Roman Polanski season at BFI

[BelleCurve]

www.bfi.org.uk/roman-polanski

I think it is awful that the BFI is organising a retrospective to celebrate child rapist Roman Polanski - any MNers want to campaign against it?

Are there any people on here who have the skills to mock something like that up? It doesn't have to be well done (quite the opposite) just photoshopped, and I imagine we could avoid legal questions by putting something like a smallish "What next a" at the top before the big splash of "JIMMY SAVILLE SEASON at the BFI". I would be happy to find places to put them up.

How are people contacting the BFI? I'm really upset about this, I actually was about to become a member because it's a great place and they have an amazing programme and bar and I'd like to tell them exactly why I won't be bothering now.

A 'Jimmy Saville Season' mock up in electronic form would wing its way round Facebook and Twitter like wildfire. That would be a very quick and effective way to get the word spread widely. Wish I could offer, but my graphic skillz are sadly lacking.

Sounds like a good idea. Come on, who's got the skills?

Actually, you could just do that on Twitter without the picture.

DH could do something in Photoshop but I am not on Twitter

OK, have started thread in Chat here to try and drum up a bit more support.

hmmm wonder why Comments are disabled for this video.

I'm in.
I just watched that clip on youtube, with the standing ovation. I would have loved for Harrison Ford to have had the balls to say "Roman Polanski can't be here to accept his sycophantic award in person as he's hiding out in Europe to avoid going to jail for raping a child. So here's someone else to accept it for the raping bastard."

Does anyone know how to ask slebs to retweet? I am not really twitter capable.

I'm not sure why the art of someone who has done bad things should not still be celebrated ifit is good art. We can seperate the art and the artist no?

Nor is the comparison with Savile particualrly apt. Savile it appears was a massive repeat offender. Polanski's act appears to be a one-off. He should've faced his punishment and served the time for it obviously. Savile also did not produce any art.

I'm sure his victim will take huge comfort from the fact that he (was never caught) doing the same thing to anyone else.

"seeking refuge" is what people trying to escape persecution do. Jumping bail and evading justice is what he did.

Emma Thompson was one of those who signed up in support of him before retracting when the crapness was brought to her attention. But you know, he is an artist, so it's fine to be a child abuser. Jimmy Savile's problem is that he wasn't an artist, so he's just a plain old paedophile.

blimey dangalf I was being sarky when I said it's ok for Jimmy Savile to be pilloried because he was not an artist....I didn't realise someone was going to say that for real.

And yes one can separate the art from the artist but one also needs to be honest about the artist and this is what the BFI have not done with their "seeking refuge..." terminology.

@hellsbells76 - well the victim has actually said as much herself. "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever ? besides me ? and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

@drjohnsonscat - erm.. the point was that a retrospective of'art' requires art to be produced - Saville produced none. I amnot justifying Polanski's behaviour but explaining why I think a retrospective of his works is reasonable and thereby showing that the comparisons with Saville are not apt as the issue here is the retrospective.

@hellsbells76 - if you don't think there is a difference in someone doing something wrong once as opposed to many,many times then I'd say your taing a rather illogical position.

you're taking rather

the whole BBC fallout on Saville came about precisely because they showed a tribute to his - shall we call it output, instead of art. It is notable that it's the BBC not the hospitals (who clearly owed a much greater duty of care to their patients) that took the fall for this. The BBC showed retrospectives of his work and paid tribute to him and that proved to be a problem given what he'd done. Exactly the same applies to Polanski.

I'm astonished that you think the number of abusive incidents matters. Rape tends not to be a matter of degree when a 13 year old is involved. It doesn't matter that his victim doesn't deem him to be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should lie about what he did, say that he "sought refuge" when actually he skipped bail, etc.

NO, assuming someone sought to get a young girl and drug her and rape her says to me this was not a one off. Although like Hellsbells I say once a rapist always a rapist. Maybe he has been "good" since then. But is that because he is now a reformed man or is it because he is being watched now that he is a known rapist and less likely to be let around young girls?

Everyone Wants to Fuck Young Girls
-Roman Polanski (actual quote)

His victim has forgiven him, yes. I suspect for her to get on with life knowing he would never be punished she needed to. Or maybe as a woman and a mother she has decided her mental health and what happened to her isn't as important as what is now happening to her family due to the media influence. Media that would have left her alone years ago if the piece of shit in question had been locked away> Locked away and unable to make his art.

Either way we don't let victims choose how we deal with the perpetrator. If we are going to let them choose sentencing be prepared for the next "one time rapist" to have his cock sliced off.

@beertrickspotter - no, I see a difference in someone doing something once and someone doing something serially. Thus if you murder or rape someone once you get less punishment than if you murder or rape many people. I don't see why this is particularly contentious. It does not detract from the seriousness of the crime to suggest that a crime against one person is less grievous than the crime being committed repeatedly against many people.

to take your arguments to a logical etreme - is someone who murders one person as morally abhorrent as Hitler who is reposnsibe for 6 million deaths?

?If I had killed somebody, it wouldn?t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But? fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!?

That sure sounds like the shit a pedophile would say... Don't you think?

@Picadillycervix - well we only have avidence of one case despite what suspicions you may have based on that incident.
nor am I suggesting that victims choose the punishment - I was responding to apoint made by another poster stating that his victim would take no comfort from it being an isolated (as far as anyone here knows) event.