People

Showers (AM and PM) 10° London Hi 10°C / Lo 8°C

Thompson 'talked out of support for Polanski' by 19-year-old student

After short chat, actress agrees to remove name from petition

By Arifa Akbar, Arts Correspondent

Actress Emma Thompson said she would remove her name from a petition in support of film director Roman Polanski

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.

Post a 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.

Comments

Roman Polanski,Rapist
[info]ashtton3 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 05:04 am (UTC)
I am stunned by the fact that so many supposedly intelligent people have signed a petition supporting the rape and sexual abuse of a thirteen year old child. Oh I know they probably do not support the act but this is what it amounts to. I hear the comments that he has had a terrible life, being persecuted because he is Jewish and also the loss of his murdered wife. I ask you, would these people be so lenient if he was a white or black man.
Re: Roman Polanski,Rapist
[info]shangstar wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 06:33 am (UTC)
completely agree with you. This guy admitted to child rape and ran away simply to avoid punishment. Yes, of course he paid his victim civil damages and apparently she doesn't want the trial to go ahead, but as a matter of public policy criminals cannot be allowed to buy their way out of the criminal justice system, otherwise there would be little point in having the criminal laws in the first place. I mean Gary Glitter had a lot of fans, but that doesn't excuse him from what he did. Polanski did the crime, now he must do the time.
Re: Roman Polanski,Rapist
[info]belsha wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:08 pm (UTC)
Polanski NEVER admitted to "child rape". He as always maintained the sex was consensual, and the charge of rape was immediately droppes against him. Also the girl was NOT a "child", as many girls at age thirteen.
Re: Roman Polanski,Rapist
[info]sangmo wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 08:00 pm (UTC)
You live in a pretty bizarre world if you don't think a 13 year old is a child. Would you think it appropriate if your 13 year old daughter/sister was pressured into having sex with a much older and powerful man?
Re: Roman Polanski,Rapist
[info]mittheimp wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
"I ask you, would these people be so lenient if he was a white or black man."

What colour is he then?
Excellent initiative
[info]fb1200 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC)
I have signed the student's petition and urge all caring Independent readers to do the same
Justice
[info]domoresti wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
Society's view of what "justice" is couldn't be more screwed up.

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?
Re: Justice
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
Its the principle that people should not get away with a crime just because they are wealthy and well connected. Being a great artist (if he is such) does not excuse what he did. There shoudl be no statute of limitations on such a crime.

Just because he is old now means nothing.

Either we have laws and sure they are enforced or we should scrap them.
Justice
[info]leonore1935 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 10:48 am (UTC)
There are reports of thugs who have permanently scarred and disabled people being let off with a caution in this country.
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?
Re: Justice
[info]ldm123 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 02:55 pm (UTC)
Whether something is a crime isn't dependent on whether it causes "permanent damage". A mugging victim is unlikely to be "permanently damaged" by having their phone stolen so should the mugger be let off?

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.
Re: Justice
[info]sangmo wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 04:59 am (UTC)
"There was no permanent damage done as far as I can see,"

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-diski/diary
Re: Justice
[info]razygentry wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)

And if it was your daughter that he had drugged and soddomised, would you hold the same view?
Polanski's early life as mitigation.
[info]amt57 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)
And what if it transpired that Bernie Madoff had had a tough time in his formative years. Would there be a 'get of of jail free' petition for him? No, thought not.
Polanski Petitions
[info]alfaustere wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC)
..wait a 'cotton picking minute' here before I jump in head first.. 'Drop the Polanski Petition' has 400 signatures while the 'Release Polanski Petition' has quite a few thousand (I'm not about to embarrass anyone with the exact number)..is this what they call Rule by Democracy or Rule by Minority ? Emma Thompson should be well ashamed of herself changing her views after only 15 minutes of so called chatting. Things like this topic take me a lot longer to reflect upon before giving my opinion and verdict...One hopes Ms Thompson doesn't accidently meet with BNP official on platform 9 and 3/4 at Kings Cross..we'll never hear the end of petitions for free packets of pork scratchings for BNP members in BNP only pubs...my reflection after all this time is that some of my bretheren actors should be seen and heard on film and in the theatre only, otherwise silence is the code...This is probably why I stay well away from petitions in the first place !! This is my 15 minutes meeting with Ms Tompson condensed a bit for anyone reading this!!
an mature man having sex with a 13 year old is simply wrong
[info]laserdent wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
Sad family histories does not mean an absolution from knowing right from wrong.
Re: an mature man having sex with a 13 year old is simply wrong
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC)
absolutely

nothing more needs to be said
Yes, his family life was wrecked in many ways
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 03:24 pm (UTC)
I am sure he regrets the awful thing he's done. Real child rapists don't. They get out of prison and do it again. That was not his case. Even the raped girl herself, now a woman, has said many time that she wants the case to be dropped and that she did forgive Mr Polanski in the past. Her professional life and her family life were left upside down due to the present and constant Media attention. I don't know if both of them arranged some sort of agreement in the past or even if both of them have had a chat after the awful event took place. I don't know. What I do know is that he is not a monster and he is certainly not a serial child molester. And that speaks volumes to me. On the other hand it is notorious that the person who was in charge of the case, knew quite well he would make a professional profit out of it. That's Hollywood for you. And he was to have none of it because he is an intelligent man who did something stupid and deplorable in his past. Sometimes I wonder if the people who claim he is such a monster would be burning innocent women back in the middle ages or using queer people as faggots, just for the sake of getting justice done. I am sorry but here I am going to have to say the raped girl, the most concerned person is this whole affair, who is now a woman, is right and some of you here, are very wrong. And it is going to take more than a 5 minute chat for me to think otherwise.
Re: Yes, his family life was wrecked in many ways
[info]enegim wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 06:33 pm (UTC)
You may never think otherwise; we'll continue to disagree with you. The victim wants the case to be dropped because she doesn't want to be put through the wringer that courts often inflict on rape victims; this is understandable, but no, it doesn't serve justice. Nor does it protect other young women from Polanski and those of his ilk.

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.)
Re: Yes, his family life was wrecked in many ways
[info]pseudo_star_17 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 05:46 am (UTC)
What exactly do you mean "REAL child rapists" don't regret what they've done. Polanski drugged this girl, and then it was reported that he raped her vaginally, anally, and then forced oral sex on her. When she was 13. How much more "real" does this rape need to be before Polanski is a "real" child rapist. He raped a child. Ergo: he's a child rapist.

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.
Re: Yes, his family life was wrecked in many ways
[info]belsha wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:27 pm (UTC)
About your "Ergo":
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.
Absolutely correct..........
[info]cravenrot wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 10:51 pm (UTC)
He so regretted the awful thing he did. he fled to Europe and immediately begun a prolonged "affair" with the 15 year old Nastassja Kinski.
Re: Absolutely correct..........
[info]happiestgirl_88 wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
Natassja Kinski was of legal age back then, and the relationship was completely consensual. She herself has confirmed it and continues to until this day. In fact she and Roman have remained good friends.

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.
Re: Absolutely correct..........
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:33 am (UTC)
The girl once said, no to an adult that did not listen to her. Now a woman, she says, no and most people seem not to get her.She has no say in her own affairs. What matters is what you people think. You all say, justice done, and turn your backs to the big issue: What's been left of her family life.She was asked to do the chat show circuit in exchange for dollars, she again said no. It does not matter how many times she says,no.What you people want is not justice, it is Pane et circus. That's the true story behind it. YOU people want to make an example of her case and your tiny little hearts will feel happy, at heart.She was powerless as a girl, she is powerless as a woman. I am sure your opinions are going to succeed because YOU people understand only two colours: Black and White. Your brains just don't get the full range.That's all.
Re: Absolutely correct..........
[info]brazil2009 wrote:
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 12:54 am (UTC)
"In January, Samantha Geimer, now 45, a married mother of three, called for the case to be tossed out.

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/Movies/10/06/polanski.swiss.warrant/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvGZ5XXPCSM



Roman Polanski, Rapist
[info]walterwall wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
I wonder if all these 'luvvies' would have been so keen to sign up if it had been their thirteen year old daughter he had drugged and raped, or indeed, if he had not been a fellow luvvie. One rule for the 'precious' people in our society and another for the rest of us.

Pity they don't support worthwhile petitions like the one at www.episkopiturtlewatch.com
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 02:03 pm (UTC)
more power to your elbow Caitlin

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.
Isn't it obvious?
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 03:28 pm (UTC)

The reason that all these luvvies are signing the petition to release the perverted sicko Polanski is because they have Jewish agents.
Re: Isn't it obvious?
[info]neocatholic3000 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 12:45 am (UTC)
Hey MODS, isn't anti-semitism and bigotry against your terms of service? Perhaps then this comment needs to be taken off, please.
SACD Have it wrong
[info]johnsc wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 04:12 pm (UTC)
It is reported that the SACD stress their petition was to oppose the way in which Polanski was arrested. Why? Surely France should have extradited him the the US years ago, without the need for an upright country to do it this way.
[info]fishmike wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 04:30 pm (UTC)
It beggars belief, the man's a beast and needs to do his time. I can't believe that any sane adult would condone his actions. "Oh, he had a horrible childhood, oh, his wife was killed, oh poor boy from the holocaust...etc". The girl involved was paid off. He's a paedophile, no matter how talented he is, he has to pay the piper or how can society continue. All of youse with 13 year old daughters should look in the mirror when you are saying there were mitigating factors. What middle aged man has sex with a drugged senseless 13 year old and has pleasure in it, aye, a beast, a paedophile, case over.
Emma Thompson's flawed opinion
[info]capindi wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
Following her racist comments about Exeter, it doesn't surprise me that she was all for the rape and sexual abuse or little girls.

A pity she was talked out of it, otherwise she would have been further exposed as having doubtful opinions !
SO what?
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 10:19 pm (UTC)
So Emma Thompson did this, and then Emma Thompson did that.

Why should I care? Is this supposed to influence my thinking in some way?
Re: SO what?
[info]walterwall wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 06:31 am (UTC)
The problem is that even though celebrities' views don't (and shouldn't) influence your and my opinion, they influence the opinions of the cretinous governments that cling to celebrities' coat-tails in the hope that it will help them hold onto power.
Governments need to know that normal people are utterly opposed to these supporters of a paedophile rapist.
No sympathy for Polanski - sympathy for agreements
[info]decader wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 07:02 am (UTC)
Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old, after discussion
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.

[info]aleatory_6 wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 09:23 pm (UTC)
"for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"

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.
Roman Polanski
[info]oatybiscuit wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 01:27 am (UTC)
For all we know, this "man" may well have been abusing children since and even before the rape that was actually reported. He should be locked up. I was stalked by a paedophile when I was 12, I was lucky he didn't hurt me. These men must be imprisoned!
...Ignorance on a Rampage...
[info]sir_james5689 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 12:32 am (UTC)
6:00PM CST

...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
Roman Polanski and Charlie Manson
[info]differnet wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 03:28 pm (UTC)
Charlie Manson also had a terrible childhood and tragic life. One should ask Mr. Polanski if he should recieve mercy for his crimes agains Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate? I suspect Mr. Polanski wouldn't get the hypocrisy of using his childhood and the murder of Ms. Tate to excuse his crime, while maintaining that Mr. Manson shouldn'be be able to make the same arguement. I've long said rationalization is the most important thing people do, because it allows them to live with themselves.
Re: Roman Polanski and Charlie Manson
[info]clemdane wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)
Exactly. After all the Manson murders were "a long time ago."

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.
Ignorance on the Rampage
[info]sir_james5689 wrote:
Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 05:35 am (UTC)
@ "differnet" & "clemdane"
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
[info]tt09 wrote:
Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 05:47 am (UTC)
Horried by what THEY have done?! We are horrified at what Polanski has done...a crime is a crime and despite what has happened prior to him in his life there is NO excuse. Anyone who does wrong should pay for his actions and deal with the consequences...PERIOD!
Ignorance on the Rampage
[info]sir_james5689 wrote:
Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 02:49 pm (UTC)
@ "tt09"
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

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date