be fucked. He's using "everyone" to mean all human beings who count. And guess who is missing from there? Anyone who doesn't want to fuck young girls. That's most women for a start and whatever percentage of men it is who aren't either boys themselves or rapey predators.

Whoever said it was a one off, was it? Natassja Kinsky was only 15 when she played Tess and Polanski became her lover, I'm not sure exactly when. That process, of an older predator in a position of power and authority over a much younger person, is known as grooming and it's a well-known way of powerful men getting to exploit girls and young women while calling it consensual. Because powerful old men (the type Polanski has so much fellow-feeling for, the ones who want to fuck young girls) made the laws and decided the customs and so grooming was a perfectly respectable custom until feminists identified and named it. Lots of people still have trouble recognising it though, particularly when it is done by rich, powerful and charming men.

Whatever, Polanski is obviously a skank and the BFI are actually censoring by pretending that he's some sort of noble refugee fleeing from persecution, when actually he's a rapist on the run from justice.

the only censorship here is by the BFI, glossing over the facts.

For anyone who is concerned about censorship I suggest you read Nick Cohen 'you can't read this book: censorship in an age of freedom '
He demonstrates the UK's ridiculous libel laws and how they are used by undesirables such as Polanski to defend a ' reputation '

I suspect you're right. It's so bloody depressing. If enough of us make a fuss about it, do you think there's a chance they might think twice about doing it again? Their current head of programme (Geoff Andrew) is a real Polanski fanboy and I expect that's the reason for the 'celebration' but surely some people in the BFI must disagree with it?

That is interesting chibi.

Official complaint to the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport for a start? Although with this misogynist shower in government I don't hold out much hope of that doing anything.

that's a good idea helles

Yo did say raping someone the once isn't as bad as doing it repeatedly. That's a tad minimising, even if you don't see that it is.

The BFI is not going to admit they are wrong to show this retrospective. Far too much to lose considering the number of 'stars' who would withdraw their support.

Hellsbells i am not sure what can be done except protesting (which I can't attend as I don't live in the UK) but BFI are being very dismissive to posters on their fb site, so I suspect they won't voluntarily be taking it down

@Beertrickspotter - I was only pointing it out when it was made as you said it was an interesting choice for a child rapist. As it was made before the crime was committed then I don't understand your point. Anyway - thanks you've at least engaged with me on a reasonable level.

Anyway... apologies if I have upset people. That was certainly not my intention. But my objection to what I have been called on here remains as I think that was bang out of order.

I can assure you that I have not been trolling. I have not told women how to feel about rape or rapists. I have stated that I think it is ok for the BFI to have a retrospective of a famous director irrespective of his crime. I have not tried to dismiss this crime in any way. I have repeatedly said it is disgusting and he should be punished. I am just very upset by being unfairly maligned as a rape apologist, dismissed unfairly as someone who does not care about child rape etc.

please stop feeding it everyone - it'll get bored and wander off eventually.

This is from wiki:

The BFI operates with three sources of income. The largest is public money allocated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In 2011-12, this funding amounted to approximately £20m. The second largest source is commercial activity such as receipts from ticket sales at BFI Southbank or the BFI London IMAX theatre (2007, £5m), sales of DVDs, etc. Thirdly, grants and sponsorship of around £5m are obtained from various sources, including National Lottery funding grants, private sponsors and through donations (J. Paul Getty, Jr. donated around £1m in his will following his death in 2003). The BFI is also the distributor for all Lottery funds for film (in 2011-12 this will amount to c.£25m).

Official complaint to the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport for a start? Although with this misogynist shower in government I don't hold out much hope of that doing anything.

I am well aware of when Chinatown was made, thanks, dan.

One of the facets you might like to look at next time you watch it is precisely whose side Polanski is on after all. Given that he thought it was fine to rape a child and all, which isn't an attitude that springs up out of nowhere.

i find polanski fascinating in the context of repeated claims that an accusation (just an accusation mind) of rape is enough to ruin and destroy a man's life

hoo boy has polanski suffered personally and professionally after admitting to raping a CHILD oh my indeed

fuck everything

I have certainly not attempted to derail a feminist conversation. I merely offered a different opinion to you. This is maddening. How have I been faux-reasonable? I do not know what MRA means - care to explain?

Anyway. Does anyone have any suggestions about what else we can do about this? FOI request to see where the proceeds are going and if any are lining Polanski's pockets? Complaint to the BFI's funding sources? (they get a lot of government money). I don't imagine we can stop the season going ahead (think it's already started) but perhaps we can make life difficult enough for them that they think twice about doing something similar again?

@picadillycervix - I regularly read forums on here and have posted several times, although not much recently. I saw the topic title and was interested to see what people were saying as it is an area I have some interest in. I have attempted to argue in a reasonable manner.

The posts that were removed of yours would not improve the context - they merely show you calling me an apologist for child rape who clearly doesn't think child rape is a big deal. This is a pretty shocking accusation to level at someone.

You can feel free to stop engaging with me. I think it is probably for the best and obviously nothing I say will convince you that i'm not some evil twisted supporter of child rape but there you go.

xposted PC, yes I agree. Very MRA style. How tedious.

Well, if one was suspicious one might say he was here to derail a feminist discussion with all this faux-reasonable and head-patting explaining about stuff us silly women simply don't understand. I won't be engaging any further either. Oh for a 'hide poster' button...

Hellsbells, just relax and leave it. I suspect we have a real live MRA in our midst and as "reasoning is not your strongest point" and I am simply and "irrational woman" we will never be able to have an intelligent debate with him.

@hellsbells76 - but you clearly haven't explained it as you state that I am kaing excuses for him. I have asked you to point out anywhere where I have done that. I think you will find that I haven't and as such it is an incoorect assertion on your part. To then move into rather childish sarcasm as you do by criticising my reading comprehension merely serves to illustrate that perhaps reasoning is not your strongest point.

Why are you here dangalf what are you getting out of this?

Actually further to my other thread, don't answer. I won't be engaging with you. Sure enough you will have other posters come on to say you have been unfairly attacked as my posts have been removed and what I have said will come off much worse with out the actual post for actual context.

@Picadillycervix - it is very saddening to see statistics such as that.