Roman Polanski season at BFI

I've already explained why I think you're a rape apologist. I'm sorry if you struggle with reading comprehension as well but that really isn't my problem.

What? so now a man is unable to discuss rape?

not to tell women how they should feel about it and it's perpetrators, no. I won't go trolling websites for racial awareness telling black people how they should feel about racial profiling. I would be a dick if I did that.

@hellsbells - I am not a rape apologist. nowhere in anything I have said have I made an excuse for him raping the girl. I have said several times that it is disgusting and he should be punished. however, you clearly are only seeing what you want to see in what I am saying. If you can show me othewise from my posts then feel free to do so.

What? so now a man is unable to discuss rape? How am I displaying male privilige? I am trying to have an honest discussion. I have not been personal, I haven ot attacked anyone, I have merely tried to discuss the topic at hand.

@Picadillycervix - what have I said that could be construed as saying rape is not as bad a crime as slander? Or are you just making things up?

My point is that the work should be viewed independently of who created it - this quite different from saying he should have a 'world foru' as you put it.

Let's say theoretically that he had not skipped the US and had served his time. Would he then be free to pursue a career in film? Would it be permissible to have a retrospective of such work? Or does the crime itself render any work by the man untouchable. My feeling is that it should not. You obviously feel otherwise. But you should not have said the things you said about me for holding a different opinion to you.

yeah hellsbells, makes you want to weep doesn't it.

www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

It's an American website but you might find it interesting to see just how personal it is for a 1/4 of women on this thread.

Yup. Male privilege in action - lovely isn't it?

I have tried to debate the points in a calm manner and not get personal.

A man arguing with a group of women about rape is personal. It must be nice to not be in a position to not understand that.

I am just saying if you think a child rapist should be free to have a world forum it's a bit odd that you can get upset about me calling you an apologist and feel I should be deleted.

Some people might see that as you seeing rape as not a bad a crime as say slander. Some people might say that, obviously not me.

@hellsbells76- I think you're being wilfully obtuse if you cannot see that calling me an apologist for child rape is a personal attack. I have tried to debate the points in a calm manner and not get personal. I know it is an emotive subject but we will get nowhere if anyone with a differing viewpoint is accused of being something vile.

How is it minimising to state, as I did, that committing a crime once is a lesser evil than committing the same crime many times? I am really at a loss as to how that could be the case. I have stated several times that his crime is disgusting and he should be punished for it - how does this minimise it?

@beertrickspotter - Chinatown was made before the rape occurred. And no that is not all I see in Chinatown - it is a complex and multi-faceted film and I think it is a brilliant film.

@hellsbells & @Picadillycervix - this is ridiculous. What have I said that makes me a child rape apologist. I know we're in the murky realm of the internet but you can't just bandy around things like that. It is a pretty serious accusation and it would appear that MN agreed with my contention that it was unnnecessary. the bit that was worth deleting, if you're really unable to work it out, was the bit where you said that I am a child rape apologist and thus by proxy that I think child rape is ok.

I have not referred to you as an 'irrational woman' but stated that you are clearly unable to discuss this topic in a rational manner, which as you then go on to call me a 'report happy baby' as you so maturely put it, would seem to be the case. I just felt that you had really crossed a line in what you said.

I don't agree that it's a personal attack if it's true, and every one of dangalf's posts reeks of rape apologist attitudes. He has openly said that Polanski's crime is less serious than Savile's crimes because it was apparently a one-off. That's textbook minimising, surely? I don't honestly see how you square deleting someone for pointing that out with your (wholly admirable) We Believe You campaign. But, your site, your rules

You know what gets me? He successfully sued Vogue for libel a few years ago (can't remember what about, could google but can't be arsed). To win a libel claim, you have to be able to prove that your reputation was damaged. The fact that a fugitive child rapist still had a reputation that could be damaged tells you everything you need to know about how fucked up attitudes towards him are...

I find that fucking fascinating too.

(sorry, Vanity Fair not Vogue).

You know what gets me? He successfully sued Vogue for libel a few years ago (can't remember what about, could google but can't be arsed). To win a libel claim, you have to be able to prove that your reputation was damaged. The fact that a fugitive child rapist still had a reputation that could be damaged tells you everything you need to know about how fucked up attitudes towards him are...

Yes - isn't it just...

MNHQ - if you're going to delete PiccadillyCervix's posts for a completely fair comment that dangalf appears to be minimising child rape, perhaps you could do the same for his patronising implication that she's just an emotional little lady who can't debate?

Awaits Hellsbells deletion, (appears we only have one person on this thread who is actually for censorship...) ironic really.

I saw what you said PicadillyCervix and thought it was fair comment. Dangalf: the BFI certainly have glossed over his crimes. They say he 'fled' to France and 'sought refuge' in the wake of the murder of his wife, implying he was in fear of his life or similar, and completely failed to mention the little matter of his conviction for rape and his jumping bail. As for your claim not to be a rape apologist, well if it looks like a rape apologist, walks like a rape apologist, and trots out bullshit about Polanski like a rape apologist...

Maybe If I had raped somebody my comments would be worthy of standing?

Oh FFS really? Deleted? Which bit was worth deleting? Bit trigger happy today MNHQ. Dangalf I won't continue to argue with you because obviously I am an irrational woman who can't have a sensible debate and you're a report happy baby