Mosley 'knows' who set him up [Archive]

8th February 2009, 21:16

Quite a lot of people, if you hadn't noticed. I don't think there was anything wrong with what he did — if those are his predelictions, leave him to them, I say — but clearly many are not of this view.

Ok, I'll re-phrase that......

Apart from narrow-minded pillocks who jumped to a judgement based on a gutter-press publications report, thereby proving that they are indeed pillocks, who thinks there was anything wrong with what he actually did?

Note - What he actually did isn't the same as what was reported by Fleet Streets finest (sic).

blito

8th February 2009, 23:01

Mosely is a very slick operator and a very dangerous man to make an enemy of, so if it were me that had "set him up" i`d be papping meself right now :P
Now, i have to agree with Tamburello about fleet streets reporting, but i would still think that Mr Mosely, being a prominent public figure, could perhaps have been a little more careful in choosing his pass-times?
All in all i think the whole affair has been somewhat shameful but i dont neccessarrilly (just how DO you spell that word?) think that Mr Mosely is to blame. One, poor decision and some shock reporting shouldnt be allowed to put a blemish on what has been a great career.

BTW, despite my pathetic post count, i read this forum almost daily, and have had many privare giggles over the blatant favoutism to various teams that goes on, especially as we all know that Ferrari cheats all the time and Ukyo Katayama was the greatest driver that ever lived :)

ArrowsFA1

9th February 2009, 09:58

You're saying that he wanted to be front-page news on account of his sexual preference?
No.

ioan

9th February 2009, 10:09

This is why he has to go, he was in the wrong yet still won't admit to it. Give it a rest.

What exactly are you talking about?! :rolleyes:

ioan

9th February 2009, 10:11

Suggesting that he could hand out sporting sanctions is completely wrong. Whoever it was, penalising them or their team is just daft, this is a personal matter simple as.

If F1 team leaders were involved in something fishy than sporting sanctions are in order, like it was in the Italian Football League.

Garry Walker

9th February 2009, 11:32

Well, let`s hope that Max catches those people and punishes them according to his liking.

But before that, he could do us all a favour and fcuk off.

speeddurango

10th February 2009, 10:24

I would take that as a threat to that individual, these people may well know what they're doing so, well the truth might not be public for years if they can get it done privately obviously.

Cooper_S

10th February 2009, 23:06

Dirty Den is now semi retired, so best let it go Max...

blito

10th February 2009, 23:32

Well, let`s hope that Max catches those people and punishes them according to his liking.

Man, that is just sweet , 10 out of 10 for humour :)

PolePosition_1

12th February 2009, 17:36

12th February 2009, 17:47

trumperZ06

12th February 2009, 17:48

:dozey: Hhmmm... poor ole Max gets caught with his pants down...

Bribes his way into remaining in office...

and now wants to bring the culprit to justice.

:p : Maybe the teams should pony up the $$$ to solve the case....

;) Buy Max a mirror !!!

12th February 2009, 17:58

Totally agree.

Sadly, there are those on this forum who will never acknowledge that because it suits their own agenda.

They should be truly ashamed.

:dozey: Hhmmm... poor ole Max gets caught with his pants down...

Bribes his way into remaining in office...

and now wants to bring the culprit to justice.

:p : Maybe the teams should pony up the $$$ to solve the case....

;) Buy Max a mirror !!!

Thanks for proving my point.

ArrowsFA1

12th February 2009, 19:18

Rightly so in my mind, I hope those do get punished. A huge invasion of his privacy and shouldn't be allowed. He was subject to judgement via tabloid media, which no one should be subjected to in my mind.

Totally agree.

Sadly, there are those on this forum who will never acknowledge that because it suits their own agenda.
I don't think there is much dispute over the invasion of privacy aspect of this. It's well known that the NoTW make it their business to "uncover" the private lives of public figures. Max was not the first to suffer from "exposure" in this way and he will not be the last. The issue of "media freedom" is a wide ranging one, and certainly much wider than Max's case alone.

That said, Max would have us believe that his case is somewhat different, perhaps because it suits his agenda to do so.

ioan

12th February 2009, 19:57

So the Mosley bashing is on again?!

Nice to see what people are interested most in F1, the color of the cars, of the tires and the private life of those involved. :rolleyes:

12th February 2009, 20:05

I don't think there is much dispute over the invasion of privacy aspect of this.

Didn't notice you saying that when you were in full anti-Max bash-mode when the story broke.

How do you sleep at night?

trumperZ06

12th February 2009, 20:35

;) Not sure that Max's position... after all he is a public figure,

Being President of the FIA... makes this an "invasion of privacy" issue !!!

Either way:

Any reputable organization would have forced him out of office for failing to meet "The morals clause" .

No "entrapment" was involved, this was a self inflicted situation.

Once it became known to the public, this type of deviate sexual behavor, would normally result in either a resignation or dismissal.

:D Oh, and most of us sleep very well at night, thanks for asking.

:p : Only you Trolls seem to have trouble getting a good night's sleep !!!

Bagwan

12th February 2009, 20:35

Didn't notice you saying that when you were in full anti-Max bash-mode when the story broke.

How do you sleep at night?

Don't make fun of his epiphany . It's cruel .

ArrowsFA1

12th February 2009, 20:52

Don't make fun of his epiphany . It's cruel .
What "epiphany"? The NoTW has always been tomorrow's fish & chip paper :laugh:

trumperZ06

12th February 2009, 20:57

What "epiphany"? The NoTW has always been tomorrow's fish & chip paper :laugh:

;) Ummm... I thought that the NoTW epiphany...

only applied to the January 6th issue !!!

:s mokin:

ioan

12th February 2009, 23:58

Once it became known to the public, this type of deviate sexual behavor, would normally result in either a resignation or dismissal.

First of all, as long as it is between adult people it's not of public interest.

2nd. Deviate sexual behavior? Compared to what and judged by whom?!

BDunnell

13th February 2009, 00:34

Totally agree.

Sadly, there are those on this forum who will never acknowledge that because it suits their own agenda.

They should be truly ashamed.

Is this — i.e. holding an opinion different to your own — genuinely something that should make one 'truly ashamed'? You are blowing it out of all proportion.

BDunnell

13th February 2009, 00:35

Once it became known to the public, this type of deviate sexual behavor, would normally result in either a resignation or dismissal.

Why? Should everyone conform to some sort of social norm when it comes to what they get up to in private? It simply does not matter and should not matter to anyone who is not unduly prurient.

Tazio

13th February 2009, 01:43

Why? Should everyone conform to some sort of social norm when it comes to what they get up to in private? It simply does not matter and should not matter to anyone who is not unduly prurient.
:up:

Cooper_S

13th February 2009, 01:51

blito

13th February 2009, 07:41

They real victim is Max' wife

How very true :(

One point the "max bashers" may wish to consider when pulling him down is to compare his acheivements with those of his predecessers... i personally feel that Mosely has been much better for the sport AND the FIA then Balestre ever was!

i Suggest we open a new sport instead - Balestre Bashing!

Knock-on

13th February 2009, 10:32

lots of kettles and pots of the black variety flying about in this thread...

Personally I am of the opinion that Max is hurting my sport... although he may well be super in the FIA's other remits...

I will not be sad to see him retire/step down/overthrown... but not by means of a grubby scandal peddling rag and a convicted cheat of a team principle (assuming it is who we think it is)

I personally don't indulge in the kind of sexual activity Max does... but I believe it involved Adults and was (or should have been) conducted in private... so none of my business

They real victim is Max' wife

I think that's the way most of us feel.

If Max gets off on kinky or perverted S&M games with prostitutes then that's for him to reconcile with his conscience and family.

I think that a lot of people view this sort of behaviour as unacceptable but then, as long as it's behind closed doors with consenting adults, then that's that.

However, In general I think Max is damaging for Motorsport and this scandle further brings his office into disrepute whether rightly or wrongly.

Garry Walker

13th February 2009, 11:37

However, In general I think Max is damaging for Motorsport and this scandle further brings his office into disrepute whether rightly or wrongly.

Whilst I think the games Maxie played with those hookers are disgusting, I don`t in any way think that that should mean he can`t be the president of FIA.
The reason why I want him to fcuk off from FIA is that his actions have greatly damaged F1 and WRC.

Knock-on

13th February 2009, 12:04

Whilst I think the games Maxie played with those hookers are disgusting, I don`t in any way think that that should mean he can`t be the president of FIA.
The reason why I want him to fcuk off from FIA is that his actions have greatly damaged F1 and WRC.

Personally, I agree 100% with you.

However, because his personal life has impacted so much on his office, it does make his position precarious; rightly or wrongly.

The people he must deal with mostly think of him as some sort of pervert, a subject of humour, lacking in moral fibre or a bit sad. That must call his suitability to represent the FIA into question.

Garry Walker

13th February 2009, 12:09

Personally, I agree 100% with you.

However, because his personal life has impacted so much on his office, it does make his position precarious; rightly or wrongly.

The people he must deal with mostly think of him as some sort of pervert, a subject of humour, lacking in moral fibre or a bit sad. That must call his suitability to represent the FIA into question.

Well, I find it hard to look at him now and not laugh, I just get these mental images that I really would prefer not to get. But that would not mean he is not capable of doing the job.
But catastrophes, such as forcing through KERS and such, are reasons why I want this idiot gone.

BDunnell

13th February 2009, 12:17

The people he must deal with mostly think of him as some sort of pervert, a subject of humour, lacking in moral fibre or a bit sad.

I think the 'subject of humour' bit is probably the most important. Once someone becomes a figure of fun then, rightly or wrongly, it is very hard to recover from it.

Knock-on

13th February 2009, 12:21

Well, I find it hard to look at him now and not laugh, I just get these mental images that I really would prefer not to get. But that would not mean he is not capable of doing the job.
But catastrophes, such as forcing through KERS and such, are reasons why I want this idiot gone.

Again, I can't argue with you.

However, the "man on the street" only associates Max and the FIA with "Mr Whippy" and does not understand any positive or negative work he does.

Garry Walker

13th February 2009, 12:26

Again, I can't argue with you.

However, the "man on the street" only associates Max and the FIA with "Mr Whippy" and does not understand any positive or negative work he does.

That is true. For a big part of the public, he will only ever remain as the guy who got his ass slapped in some dungeon.

ArrowsFA1

13th February 2009, 12:41

I think the 'subject of humour' bit is probably the most important. Once someone becomes a figure of fun then, rightly or wrongly, it is very hard to recover from it.
True.

One thing that is perhaps forgotten is the fact that Max was warned (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68669) he was being targeted two months before his private life was exposed. As the person discovering this said: "It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."

Disregarding such advice suggests a certain arrogance on Max's part; a belief that he was untouchable. Sadly for him that proved not to be the case. It was only when that particular can of worms was open that Max the private individual merged with Max the FIA President, but there was criticism of his Presidency before that, and there has been since, on issues totally unrelated to his private life.

SGWilko

13th February 2009, 12:46

How do you sleep at night?

I lie right on the very edge of the mattress, that way, I find I very soon drop off..........

SGWilko

13th February 2009, 12:47

Don't make fun of his epiphany . It's cruel .

Epiphany, the third Sunday after lent or whatever. Strewth, are you trying to convert us all....? :D

markabilly

14th February 2009, 17:28

Private it was and private it should have remained.

All too true this:

True.

One thing that is perhaps forgotten is the fact that Max was warned (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68669) he was being targeted two months before his private life was exposed. As the person discovering this said: "It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."

Disregarding such advice suggests a certain arrogance on Max's part; a belief that he was untouchable. Sadly for him that proved not to be the case. It was only when that particular can of worms was open that Max the private individual merged with Max the FIA President, but there was criticism of his Presidency before that, and there has been since, on issues totally unrelated to his private life.

BUT even so, it never should have happenned and afterwards, it should have died a death of silence after all the initial fussing.
Said so in a number of posts.

Then he files his case, and sits there in most pompous fashion, not much regard for family, and goes on about some theater for whores and his lifestyle, making it all public and proud. As such it calls his basic character into question, to say the least. And the funny most bizzar thing is that he gets away with it......

You say "certain arrogance on Max's part; a belief that he was untouchable"
well you are very wrong, because you say it in the past tense. If anything this episode has proven his arrogance to be well placed and he is untouchable

and his continued comments from him sprewing forth about who be behind the plot against his throne and dictatorship continues to prove his arrogance is very justified.

:vader:

Knock-on

16th February 2009, 17:40

Well, the situation as I understand it is this:

He was due to retire in October but now has said he may well stay on if the proposed changes he wants to push through don't happen.

That will give him 4 more years to finish up the court cases on the continent and nail whoever set him up.

He has already said that he may well use the power of the FIA to sanction the individual responsible for exposing his private life.

Looks like the FIA dictatorship will continue until 2013.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 10:09

Thanks for proving my point.

Was thinking exactly the same Tamb.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 10:13

I don't think there is much dispute over the invasion of privacy aspect of this. It's well known that the NoTW make it their business to "uncover" the private lives of public figures. Max was not the first to suffer from "exposure" in this way and he will not be the last. The issue of "media freedom" is a wide ranging one, and certainly much wider than Max's case alone.

That said, Max would have us believe that his case is somewhat different, perhaps because it suits his agenda to do so.

I beg to differ, I remember Max stating a while back that he was going to pursue all cases of slander not only for himself, but to show the press they can't get away with this. And that he was setting up a fund for people who have been victim to this tabloid trials like himself for others who are found in that position but unable to fight back because of lack of funds.

I genuienly believe that Max, as a victim, knows the pain this can cause, and wants to help others in similar position. Thats my opinion, but fact that he's set up a trust for this, would back that up more than him using this purely to suit his own agenda.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 10:15

;) Not sure that Max's position... after all he is a public figure,

Being President of the FIA... makes this an "invasion of privacy" issue !!!

Because he is a public figure he's not entitled to a private sex life?

I think people here need to wake up, theres absolutely no case with regards to his privacy being invaded, your simply trying to justify him being caught because your morally against his way of life.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 10:28

But catastrophes, such as forcing through KERS and such, are reasons why I want this idiot gone.

Whilst I acknowledge that KERS, an expensive piece of kit for all teams has been implemented in extremely poor timing.

However you have to look at the circumstances within which it came about.

Regulation changes is a slow process in F1, things take years to implement etc. And the KERS idea was decided before this economic meltdown, when teams were resisting cut costs!

No one could have forseen this credit crunch, and the pace it has come about. If you look at all the 'experts' in this field, none have predicted correctly, so its unfair to lay the blame purely on Max for this.

It is making F1 more relevant, and improving its 'green' image, its just unfortunate that its collided with the credit crunch.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 10:42

Private it was and private it should have remained.

All too true this:

BUT even so, it never should have happenned and afterwards, it should have died a death of silence after all the initial fussing.
Said so in a number of posts.

Then he files his case, and sits there in most pompous fashion, not much regard for family, and goes on about some theater for whores and his lifestyle, making it all public and proud. As such it calls his basic character into question, to say the least. And the funny most bizzar thing is that he gets away with it......

You say "certain arrogance on Max's part; a belief that he was untouchable"
well you are very wrong, because you say it in the past tense. If anything this episode has proven his arrogance to be well placed and he is untouchable

and his continued comments from him sprewing forth about who be behind the plot against his throne and dictatorship continues to prove his arrogance is very justified.

:vader:

Whislt I appreciate your viewpoint. Its totally based on on your moral views. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of personal freedom, he hasn't actually done anything wrong. To you he has, because of your views. In same way extreme islamics think the west are wrong. Whilst I guess from their viewpoint I can understand, at the end of the day its just a different viewpoint.

Law and order is there to protect us, and it currently stands (in western societies at least) to respect eachothers differences, including lifestyles. Moral viewpoints shouldn't be used as a form of deciding what is wrong and right on people. You can hold that view, but should discriminate them.

Big Ben

17th February 2009, 11:07

I suppose the sanctions would be based on the "bringing the sport into disrepute" rule.

I believe he should just shut up.

And if he's right, if there's an F1 character behind this... well boy... what a silly bot you are. You really thought shame would make this dude go? :laugh: . I think they should put his picture for shameless in the dictionaries.

BDunnell

17th February 2009, 11:08

The question in these cases has to be whether someone is a hypocrite. Had Max spoken out before in favour of 'family values', or something, then I would agree that he should have resigned. But he didn't.

Doesn't stop the story still being funny, though.

ArrowsFA1

17th February 2009, 11:36

Because he is a public figure he's not entitled to a private sex life?
Absolutely. Yes he is entitled to a private life of his choosing. What he got up to was of no relevance to motorsport, or his role as FIA President until it became public. Once that happened Max the private individual merged with Max the FIA President, and that cannot be undone.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 16:05

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 16:06

Because he is a public figure he's not entitled to a private sex life?

I think people here need to wake up, theres absolutely no case with regards to his privacy being invaded, your simply trying to justify him being caught because your morally against his way of life.

:dozey: Any reputable public organization, would have dumped Mad Max in a New York second, after his egregious sexual activities became known to the public.

:rolleyes: The fact that he was caught (not the how)... would have ended his career.

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 16:15

:dozey: Any reputable public organization, would have dumped Mad Max in a New York second, after his egregious sexual activities became known to the public.

:rolleyes: The fact that he was caught (not the how)... would have ended his career.

And you think that its right that being caught doing something perfectly legal, but not conformed to societies view of 'normal' should warrant his loss of professional reputation and job?

Bagwan

17th February 2009, 16:24

Absolutely. Yes he is entitled to a private life of his choosing. What he got up to was of no relevance to motorsport, or his role as FIA President until it became public. Once that happened Max the private individual merged with Max the FIA President, and that cannot be undone.

In a sense , I agree with you , that once it became public , it suddenly had relevance to motorsport , but , for a different reason .

Max's private life isn't private any more , not because he was targetted by the NOTW , but because , it seems , someone from the F1 world commissioned someone to sting him .
It is not such a leap to imagine that those same people were involved in lobbying the world's member countries to oust him for the public shame that was created .

The NOTW were only sued for the Nazi allegations .
It was said that they were approached with the video .

So , it is certainly related to F1 , however , not because the man could'nt do the job then or now , rather that he was attacked by someone within the circle , or so he says .

He must decide how much damage it could do to F1 by bringing forth those names , and that may well be why he's going to leave it a few years .

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 16:36

And you think that its right that being caught doing something perfectly legal, but not conformed to societies view of 'normal' should warrant his loss of professional reputation and job?

;) "Moral Clauses" are written into a lot of employment contracts World-Wide to protect the parent organization from being tarnished by employees ingaged in such actions.

:rolleyes: The fact that Max finds it necessary to still be talking about "being caught" shows that his actions have brought "Disrepute" to the FIA !!!

It's NOT the HOW he was caught that matters to the public !!!

It's THAT he was caught involved in inegregious actions that tarishes the FIA's image.

Bagwan

17th February 2009, 16:51

PolePosition_1

17th February 2009, 17:20

;) "Moral Clauses" are written into a lot of employment contracts World-Wide to protect the parent organization from being tarnished by employees ingaged in such actions.

:rolleyes: The fact that Max finds it necessary to still be talking about "being caught" shows that his actions have brought "Disrepute" to the FIA !!!

It's NOT the HOW he was caught that matters to the public !!!

It's THAT he was caught involved in inegregious actions that tarishes the FIA's image.

Just a simple yes or no please mate. Do you you think that its right that being caught doing something perfectly legal, but not conformed to societies view of 'normal' should warrant his loss of professional reputation and job?

If 'moral clauses' are in his contract then fair enough, but as far as I'm aware they're not.

Why does him going on about being caught mean it brought FIA into disrupute? Could it be because he saw an invasion of his privacy, and wants justice?

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 17:33

How about the fact that someone stooped so low as to try to sting him out of office ?
How do you feel about those folks ?

;) Seperate issue entirely... and not a reasonable defense for Max's activity.

It's the old... "Two Wrongs still don't make a Right" !!!

Max's actions has put the FIA in "Disrepute"...

Yes, Max was "caught"... but bottom line... his actions were egregious.

That is what the Public remembers... not the "HOW" (he was caught)

but what he was caught... "DOING" !!!

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 18:17

I guess I should add a comment...

The fact that a "Witchhunt" caused Max to be caught is not good !!!

There is no moral justification for the "How" he was caught. Unfortunitely, this goes on... a search for incrininating evidence, and even entrapment is being done by governments, It now seems to be... common practice.

That still does not excuse Max's actions... and that is what the general public focuses on.

We are much more aware of the politics within F-1, and look beyond the press. John Q Public in most cases, only tunes in for the race, and generally doesn't read beyond the headlines.

Bagwan

17th February 2009, 19:30

;) Seperate issue entirely... and not a reasonable defense for Max's activity.

It's the old... "Two Wrongs still don't make a Right" !!!

Max's actions has put the FIA in "Disrepute"...

Yes, Max was "caught"... but bottom line... his actions were egregious.

That is what the Public remembers... not the "HOW" (he was caught)

but what he was caught... "DOING" !!!

I could agree with you if Max's FIA position had any juridisdiction over any sexual matters , but it does not .
I would not expect his actions are the norm , but these habits exist , and are not illegal .

Never has anyone linked his actions within the presidency to anything sexually depraved in any way , until now .
His habits have been so for many years , as we heard , and kept very secret .
This likely took a fair amount of effort in itself , and undoubtedly a lot of cash .

So , in those days , before the scandal broke , you didn't have any misgivings about his sexual activity , only about his governance .
This is because he took the necessary precautions .

Presumably , these precautions were still in place when the sting occurred .

It has been written that he had been warned that something was up , and failed to react .
Here may be his only real un-doing in the situation , as he may not have added extra security . On the other hand , he may have . We don't know .
Further to that thought , one must presume that one must entrust certain elements of such planning to others .
Those in the "industry" with which you are dealing , are generally trusted to supply the proper "employee" .

Max would make the order , and the agency would supply the goods .

And , one would think that the agency wouldn't likely change too often , as the risk of security breach heightens hugely if that were the case .

And , speaking of breach of security , how does one protect oneself against the national security agency ? MI5 was shown to be involved .

I think it was Ron Dennis who described F1 as the "pirannha club" .
This is just another example .

But , it's an example of going too far .

Remember this :
You never knew anything about this , and had no problem with it , until someone showed you the pictures .

And..........that wasn't Max .

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 20:46

ioan

17th February 2009, 22:10

If 'moral clauses' are in his contract then fair enough, but as far as I'm aware they're not.

Ofcourse there are no moral clauses in his contract, he probably wrote his own contract and he is not as stupid as some would like to think he is. ;)

I wonder if it was BE or RD?! I can't think of anyone else who had reasons to try to oust Max.

ioan

17th February 2009, 22:12

Max's actions has put the FIA in "Disrepute"...

That's wishful thinking. The FIA is doing very well and Max is again a public figure.

His detractors drummed a lot how he can't do his job anymore and other BS like that, but as soon as it was clear that there was nothing "Nazi" in his private business everyone forgot the whole story.

ioan

17th February 2009, 22:19

Today,

The problem is

John Q Public's perception of Max...

John Q doesn't even know who Max is, all he knows is that he can watch his favorite colored car go around a Tilke circuit for about 90 minutes every other Sunday.

John Q rarely even watches Qualifying, and more often than not he doesn't know what tires the cars use.
All he knows and cares about is the name of the driver, the color of the car and maybe the name of the team. ;)
And if he manages to watch more than 50% of the boring fest he might even know who won the championship at the end of the season.

Max still is trying to deflect the public's attention away from his personal sexual activities...

There is nothing to deflect, in fact there was nothing to deflect already a few weeks after the NOTW article.

Tazio

17th February 2009, 22:25

Agree to all three :rolleyes:

trumperZ06

17th February 2009, 22:51

:rolleyes: Ioan, not again !!!

The average... John Q Public only tunes in for the race. He gets his information from the broadcasters who talk about the Headlines. Max's initial exposure was all over Speed TV, National News & Sports sites, and in the press.

:p : Max's sexual escapades were HEADLINES... and the NOTW web site broadcasts were viewed by millions.

The NAZI role playing... etc. were the HEADLINES.

Even Governments were commenting about Max's behavior.

:dozey: Retractions to the News (if any) only came months later, and in many cases on the back pages, or as a footnote within a broadcast.

The "man in the street" wasn't following nor interested in ~ two month old F-1 politics. He remembers the sexual exposure... not Max's whining explainations about being "set-up in a sting opperation" that followed.

People on this site are far more informed & opinionated than the casual fan, who is the "bread & butter" for F-1 revenue.

:p : Max's actions have ruined his reputation. Many leaders and heads of foreign states will no longer meet with him, and his position in the FIA has tarnished it's image.

ioan

18th February 2009, 00:48

Even Governments were commenting about Max's behavior.

Were is the right term. No one is doing it anymore and Max is a public person again.

The "man in the street" wasn't following nor interested in ~ two month old F-1 politics. He remembers the sexual exposure... not Max's whining explainations about being "set-up in a sting opperation" that followed.

The man in the street doesn't remember squat.
I bet that if you ask people on the streets about max Mosley 999 out of 1000 won't even know who he is.

So 0.1% is the maximum of the people who might be aware who he is, and out of these 50% doesn't care about how he get's it up.
That brings us to about 0.05% of people in the street sharing your view.

I'll remind people around here that more often than not a country is governed by people who are oposed by as much as 49,9% of that countries voting population.

See the difference?! ;)

Valve Bounce

18th February 2009, 02:53

Just a simple yes or no please mate. Do you you think that its right that being caught doing something perfectly legal, but not conformed to societies view of 'normal' should warrant his loss of professional reputation and job?

If 'moral clauses' are in his contract then fair enough, but as far as I'm aware they're not.

Why does him going on about being caught mean it brought FIA into disrupute? Could it be because he saw an invasion of his privacy, and wants justice?

Look at it this way: if the Chief Executive of HSBC was caught in a similar manner, he would have been on the next flight out of Hong Kong, tourist class.

................and if the Chief Steward of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club (now no longer Royal) was caught in a similar manner, he'd be out quicker than you could yell "Racing"

trumperZ06

18th February 2009, 03:16

:D The arguement isn't about what Molsey did... World opinion has already judged his actions to be inmoral. Nor are we debating Public opinion, again Molsey has been judged in the court of public opinion and found wanting.

:dozey: So we are left with the debate...

"Molsey knows who set him up" !!!

As Baggie said... Max was caught in a "STING".

The "STING"... though reprehesible does not change the facts...

nor can it erase the Video.

Molsey was caught in inmoral and egregious sexual acts while president of the FIA.

His actions by association tarnish the FIA...

Any other reputable organization would have sent him packing.

That, and that alone, has ruined Molsey's reputation.

:s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

18th February 2009, 09:52

As Baggie said... Max was caught in a "STING".
Max is the only one saying (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73155) he was set up by someone from F1 but, as he says, "I am not going to do anything or say anything until I am absolutely certain."

So, he's not certain and cannot say who it was, but despite that he's willing to say rather a lot around the subject. That's rather like a tabloid drip feeding readers with what is supposedly a "big" story. It grabs the headlines and gets the readers in initially. "All sorts of other things are going to come out" is quite a hook. It's right up the NoTW's street!

But if Max knows then why a delay of "two or three years" before he tells? The criminal proceedings he refers to are cases he initiated against media outlets who repeated the NoTW story. Nothing to do with F1.

So why the delay? Perhaps because it's important for him to remain FIA President so that if he can convince people of this "plot" against him it'll be easier to pursuade them that he should stay on as President beyond June. If that is achieved, whether the "plot" is fact or not won't really matter. If it's not it'll quietly be forgotten (as with the Brundle case), and if it is then Max can deal out whatever sporting punishment he deems appropriate.

Sorry, but IMHO all of the above is Max putting Max's interests first, and using his position as FIA President to do so.

Far simpler is the explaination that the NoTW just did what they do week in week out - got headlines at the expense of a public figure. Jade Goody, Frank Lampard, Max Mosley, Peaches Geldof...they're all the same as far as the NoTW is concerned.

Ranger

18th February 2009, 10:16

Max is the only one saying (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73155) he was set up by someone from F1 but, as he says, "I am not going to do anything or say anything until I am absolutely certain."

So, he's not certain and cannot say who it was, but despite that he's willing to say rather a lot around the subject. That's rather like a tabloid drip feeding readers with what is supposedly a "big" story. It grabs the headlines and gets the readers in initially. "All sorts of other things are going to come out" is quite a hook. It's right up the NoTW's street!

But if Max knows then why a delay of "two or three years" before he tells? The criminal proceedings he refers to are cases he initiated against media outlets who repeated the NoTW story. Nothing to do with F1.

So why the delay? Perhaps because it's important for him to remain FIA President so that if he can convince people of this "plot" against him it'll be easier to pursuade them that he should stay on as President beyond June. If that is achieved, whether the "plot" is fact or not won't really matter. If it's not it'll quietly be forgotten (as with the Brundle case), and if it is then Max can deal out whatever sporting punishment he deems appropriate.

Sorry, but IMHO all of the above is Max putting Max's interests first, and using his position as FIA President to do so.

Far simpler is the explaination that the NoTW just did what they do week in week out - got headlines at the expense of a public figure. Jade Goody, Frank Lampard, Max Mosley, Peaches Geldof...they're all the same as far as the NoTW is concerned.

He needs to get all the details before specific accusations start. Depending on who the person is or from what company, if Mosley names them without 100% proof, he (or maybe the FIA) can get the t**s sued off them for defamation.

PolePosition_1

18th February 2009, 10:47

It's the old... "Two Wrongs still don't make a Right" !!!

All due respect here, but the whole point of this is that who are you to say what he did was wrong?

By your moral standards, he did wrong, but legally he didn't. And thats what counts. So its not a case of two wrongs, as he didn't actually do anything wrong.

Knock-on

18th February 2009, 10:52

How about the fact that someone stooped so low as to try to sting him out of office ?
How do you feel about those folks ?

Very good point.

Max has made a lot of enemys and IMHO, damaged F1 and other forms of Motorsport to the extent that accusations exist. Couple this with the fact that his commercial decisions regarding F1 and revenue returned to the FIA has at the very best been totallt incompetent and wholly wrong.

However, if someone had publically attacked Max for his management of the FIA, I would have been entirely behind them.

If, and I reiterate IF someone in Motorsport is guilty of this sting, then I suggest Max persues him personally through the courts and not through a personal vendetta using the might of the FIA to bestow revenge.

Knock-on

18th February 2009, 10:55

Were is the right term. No one is doing it anymore and Max is a public person again.

The man in the street doesn't remember squat.
I bet that if you ask people on the streets about max Mosley 999 out of 1000 won't even know who he is.

So 0.1% is the maximum of the people who might be aware who he is, and out of these 50% doesn't care about how he get's it up.
That brings us to about 0.05% of people in the street sharing your view.

I'll remind people around here that more often than not a country is governed by people who are oposed by as much as 49,9% of that countries voting population.

See the difference?! ;)

This has no basis in fact and is completely made up.

From my experience, I would take your bet that a lot more people are aware of the FIA and Max's exploits that you claim.

You are correct that it is yesterday's news and people in Government etc are not talking about it but that's because it's not relevant at the moment. I suggest though that it's at the back of their minds ;)

PolePosition_1

18th February 2009, 11:00

;) Baggie,

I do agree with you, Max likely took extra precautions, to avoid any public disclosure.

Taking your point that Max was hiding his sexually depraved activities...

seems to admit Max (while president of the FIA) was doing something inmoral,

which, if found out would be detrimental to the FIA's reputation.

:dozey: So that brings us back to:

Today,

The problem is

John Q Public's perception of Max...

After his egregious sexual activities became common knowledge.

:rolleyes: Max still is trying to deflect the public's attention away from his personal sexual activities...

by attempting to focus the press's attention on...

"Mosey knows who set him up" !!!

Mate, the more I read your posts, the more the picture of you being someone who judges someone on their activities and doesn't accept differences is reinforced.

So what if he has different sexual preferences which don't fit into your 'moral views'? You've obviously judged him on that, and happily willing to discriminate against him because of this.

Your a perfect examples of why we have laws in place, to make sure people aren't discriminated against for their religion or lifestyle choices.

I'm aware of the more 'right wing traditional' views in America, and I do find it slightly worrying to see all those who go on about his activities being perverted and deprived etc, tend to be from Americans in this form. Whilst I appreciate you do not represent the majority of Americans, I do find it worrying that there is a pretty fair sized minority in the worlds most powerful nation who have such narrowminded views on peoples different lifestyles.

PolePosition_1

18th February 2009, 11:06

Look at it this way: if the Chief Executive of HSBC was caught in a similar manner, he would have been on the next flight out of Hong Kong, tourist class.

................and if the Chief Steward of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club (now no longer Royal) was caught in a similar manner, he'd be out quicker than you could yell "Racing"

Yes. Because its a private company, in business to make money, and perception and marketability is key to success. And unfortunately the tabloid media, who broke someones right to a private sex life would have won as he would have probably stepped down.

The FIA is not a private company, its an institution.

ArrowsFA1

18th February 2009, 11:34

He needs to get all the details before specific accusations start. Depending on who the person is or from what company, if Mosley names them without 100% proof, he (or maybe the FIA) can get the t**s sued off them for defamation.
Certainly he needs detail before making accusations, but he's making non-specific accusations anyway. The Autosport story doesn't actually quote Max saying the individual he suspected was behind the affair is from F1. He is quoted as saying a number of things around that subject, but not that specifically. That approach, and the effect, is somewhat similar to the infamous "halfwit" comment which didn't actually name the person concerned.

IMHO the criminal proceedings and defamation actions across Europe relate to the NoTW story being repeated elsewhere, and that is an issue for Max personally, not for the FIA President, the FIA or F1. The only reason the FIA and F1 are being drawn into this is due to Max's allegation of a "plot".

Bagwan

18th February 2009, 13:00

Certainly he needs detail before making accusations, but he's making non-specific accusations anyway. The Autosport story doesn't actually quote Max saying the individual he suspected was behind the affair is from F1. He is quoted as saying a number of things around that subject, but not that specifically. That approach, and the effect, is somewhat similar to the infamous "halfwit" comment which didn't actually name the person concerned.

IMHO the criminal proceedings and defamation actions across Europe relate to the NoTW story being repeated elsewhere, and that is an issue for Max personally, not for the FIA President, the FIA or F1. The only reason the FIA and F1 are being drawn into this is due to Max's allegation of a "plot".

If Max is right , and the point of the plot was to oust him from the position , we should be able to assume that it was someone with something to gain from that move .

Max works with sanctioning and rule making , so we see someone is unhappy with one or both , and trying to change the situation .
Since this seems to be the case , does it not make sense to use the rules that whomever is trying to avoid , to punish the actions ?

ArrowsFA1

18th February 2009, 13:43

Ranger

18th February 2009, 13:44

Certainly he needs detail before making accusations, but he's making non-specific accusations anyway. The Autosport story doesn't actually quote Max saying the individual he suspected was behind the affair is from F1. He is quoted as saying a number of things around that subject, but not that specifically. That approach, and the effect, is somewhat similar to the infamous "halfwit" comment which didn't actually name the person concerned.

IMHO the criminal proceedings and defamation actions across Europe relate to the NoTW story being repeated elsewhere, and that is an issue for Max personally, not for the FIA President, the FIA or F1. The only reason the FIA and F1 are being drawn into this is due to Max's allegation of a "plot".

Personally I find Max's manner insufferable and want him to quit. But legally he hasn't done anything wrong.

ioan

18th February 2009, 14:07

This has no basis in fact and is completely made up.

It has as much basis as any of your claims have. :p :

Knock-on

18th February 2009, 14:19

It has as much basis as any of your claims have. :p :

Ahhhh, but you state that ehe man in the street doesn't remember squat and offer to bet that if you ask people on the streets about max Mosley 999 out of 1000 won't know who he is etc, etc.

I just offered to take that bet because it was a pretty hot topic at the time and keenly discussed. Even now, you occassionally hear a joke about Max and Whipping.

That seems to conflict with your statement that 1 in every 1000 don't know who he is doesn't it.

If you fancy a quick straw poll, ask 10 people today if they know who Max is and if they do, what they know about him. I'll do the same but answer honestly ;)

ioan

18th February 2009, 14:28

Even now, you occassionally hear a joke about Max and Whipping.

I live half time in 2 different countries and never heard a joke about Mosley and whipping, not even when the news broke.
I suppose the academic circle isn't much interested about other peoples private life. :p :

If you fancy a quick straw poll, ask 10 people today if they know who Max is and if they do, what they know about him. I'll do the same but answer honestly ;)

I'll let you know tomorrow the results. :D

Bagwan

18th February 2009, 15:24

Bagwan, you appear to be more willing than I to accept what Max is saying with regard to a "plot" and I sense that as long as that is the case we will continue to have a difference of opinion on this :)

Until Max provides any kind of evidence of a "plot", then I'll stick with what is already known, and that is that the NoTW once again employed chequebook journalism to expose the private life of a public figure. It's what they've been doing since 1843.

That's cool , Arrows .

I think there's pretty overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a plot , though .

Didn't the pretty culprit who supplied those pictures end up with nothing for her time , and seemingly not make a fuss ? That points to her being paid by someone else , if the story of her imminent bankrupcy being the motive is to be believed .

I know , as do you , that Max has many who criticize his ways .
It's not a stretch to imagine many want to see him out of office , and just a step farther to see it would be a possibilty that he was the victim of a sting .

The only real revelation in Max's statement is that he says he knows it came from the paddock .
If true , and we know that eventually he will have to tell us the rest of the story , now that he's revealed this much , it will have had to be someone who knew it was going on , therefore likely someone in the circle for a long while .
For this to have taken so many years to be revealed , even to his wife , it had to be going on with incredible secrecy .

If this was known about at all in the paddock , it had to have been seen as a "taboo" subject , not to be spoken of .

Speculation of who it was would only cause argument , but I have my suspicions of who Max believes it was .

Dave B

18th February 2009, 16:19

Ahhhh, but you state that ehe man in the street doesn't remember squat and offer to bet that if you ask people on the streets about max Mosley 999 out of 1000 won't know who he is etc, etc.

I just offered to take that bet because it was a pretty hot topic at the time and keenly discussed. Even now, you occassionally hear a joke about Max and Whipping.

That seems to conflict with your statement that 1 in every 1000 don't know who he is doesn't it.

If you fancy a quick straw poll, ask 10 people today if they know who Max is and if they do, what they know about him. I'll do the same but answer honestly ;)

The whole Spanky Max affair has been referenced more than once on satirical programmes in the UK such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You, which normally only discuss high-profile political or showbiz stories. I'd wager that a year ago it was only those with an interest in motorsport who had heard of Mosley, nowadays the "man on the Clapham omnibus" is well aware of who he is, even if they don't fully understand his FIA role.

The dungeongate / prostitutegate / spankygate / butdefinatelynotnazigate affair has made him a household name.

Bagwan

18th February 2009, 16:49

The whole Spanky Max affair has been referenced more than once on satirical programmes in the UK such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You, which normally only discuss high-profile political or showbiz stories. I'd wager that a year ago it was only those with an interest in motorsport who had heard of Mosley, nowadays the "man on the Clapham omnibus" is well aware of who he is, even if they don't fully understand his FIA role.

The dungeongate / prostitutegate / spankygate / butdefinatelynotnazigate affair has made him a household name.

Not here in the colonies , Dave .

If I was to ask my close circle of F1 friends , I would get universal disdain .

If I was to ask the man on the street , especially if they all were members of the CAA , the Canadian affiliate of the FIA , I am quite positive I would get exactly the opposite reaction , as they would have not the foggiest idea of what I was talking about .

That goes a long way to refute the message sent by those who opposed him , and the idea that Mosely fixed the vote with small membership countries , as it was not so different when the issue was fresh in the headlines .
I have a coffee shop , and most I spoke with , had no idea anything was going on , let alone an opinion about it .

Frankly , I would be surprised if more than five per cent of those holding CAA membership have any idea thant they are affiliated with the FIA in the first place .

This may be a part of the issues we have seen regarding this hot topic , to some degree , because , we in North America haven't got it in our faces all the time .
It wasn't in the mainstream media to any great degree here , like it sounds it was in GB .

It was on the motorsport shows , but not for long .

ioan

18th February 2009, 20:05

ioan

18th February 2009, 20:09

It wasn't in the mainstream media to any great degree here , like it sounds it was in GB .

That's because the GB media is hitting lower levels every day. Obviously this isn't the case in most other countries.

Bagwan

18th February 2009, 20:34

That's because the GB media is hitting lower levels every day. Obviously this isn't the case in most other countries.

Easy now , while that might be true , it is still where a lot of the teams are based .
That might have something to do with it as well .

We have our share of trashy journalism over here as well , though . It just tends to be about Hollywood , rather than Max and Coronation Street .

trumperZ06

18th February 2009, 21:00

;) Ahh.. once again Ioan shows his ignorance.

:dozey: Most major news organizations are Inter-National...
having offices on site in various capitals.

A good example would be Rupert Murdoch's empire that's scattered around the World owning properties in:

Film
Television
Cable
Magazines
Newspapers
Publishing

All inter-related and sharing Headlines and information.

The World has been shrinking for years... making it harder to keep scandals isolated.

In fact, NOTW... which broke the Maxspankgate escapade, is just one of Murdoch's newspapers.

:rolleyes: Ioan just doesn't seem to have a clue !!!

:s mokin:

driveace

18th February 2009, 21:18

Ioan ,the British DO NOT think that the rest of the world is on their Island,BUT most of the F1 teams are based here, as is the subject that the thread is about.I also have an idea who Max thinks is behind it coming out.But dont have skeletons in cupboards !

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 21:38

I live half time in 2 different countries and never heard a joke about Mosley and whipping, not even when the news broke.

You must be in a minority of one, though I'm not surprised that you probably find watching/listening to comedy beneath you and a waste of time that could be devoted to some higher pursuit.

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 21:38

That's because the GB media is hitting lower levels every day. Obviously this isn't the case in most other countries.

Pray inform us of your detailed knowledge of the British media and its development over the past decade.

NoahsGirl

18th February 2009, 21:42

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 21:46

On a more serious note, I'm utterly bored of all this SpankGate. Unless you have absolute proof Max, i would would shut up and stop reminding everyone about your personal preferences.

I understand your opinion, but do you not think that there is actually quite an important point to be made about the privacy of those with what Max terms as 'unconventional' preferences in their private lives, or who simply wish to keep certain things, such as their sexuality, out of the public eye? I agree that having Max Mosley attempt to set himself up as a crusader for the human right to privacy is very hard to take, but the worst excesses — hardly any of which, such as phone-tapping, obtaining personal details from crooked sources in the police and other authorities, etc, he hasn't mentioned as part of his 'crusade' — should be curbed.

trumperZ06

18th February 2009, 21:51

How did Max know it was me?

On a more serious note, I'm utterly bored of all this SpankGate. Unless you have absolute proof Max, i would would shut up and stop reminding everyone about your personal preferences.

The person I feel most sorry for is Mrs Mosely.

:D Good point.

"Molsey knows who set him up" seems to be nothing but a Red Herring !!!

Max is attempting to divert attention (look @ the shiny object)

from...

What he was caught "DOING",

to

hoping people will focus on... "Who trapped him" !!!

:dozey: If Max wasn't planning to try for another term in office... it would probably have been in his best interest to have let the whole thing die.

NoahsGirl

18th February 2009, 21:52

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 21:55

I do understand what you are saying, and maybe I was trying to make my point crudely, but I don't understand why Max would say he "knows" who set him up, but he has no concrete proof and won't have for a couple of years or so. So why say something now? Why drag it all up again so he can metaphorically wag his finger in this person's face?

I think the truth is that he doesn't really care about the wider issue, being more concerned with his own situation, and that we will never find out who he thinks set him up. Why say something now? I don't know. Maybe the whole thing has made him a bit doolally. Maybe he is still genuinely angry.

NoahsGirl

18th February 2009, 22:00

I think the truth is that he doesn't really care about the wider issue, being more concerned with his own situation, and that we will never find out who he thinks set him up. Why say something now? I don't know. Maybe the whole thing has made him a bit doolally. Maybe he is still genuinely angry.

I too would be angry if my private life was splashed all over the papers and was made a figure of fun but he was warned about this a couple of months before the sting, so he has brought it all on himself.

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 22:14

I too would be angry if my private life was splashed all over the papers and was made a figure of fun but he was warned about this a couple of months before the sting, so he has brought it all on himself.

Again, I totally see what you're getting at, but would you think that a famous person who wished to keep their homosexuality private but proved unable to because of press intrusion — of which they too had been forewarned — would have brought it all on themselves?

NoahsGirl

18th February 2009, 22:23

ioan

18th February 2009, 22:36

Ioan ,the British DO NOT think that the rest of the world is on their Island,BUT most of the F1 teams are based here, as is the subject that the thread is about.

You might have plenty of F1 teams, also the ones that got the biggest fines in the automotive history, as well as most bankrupt automotive manufacturers in the history and so on, but the greatest F1 team isn't there and never will be. :p :

Also the FIA and all it's national clubs aren't located there. :D

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 22:37

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 22:39

But he has brought it on himself BD. I had totally forgotten all about the incident and was looking forward to watching F1 racing in 2009. Now that Mr Mosely has said what he has said, he has brought it all up again in an attempt to dilute his press over the incident.

I truly hope i am being clear and concise, I am just incredulous at this "not my fault i was in the press" article.

Of course he brought it upon himself in one sense, but the same could be said of virtually anyone exposed in the newspapers, no matter whether the story was legitimate.

Malbec

18th February 2009, 23:19

Again, I totally see what you're getting at, but would you think that a famous person who wished to keep their homosexuality private but proved unable to because of press intrusion — of which they too had been forewarned — would have brought it all on themselves?

Its a balancing act isn't it? If the homosexual you refer to happens to lead a right wing party that rails against gays then isn't it in the public interest?

If Mosley's proposals for press and privacy reforms are pushed through the balance would shift too far against a free press I'm afraid.

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 23:31

Its a balancing act isn't it? If the homosexual you refer to happens to lead a right wing party that rails against gays then isn't it in the public interest?

Absolutely. As I said earlier in the thread, where hypocrisy is concerned, there can be no defence on the part of the person 'found out'.

If Mosley's proposals for press and privacy reforms are pushed through the balance would shift too far against a free press I'm afraid.

This is certainly a major concern of mine whenever the issue comes up, but I do still find the way in which basically law-abiding private lives that do not conform to what certain papers perceive to be a 'norm' get publicised rather worrying, as amusing as these cases often are. Now, I obviously realise that using prostitutes is not law-abiding, but what I'm getting at is that the defence of having an 'eccentric' or 'abnormal' private life could not be used by someone who enjoyed strangling people in their spare time. And as mentioned in one of my posts this evening, of more serious concern are the illegal methods used by sections of the media to obtain private information. Cases have been brought; punishments have never been sufficiently severe. How do you get rid of this while preserving the best of investigative journalism? It's a difficult one.

Malbec

18th February 2009, 23:37

And as mentioned in one of my posts this evening, of more serious concern are the illegal methods used by sections of the media to obtain private information. Cases have been brought; punishments have never been sufficiently severe. How do you get rid of this while preserving the best of investigative journalism? It's a difficult one.

This is one of the reasons why I think the initial high court ruling was so effective. Whilst it found the journalist guilty, sending the message to the press that such future behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, the penalty to the journalist involved was quite small so as to ensure that worried editors wouldn't be scared off investigating genuinely interesting stories.

Revisiting that ruling, which Mosley seems happy to do, wouldn't achieve much more IMO

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 23:44

This is one of the reasons why I think the initial high court ruling was so effective. Whilst it found the journalist guilty, sending the message to the press that such future behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, the penalty to the journalist involved was quite small so as to ensure that worried editors wouldn't be scared off investigating genuinely interesting stories.

The trouble with all this is that nothing, not even court cases (which came to very little) has stamped out the illegal practices. As much as I as a journalist, albeit in a specialist field, believe press freedom needs to be upheld, I feel a harder line needs to be taken with regard to the unlawful/immoral collection of private information — though the idea that this could have prevented, for example, Jonathan Aitken from being found out disturbs me somewhat. So far, it hasn't been, not even when seemingly cast-iron cases came to court. I am really uncomfortable with some of the methods used.

One only has to look at how papers of all types in the UK, including some broadsheets, have gone back on their vacuous promises not to use paparazzi photos in the aftermath of Princess Diana's death to not be surprised at the lack of success of self-regulation.

Dave B

19th February 2009, 12:42

Not here in the colonies , Dave .

Why do British people believe that the rest of the world is like on their Island?!
When it obviously isn't.

My post clearly stated "in the UK", if it implied that it also referred to the rest of the world then I obviously didn't make it clear enough.

SGWilko

19th February 2009, 13:06

Why do British people believe that the rest of the world is like on their Island?!
When it obviously isn't.

I think you will find, with no offence intended to anyone/thing, that the rest of the world - and his dog - are on our Island, such is the ineffectiveness of our immigration policy..............

ioan

19th February 2009, 14:18

I think you will find, with no offence intended to anyone/thing, that the rest of the world - and his dog - are on our Island, such is the ineffectiveness of our immigration policy..............

Well, in this case, I certainly wouldn't want to go (be) there! :p :

Knock-on

19th February 2009, 14:42

You might have plenty of F1 teams, also the ones that got the biggest fines in the automotive history, as well as most bankrupt automotive manufacturers in the history and so on, but the greatest F1 team isn't there and never will be. :p :

Also the FIA and all it's national clubs aren't located there. :D

We do have a rich heritage and knowledge base in F1. However, who is the most Bankrupt team in Automotive history?

Who was the last team to go bankrupt in F1?

You might also like to bear in mind where a lot of a certain Itallian teams design was done until recently which coincides with their most sucessful period in recent years ;)

ioan

19th February 2009, 19:17

If you fancy a quick straw poll, ask 10 people today if they know who Max is and if they do, what they know about him. I'll do the same but answer honestly ;)

So I asked a few people today and no one knew who was Max Mosley.
I guess I don't live within a representative group for motorsport enthusiasts. :)

ioan

19th February 2009, 19:18

You might also like to bear in mind where a lot of a certain Itallian teams design was done until recently which coincides with their most sucessful period in recent years ;)

Recently was 15 years ago?! :D
I would say it was the least successful period in their history!

gloomyDAY

19th February 2009, 19:27

Six pages of childish nonsense and this thread still hasn't been locked.

That's a bigger mystery than who set up Max.

BDunnell

19th February 2009, 20:03

So I asked a few people today and no one knew who was Max Mosley.

I would suggest that those people could do with brushing up on their current affairs knowledge, to be honest.

Tazio

19th February 2009, 21:23

A votre avis...And he'll always back it up. ;)

ioan

19th February 2009, 22:01

I would suggest that those people could do with brushing up on their current affairs knowledge, to be honest.

Why should they? Not knowing who max Mosley is doesn't affect their life at all, which only proves my point about Max's personal life not being of any interest and not influencing what an overwhelming majority of the people think about F1, simply because they do not relate F1 to Max.

ioan

19th February 2009, 22:02

And he'll always back it up. ;)

Nothing to back up there, facts stand alone, without backing up being needed.

BDunnell

19th February 2009, 22:22

Why should they? Not knowing who max Mosley is doesn't affect their life at all, which only proves my point about Max's personal life not being of any interest and not influencing what an overwhelming majority of the people think about F1, simply because they do not relate F1 to Max.

It wouldn't affect my life if I didn't know who, to pick a random example, Joe Lieberman was, but it's good to be well-informed generally about current affairs. Your view doesn't actually prove any point at all about it not being of any interest, except to you.

Tazio

19th February 2009, 23:46

Nothing to back up there, facts stand alone, without backing up being needed.Ioan my opinion of this has been stated! I agree with you on this matter.
In the grand scheme of things motor racing has not suffered because of the invasion into this man’s life!
I am still a proud member of the "Sensible Seven"! ;)

Knock-on

20th February 2009, 10:26

So I asked a few people today and no one knew who was Max Mosley.
I guess I don't live within a representative group for motorsport enthusiasts. :)

I have asked a few people and without fail all knew to some extent who he was.

Most surprising was a Secratery who wasn't sure about what he did but knew his father was a Nazi (not true but understandable). She wasn't aware of SpankGate though.

Of the others, most didn't know about Sir Oswald apart from 1 but all knew of the S and M story.

What was more worrying was the assumption that he runs F1 and not the FIA.

I stress that none of these people are Motorsport fans as such although I assume some might watch F1.

These are the results of an IT company in the UK. It seems that the results from academic people in your country is completely opposite.

I cannot comment on what people in other contries know but it seems that people in the UK as well as many international leading figures are aware of the facts.

ioan

20th February 2009, 11:42

I have asked a few people and without fail all knew to some extent who he was.

Most surprising was a Secratery who wasn't sure about what he did but knew his father was a Nazi (not true but understandable). She wasn't aware of SpankGate though.

Of the others, most didn't know about Sir Oswald apart from 1 but all knew of the S and M story.

What was more worrying was the assumption that he runs F1 and not the FIA.

I stress that none of these people are Motorsport fans as such although I assume some might watch F1.

These are the results of an IT company in the UK. It seems that the results from academic people in your country is completely opposite.

I cannot comment on what people in other contries know but it seems that people in the UK as well as many international leading figures are aware of the facts.

Well there are obviously differences between GB and Europe, probably down to several things: Hamilton related F1 awareness and garbage press.

Also we are not living and working within same kind of groups I suppose.

In my world people doesn't know him or his private life and they don't seem to be interested about it either, as no one asked me more than: Who is he?.

ioan

20th February 2009, 11:43

Your view doesn't actually prove any point at all about it not being of any interest, except to you.

Correction needed: to me and most people I know! ;)

Knock-on

20th February 2009, 12:07

Well there are obviously differences between GB and Europe, probably down to several things: Hamilton related F1 awareness and garbage press.

Also we are not living and working within same kind of groups I suppose.

In my world people doesn't know him or his private life and they don't seem to be interested about it either, as no one asked me more than: Who is he?.

Fair enough.

As Dave and others pointed out, it was widely publicised over here including various references in popular satirical programs.

However, I accept at face value that other countries may not have had the same exposure.

Don't know what Lewis has to do with this nonsense though?

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 12:38

Don't know what Lewis has to do with this nonsense though?

Enemy No.1 perhaps? Anyway, if Max's exploits were not publicised Europe wide, why has the old fella got several ongoing lawsuits against the press in several European countries?

The mind boggles, it really does.

Knock-on

20th February 2009, 13:07

Enemy No.1 perhaps? Anyway, if Max's exploits were not publicised Europe wide, why has the old fella got several ongoing lawsuits against the press in several European countries?

The mind boggles, it really does.

But those are against people that aren't academic enough for ioan ;)

BDunnell

20th February 2009, 13:56

Well there are obviously differences between GB and Europe, probably down to several things: Hamilton related F1 awareness and garbage press.

Again, I fear your knowledge of the media across western Europe and the relative merits of one nation's printed press over another's is sadly lacking.

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 15:12

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 15:19

Just sent this by email around my office (Property Development is our trade);

All

Without looking it up on Google etc, can you please answer the following for a personal project I am working on;

Please tell me what you know about Max Mosely:-

What he does, what he might be famous or infamous for, and what his parents were remembered for.

Thanks.

Stuart.

Let's see what comes back.......

First reply is

'You havin a laugh – or are you about to tell us a nazi joke?' (accounts dept - male)

then

'I don’t know who Max Mosely is!' (PA - Female)

then

'Is that the right spelling of the name?' (Accounts Dept - Male)

then

'Why cant we look at google?' (PA to CFO - Female)

then

'Father: Oswald – leader British Union of Fascists

Was his mother a Mitford girl?

Head of Formula one

Won libel against News of World? re dominatrix club – re privacy.' (Company Secretary - Male)

More to follow....

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 15:22

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 15:38

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 16:23

Just sent this by email around my office (Property Development is our trade);

All

Without looking it up on Google etc, can you please answer the following for a personal project I am working on;

Please tell me what you know about Max Mosely:-

What he does, what he might be famous or infamous for, and what his parents were remembered for.

Thanks.

Stuart.

Let's see what comes back.......

'Isn’t he the Nazi lover who likes to have group orgies in hotels while getting his prince Albert played with by london’s finest hookers! Oh and chairmen of some sport that involves fast cars chasing each other around a track???' (Surveyor - Male)

and

'Son of St. Oswald, mates with Bernie Ecclestone, (formula 1) likes to pay prostitutes to go through German drama.' (Structured Finance (surprised this guy's not topped himself in this climate!!!) - male)

Dave B

20th February 2009, 17:07

So in your admittedly limited snapshot it would appear that around two-thirds of people have knowledge of Max? Sounds about right. :)

(For the avoidance of doubt this applies to the UK only and shouldn't be taken as me extrapolating that the rest of the world thinks the same way - clear?)

ioan

20th February 2009, 18:43

Again, I fear your knowledge of the media across western Europe and the relative merits of one nation's printed press over another's is sadly lacking.

I know enough of the European press given that I read it every day and its been some time I gave up on UK based one, while French and German are better and cover all I need.

ioan

20th February 2009, 18:46

As Dave and others pointed out, it was widely publicised over here including various references in popular satirical programs.

However, I accept at face value that other countries may not have had the same exposure.

Fair enough.

Don't know what Lewis has to do with this nonsense though?

I think that with his arrival and excellent first 2 years in F1 people in GB are much more aware of F1. How many other sports there are, ATM, where you've got a world champion?!

SGWilko

20th February 2009, 18:51

Fair enough.

Chuffin' Nora ioan, you goin' soft in your old age? ;)

BDunnell

20th February 2009, 20:00

I know enough of the European press given that I read it every day and its been some time I gave up on UK based one, while French and German are better and cover all I need.

So your serious, considered judgement is that Bild is better than The Sun, is it?

I think you will find that the high-quality elements of the German press all covered the Mosley story in pretty much exactly the same way as the high-quality elements of the British press. I know because I read both at the time out of interest at the German take on the story.

ioan

20th February 2009, 20:53

So your serious, considered judgement is that Bild is better than The Sun, is it?

Sorry, I never read any of them.

I think you will find that the high-quality elements of the German press all covered the Mosley story in pretty much exactly the same way as the high-quality elements of the British press. I know because I read both at the time out of interest at the German take on the story.

Yeah they did but not for half a year, and they were only interested in the Nazi part which was dismissed later in court. And all of a sudden the Germans didn't want Max's head anymore.

BDunnell

20th February 2009, 21:38

Yeah they did but not for half a year, and they were only interested in the Nazi part which was dismissed later in court. And all of a sudden the Germans didn't want Max's head anymore.

Really? Because it took several months for the case to come to court, so of course it was an ongoing story, and legitimately so. If you can prove that no mainland European paper mentioned Max Mosley between the original story and the court case, then I will take my comments back, but this blatantly isn't going to happen. In any case, I can tell you that the British press wasn't full of Mosley stuff day after day, in spite of what you might erroneously think.

ioan

20th February 2009, 22:37

Really? Because it took several months for the case to come to court, so of course it was an ongoing story, and legitimately so. If you can prove that no mainland European paper mentioned Max Mosley between the original story and the court case, then I will take my comments back, but this blatantly isn't going to happen. In any case, I can tell you that the British press wasn't full of Mosley stuff day after day, in spite of what you might erroneously think.

Do you think I have nothing better to do than trying to prove the impossible?!
Did I read all the mainland papers between day D and day F?!

Can prove me that the British press wasn't full of Mosley stuff day after day? Did you read every British paper every day?!

Let's get real.
People in France, Austria, Romania and Hungary doesn't care about who Mosley is and what Mosley did in his private life.
This is my point! And it will stand until one of you prove it isn't true, and only because it happens to be different in GB it isn't proof for nay other country in the world.
I don't have any more time to argue such obvious things.

From my POV this is case closed, as it's not converging or loooking to do so in the near future.

BDunnell

20th February 2009, 23:01

People in France, Austria, Romania and Hungary doesn't care about who Mosley is and what Mosley did in his private life.

No, it isn't 'case closed', except to your satisfaction maybe. You seem to be suggesting that Britons were more obsessed with it than everybody else. This is, with the greatest of respect, complete nonsense and I suspect you know it. That said, in one sense this is far more of a British story than it is a French, Austrian, Romanian or Hungarian one, because after all Mosley is British, it happened in Britain and he comes from a decidedly infamous British family.

Oh, and you might be surprised at the number of papers I look at every day.

Tazio

20th February 2009, 23:22

I'm going to settle this once and for all.
Max was set-up by the Anglo-Mafia! :mad: :rolleyes: :crazy: :laugh: :erm:

ioan

21st February 2009, 01:01

Oh, and you might be surprised at the number of papers I look at every day.

PS: If you just look at them than you might have time to see 86400 of them in 24 hours.
If you read them than the number will be considerably smaller, if you don't do it while sleeping than it will be only 2/3rds of the previous result, and if we also remove the time you spend posting here than I doubt you can read all the British rags every day.

Seriously, this discussion is starting to get boring even though it's also becoming funnier by the minute!

markabilly

21st February 2009, 06:16

'Isn’t he the Nazi lover who likes to have group orgies in hotels while getting his prince Albert played with by london’s finest hookers! Oh and chairmen of some sport that involves fast cars chasing each other around a track???' (Surveyor - Male)

and

'Son of St. Oswald, mates with Bernie Ecclestone, (formula 1) likes to pay prostitutes to go through German drama.' (Structured Finance (surprised this guy's not topped himself in this climate!!!) - male)

BINGO!!!

I think we have two winners, .....

I wonder if they are remembering because of the video and the news article, or because of his long and lenghty court shennigans and prouncements....as they say when the matter is doubt as to your stupidity and whether your privacy was violated, or heckfire, if that was even you in the video (which I have yet to watch any of), go ahead file suit and run your mouth off and prove it.

:arrows:

And if anyone might forget because of passage of time, well drag it up again all by yourself to remind everyone so that they do not forget.... :rolleyes:

Ding Dong, is anybody home?? Hello????? :dozey:

Roamy

22nd February 2009, 10:39

Yea who set him up - Oh I know "Count Von Whip"

markabilly

22nd February 2009, 16:47

I'm going to settle this once and for all.
Max was set-up by the Anglo-Mafia! :mad: :rolleyes: :crazy: :laugh: :erm:

you mean Mclaren and bernie?

I always figured that somehow Bernie blamed maX for da Hamster not winning the WDC his first year, so as to "gas up revenues", hence the bernie double cross, with help of Brit sercret service spy operative devices and some secret McLaren carbon fibre tech stuff having to do with bras

All one has to go is look at the benire christmas card to see the subliminal message about how bernie really felt (and after all, he did do a lot of chatting about how maX needed to go, in comparsion to others----INDEED, Bernie would not be on the Sensible Seven list, but then I was with the SS till I started paying attention to MaX's sworn trial testimony...))

SGWilko

22nd February 2009, 16:55

Actually, I think Nellie the Elephants' second cousins' pet cats' owner Raul set Max up.

But that's just speculation you understand....

jjanicke

22nd February 2009, 19:05

Man this is sickening. So many people backing Max. This just makes me sad.

Listen, Max decision to engage in something that is clearly extremely controversial in this day and age isn't necessarily the problem. The fact that he got caught is.

We see it everywhere today. As the head of a very public organization you have to demonstrate the ability to make good decisions. Max clearly didn't because he put himself in the situation.

Recently the head of a very prominent bank has been called out for his $1.2M upgrades to his office. Rightfully so. He should be called to answer for making decision not inline with the current times. The fact that he spent $1.2M on his office really mean nothing. The fact that he did it in these trying financial times means everything. And he will be held accountable in some form.

Max is trying to hold other people accountable for his disgusting action (which isn't the sex). Because in this day and age re-enacting Nazi Gestapo officers is just down right disgusting and disrespectful to millions of people. He needs to be held accountable for his actions. Not the whistle blowers. If he hadn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar it wouldn't be an issue. But he did, and he needs to be held accountable and removed from his position. After that I could care less about what he does.

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 19:39

Max is trying to hold other people accountable for his disgusting action (which isn't the sex). Because in this day and age re-enacting Nazi Gestapo officers is just down right disgusting and disrespectful to millions of people.

You clearly didn't follow the story that closely, then, because he denied that he knew there was anything Nazi-related about the scene being enacted. The court seemed to believe him.

jjanicke

22nd February 2009, 19:49

A picture is worth a thousand words. Tough to argue pictures ofhim in nazi dress.

Would love to see the courts statements as you describe.

You clearly didn't follow the story that closely, then, because he denied that he knew there was anything Nazi-related about the scene being enacted. The court seemed to believe him.

markabilly

22nd February 2009, 21:08

Most certainly he DID deny the connection, actually testifying if he had wanted that kind of entainment, it is very easy to order up some first class nazi stuff...

or so he said,

now some of the Sensible Seven (strange choice of names..) might wonder just how did he speak with such a voice of reasonand knowledge, well now...

Actually people should careful read his trial testimony, especailly the whole two lines about how it was upsetting to his family (well something like "upsetting") while he goes on and on and on about his hobby and the joy that inflicting pain on others brings to him....

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 21:36

A picture is worth a thousand words. Tough to argue pictures ofhim in nazi dress.

Are there such photos?

jjanicke

22nd February 2009, 22:08

Are there such photos?

Well it's easy to see with this lot why people can claim the holocaust never happened (clearly a more documented incident than Mosley's perversions).

Yes there were such photo's but since the courts ruled it to be a violation of privacy good luck finding them anymore. NotW paid a handsome sum for privacy violation. It's a violation of free speech, but many European entities have never been known to protect free speech.

Where there's smoke, there's a high probability of being fire.

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 22:19

Well it's easy to see with this lot why people can claim the holocaust never happened (clearly a more documented incident than Mosley's perversions).

Yes there were such photo's but since the courts ruled it to be a violation of privacy good luck finding them anymore. NotW paid a handsome sum for privacy violation. It's a violation of free speech, but many European entities have never been known to protect free speech.

Where there's smoke, there's a high probability of being fire.

I was not under the impression that Mosley ever dressed up in a Nazi uniform as part of the 'role-play'. The women were said to have, of course. And I find your comparison of my querying your comments with holocaust denial really quite offensive, and utterly unnecessary.

jjanicke

22nd February 2009, 22:25

I was not under the impression that Mosley ever dressed up in a Nazi uniform as part of the 'role-play'. The women were said to have, of course. And I find your comparison of my querying your comments with holocaust denial really quite offensive, and utterly unnecessary.

I'm merely referencing the fact that it was a Nazi-themed Orgy.

I don't recall any news coming out about Mosley's in-descressions not referencing a "Nazi" themed Orgy. Yet here you are questioning if it ever happened. I'm sorry you take offense to it, but it is true that some would like us to believe the holocaust never happened. My point being that there are people that would like to deny well documented travesties. I think that's your issue not mine.

P.s. I'm not attacking "germans" (if that's what the flag under your name indicates). I'm german myself.

Tazio

22nd February 2009, 22:34

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 22:34

I'm merely referencing the fact that it was a Nazi-themed Orgy.

You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid. Your exact words were 'A picture is worth a thousand words. Tough to argue pictures ofhim in nazi dress.' This clearly suggests that there are photos of him dressed as a Nazi, which is quite different from participating in a Nazi-themed orgy. You should get your facts straight before suggesting that others' interpretation of something is wrong.

I don't recall any news coming out about Mosley's in-descressions not referencing a "Nazi" themed Orgy. Yet here you are questioning if it ever happened. I'm sorry you take offense to it, but it is true that some would like us to believe the holocaust never happened. My point being that there are people that would like to deny well documented travesties. I think that's your issue not mine.

You made the reference to Holocaust denial in direct relation to my questioning whether your statement about Mosley having been 'in Nazi dress' was correct. You were completely wrong about this. Therefore, it was utterly unreasonable to equate my doubts about your statement with holocaust denial. This makes it very much your issue, not mine.

Tazio

22nd February 2009, 23:28

Would love to see the courts statements as you describe.Do you mean these?????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7523034.stm
Read it and weep my man!
Read it and weep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :erm:

At the High Court, Mr Justice Eady said there was "no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact.

"I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

The "bondage, beating and domination" that did take place was "typical of S&M behaviour", he said.

"But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website - all of this on a massive scale."

markabilly

23rd February 2009, 00:21

Do you mean these?????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7523034.stm
Read it and weep my man!
Read it and weep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :erm:

At the High Court, Mr Justice Eady said there was "no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact.

"I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

The "bondage, beating and domination" that did take place was "typical of S&M behaviour", he said.

"But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website - all of this on a massive scale."

Err i think he was talking about what he said, not what a fellow old fumble brain and, I suspicion, fellow attendee at certain events at a certain theater hosted by MaX, tried to excuse as just plain ole "typical S & M behavior" as u know., he likes and gets his joy inflicting pain on others, while all dressed up in play clothes........and since MaX made his little "private" activities so public as well as his excuses, so he reaps what he sowed.

And yes, not being invited to join the SS or Sensible Seven, well I guess I will just have to drink myself to sleep, :beer:

Tazio

23rd February 2009, 01:04

so he reaps what he sowed.
And pray-tell, what is that?
The disapproval of some meaningless opinions on an F1 forum???
Or are we talkin'
Eternal Damnation by the Almighty, all the Saints, and his Son Jeezzzzuuusssss !!
Say "halleluiah" brotha'! :crazy:

jjanicke

23rd February 2009, 01:38

BDunnell point taken on the courts finding. I'm in the wrong.

But my comparison (when I believed to be right, which i wasn't ;) ) was, at that time, relevant.

I have to do a better job at keeping up with pop culture. Apparently I was way behind the times on this drama. :)

markabilly

23rd February 2009, 03:26

And pray-tell, what is that?
The disapproval of some meaningless opinions on an F1 forum???
Or are we talkin'
Eternal Damnation by the Almighty, all the Saints, and his Son Jeezzzzuuusssss !!
Say "halleluiah" brotha'! :crazy:

And to that,
I say AMEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS,
GOD LOVES YOU

AND BECAUSE HE DOES LOVE YOU, HE HAS Provided to all of you, to even MaX and the Taz, yes, even the TAZ!!!! who has finally seen the LIGHT (even though it still be red),

the true path to redemption to guide your mortal soul to glory, the mighty cup full of god's salvation is before you in all its might is right before you, :beer:

so drink up, and smile, if only for a while

Halafucalouha, and remember if tazio can be saved, so can all you sinners.

Take a sip before it is toooooolate
Amen

now excuse me while i burp

Tazio

23rd February 2009, 04:32

Halafucalouha, and remember if tazio can be saved,

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.......NOT!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-cBBHJZD7BXM/enigma_mea_culpa/

Knock-on

23rd February 2009, 11:17

I believe that there was circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion this had Para German connections.

There was role play involving the "Dominators" dressed in German Prison and Military apparel. This is fact.

The Judge made an opinion that this didn't genuinly constitute mocking of Holocaust victims.

However, I suggest that part of Max's pleasure involves German role play fantasy by the costumes used.

I'm just saying it as I see it.

Bagwan

23rd February 2009, 18:39

PSfan

23rd February 2009, 23:12

Round and round we go… Are we trying to decide on something that’s already been decided on? This thread seems more focused on what Max did, and not what Max might do. From what I read, Max claimed to be 98% sure who was responsible but wanted to wait till he was certain before coming forward, are the Max bashers trying to bring question to his credibility by bringing up the Nazi themed orgies again, because from my perspective your just chasing your tails, and shooting yourselves in the foot in the process…

Whoever was responsible for bringing this story to light, delivering the “tape” to NotW was surely out to embarrass Mosley, damage his reputation, and perhaps drive him out of the sport. intent follows the bullet And so while I may argue the damage to Mosley might not be as severe as some might believe, there has been damage, and not just to Max, to some extent FIA, and all the sports they govern. So to all those who asked or demanded Mosley step down from the FIA? What should happen to those who got the ball rolling?

Oh and just something to throw out there. Tazio mentioned a connection between Peter Windsor and perhaps Speedtv backing for the new USF1 team… Well if there is any truth to that, lets continue that idea, Speedtv is owned by FOX… FOX is owned by who again???

Tazio

23rd February 2009, 23:24

jjanicke

24th February 2009, 01:14

So , I'm going to assume that those who are aghast at Max's behavior , would be OK with this , had he been pictured in a bunny suit ?
Or , would that be a PETA issue ?

What if he was playing cowboys and Indians ?
Or , if he was dressed as a vampire ? Should either Hungarians or the blood banks get involved in this ?

Any of the above might have been his preference at other times , so I guess they would be OK then ?

Any of you who are thinking Max should go because of this should remember he took precautions to keep his private life private .
Let's remember our own personal space , and how a violation of this to this degree would affect us .

How would Markabilly feel if his bedroom was on Youtube without his consent ?
While he might not be wearing his Colonel Klink outfit , would he , or you , feel he should look into finding out who set up the camera ?
And , if he was to find out it was a local contractor , should he ask who paid for the work ?

If Markabilly was the front desk receptionist at the White House , could they legally fire him for the bunny suit ?

The orgy/S&M in itself is not an issue. The issue resides within the legality of his activities (i.e. was it prostitution, and if so, was said prostitution illegal). If that basic question holds true the guy needs to remove himself from office. If not, than all the fncking power to this pervert.

However I do question someones moral/ethical abilities and value when they clearly have no regard for basic civilized tennants.

....

Oh and just something to throw out there. Tazio mentioned a connection between Peter Windsor and perhaps Speedtv backing for the new USF1 team… Well if there is any truth to that, lets continue that idea, Speedtv is owned by FOX… FOX is owned by who again???

PSfan all good points. However I couldn't be more at odds with your last point. Rupert Murdoch is not the head of a governing body , so the comparison is mute.

Now if the comparison was with an Eliot Spitzer, or Larry Craig, or any other sexual deviant in a governing position I would ask for the same. "Remove yourself from that governing position to protect the interests of the greater good". There is no question that Max's indiscretions have harmed the face of the governing body of international motor sports, and perhaps F1 itself. It doesn't matter that he had no intention of the public finding out. He is solely responsible for compromising the office he holds by engaging in his past times. Just happens that some other "jerk" called him out. Max should step down, and if he doesn't it the responsibility of those involved to demand it.

Tazio

24th February 2009, 02:38

SGWilko

24th February 2009, 09:59

So , I'm going to assume that those who are aghast at Max's behavior , would be OK with this , had he been pictured in a bunny suit ? Depends if folk wearing bunny suits had been resposible for something attrocious in the past, doesn't it?

Or , would that be a PETA issue ? If it was made of real bunny fur, then I assume yes, it probably would....

What if he was playing cowboys and Indians ?
Or , if he was dressed as a vampire ? Should either Hungarians or the blood banks get involved in this ?

Any of the above might have been his preference at other times , so I guess they would be OK then ? People who let their heads be ruled by their John Thomas and associated sexual urges tend to have a habit of making rash decisions as a result IMO.

Any of you who are thinking Max should go because of this should remember he took precautions to keep his private life private .
Let's remember our own personal space , and how a violation of this to this degree would affect us .

How would Markabilly feel if his bedroom was on Youtube without his consent ?
While he might not be wearing his Colonel Klink outfit , would he , or you , feel he should look into finding out who set up the camera ?
And , if he was to find out it was a local contractor , should he ask who paid for the work ?

If Markabilly was the front desk receptionist at the White House , could they legally fire him for the bunny suit ? I was not aware Max was taking part in S&M in his bedroom when he was caught. And for all I know, Markabilly might well be that lad with the pretend lightsabre on You Tube...........

Knock-on

24th February 2009, 11:23

Round and round we go… Are we trying to decide on something that’s already been decided on? This thread seems more focused on what Max did, and not what Max might do. From what I read, Max claimed to be 98% sure who was responsible but wanted to wait till he was certain before coming forward, are the Max bashers trying to bring question to his credibility by bringing up the Nazi themed orgies again, because from my perspective your just chasing your tails, and shooting yourselves in the foot in the process…

Whoever was responsible for bringing this story to light, delivering the “tape” to NotW was surely out to embarrass Mosley, damage his reputation, and perhaps drive him out of the sport. intent follows the bullet And so while I may argue the damage to Mosley might not be as severe as some might believe, there has been damage, and not just to Max, to some extent FIA, and all the sports they govern. So to all those who asked or demanded Mosley step down from the FIA? What should happen to those who got the ball rolling?

Totally agree. I wasn't trying to pontificate some moral arguement about his personal sexual preferences but just stating facts. Personally, I find his activity rather distastfull but as long as it's behind closed doors, I don't give a monkeys. I have always been against Max for his professional conduct within the FIA and not what gets his rocks off.

Oh and just something to throw out there. Tazio mentioned a connection between Peter Windsor and perhaps Speedtv backing for the new USF1 team… Well if there is any truth to that, lets continue that idea, Speedtv is owned by FOX… FOX is owned by who again???

A theory but no real evidence or motive. You could use arguements like this to implicate Ron, JYS and 90% of the paddock!

Bagwan

24th February 2009, 14:03

Depends if folk wearing bunny suits had been resposible for something attrocious in the past, doesn't it?
If it was made of real bunny fur, then I assume yes, it probably would....

People who let their heads be ruled by their John Thomas and associated sexual urges tend to have a habit of making rash decisions as a result IMO.

I was not aware Max was taking part in S&M in his bedroom when he was caught. And for all I know, Markabilly might well be that lad with the pretend lightsabre on You Tube...........

I might agree , if the bunny-suited people had been tire slashers . Then , Max might be interpretted as saying he would join the bunny-suited corps , and cause a serious safety issue .

I have no problems with the idea of Max being impeached for his rash decisions , but not for the reasoning that "John Thomas" makes him do it .

You glossed over my questions in the last paragraph , conveniently .
Would you care to answer them ?

I know folks who brag about going to the peeler club , and I know people who would blush at the thought , and heap disdain on those inside .
But , you see , that's why it's inside , where those with different values don't have to watch .

Personally , I think beating someone with a whip is creepy as hell , but I know Max was doing a lot to keep me from seeing this activity . He kept it from you , me , and his family for 40 years .
Someone else was responsible for showing you , not Max .
You should be angry with them .

Knowing he has these tendencies does explain one thing for me ; how he can stand the high pressure "whippings" he gets in the press after those "rash decisions" .
I used to thnk that he throws in a goofy suggestion or two , just so he can pass a reasonable one , but I now think that maybe some of the hassle he gets is requested because it's a hassle .
But , either way , it's usually the least goofy of his ideas that gets adopted .

Bagwan

24th February 2009, 14:06

Totally agree. I wasn't trying to pontificate some moral arguement about his personal sexual preferences but just stating facts. Personally, I find his activity rather distastfull but as long as it's behind closed doors, I don't give a monkeys. I have always been against Max for his professional conduct within the FIA and not what gets his rocks off.

A theory but no real evidence or motive. You could use arguements like this to implicate Ron, JYS and 90% of the paddock!

How does absolute power corrupt ?

ArrowsFA1

24th February 2009, 14:35

We only need to take a look at the NoTW website to see how this all works:

We offer big bucks for tips, stories, pictures and videos. Buy a new kitchen, put the money towards a new car or treat your family to a holiday - your story could be worth a small fortune! Get in touch and sell us your story now.

How much is my story worth?
A major exclusive used on the front page could be worth many thousands of pounds, but a smaller item would be worth less. Essentially, the bigger the name, the bigger the story, the bigger the payment.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4317/SELL-YOUR-STORY.html

Knock-on

24th February 2009, 15:05

How does absolute power corrupt ?

I don't know. I don't have it.

ioan

24th February 2009, 16:41

I don't know. I don't have it.

Lucky us! :p :

Bagwan

24th February 2009, 16:50

We only need to take a look at the NoTW website to see how this all works:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4317/SELL-YOUR-STORY.html

Well now , isn't that the perfect cover for whomever is responsible ?

I might be mistaken , but I seem to recall that she never got the fortune she was promised , and never made a fuss .
When her life was already in a mess , apparently from poor investments , you'd think she might argue that she get what was promised .

Was her name "Patsy" ?

I don't think so .

I think you'll find that she and her agent husband are quite comfortable at this point , having served well .

It will all make for a great story in the end , and perhaps you'll see those responsible for us having this in the news , in their rightful place , as a news item themselves some day .

You might not see the scenario as possible , but you can't argue that it will make a great headline if true .

jjanicke

25th February 2009, 06:17

j,

I appreciate that you are very passionate about this subject!

However, we beat (or whipped if you prefer :p :)

the puss out of that dead horse last summer! :dozey:

He won a vote of confidence in June last year! alot of people wern't happy. blah, blah, blah,!!!!!

Not only is he staying, he may run for another term when this one runs out!

Please don't remind me (that he might run for another term). I find it hard to support this guy, indiscretions aside. From my, albeit limited, POV he hasn't had any positive material impact in the last 8 years, perhaps even longer.

PSfan

26th February 2009, 00:44

Oh and just something to throw out there. Tazio mentioned a connection between Peter Windsor and perhaps Speedtv backing for the new USF1 team… Well if there is any truth to that, lets continue that idea, Speedtv is owned by FOX… FOX is owned by who again???

PSfan all good points. However I couldn't be more at odds with your last point. Rupert Murdoch is not the head of a governing body , so the comparison is mute.

A theory but no real evidence or motive. You could use arguements like this to implicate Ron, JYS and 90% of the paddock!

There was no intention to compare Rupert Murdoch to Mosley or implicate him any more then he already has been. Max also claimed that he hadn't ruled out sanctions to whomever he thought was responsible, at the time, besides maybe cancelling a tow from RM car club services, or limiting access RM's press to the sports the FIA govern how could Max enforce any sanctions against RM?

But now with the USF1 Max may have the means to do just that. And when Peter Windsor says something to the effect that they see teams do things one way, and think they can do it better another way, tells me it opens the door for the FIA to make things more difficult if they want to. Though I don’t believe in this theory because I doubt Max can count on using USF1 to get back at RM and I also think that when he made the statement of sanctions its would be because he already would be in a position to implement them, not maybe in a couple years... which suggests another party involved...

A 2nd possibility is if USF1 is indeed backed by RM, and it also serves Speedtv and Fox`s best interest if there is a successful US team that now RM and MM should learn to get along. In which case Max can scratch RM`s back be making life easier for USF1 in regards to rule clarifications and such, and RM can return the favour by maybe giving Max the little bit of evidence that would make him certain of who initiated this ugly affair.

Knock-on

26th February 2009, 11:14

I half hope he does start a little war with RM.

Max might think he's a big fish but he's small fry in this war. It'll be one way of getting him out of F1 :D

ioan

26th February 2009, 12:28

I half hope he does start a little war with RM.

Max might think he's a big fish but he's small fry in this war. It'll be one way of getting him out of F1 :D

Dream on.
Max can have one over RM as long as he has a good legal reason, is the president of the FIA and the FIA is based in Paris, France, where judges aren't impressed by RM in any way.

Max is intelligent enough to only start wars that he can win, as he has proved until now.

ArrowsFA1

27th February 2009, 07:46

...In which case Max can scratch RM`s back be making life easier for USF1 in regards to rule clarifications and such, and RM can return the favour by maybe giving Max the little bit of evidence that would make him certain of who initiated this ugly affair.
If that scenario played out then Max would be bringing the sport into further disrepute IMHO. Not because of his private life, but because the FIA Presidency seems to be being used by Max for Max.

Now that Max's private life is public it seems to be in his interest to keep that story linked to his public role as FIA President. It's certainly not in the FIA's interest, or motorsport's interest. So we get the "I know but can't tell" story, and on and on it goes.

Bagwan

27th February 2009, 13:44

If that scenario played out then Max would be bringing the sport into further disrepute IMHO. Not because of his private life, but because the FIA Presidency seems to be being used by Max for Max.

Now that Max's private life is public it seems to be in his interest to keep that story linked to his public role as FIA President. It's certainly not in the FIA's interest, or motorsport's interest. So we get the "I know but can't tell" story, and on and on it goes.

So , if a senior official in the governing body of motorsport has people following him around trying to invade his privacy constantly , so as to find something that disturbs the public enough to have him ousted on public opinion , that's ok with you , then ?

Even if it was only about the money , Arrows , it still wouldn't be right .

He'll use every option to ensure this doesn't happen again .

And the next president should appreciate it .

markabilly

28th February 2009, 06:01

If that scenario played out then Max would be bringing the sport into further disrepute IMHO. Not because of his private life, but because the FIA Presidency seems to be being used by Max for Max.

Now that Max's private life is public it seems to be in his interest to keep that story linked to his public role as FIA President. It's certainly not in the FIA's interest, or motorsport's interest. So we get the "I know but can't tell" story, and on and on it goes.

Been reading my stuff again????Did you pay for that kool aid ????
Copyright infringement I say!!

I could say BINGO, but you are only saying the obvious, atleast the obvious to those with a bit of common sense...as to the rest, there are none so blind, as those who will not see, or have not been drinking their kool aide

markabilly

28th February 2009, 06:04

So , if a senior official in the governing body of motorsport has people following him around trying to invade his privacy constantly , so as to find something that disturbs the public enough to have him ousted on public opinion , that's ok with you , then ?

Even if it was only about the money , Arrows , it still wouldn't be right .

He'll use every option to ensure this doesn't happen again .

And the next president should appreciate it .

As I was saying........get off those drugs and drink your kool aid or you can not have your desert with cool whipping.....NO NOT that cool whipping.

Geeasshes, Halfacaluha
What have you done to these peole tazio???

markabilly

28th February 2009, 06:22

So ,

How would Markabilly feel if his bedroom was on Youtube without his consent ?
While he might not be wearing his Colonel Klink outfit , would he , or you , feel he should look into finding out who set up the camera ?
And , if he was to find out it was a local contractor , should he ask who paid for the work ?

If Markabilly was the front desk receptionist at the White House , could they legally fire him for the bunny suit ?

what THE %^&(*&(&^^((%)^e!!!!!!!

Okay baggie, you have done it now

I though we could play in private, me in my Col. kinky KLink outfit, complete with monocle, acting as the preacher who is performing the marriage ceremony for you and sweet pie, while you are all dressed up in your pee wee herman outfit with your favorite sheep, sweetie pie, in your arms

Can you not keep your mouth shut!!!!!
If you do not, I will be putting on the internet for everyone to see, all those intimate videos of your honey moon with sweetie pie....

Depends

I was not aware Max was taking part in S&M in his bedroom when he was caught. And for all I know, Markabilly might well be that lad with the pretend lightsabre on You Tube...........

Another big blabber mouth, and as you well know, the light saber is not what it appears......and if you do not hush it up, I will tell everyone what we were really doing with that light saber......and remember i got the videos :s mokin:

Bagwan

28th February 2009, 15:27

[quote="markabilly"]what THE %^&(*&(&^^((%)^e!!!!!!!

Okay baggie, you have done it now

I though we could play in private, me in my Col. kinky KLink outfit, complete with monocle, acting as the preacher who is performing the marriage ceremony for you and sweet pie, while you are all dressed up in your pee wee herman outfit with your favorite sheep, sweetie pie, in your arms

Can you not keep your mouth shut!!!!!
If you do not, I will be putting on the internet for everyone to see, all those intimate videos of your honey moon with sweetie pie....
QUOTE]

Gosh Marky Mark , you sound upset .

So , I guess I know how you'd feel if your Klink moments were public .

It sounds like Sweetie and I had better take care to keep Herman out of the news .

Are you sure that Koolaid isn't just Freshie ?
I'd reread that label .

You sound like you understand that Max tracking the culprits has some merit .
That just can't be right . Have another swig .

markabilly

28th February 2009, 16:00

what THE %^&(*&(&^^((%)^e!!!!!!!

Okay baggie, you have done it now

I though we could play in private, me in my Col. kinky KLink outfit, complete with monocle, acting as the preacher who is performing the marriage ceremony for you and sweet pie, while you are all dressed up in your pee wee herman outfit with your favorite sheep, sweetie pie, in your arms

Can you not keep your mouth shut!!!!!
If you do not, I will be putting on the internet for everyone to see, all those intimate videos of your honey moon with sweetie pie....
QUOTE]

Gosh Marky Mark , you sound upset .

So , I guess I know how you'd feel if your Klink moments were public .

It sounds like Sweetie and I had better take care to keep Herman out of the news .

Are you sure that Koolaid isn't just Freshie ?
I'd reread that label .

You sound like you understand that Max tracking the culprits has some merit .
That just can't be right . Have another swig .

What is wrong with you?? All those sweet little things you whispered in our ears, just don't mean nothing? You have no honor, kissing and telling!!

Oh yeah, I think me and sweetie pie will have to sue you for wearing that camera in your bra---

So then we can get up there and sprew forth all the really kinky stuff and prove it all true right out in the open court.

And then keep reminding everyone over and over about that video..... and then politically screw around so I keep my lifetime job as FIA prez....after several years, no one will get tired of it that is for sure, plus since I took that which was private and made it public for everyone, including having all my hookers testify in court as to their kinkiness, oh yeah, life is tough

How come maX never whines (except for that ten seconds in court) about his family or how by bringing it up over and over again, must publicly remind everyone including wifey as to what a kink....

And the poor hookers, why don't they have the same right to privacy? MaX had no problem dragging them right into it, subpena and all....poor hookers, I guess they thought they would end up on that reality show, http://abc.go.com/primetime/bachelor/index?pn=index where they could put their talents to good use for the world to see.....

But you still do not get it, it is one thing to have one's privacy violated, another to be caught committing something which is a crime in many countries, nevertheless, I said it was wrong, and still do, except for MaX, it has changed, when maxine made it all public hisself and demonstrated what an arrogant prick he really is, all under oath, right from his own mouth.

And continues to do so, over and over again

Bagwan

1st March 2009, 23:27

Well now , Billy , my friend , doncha know what Max did ?

If you haven't heard , you can google it .

The little nasties got into his bedroom , and he is now a leper . I'm pretty sure they've bleached down the walls and made it safe again , but they haven't tracked down the carrier .
People are ok with his being a leper now , as they realize he was one for many years without them knowing .

It's old news , Billy .

No surprise , nothing to see here , move along now .

All , except ........... the grand finale ...........and the winner is .......

Ah , geez , Max !
I hate it when he ends an episode of "As the F1 turns" , with a "cliff-hanger" .

He knows , but we have to wait for it until next week , and right now it's time to run and get your secret decoder rings , kids !
Jot down this phrase , and scratch it into the screen of your blackberry with the ring : "Max is kinky , Max is kinky , Max is kinky ."

(For those without decoder rings , the phrase translates as :"Drink Ovaltine , not Koolaid .")
(the author accepts no responsibility for those with blackberries)

Max will continue to look for those involved , and do so over and over again , until he has the proof needed to flail those stingers , and make people quake at the very idea of showing your bedroom on youtube .
Don't worry .
Max will make things safe for you once again .

markabilly

2nd March 2009, 02:49

Well now , Billy , my friend , doncha know what Max did ?

Max will continue to look for those involved , and do so over and over again , until he has the proof needed to flail those stingers , and make people quake at the very idea of showing your bedroom on youtube .
Don't worry .
Max will make things safe for you once again .

Well now, thank you geeazzass, AMEN bro, for giving us MaX!!!!

thanks to MaXine, we can all feel safe in our beds, safe and secure from cheap hookers with video cameras stuck in their bras...... :)

Foolish me, I thought it all started with Maxine needing to "set himself up" with some sleasey hookers...............and "up" pops a two bit hooker looking for a four bit john, who found out that maX was not merely a scuzzy, old shriveled bag of stuff, and thought they could make some bread, by hooking up a camera in the bra, stolen from the spouse's secret service/intelligence place of employment with the british government, filming MaX doing his best to get off, then sell it to that rag, who in turn was owned by Murdoch who owns Fox, speed tv and NY times and your momma, which was what his silly ass lawsuit was all about, you remember----- the one where he ran his mouth off so proud of his hobby--- :rolleyes: ---

and if he could not get "who set him up" that way with his trial with subpenas and all, well now the truth might be that the old fool has gotten so old and his memory so bad, he done forgot all about his trial.... :confused:

But back to the important stuff, Bagwan, you better not be slandering the Kool aid anymore, or I may be posting those videos of you and "sweetie pie" having "fun" :love: and sipping the koolest of aid :beer:

PSfan

2nd March 2009, 08:33

If that scenario played out then Max would be bringing the sport into further disrepute IMHO. Not because of his private life, but because the FIA Presidency seems to be being used by Max for Max.

I agree with Bagwan's assessmant of it, that it is also in the best interest of the FIA and anyone they elect as President to ensure this bs never happens again, so no, I don't see that scenario as Max using his position at the FIA solely for personal gains.

Now that Max's private life is public it seems to be in his interest to keep that story linked to his public role as FIA President. It's certainly not in the FIA's interest, or motorsport's interest. So we get the "I know but can't tell" story, and on and on it goes.

Funny how often a driver says something stupid to the press and we have a couple people claiming "well maybe it he was just answering a journo's question" but when it happens to Max... well it must be him trying to keep the spotlight on him.

PSfan

2nd March 2009, 08:51

And the poor hookers, why don't they have the same right to privacy? MaX had no problem dragging them right into it, subpena and all....poor hookers, I guess they thought they would end up on that reality show, http://abc.go.com/primetime/bachelor/index?pn=index where they could put their talents to good use for the world to see.....

But you still do not get it, it is one thing to have one's privacy violated, another to be caught committing something which is a crime in many countries, nevertheless, I said it was wrong, and still do, except for MaX, it has changed, when maxine made it all public hisself and demonstrated what an arrogant prick he really is, all under oath, right from his own mouth.

And continues to do so, over and over again

Please please please open up a google window and do a search on Dominatrix or at least get a clue... every time you post something regarding hookers or max doing something illegal makes you look as ignorant as the crappy journolists that claim prostitutes and nazi themes...

If being a professional Dom is illegal, then how come I can click a link on the wikipedia page about dominatrix and can find literally hundreds of them in the USA and Canada? They certainly aren't hiding from the police.

So getting back to your "Max is being a hypocrit" (I think thats the point you where trying to make, I'm not sure because most of your posts don't make alot of sense... to much sugar maybe? ) But No, I'm sure most of the girls weren't to ashamed to be pulled infront of the Judge and tell what really happened (free advertising) except the one that betrayed Max's trust might be looking for a new profession, but she brought that upon herself...

ArrowsFA1

2nd March 2009, 09:32

I agree with Bagwan's assessmant of it, that it is also in the best interest of the FIA and anyone they elect as President to ensure this bs never happens again
What are you referring to when you say "this bs"?

The main reason I ask is that the NoTW has been in existence as a "scandal sheet" since 1843. This kind of "bs" is what they deal in. Is it the role of an FIA President to shut down the NoTW?

Funny how often a driver says something stupid to the press and we have a couple people claiming "well maybe it he was just answering a journo's question" but when it happens to Max... well it must be him trying to keep the spotlight on him.
Fair point, and I'd agree if Max had stopped (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73155) at "I am not going to do anything or say anything until I am absolutely certain"? But he didn't.

Tazio

3rd March 2009, 01:45

Ladies and Gentleman..... Mister--Conway--Twitty!

"There's no use going over, all the things that took me under"

Tazio makes an obscure referance to "The Family Guy" :eek: :laugh:

V12

5th March 2009, 16:18

What Max did with the hookers and such is his own business - he has nothing to answer for and this on its own has no bearing on his ability to lead the FIA.

His constant big rubbery one over standardised parts in F1, and the desecration of the historic Formula 2 name on the other hand....

Tazio

10th March 2009, 02:41

I agree with Bagwan's assessmant of it, that it is also in the best interest of the FIA and anyone they elect as President to ensure this bs never happens again, so no, I don't see that scenario as Max using his position at the FIA solely for personal gains.
AND there is no way Max is pursuing a noble cause. Everyone knows he's only trying to drag F1 down :down: :dozey:

Why don't the McCann's just drop off the face of the earth they won their ruling. Oh yea' they lost a daughter, and then got dragged through hell by the tabloid press! :(

"Formula one boss Max Mosley and the father of Madeleine McCann are to give evidence to MPs in Westminster today.

The unlikely pairing will be questioned for the culture, media and sport committee's ongoing inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel inquiry.

Mr Mosley said in July 2008 "some newspapers literally ruin people's lives", adding that "more has to be done to stop this".

And Mr McCann and his wife were themselves the subject of unjustified claims about their alleged role in the disappearance, resulting in Express Newspapers paying them £550,000 over a libel case which ended in March 2008

It is also interested in "the interaction between the operation and effect of UK libel laws and press reporting" and "whether, in the light of recent court rulings, the balance between press freedom and personal privacy is the right one".
http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/news/max-mosley-and-madeleines-dad-face-mps-19065200.html

wmcot

10th March 2009, 08:42

Hurry, 2009 season, hurry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm bored s***less by the ramblings here!

I had an opinion about Max's exploits, but I have forgotten it pages ago!!

Dave B

10th March 2009, 09:56

Amen, wmcot.

It's time to draw a line under Spygate, Spankygate, Cranegate, Canadianpitlanegate, Ferraritrafficlightgate, Glocklastlapconspiracytheorygate and all the other unpleasantness of the last couple of years.

Soon we'll have plenty of new scandals to keep us at each others' throats! :p

Tazio

10th March 2009, 11:14

It's time to draw a line under Spygate, Spankygate, Cranegate, Canadianpitlanegate, Ferraritrafficlightgate, Glocklastlapconspiracytheorygate and all the other unpleasantness of the last couple of years.

I had an opinion about Max's exploits, but I have forgotten it pages ago!!

Not hardly!
The last page has yet to be written!
Sorry if it doesn't fit your agenda boys! :dozey:

ArrowsFA1

10th March 2009, 13:24

It's time to draw a line...
Have a word with Max will you Dave :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7934438.stm

Knock-on

10th March 2009, 14:28

Have a word with Max will you Dave :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7934438.stm

It seems strange that someone like Max who admits that his family are appalled at his actions and that everyone considers him a figure of fun should do these things in the first place.

I don't know about you but I would never partake in activities that my family would be disgusted at.

Perhaps he should look in the Mirror a bit rather than trying to pin his shame on everyone else.

I do have sympathy that he wasn't breaking the law and was supposed to be behind closed doors but the fact remains, if it was so shamefull, considering he was a man in the public limelight, why take the risk? Perhaps that was part of the humiliation thrill for him and he's still playing it out?

What would be nice is to let this go now and for Max to stop publicising it.

Tazio

10th March 2009, 14:36

What would be nice is to let this go now and for Max to stop publicising it.Implying that this hearing Max participated in was for publicity is quite absurd.

PolePosition_1

10th March 2009, 14:42

It seems strange that someone like Max who admits that his family are appalled at his actions and that everyone considers him a figure of fun should do these things in the first place.

I don't know about you but I would never partake in activities that my family would be disgusted at.

Perhaps he should look in the Mirror a bit rather than trying to pin his shame on everyone else.

I do have sympathy that he wasn't breaking the law and was supposed to be behind closed doors but the fact remains, if it was so shamefull, considering he was a man in the public limelight, why take the risk? Perhaps that was part of the humiliation thrill for him and he's still playing it out?

What would be nice is to let this go now and for Max to stop publicising it.

Me neither, and dare I say majority wouldn't partake in activities which cause hurt to their families.

But he choose to, it was his moral judgement. You shouldn't punish someone for different moral judgement if it isn't against the law.

And to be fair, I think a large part of the publicity around it is from Max taking a lead in trying to stop tabloid papers from wrecking peoples lives by betraying their right to a private life, private sex life included.

I look at it this way, say for example the NOTW published a sex tape of say Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie having sex, its not illegal, nothing wrong, people would have an outcry about how it was against their right to privacy etc.

And rightly so, but when it happens to Max, people say he deserves it, he should have taken more care etc etc etc. Just looking for a way around to justify his invasion of privacy. When at end of the day it comes down to fact that we disapprove of what he has done. Its not socially accepted, and therefore its ok to invade his privacy.

And if we go down that word, trial by moral standards, its a slippery road downhill for society as a whole unfortunately.

Knock-on

10th March 2009, 14:47

And rightly so, but when it happens to Max, people say he deserves it, he should have taken more care etc etc etc. Just looking for a way around to justify his invasion of privacy. When at end of the day it comes down to fact that we disapprove of what he has done. Its not socially accepted, and therefore its ok to invade his privacy.

I don't know if Brad and AJ are a couple or whatever. Don't follow the tabloids.

However, if one of these snotty little rags had of published some revealing photo's of their sex life, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone it being a huge embarrassment to their family.

So, what you are saying is right. We judge Max by our morals to a degree and that's why he's so ashamed.

Human nature I'm afraid and something that's been going on since the dawn of time. In my day it was gossip, now it's libel and an invasion of privacy ;)

PolePosition_1

10th March 2009, 15:06

I don't know if Brad and AJ are a couple or whatever. Don't follow the tabloids.

However, if one of these snotty little rags had of published some revealing photo's of their sex life, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone it being a huge embarrassment to their family.

So, what you are saying is right. We judge Max by our morals to a degree and that's why he's so ashamed.

Human nature I'm afraid and something that's been going on since the dawn of time. In my day it was gossip, now it's libel and an invasion of privacy ;)

I can't say I'm a big follower of celeb land, but I know the basics through flatmates leaving their magazines laying around etc.

And I think you doubt wrong. People would bat an eyelid. Magazines etc would pay a fortune to get hold of it. And no doubt it would make tabloid headlines.

Look at the success of Paris Hiltons sex tape.

And as he says in his video, he isn't ashamed of his actions. Personally I would feel differently, but you cannot judge someone on what you would do. That would be wrong.

In your day its gossip, but if that gossip puts you in a position where you could lose your job, and that the gossip happened in private and you did not want to exposed, and took appropriate action to keep it quiet, I think its fair to say its a definate invasion of privacy.

Just because its been going on since the dawn of time doesn't make it acceptable mate.

In afghanistan its common practice to stone women who cheat on their husbands etc, its been going on since the dawn of time. They get stoned (literally I'm refering to), because that culture accepts it, its ok to judge and physically harm someone for this. Thats the kind of route judging someone via morals and society norm can take.

I'm not saying we're witnessing something to that extreme, but the same principles on lesser extent, where majority seem to be happy for Max to be sacked for doing something against societies norm.

I can honestly say I find it increasingly worrying how people are happy for Max to lose his job over this. I find it appalling, more appalling than a man cheating on his wife tbh.

ArrowsFA1

10th March 2009, 15:11

Implying that this hearing Max participated in was for publicity is quite absurd.
Perhaps, although the FIA President has made very clear (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892702.stm) his determination to fundamentally transform privacy laws in the UK.

SGWilko

10th March 2009, 15:12

I can't say I'm a big follower of celeb land, but I know the basics through flatmates leaving their magazines laying around etc.

And I think you doubt wrong. People would bat an eyelid. Magazines etc would pay a fortune to get hold of it. And no doubt it would make tabloid headlines.

Look at the success of Paris Hiltons sex tape.

And as he says in his video, he isn't ashamed of his actions. Personally I would feel differently, but you cannot judge someone on what you would do. That would be wrong.

In your day its gossip, but if that gossip puts you in a position where you could lose your job, and that the gossip happened in private and you did not want to exposed, and took appropriate action to keep it quiet, I think its fair to say its a definate invasion of privacy.

Just because its been going on since the dawn of time doesn't make it acceptable mate.

In afghanistan its common practice to stone women who cheat on their husbands etc, its been going on since the dawn of time. They get stoned (literally I'm refering to), because that culture accepts it, its ok to judge and physically harm someone for this. Thats the kind of route judging someone via morals and society norm can take.

I'm not saying we're witnessing something to that extreme, but the same principles on lesser extent, where majority seem to be happy for Max to be sacked for doing something against societies norm.

I can honestly say I find it increasingly worrying how people are happy for Max to lose his job over this. I find it appalling, more appalling than a man cheating on his wife tbh.

Are there any women here today......?

Knock-on

10th March 2009, 16:48

I can't say I'm a big follower of celeb land, but I know the basics through flatmates leaving their magazines laying around etc.

Dont tell me. You had a joint once but never inhaled :D

SGWilko

10th March 2009, 16:50

Dont tell me. You had a joint once but never inhaled :D

I had a joint only last week - I couldn't get the leg of lamb to catch fire, let alone fit it into a Rizla......

Tazio

10th March 2009, 17:41

Perhaps, although the FIA President has made very clear (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892702.stm) his determination to fundamentally transform privacy laws in the UK.

I stand corrected! Publicity for the common good is what I have suggested he is doing in my first post.
The latter response was to a comment I construed as being publicity for his personal gain, or vindication.

PolePosition_1

11th March 2009, 13:21

Lack of serious responses suggests to me that people know deep down I'm correct in my analysis of this.

Tazio

11th March 2009, 13:34

Lack of serious responses suggests to me that people know deep down I'm correct in my analysis of this.

Slow down big guy!
You haven’t even applied for membership to the "Sensible Seven" yet :p :
Johnny-come-lately ;)

Tazio

11th March 2009, 13:57

Slow down big guy!
You haven’t even applied for membership to the "Sensible Seven" yet :p :
Johnny-come-lately ;)
I can fast track you however, as one of our distinguished members is on vacation :p :
Wait a second I haven’t heard from Bag's in a while!
Is he also on vacation :confused:

ArrowsFA1

11th March 2009, 14:05

And as he says in his video, he isn't ashamed of his actions. Personally I would feel differently, but you cannot judge someone on what you would do. That would be wrong.
Perhaps, but if Max is not ashamed of his actions, why the need for secrecy? Why the need to conceal his activities from his wife & family for more than 40yrs?

The BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7934438.stm) says "The News of the World had taken his "dignity" and hurt his family. Surely if he's not ashamed of his behaviour there is no reason why that should be the case?

The bottom (sorry!) line is, as said by a friend of mine who has little interest in or knowledge of all of this, is that Max was caught. That's all. That's what he's griping about.

Blaming anyone and everyone for the circumstances he finds himself in is rather similar to blaming F1 teams for the money they spend, when FIA rule changes are one of the reasons for the rise in expenditure.

PolePosition_1

11th March 2009, 14:11

Perhaps, but if Max is not ashamed of his actions, why the need for secrecy? Why the need to conceal his activities from his wife & family for more than 40yrs?

The BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7934438.stm) says "The News of the World had taken his "dignity" and hurt his family. Surely if he's not ashamed of his behaviour there is no reason why that should be the case?

The bottom (sorry!) line is, as said by a friend of mine who has little interest in or knowledge of all of this, is that Max was caught. That's all. That's what he's griping about.

Blaming anyone and everyone for the circumstances he finds himself in is rather similar to blaming F1 teams for the money they spend, when FIA rule changes are one of the reasons for the rise in expenditure.

Why the need for secrecy?

Because its his private life, he has a right to keep it secret if its fully legal and he chooses to keep it quiet.

Are you saying that if your not ashamed of it, you should declare it public, and if tabloids choose it worthy, they should be allowed to publish it for their headlines?

Why did he conceal it against his wife? Because he was breaking a promise he made to her when they married. Thats why. Is it wrong? Depends, personally I'd say yes, but I'm objective enough to understand you should not sack someone for their moral judgements on a matter unrelated to their work.

Knock-on

11th March 2009, 14:33

Depends, personally I'd say yes, but I'm objective enough to understand you should not sack someone for their moral judgements on a matter unrelated to their work.

I agree. He shouldn't be sacked for his personal life. For the sake of his dignity and the embarrassment it caused to his family he may have choosen to resign but that's a moral choice and morally, Max is found wanting.

What he should be sacked for is the way he has run F1 and the corrupt manner in which the commercial rights were frittered away and the backhand he received.

perhaps we can leave Hanky Panky and worry about what he has done against the good of the sport instead now?

Tazio

11th March 2009, 14:36

Blaming anyone and everyone for the circumstances he finds himself in
:confused:
I just thought he was blaming the lady with the camera in her bra,
The NotW, and whoever it was that put her up to it.

Personally I'm believe the Anglo Mafia was behind this. :)

ArrowsFA1

11th March 2009, 14:47

Are you saying that if your not ashamed of it, you should declare it public, and if tabloids choose it worthy, they should be allowed to publish it for their headlines?
No I'm not saying that because I fully agree he had a right to keep it secret, but saying he is not ashamed suggests this is something about which there was no reason for secrecy. That's different to saying he should have publicly declared his activities.

The reality is Max knew all along that his private life was something he had to keep secret because were it to be made public it would damage him privately and professionally, and it has. Despite that he appears to have taken no personal responsibility for what has happened.

Why did he conceal it against his wife? Because he was breaking a promise he made to her when they married. Thats why. Is it wrong? Depends, personally I'd say yes, but I'm objective enough to understand you should not sack someone for their moral judgements on a matter unrelated to their work.
Is it entirely unrelated to his work though? We're talking about someone who was prepared to deceive those closest to him for decades. Knowing that, would you have full confidence and trust in someone prepared to behave in that way?

Bagwan

11th March 2009, 14:56

I can fast track you however, as one of our distinguished members is on vacation :p :
Wait a second I haven’t heard from Bag's in a while!
Is he also on vacation :confused:

Not to worry . I'm here , Taz .

This debate goes in circles .

But , have you seen anyone write that Max should be stopped from participating in these activities ?
Wouldn't you think that someone should should be outraged that he might still be meeting with these girls(well , maybe not one of them) ?

As far as Max's secrets go , they're out . We're not likely to hear any more details , if that's what folks are worried about .
The issue here is not the depravity , but rather , that it's out .

Max is more than suggesting that he was stung by someone inside F1 .
This is not a case of digging up the past . This is a case of someone allegedly paying someone else to publicly humiliate them for the express purpose of ousting him from his position as head of the FIA .
This is a hit at the fundamental rights to privacy for any individual .

Rather than disparage , I believe Max should be applauded for not only trying to sort this out , but for going to great lengths to find the cowardly swine that stooped this low .

If that person or group is still in the pitlane , I hope they are looking nervously over their shoulder .

That is an expose I will read in full .

I vote for Pole , Taz . He seems sensible enough .

Knock-on

11th March 2009, 15:10

Baggy.

I can't see how you can applaud a man that has been exposed as a liar and broken his promise. As Arrows says, it shows a distinct lack of moral fibre. How can he be trusted is what people will say?

What I find incrediable is how he was trusted before all this nonsense with his track record.

PolePosition_1

11th March 2009, 15:29

No I'm not saying that because I fully agree he had a right to keep it secret, but saying he is not ashamed suggests this is something about which there was no reason for secrecy. That's different to saying he should have publicly declared his activities.

The reality is Max knew all along that his private life was something he had to keep secret because were it to be made public it would damage him privately and professionally, and it has. Despite that he appears to have taken no personal responsibility for what has happened.

Is it entirely unrelated to his work though? We're talking about someone who was prepared to deceive those closest to him for decades. Knowing that, would you have full confidence and trust in someone prepared to behave in that way?

I can't say how he truely feels, because I can't get inside his head. But he has said he is not ashamed of what he did. I disagree with the fact that it suggests there is no need for secrecy, I personally wouldn't want everyone knowing who I'd slept with in the past, I'm not ashamed of it, but its my private business.

He knew he had to keep it secret, because he's clever, he knows leakage of this information would make headlines. In much the same way a sex tape of him and his wife would. Only difference here is that what he was caught doing something against societies "norm".

And no, why should he take responsibility? If you agree his privacy was breached, then you can't expect him to take responsibility.

If a woman is raped, and its made public, everyone will gossip about her, should she take responsibility for the fact that its been made public?

Be honest with yourself here Arrows, you seem unenable to detach yourself from your moral judgement to realist judgement of law. The fact you go on about his deception to his family highlights this fact for me.

Is there any solid evidence that his position has been compromised in quantitive terms since these relevations?

Rod Stewart has been married several times. Therefore breaking his vows to several women, does this mean that he cannot be trusted? Of course not, its his personal life, you cannot and should not judge someones professional capability on their private life, you should judge them on their professional capability.

If people decide Max should go for professional reasons, fair enough, but absolutely no way he should go because of this.

SGWilko

11th March 2009, 16:02

Because he was breaking a promise he made to her when they married.

That statement tells me all I need to know to make an informed opinion about the man. Can we not now see why he should not be trusted with business decisions (promises if you like) when he casually casts aside his own marriage vows?

PolePosition_1

11th March 2009, 16:05

That statement tells me all I need to know to make an informed opinion about the man. Can we not now see why he should not be trusted with business decisions (promises if you like) when he casually casts aside his own marriage vows?

So would I be right in saying you believe anyone with a divorce under their name should not be trusted with business decisions?

SGWilko

11th March 2009, 16:11

So would I be right in saying you believe anyone with a divorce under their name should not be trusted with business decisions?

If the divorce was as a result of adultery for example, then the same principle applies, yes. If it is because two people have genuinely fallen out of love and split amicably then it is whole different kettle of anchovies....

It's trust and integrity that is at the crux of this argument, isn't it? Max broke the trust betwixt himself and his wife, his integrity is in tatters as a result of the way he has 'serially' broken that trust and sought to keep his infidelity hidden from what ought to be the most important person in your life.

If you think that is testicles, then therin lies the answer - in part - to the general erosion of moral society the world over - i.e. no-one (or at least very few) give a 5h!t anymore.

PolePosition_1

11th March 2009, 16:26

If the divorce was as a result of adultery for example, then the same principle applies, yes. If it is because two people have genuinely fallen out of love and split amicably then it is whole different kettle of anchovies....

It's trust and integrity that is at the crux of this argument, isn't it? Max broke the trust betwixt himself and his wife, his integrity is in tatters as a result of the way he has 'serially' broken that trust and sought to keep his infidelity hidden from what ought to be the most important person in your life.

If you think that is testicles, then therin lies the answer - in part - to the general erosion of moral society the world over - i.e. no-one (or at least very few) give a 5h!t anymore.

Well, what can I say. I'm glad we don't have people like you running the country. Where every man and woman who has cheated on their wife / husband is sacked from their jobs if they're in a management job, loses their income, quite possibly home.

Can I ask if you'd like adultery seen as a criminal activity?

I also take that your for trial by moral judgement, and not whether its legal or illegal?

SGWilko

11th March 2009, 16:29

SGWilko

11th March 2009, 16:41

Well, what can I say. I'm glad we don't have people like you running the country. Where every man and woman who has cheated on their wife / husband is sacked from their jobs if they're in a management job, loses their income, quite possibly home.

Can I ask if you'd like adultery seen as a criminal activity?

I also take that your for trial by moral judgement, and not whether its legal or illegal?

In fact - are you suggesting that getting married in a Church, and swearing vows in front of all my family and friends was a complete waste of time and money, because, as you see it, somewhere down the line I'm gonna fcuk it all up by doing something I shouldn't behind my wife's back, betraying her and risking a secure family environment for my kids?

You think it acceptable to cursorily brush off untrustworthy behaviour towards your wife but expect someone to be more trustworthy in their work ethic.

To quote ioan - 'bollocks'

You know it, I know it and the rest of 'em know it. Temptation - wether it be some bird with big 'Bristols' and a whip, or a short old guy with white hair brandishing 'wet dreams' worth of cash, a flawed character will cast aside reason and go for the 'prize' every time.

Even without drinking Billies Kool Aid a moron can work that out....

ArrowsFA1

11th March 2009, 17:32

...you cannot and should not judge someones professional capability on their private life, you should judge them on their professional capability.
I disagree. I simply do not think that actions and attitudes in a private life can be entirely disassociated from actions and attitudes in a public life. They are formed from a part of the same character.

I also do not think that the victim of rape can, or should, in any way be compared with Max Mosley's situation.

Tazio

11th March 2009, 17:36

Has Max admitted to having sexual intercourse with these S&Mer's?
If not how can you call it adultery. Even if he has, it's not up to the NotW
to force a confession!

BTW Since this all went down Max seems to be the only person of authority that is acting sane on the future of F1 JMHO

Pole P. welcome to The Sensible Seven :)

Bagwan

11th March 2009, 17:49

Does it show any character that Max , despite his propensity for doing these things , kept it secret for 40 years ?
I'm just wondering where the judgement begins and ends .

It might have been kept secret until the very end and beyond , had someone not wanted to embarass him by taking pictures .

You folks had nout to say about his sexual behavior before someone sold those pictures .

Bagwan

11th March 2009, 17:55

Pole P. welcome to The Sensible Seven :)

Yes , welcome , Pole .

I will assume you told him about the initation rituals , Taz .

Knock-on

11th March 2009, 18:02

Yes , welcome , Pole .

I will assume you told him about the initation rituals , Taz .

Yep.

Drop them, assume the position and take one for the team.

Here it comes

<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>

(For some reason, this club doesn't appeal to me ;) )

Tazio

11th March 2009, 19:17

Yes , welcome , Pole .

I will assume you told him about the initation rituals , Taz .Naw I think will just grandfather him in! Or maybe Godfather him in.
Plus Tamberello is the enforcer. :p :
PP has a repreive untill Tamb' returns from holiday. :)

Bagwan

11th March 2009, 19:49

Yep.

Drop them, assume the position and take one for the team.

Here it comes

<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>
<WHACK>

(For some reason, this club doesn't appeal to me ;) )

I'm not sure about the clubs to which you belong , Knock , but if those are the initiation rituals to which you're used , then you're not invited in this club .
What if someone were to catch you doing that ? hee hee .

SGWilko

11th March 2009, 23:01

Pole P. welcome to The Sensible Seven :)

How many members now? Time for a club name change perhaps....

Tazio

12th March 2009, 01:59

How many members now? Time for a club name change perhaps....I'm thinking that we (as a forthright and sober institution) should never misrepresent ourselves.
The next logical Gang I mean Club name should be the "Sensible Seventy-Seven".
As of now we are a wee bit short of that distinction. :s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

12th March 2009, 09:26

You have another member.

May I introduce James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/11/max_mosley_greatest_living_englishman) who says:

Max Mosley's magnificent performance before the Commons Committee yesterday was a shaft of sunlight in an otherwise dark and terrible universe.
:)

SGWilko

12th March 2009, 10:07

Tazio

12th March 2009, 10:23

You have another member.

May I introduce James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/11/max_mosley_greatest_living_englishman) who says:

:) Max Mosley: greatest living Englishman ???
Contrary to popular belief we don't harbor extremists in our rank, and file!
Where oh where is Tamb' when you need him!
I think, judging by “most” the comments (on that link)
that those impassionate about F1 in the UK, appear to be quite sensible. ;)
This is starting to fall into the category of "Life is truly stranger than fiction"
C'est la vie

leopard

12th March 2009, 10:42

Magnificent performance is something straightly related to someone's ability performing a job because of possessing enough background, experience, that let him produce efficacious decision reasonably eligible, and altogether is not related to personal life or any other circumstance irrelevant.

ArrowsFA1

12th March 2009, 11:00

Max Mosley: greatest living Englishman ???
Contrary to popular belief we don't harbor extremists in our rank, and file!
You wouldn't be making a moral judgement on who can and cannot support Max now would you? ;) :p

Tazio

12th March 2009, 11:11

No I'm not. I'm clarifying our stated purpose!
Max is not the Greatest living Englishman, is he? :confused:
Neither is Mc Cann!
Those who state he is have an agenda that goes beyond the limits of our said stated puspose! :)

Bagwan

12th March 2009, 13:10

As a member of the Sensible Seventeen , I will say that Max does move up in status by suffering these slings and arrows , championing the cause .

He's got a fair way to go before he gets to Lewis Hamilton MBE status , though .

ArrowsFA1

12th March 2009, 13:19

And no, why should he take responsibility? If you agree his privacy was breached, then you can't expect him to take responsibility.
As Mr Justice Eady said:

"...it might seem that [Max Mosley]'s behaviour was reckless and almost self-destructive. This does not excuse the intrusion into his privacy but it might be a relevant factor to take into account when assessing causal responsibility for what happened. It could be thought unreasonable to absolve him of all responsibility for placing himself and his family in the predicament in which they now find themselves. It is part and parcel of human dignity that one must take at least some responsibility for one's own actions."

Tazio

12th March 2009, 14:07

As Mr Justice Eady said: Originally Posted by
"...it might seem that [Max Mosley]'s behaviour was reckless and almost self-destructive. This does not excuse the intrusion into his privacy but it might be a relevant factor to take into account when assessing causal responsibility for what happened. It could be thought unreasonable to absolve him of all responsibility for placing himself and his family in the predicament in which they now find themselves. It is part and parcel of human dignity that one must take at least some responsibility for one's own actions."

The operative words you quoted from Justice Eady's statement are:
"might" (twice)
"almost"
"could" (twice) and finally
"some"
The statement is speculative and weakly opinionated, let alone an actual condemnation.

BTW in case you have forgotten the stated position of The Sensibles
It is in our opinion Max should not have to leave his job over this intrusion into his personal life, and its ramifications.

After a lot of puritanical types, started whining about Max pursuing this egregious and unsolicited intrusion into his life to its logical end,
and were very put off that he wouldn't let it go.
I brought to the attention of this forum that it just might be a rather noble pursuit by him.
That is a personal opinion I can't speak for the rest of our consortium,
as that was not until recently revealed, it and was a stated belief of the group.
In closing I want to reiterate we never claimed Max was a hero,
a champion, or a role model, and certainly not the greatest living Englishman!