Roman Polanski

[candj]

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Several messages in this thread have been purged

> on grounds ranging from simply wandering too far

> off topic to resembling a feedback page of "The

> Sun" on a bad day.

Is that not going way beyond the censorship call of duty? If it's off topic, simply say so but to delete a whole post is odd. I don't think there was anything libellous about Huggers' post (I'm assuming as their post was deleted twice). The discussion seemed pretty tame and was certainly not heated to the point of people making sweeping generalisations or reverting to name calling as I've seen elsewhere.

Sorry, I am now off topic.

[iaineasy]

No I think that was my post that said the word nonce and yes I think the censorship has gone very overboard there whilst people might not like my language itsan english word that fits a nasty crime and as far as I know not a swear wordif it offends anyone I apologise whole heartedly,I think that my post and point were legitimatley made and now feel offended because i feel that It has been classed as worse than the sun on a bad day, this is very unfair as your personal opinion of what I am like is innaccurate and even if I were like that are sun readers not allpowed on this forum or in this debate? surely everyones view is valid and my point that someone who spikes a 13 year old girls drink to have sex with them is more interested in control of the subject than anything else and that is a classic trait in peadophiles was a fair point and not libelous as he admitted his guilt and is there fore a peadophile. fair censorship is fair enough but deleting because a few people dont like a word is stifling the debate and most people would be willing to apologise when the matter is raised as have I.

hugs as ever

[candj]

Isn't nonce 'not of normal criminal ethos' ? I think it is a suitable word describing Polanski.

[iaineasy]

nonce is a colloquialism (not sure that spelled right) for sex criminal. Used by the working classes for maybe half a century in south london.

[HAL9000]

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 2) The dictionary definition of "paedophile" is

> simply "a person sexually attracted to children"

In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent). An example of this use can be seen in various forensic training manuals. Some researchers have described this usage as improper and suggested it can confound two separate types of offenders. In common usage, the term refers to any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child. --Wikipedia: Pedophilia

 

[Huggers]

oh I repeated my post because I thought that I'd previewed it but not posted it at all.!

I thought the drawing room was meant to be intelligent debate, so if I draw on a parallel current topical situation very relevant to our discussion when other posters have quoted 'sevenites hollywood morality' I think it's a valid post.

The drawing room is for dialectical debate, serious discussion and may draw on related things.

If it's going to be censored into superficiality, I'm not going to bother with it any more.

[The Chair]

Just to clarify, no posts would ever be deleted simply because they contained the word "nonce"

[candj]

No, I saw your post twice Huggers about the Brook Shields exhibition, etc. And twice it disappeared.

Chair you did not answer my question about deleting posts due to 'Sun-style' writing or because it was simply off topic. I think it's too much deletion of communicative material (since we're on a wiki roll). Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to be in the lounge and am missing the point of something which could very well be the case, but it is censorship and I don't think it's appropriate in this day and age especially as it was not malicious or libellous (and I am used to censorship living in China!).

Best,

-C

[iaineasy]

I think I am probably more of a lounge lizard to be honest If my other post was noit deleted because of the word "nonce" then it must censored for some other reason, I will stay out of this room in future, but for the record I will be adding a nay vote to the drawing room yay or nay debate going on else where in the forum. Thanks

"click" shuts door on the way out. Because even supposed sun readers are polite enough to do that.

[Timster]

It might help if the Chair could be a bit more specific about why these posts have been deleted. I haven't seen all of them (since some were deleted before I got a chance to read them) but my undeleted post was in response to iaineasy's now deleted one and, whilst I don't agree with his views, and still find his language inappropriate, I didn't feel it went so far as to warrant being removed.

And I found the use of the word 'nonce' odd because I had thought it was prison slang - I wouldn't actually expect to see the term used by the Sun who prefer the more straightforward 'paedo'.

[Huggers]

I spent about fifteen minutes construcing my contribution to a couple of other points in this thread which- if you remember- I started.

Fifteen minutes to carefully articulate, but four seconds for the chair to read, judge and decide to delete.

I can only assume the chair did not understand my references,or understand the nature of an expansive discussion on a single theme- because all my references were completely relevent.

Nor were they libellous.

Natassia Kinski's relationship at the age of 15 with Polanski isin the public domain and in her autobiography and was in response to 'was it a one off offence for Polanski?'question that was asked..

My reference to the film Tess likewise refers to Polanski's take on the whole thing.

My reference to Brook Shields refers to an event comtemporative to the original offence and was in answer to 'werent the seventies Hollywood like that?'

To sum up, yes the atmosphere of seventies Hollywood was morally ambivolent (c. brook shields) but that does not excuse Polanski who acted in that instance as a predatory paedophile even if he doesnt think he did.

Like TImster I am saying a big no to the drawing room if it is unable to sustain a proper discussion.

This Polanski discussion touches on ideas of the law and the passage of time, changing mores, personal culpability, whether we forgive artists more readily than citizens....interesting quesions? apparently not.

[Jeremy]

Listen to Phil.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FGhipZH7DII/R-q_FxkLvEI/AAAAAAAABFQ/1Q0Y2xOYUY0/s200/collins-nonce-sense.jpg

[The Chair]

  Quote

Chair you did not answer my question about deleting posts due to 'Sun-style' writing or because it was simply off topic. I think it's too much deletion of communicative material (since we're on a wiki roll). Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to be in the lounge and am missing the point of something which could very well be the case, but it is censorship and I don't think it's appropriate in this day and age especially as it was not malicious or libellous (and I am used to censorship living in China!).

This has not been an easy topic to oversee/moderate/"censor". It would have been simpler and safer I suppose to say merely that the deleted posts were "off-topic", but it did seem to me that, here and there, certain arguments/observations owed more to smear and/or sweeping generalisation than any basis in fact, which is why, perhaps ill-advisedly, I added the "Sun" feedback page comment. I did not suggest anything was "malicious" but I still stand by the warning about libellous or potentially libellous posts. And I am sure you are quite intelligent enough to be in the drawing room as well as the lounge!

  Quote

It might help if the Chair could be a bit more specific about why these posts have been deleted. I haven't seen all of them (since some were deleted before I got a chance to read them) but my undeleted post was in response to iaineasy's now deleted one and, whilst I don't agree with his views, and still find his language inappropriate, I didn't feel it went so far as to warrant being removed.

In some cases posts got deleleted simply because they were responses to the "key" post which I deleted either because it was off-topic or possibly libellous. I did consider editing out parts of posts rather than obliteration but this did not seem feasible and in any case might have been even more unacceptable to the original poster than complete deletion.

  Quote

I spent about fifteen minutes construcing my contribution to a couple of other points in this thread which- if you remember- I started.

Fifteen minutes to carefully articulate, but four seconds for the chair to read, judge and decide to delete.

I can only assume the chair did not understand my references,or understand the nature of an expansive discussion on a single theme- because all my references were completely relevent.

I can assure you I spent a good deal longer than four seconds. But I still think the Kinski/Tess stuff is too remote from the issues raised by Polanski's recent arrest and the original alleged offence to be on topic.

  Quote

his Polanski discussion touches on ideas of the law and the passage of time, changing mores, personal culpability, whether we forgive artists more readily than citizens....interesting quesions? apparently not.

These do remain excellent questions for discussion but care should still be taken. Polanski is notoriously litigious, incredible as this may seem!

[candj]

Okay, thanks for clarification. I really don't understand what about Iain's post was libellous, potentially or otherwise as I did read it twice having had trouble with the definition of the word 'nonce' especially after reading Timster's comment on it.

HOWEVER, back on topic, I feel Hugger's parallel with Polanski's relationship with Kinski is very relevant as it shows he has a history of disregarding the laws that are put in place to protect children. Deleting it because it was in your view not relevant was a bit overkill, why not just tell him to stick to the topic rather than taking whole posts away. Sorry to carry on about this but it disrupts the normal flow of discussion that you are trying to promote in the D.R. and it's censorship.

Best,

-C

[SeanMacGabhann]

Do I hear several applications for the position of The Chair?

[mockney piers]

* scribbles names in notepad, great no excuses next change *

[Timster]

surely this is off-topic ;-)

[????]

did have the thought myself Timster ;-)

[LuLu Too]

Good article about a fugitive paedophile,English law lords and libel by Nick Cohen in yesterday's Observer.

And to answer the OP's question; yes.

[HAL9000]

The Observer: Why Roman Polanski just loves the English courts

[SteveT]

Nonce is derived from 'getting up to the old nonsense' or so I was told.

"Nonce" is prison speak, used for any sexual offender.

[iaineasy]

=

[HAL9000]

Swiss court grants Polanski bail in US child sex case

[SteveT]

I remember an interview when Polanski was challenged about his pursuit of minors, and he said he was interested in young women, not children.

So that's how he saw it.

[SteveT]

I was told some years ago that rape carried the death penalty in some states, but I have no idea whether this is still the case.

If their gaols are like the ones here, it is a dangerous place to be as a sex offender.