Thompson 'talked out of support for Polanski' by 19-year-old student
After short chat, actress agrees to remove name from petition
AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Actress Emma Thompson said she would remove her name from a petition in support of film director Roman Polanski
Emma Thompson is an Oscar-winning actress whose charisma and outspoken personality have earned her admiration and a reputation as a "strong woman".
But when one of her fans realised that Thompson had signed a petition calling for the release of Roman Polanski – the film director recently arrested in Switzerland for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 – she was determined to talk the actress out of it.
Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, a 19-year-old student at Exeter University – where Thompson's adopted son graduated this year – arranged a meeting with the actress this week to try to convince her to change her mind.
Days earlier, Ms Hayward-Tapp had set up her own petition, to express outrage at those petitioners who were calling for Polanski's release, and on it, she had expressed her surprise at Thompson putting her name to such a cause.
The student's campaign seems to have paid off. Thompson, who initially signed the petition in support of Polanksi, which was launched by French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, agreed to speak to Hayward-Tapp for 15 minutes. By the end of the conversation, the actress had decided to withdraw her name from Lévy's petition, according to Ms Hayward-Tapp.
"I met her while she was here to take part in 'One World Week' at my university, which raises awareness of diversity. I was due to sit on a panel on gender equality with her but I asked if I could speak to her [in person]. She is such an inspirational woman, I reckoned she must have been willing to reconsider.
"It turned out she was very willing to hear what I had to say. She said she knows Roman Polanski and that she had had calls from friends asking her to sign the petition. She knows what a terrible early life he [Polanski] had.
"She said she had already been thinking a lot about the petition, as others had expressed their dismay at her signing it. We talked for 15 minutes and by the end she said she would get her name removed. She said regardless of the fact she knows him and the terrible things he has been through, a crime is a crime. If she doesn't do this, it'd be a great shame," said Ms Hayward-Tapp.
The student's petition, entitled: "Drop the petition for Roman Polanski's release", was launched last week, and has over 400 signatures. It has been highlighted by feminist bloggers on the websites Shakespeare's Sister and Jezebel. Although Thompson has not signed this petition, Ms Hayward-Tapp reported that the actress had said: "Know that I will remove my name because of you, and all of the good work that you have been doing. I have read your petition. I have heard you. And I will listen."
The university confirmed that Thompson had spent the week at Exeter University, taking part in a series of events to celebrate diversity.
Polanski's case, which was never fully resolved after he fled America, has become a cause célèbre since his arrest in September; a host of actors have signed petitions on his behalf, including Lévy's, with Hollywood star Whoopie Goldberg provoking angry criticism when she said "whatever Polanski was guilty of, it wasn't rape-rape".
Lévy's petition has 164 signatures so far, many of them by big names including Jeremy Irons, Natalie Portman, Salman Rushdie, Sam Mendes, Kristin Scott Thomas, Harrison Ford and Isabelle Huppert.
On his website, Lévy explains why he thinks Polanski should be freed, saying "it is shameful to throw into prison a 76-year-old", and lists "extenuating" circumstances, such as his mother's death at the hands of the Nazis in Auschwitz, and the murder of Polanski's young wife, Sharon Tate. He also writes: "I barely know Roman Polanski" and that those who have taken part in his "lynching" will "soon awaken horrified by what they have done".
Another petition, set up by SACD, France's Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers, has 850 signatures, including Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar's, but a spokeswoman for SACD stressed that this petition was to oppose the way in which Polanski was arrested – as he visited Switzerland to collect an award – because it could set a "dangerous" precedent. Thompson and Lévy declined to comment.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
What colour is he then?
Is it in the interests of public safety to lock this man up?
Or is this simply that we'll all sleep easier knowing this man was punished?
Just because he is old now means nothing.
Either we have laws and sure they are enforced or we should scrap them.
There was no permanent damage done as far as I can see, is he just being pursued beacuse he is famous and some prosecoutor wants a feather in his cap?
And it really isn't for you to say whether damage is or is not done. It would be hugely damaging for the authorities to set a precedent by allowing someone to escape a rape charge. It's akin to saying it's not a big deal, and that's damaging for every other rape victim in this world.
And don't forget he also fled the country while on bail which is a separate crime and also punishable.
Huh? What do u know about permanent damage or otherwise to a 13 year old girl who's been raped by a more powerful older man? Have you been through it? Perhaps this account by a woman who went through a similar experience as a teen might give you a clue:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n21/jenny-disk
And if it was your daughter that he had drugged and soddomised, would you hold the same view?
nothing more needs to be said
You say "he is certainly not a serial child molester"--may I ask on what you are basing this? He had a "relationship" with Nastassja Kinski when she was fifteen (and he was much older), and likewise with at least one other young actress; those alone would make him, yes, "a serial child molester." Furthermore, it is extraordinarily unlikely, given those three offenses, that there were not still more victims. Nor has there been any evidence whatsoever that he regrets what he's done, so I have no idea why you are so sure of this.
"burning innocent women...or using queer people as faggots"?! Oh, please. This is a red herring. Roman Polanski is not innocent; he admitted not merely to the "unlawful sex" of his plea-bargain, but to forcible action while his underage victim was saying "no"--just as she testified. (And it's quite possible that some of those who want to see him punished are anti-women or anti-gay; but I know for certain that many of us are neither of those, and have feminist credentials as good as anybody's--and are speaking up for rape victims in general, not just those whose attackers were famous movie directors.)
And I haven't seen anything that suggests Polanski regrets what he did; I'm willing to bet he is VERY sorry that he got caught. Nothing along the lines of "I shouldn't have drugged and/or raped somebody, I'm a jerk."
Lastly, even if the victim doesn't want this to go back to trial (which is understandable, considering that last time she was often billed as the "Little Lolita" that "seduced" poor, poor Roman Polanski), the prosecution doesn't just serve her -- they serve The People. The People should be assured that justice is served to all, no matter how talented people are.
Geimer by no means was a "child". Polanski asked her if she took the pill: paedophiles usuallly don't ask their victims if they take the pill, because children have no reason whatsoever to take the pill. ERGO...
Also, the charge of "rape" has never been retained against Polanski. We have Geimers testimony, who said it was not consensual, and Polanskis, who always insisted it was. We have no reason to believe either one more than the other.
We may question the morals or a 44 year old man having a relationship with a 15 year old girl but the fact was... he wasn't breaking any laws or harming anybody. Let's not start making mountains out of molehills.
In court papers, she said, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."
Polanski's arrest has divided public opinion, even in Hollywood."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvGZ5XXP
Pity they don't support worthwhile petitions like the one at www.episkopiturtlewatch.com
bloody celebrities - think their views and their actions belong to a different world
Who gives a flying fig what a bunch of luvvies say ?
Take their petition to excuse a child rapist - and flush it down the toilet.
Would they all be SO keen to let this guy off - if it were their child ?
By what logic is it right that a rapist should escape justice because he is perceived
to be talented (debatable ) and because " it was along time ago "
Other posts I have read have, shamefully, suggested it was the girl's fault.
A judgemnet made form a distnace of around 8,000 miles .
Polanksi was an adult at the time - adults have repsonsibilties to others - especially kids.
And she was a KID.
The reason that all these luvvies are signing the petition to release the perverted sicko Polanski is because they have Jewish agents.
A pity she was talked out of it, otherwise she would have been further exposed as having doubtful opinions !
Why should I care? Is this supposed to influence my thinking in some way?
Governments need to know that normal people are utterly opposed to these supporters of a paedophile rapist.
taking her anally because she might be at the wrong time of the month.
No sympathy - this grownup man was completely in control of a child.
(And I'm shocked at the girl's mother's part in this - but then watching
parents in Brüno trying to get their kids into show business, you know not
to be shocked).
What I dislike is the power of judges to back out of agreements.
Most of the US judicial system is based on plea-bargains to avoid
the glut of slow, resource-taking trials. There has to be good faith
on the side of the government, or the system will fall apart. The
victim herself remains horrified by the judge backing out of the
agreement. While of course victims don't have the right to free
their assailants, and their sympathies don't matter, this is about
the legal procedure, not about what Polanski did. And there are
equivalently bad and much worse crimes than Polanski's that are
plea-bargained every day - that is the legal system. You can
debate the morality of that plea-bargaining, but it is how the
system works. In this case, it seems the system (the judge)
failed.
Unlawful sex? Let's not diminish the crime by softening the language. Polanski was convicted for RAPE, not unlawful sex. No wonder so many sign a abhorrent petition to free Polanski when the horror that is rape is constantly downplayed by the media.
...The media and public preoccupation here in the U.S. over vengeance on matters of sexual conduct illuminates a pathological obsession that has become distinctly American, spawned over bleak decades of prudish post-Victorian propaganda...Ironically, this cultural pathology was once distinctly British; Americans have been saddled with it now for over a century.
The American public will continue to show it's fangs, and not in the least be embarrassed by it.
I would hate to see contemporary UK or the Continiental public behave like American barbarians screaming for Polanski's blood in the name of "Justice"...
A bit hypocritical...No ? !!
James Ballard
11/10/09
Just a legal note here: Polanski wasn't convicted of rape only because he pleaded to a lesser charge, i.e., unlawful sexual intercourse. Even if we left aside the charge he was convicted of if he returns he will be convicted of fleeing his sentence, which seems fair to me.
11:30 PM CST
It's a safe bet that the very nature of a "blog" is generally discordant with reality, but you two guys are making a science out of blunt misrepresentation and misdirection : do either of you know what a "rationalization" is ? Don't look it up now, that's cheating.
Comparing Polanski to Manson, a convicted serial murderer, and putting them in the same league is so far beyond the pale that I am convinced you must both be on 24 hour illicit intravenous pharmaceuticals.
BTW, "clemdane",one clue : Polanski was not "convicted of 'rape'; he pled to "Unlawful sex with a minor", a misdemeanor.
If you're really interested in the facts, go to huffingtonpost.com, type in ""What's on Trial ?" Karin Badt
where you will find numerous links to contemporaneous documents and interviews.
J.B. 11/11/09
8:45 AM CST
Not sure whom you are addressing, but your naive declarations about "crime is a crime" is NOT set in stone or cast in iron...ANYWHERE in the world... your "PERIOD" notwithstanding.
Why don't you READ a little on the FACTS of this 30+ year old case before you promote such obtuse and transparent propaganda ??!!
J.B.
11/12/09