The brilliant QC Michael Mansfield describes his job as "defending the indefensible". This week Hollywood, politicians and literary figures have been coming over all Michael Mansfield about film director and, let us not forget, child sex offender Roman Polanski.
British author Robert Harris is "disgusted" that a man of 76 should have been treated in such a fashion. In which fashion would that be? Arrested?
Perhaps Harris's views are clouded by the fact that a film adaptation of one of his books, The Ghost, is being directed by Polanski, who also co-wrote the screenplay.
Yesterday's Independent carried a quote from France's culture minister. Frederic Mitterrand said Polanski's apprehension was "awful and totally unjust". He called the action "frightening", a description that might have been better applied to the sodomising of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
And, of course, there is Hollywood, dear Hollywood, closing ranks on one of their own. Film producer Harvey Weinstein wrote in The Independent today that Polanski had "served his time". Where? In prison? No, in France. It's tough for some.
The mood of disbelief that Polanski should have to face sentencing for a crime that he has admitted (he absconded while awaiting punishment) has left this observer, well, in a mood of disbelief.
Some have even suggested that he should have been warned of his impending arrest. Using this warped logic, perhaps this privilege should be extended to all criminals in order to give them a sporting chance to get away. After all, Polanski has been getting away with it for 32 years.
And others have pointed out, correctly, that the girl who was assaulted - now a woman in her forties - has requested that no further action be taken.
Aside from the fact that she is letting a criminal off the hook, it does not alter the fact that Polanski raped a girl of 13.
Would anyone else receive such favoured treatment?
Thank God for some common sense on this. Is it to do with class one wonders? Opinion on the crimes of Gary Glitter is consistently censorious, yet Polanski is being portrayed as a victim.
Let me explain how it works, if you are a credible artist (Pete Townsend, Roman Polanski) the public and the media will generally let you get away with sexual crimes against children. If, however, you are already creepy (Glitter, Jackson) then you will be punished accordingly.
I completely agree. I find it staggering that he is being defended.
I thought i was going mad listening to that author support RP.
I agree that celebrities have no right to expect more favourable media coverage or legal leniency when they break the law as regards rape and/or child abuse. I found the Michael Jackson bandwagon offensive for this very reason.
In the case of Roman Polanski, I wonder whether the supporters of Polanski have been influenced by the knowledge of his late wife Sharon Tate's murder by followers of Charles Manson? I suspect that some strange version of appalled sympathy lies behind the way such people appear outraged on his behalf.
However, as my mum would have said, two wrongs don't make a right.