Polanski's free without serving any real time for the rape of a minor.

WTF, Switzerland?

Also, WTF for the reporting of this story:

Quote :

Roman Polanski is a free man after Switzerland rejected a US request to extradite him on a charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Um, no. That was rape. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

Hmmf.

Quote :

Switzerland will not extradite the film director Roman Polanski to the United States to face charges of unlawful sex with a minor because of a possible fault in the American application for his extradition, Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told a news conference on Monday.

“He’s a free man,” she said.

...

Ms. Widmer-Schlumpf said the American authorities had rejected a request by her ministry for records of a hearing by the prosecutor in the case, Roger Gunson, in January 2010, which should have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Mr. Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement.

Ohhhhhh fantastic. Red tape and beaurocrats. Just what we need in situations like this.

Argh, cock, we posted this at exactly the same time.

Dear lovely moderators, can we please be merging the threads?

Great minds, m'dear. :'D

Sweet Christ. The (very tiny) silver lining to this is that he's still a fucking exile. While I realize this is cold comfort to anyone with a brain, at least it's something.

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

Let's turn the CIA loose on this jerk...if ever anybody deserved a bullet to the back of the head, it's Polanski.

Now, now, Chris. Although... if this had happened last week, we could've made it a condition of the spy swap. "Russia, we'll give you your spies back if you give us ours back and make the Swiss hand over Polanski." 'Cause you know Putin could do it, too, and he wouldn't even need to put a shirt on.

Let this serve as a reminder that, if you're rich, you can do whatever you want. Everyone else should know their place.

Oh, money. What can't you do?

gaijinguy wrote:

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

I'd say it's less of "Patriarchy" and more of "The rich and famous protect their own", judging by all the Hollywood types licking his ass after this initially came up again.

Malganis wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

I'd say it's less of "Patriarchy" and more of "The rich and famous protect their own", judging by all the Hollywood types licking his ass after this initially came up again.

Yeah, but Jesus brought up the issue of patriarchy in the title of the thread.

Not that I'm surprised, it seems that feminism and patriarchy has become the topic du jour on Why God Why these days.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Not that I'm surprised, it seems that feminism and patriarchy has become the topic du jour on Why God Why these days.

Should we just shut up and make you a sandwich?

God, the intense rage wells up in me at this.

Silver lining? Exile to Switzerland? What the hell is so much of a punishment about that?

It just goes to show, there's one law for the poor, and no law for the rich. Money, glorious money, it pays for all crimes.

ZoZo wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Not that I'm surprised, it seems that feminism and patriarchy has become the topic du jour on Why God Why these days.

Should we just shut up and make you a sandwich?

That's exactly what I was saying, Zozo. Thank you for spelling it out for everyone.

ZoZo wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Not that I'm surprised, it seems that feminism and patriarchy has become the topic du jour on Why God Why these days.

Should we just shut up and make you a sandwich?

Corned beef, mustard, rye. I see one speck of mayo and you're not getting a new vacuum cleaner, little lady.

Hey let's turn this topic into talking about black slavery while we're at it too.

Because it TOTALLY has everything to do with the Polanski case.

The mafiosi are gone, but their habits passed on.

Stay classy, Hollywood.

It's not just that he's rich, but that he's rich and has French citizenship. They're the ones who've been letting him walk around free for decades, and who knows what pressure they've been putting on the Swiss to release him? Chances are, as soon as they did, he skipped back to France, and it shouldn't surprise anyone if his Swiss chalet goes on the market within a week or two.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Not that I'm surprised, it seems that feminism and patriarchy has become the topic du jour on Why God Why these days.

Doctor Who's not on, there wasn't a proper series last year, and Eleven doesn't have any personality traits worth ranting about. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't get what all the fuss is. Discussion on GAFF was always cyclical, with the fandom du NR making its way into most topics, so it shouldn't be worthy of comment.

ZoZo wrote:

WTF, Switzerland?

Also, WTF for the reporting of this story:

Quote :

Roman Polanski is a free man after Switzerland rejected a US request to extradite him on a charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Um, no. That was rape. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

Well, technically that is haivng sex, but yeah...if it had been consensual sex, I would say who cares, but since there's every indication that it was not consensual...WTF, Switzerland? What if he'd raped a Swiss girl and the U.S. decided not to give him back?

Chris91 wrote:

Let's turn the CIA loose on this jerk...if ever anybody deserved a bullet to the back of the head, it's Polanski.

Wouldn't the cock be more appropriate?

Lady Anne wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Let's turn the CIA loose on this jerk...if ever anybody deserved a bullet to the back of the head, it's Polanski.

Wouldn't the cock be more appropriate?

Cocks have a head. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I saw this on CNN earlier. It's really pissing me off.

...Yeah, unfortunately, there's not much else to be said. RAEG.

gaijinguy wrote:

Sweet Christ. The (very tiny) silver lining to this is that he's still a fucking exile. While I realize this is cold comfort to anyone with a brain, at least it's something.

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

You're right, gaijinguy. This has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gender hierarchy which exists now or existed back when the original crime was committed. Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a newspaper to report the rape of a minor as "having sex". Nothing at all to do with any kind of cultural attitude which might lead a person to declare this as "not rape rape".

Malganis wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Also: Patriarchy? Again? FFS.

I'd say it's less of "Patriarchy" and more of "The rich and famous protect their own"

The Swiss government run in the same circles as Roman Polanski? Really?

the asylum wrote:

Hey let's turn this topic into talking about black slavery while we're at it too.

Because it TOTALLY has everything to do with the Polanski case.

You're such a fucking moron it's unbelieveable.

Lady Anne wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

WTF, Switzerland?

Also, WTF for the reporting of this story:

Quote :

Roman Polanski is a free man after Switzerland rejected a US request to extradite him on a charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Um, no. That was rape. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

Well, technically that is haivng sex,

NO.

Quote :

but yeah...if it had been consensual sex, I would say who cares, but since there's every indication that it was not consensual...

It wasn't consensual because the girl WAS FUCKING THIRTEEN, you stupid clown. Even if he hadn't fed her quaaludes and vodka IT WOULD STILL BE RAPE.

Lady Anne wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

WTF, Switzerland?

Also, WTF for the reporting of this story:

Quote :

Roman Polanski is a free man after Switzerland rejected a US request to extradite him on a charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Um, no. That was rape. What Roman Polanski did was rape.

Well, technically that is haivng sex, but yeah...if it had been consensual sex, I would say who cares, but since there's every indication that it was not consensual...WTF, Switzerland? What if he'd raped a Swiss girl and the U.S. decided not to give him back?

From her statement:

Quote :

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

How is that not rape? How is that consensual?

Frankly, I'm not really surprised Polanski's not going to be punished for his crimes. The level of rape apologism I've seen related to this case is repugnant.