FIA suing Sunday Times over Brundle column

[Dave B]

Now that the forum's returned to some sense of normality, let's talk about Max's decision to sue the Sunday Times for publishing an article by Martin Brundle criticising the way, in his opinion, the FIA have persued a vendetta against McLaren.

It was an opinion piece, and Brundle was careful not to level any accusations directly at Mosley or the FIA. But in his follow-up column he's more forthright, even calling it "How can Formula One justify blatant double standards (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3021312.ece)?"

The FIA are a force to be reckoned with, and Martin's already wondering whether his media pass for 2008 will be under threat. But don't forget that the Sunday Times is ultimately owned by the Murdochs, and if (as I hope) they throw their weight behind Brundle then it could be one hell of a fight.

So, being careful what I say for fear of a writ landing on my doormat, has Max flipped? First we had the "certified halfwit" comment aimed at Sir Jackie Stewart, now this action against Brundle. Are these the actions of a man we want to be in charge of international motorsport, or a clear indication that he can no longer remain impartial and should consider his position?

[Easy Drifter]

Mad Max seems to be getting carried away with his authority and less than diplomatic words.
I am reluctant to bring it up but maybe some of his father's thinking is coming to the fore.

[fandango]

Well, I've always liked Martin Brundle as a commentator. He very professional and informative, and his tone while commentating (one of the most difficult things for a live commentator) is usuallly perfect.

BUT

I was surprised at his column on Sunday. It seemed really peevish and unprofessional, and there were even some grammatical errors which suggested it was written in a hurry or in anger. There are two considerations here. The first is whether there is grounds for legal action. This is for the lawyers to look at. The second is whether you agree with what he says. But I don't understand why he stated his opinion in this manner, and the way he is now half-expecting to be a victim makes me wonder what it is he's hoping to acheive.

For the record, while I don't think the FIA are very good at policing the sport, I think the Renault ruling was consistent with the first McLaren ruling, which Ferrari wanted to appeal. But I imagine that's been discussed here in the usual way, I've been away for a while.

[ioan]

It was just about time that someone told Brundle to stop his petty games, enough is enough.

[inimitablestoo]

I am reluctant to bring it up but maybe some of his father's thinking is coming to the fore.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been seeing that link this year...

Sadly, Brundle's also a major factor in the BRDC and therefore the British Grand Prix's future - or more likely lack of it (perhaps Max will relocate it to the Norisring - or am I going too far down that route?...)

Seriously though, does anyone think it's entirely coincidental the forum's been down since the Renault verdict came out? Keep the great unwashed from having an opinion, no one will notice the double standards. It's an FIA conspiracy, I tells ya :uhoh:

[Big Ben]

It was just about time that someone told Brundle to stop his petty games, enough is enough.

and if this doesn´t work a bullet would do the job. how does he dare question FIA's decisions? FIA is Max and Max knows everything. They have postponed the decision against McLaren for February because Mad Max FELT RD wasn't saying the truth. How can anyone have anything against such a proof.

[ioan]

and if this doesn´t work a bullet would do the job. how does he dare question FIA's decisions? FIA is Max and Max knows everything. They have postponed the decision against McLaren for February because Mad Max FELT RD wasn't saying the truth. How can anyone have anything against such a proof.

Brundle didn't question Max only he questioned the whole WMSC.

As for those going down the route with allusions to Mosley's father, you should keep such idiocies for yourself, this being a public forum where such views shouldn't be aired. :rolleyes:

[winer]

Mad Max seems to be getting carried away with his authority and less than diplomatic words.
I am reluctant to bring it up but maybe some of his father's thinking is coming to the fore.
Can someone help? What is the reference to Mosley's father all about?

[markabilly]

Mad Max seems to be getting carried away with his authority and less than diplomatic words.
I am reluctant to bring it up but maybe some of his father's thinking is coming to the fore.


Now that the forum's returned to some sense of normality, let's talk about Max's decision to sue the Sunday Times for publishing an article by Martin Brundle criticising the way, in his opinion, the FIA have persued a vendetta against McLaren.

It was an opinion piece, and Brundle was careful not to level any accusations directly at Mosley or the FIA. But in his follow-up column he's more forthright, even calling it "How can Formula One justify blatant double standards (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3021312.ece)?"

The FIA are a force to be reckoned with, and Martin's already wondering whether his media pass for 2008 will be under threat. But don't forget that the Sunday Times is ultimately owned by the Murdochs, and if (as I hope) they throw their weight behind Brundle then it could be one hell of a fight.

So, being careful what I say for fear of a writ landing on my doormat, has Max flipped? First we had the "certified halfwit" comment aimed at Sir Jackie Stewart, now this action against Brundle. Are these the actions of a man we want to be in charge of international motorsport, or a clear indication that he can no longer remain impartial and should consider his position?


I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been seeing that link this year...

Sadly, Brundle's also a major factor in the BRDC and therefore the British Grand Prix's future - or more likely lack of it (perhaps Max will relocate it to the Norisring - or am I going too far down that route?...)

Seriously though, does anyone think it's entirely coincidental the forum's been down since the Renault verdict came out? Keep the great unwashed from having an opinion, no one will notice the double standards. It's an FIA conspiracy, I tells ya :uhoh:




As for those going down the route with allusions to Mosley's father, you should keep such idiocies for yourself, this being a public forum where such views shouldn't be aired. :rolleyes:


Oh my, you boys have done gone and done it

The writs will be flying now, smashing down upon all you defamers, one and all, without exception. But it is all good, maybe you will learn to drink your kool aid and set a good example for Max, besides buzzards got to eat, too
Next thing you guys will be doing is repeating that alleged quote of ten years ago of Max, you know the one where he said, "the day you start being offended by criticism is the day you're getting too old or going crackers or something of that kind."

And just because pop was a facist, is no reason to be claiming the fruit don't fall far from the tree

You boys are all in a heap of trouble

[ArrowsFA1]

Martin Brundle expressed an opinion, one that seems to be shared by many others in the paddock. He may be right to hold this opinion, or he may be wrong, but the reaction of Max Mosley (sorry, the FIA) is childish at best.

To be fair to Max, at least he's consistent. Just ask Ron Dennis (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/2000/oct/report.php/id/3093/.html) or Jackie Stewart (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63170).

In answer to Dave's questions: 1) Max Mosley is now not someone I want to be in charge of international motorsport and 2) yes, he should consider his position.

[SGWilko]

Martin Brundle expressed an opinion, one that seems to be shared by many others in the paddock. He may be right to hold this opinion, or he may be wrong, but the reaction of Max Mosley (sorry, the FIA) is childish at best.

To be fair to Max, at least he's consistent. Just ask Ron Dennis (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/2000/oct/report.php/id/3093/.html) or Jackie Stewart (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63170).

In answer to Dave's questions: 1) Max Mosley is now not someone I want to be in charge of international motorsport and 2) yes, he should consider his position.

It really is rather amusing isn't it. Max goes public with his opinion that Sir Jackie is a certified halfwit, happy to enforce his claims when pressed later, but anyone questions him or his bunch, its handbags at dawn.

The guy is falling apart in public. He reminds me of the police commissioner in the Pink Panther films, little ticks all over the shop..... :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

To be fair to Max, at least he's consistent. Just ask Ron Dennis (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/2000/oct/report.php/id/3093/.html) or Jackie Stewart (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63170).
Oh, and Damon Hill (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63877).

Not a big fan of people voicing concerns/opinions that question him or the FIA is our Max :dozey:
Brundle suggested (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64323) that:
"The timing of the writ is significant, in my view, given the FIA's decision to find Renault guilty of having significant McLaren designs and information within their systems, but not administering any penalty. It is a warning sign to other journalists and publications to choose their words carefully over that decision."
Could the delay in the decision over McLaren's 2008 car be seen in the same light i.e. McLaren are far less likely to comment on or think about questioning the Renault decision while they have this over their heads as well?

[Dave B]

A further thought which I should have included in my original post: it matters not one iota whether Brundle is right or wrong about the whole "spygate" affair, or whether you agree with him.

The fact is he wrote an opinion piece, as journalists have been doing for decades. If Mosely thought Martin's opinion was wrong then he has got every right to disagree with him. What he should not be doing is flinging writs about.

As with "halfwitgate", Max is showing incredibly poor judgement in the way he's conducting himself. As a private individual his behaviour would be embarrassing, but in his role of FIA president he's raising serious questions about his suitability for the post.

His actions smack of scare tactics with the aim of silencing Brundle before he has the chance to air his views to a bigger audience on ITV1 next year.

The irony is of course that if Max had let this slide, hardly anybody would have known about the original newspaper column. But now it's been quoted on every F1 site in the world and exctracts have appeared in the news pages of nearly every major newspaper. More worryingly for Max the vast majority of comments appear to be in Brundle's favour.

[ioan]

The fact is he wrote an opinion piece, as journalists have been doing for decades.

His opinion was formed by accusations that he must be able to prove. That's how it works with every journalist in this world.

You can't just go around throwing mud at important people to sell journals! You ave to be able to support your accusations with facts. I wonder how is Brundle going to support his accusations when there are is no proof to what he is claiming. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

More worryingly for Max the vast majority of comments appear to be in Brundle's favour.

Maybe because you only read British journals and sites, that happen to be very very biased because the leading British team were proved to be cheaters?

Try having an objective view of the events.

[SGWilko]

His opinion was formed by accusations that he must be able to prove. That's how it works with every journalist in this world.

You can't just go around throwing mud at important people to sell journals! You ave to be able to support your accusations with facts. I wonder how is Brundle going to support his accusations when there are is no proof to what he is claiming. :rolleyes:

And I suppose Max could substantiate his Halfwit claim against JYS in a court could he?

Come on Jackie, sue Max and the FIA....

[seppefan]

And I suppose Max could substantiate his Halfwit claim against JYS in a court could he?

Come on Jackie, sue Max and the FIA....

No. The FIA suing the Time is enough and the best news as it means that Max and his cronies will now have to come into the real world and the rule of law. This is potentially big as Max & the FIA may end up really screwing themselves over this. Murdoch owns the Time....enough said. Bye bye Max, it cannot happen soon enough

[F1boat]

It was wrong for Max to react like this. Brundle is biased, former mcLaren-driver, Hamilton fanboy... Max should not have cared about him.

[ArrowsFA1]

Max should not have cared about him.
So why does he :confused: Brundle's is just one of many opinions expressed by many different people during the course of the season.

Also, why sue now when the article in question was published on the 9th September :confused:

[Scrap_Iron]

His opinion was formed by accusations that he must be able to prove. That's how it works with every journalist in this world.

You can't just go around throwing mud at important people to sell journals! You ave to be able to support your accusations with facts. I wonder how is Brundle going to support his accusations when there are is no proof to what he is claiming. :rolleyes:

What the Sunday Times must do is provide the facts on which Martin Brundle based his opinion (largely covered in the article of September 9th), show that his comments were made in good faith, there was no malicious intent and that it was published in the public interest.
By the tone of Brundle's second article, published on December 9th, they obviously feel that they will be able to do exactly that.
This will be an interesting case as the FIA and WSMC will be trying to dispel the perception that they may have acted in a biased way.

[SGWilko]

So why does he :confused: Brundle's is just one of many opinions expressed by many different people during the course of the season.

Also, why sue now when the article in question was published on the 9th September :confused:

Maybe when Max was in F1, it was a 'clean' sport. I bet Martin knows more about what goes on in the teams than Max does. I am inclined to believe that the 'cheating' scenario goes on in ALL teams, Max just is too blinkered to admit it, because to look at it from his rose tinted glasses is beneficial to belittle the likes of Ron and Stoddy.

Ron will not bend over and take it up the tail pipe, Max will be admitted to hospital with a gunshot wound to his foot....

Martin is no fool, he knows what he is doing, as does the Times. I am going to enjoy this suit unfold, because Max will blow his sport into atoms by doing this.

Usual disclaimers apply.

[ioan]

I bet Martin knows more about what goes on in the teams than Max does.

Because he is some kind of medium or he has a hidden magical crystal ball or something? :rolleyes:

Bottom line is Brundle knows little about the teams compared to what the FIA knows and that's because all the teams will first go to the FIA for each and every problem and question they have. I doubt any of the teams would ask for Brundle's opinion first.

[SGWilko]

Because he is some kind of medium or he has a hidden magical crystal ball or something? :rolleyes:

I hope you don't believe in all that hocus pocus BS do you? No what I meant is that up until '94, Brundle was an active DRIVER, having driven for several teams. He will have been at 'the coal face' if you like to know what was going on vis a vis 'spying'. There, no smoke or mirrors required! He also has a lot of friends and confident's up and down the pit lane......


Bottom line is Brundle knows little about the teams compared to what the FIA knows and that's because all the teams will first go to the FIA for each and every problem and question they have. I doubt any of the teams would ask for Brundle's opinion first.

One thing we have learned this year is that the FIA knows surprisingly little about the internal machinations of teams. I think teams know to keep their cards extremely close to their chests. They only let the bafoons led by Charley W and his band of merry men know stuff they want banned.....

Up until now, the sport, in this area of 'spying' has 'self regulated' it's only when the unscrupulous driver (FA?) and bent designer (MC?) and disgruntled Chief Mechanic (NS?), that the self regulation falls apart.

Well, I think so anyway....

[ioan]

I hope you don't believe in all that hocus pocus BS do you? No what I meant is that up until '94, Brundle was an active DRIVER, having driven for several teams. He will have been at 'the coal face' if you like to know what was going on vis a vis 'spying'. There, no smoke or mirrors required! He also has a lot of friends and confident's up and down the pit lane......

Yeah but '94 was 13 years ago! :rolleyes:

Max was a team owner to in the past, and is the FIA president for some time already.

There is really no support for Brundle knowing more about what happens in F1 than Max does.


One thing we have learned this year is that the FIA knows surprisingly little about the internal machinations of teams. I think teams know to keep their cards extremely close to their chests. They only let the bafoons led by Charley W and his band of merry men know stuff they want banned.....

Help me out here, teams hide things from the FIA but tell it to Brundle, so that he can publish their secrets in the newspaper? What sense does that make?!

[SGWilko]

Yeah but '94 was 13 years ago! :rolleyes:

Max was a team owner to in the past, and is the FIA president for some time already.

There is really no support for Brundle knowing more about what happens in F1 than Max does.



Help me out here, teams hide things from the FIA but tell it to Brundle, so that he can publish their secrets in the newspaper? What sense does that make?!

Secrets? newspapers? Where?

[Scrap_Iron]

Because he is some kind of medium or he has a hidden magical crystal ball or something? :rolleyes:

Bottom line is Brundle knows little about the teams compared to what the FIA knows and that's because all the teams will first go to the FIA for each and every problem and question they have. I doubt any of the teams would ask for Brundle's opinion first.
From Martin Brundle's article in The Sunday Times 9th December 2007:
""As a former Formula 1 driver, I have earnt the right to have an opinion about the sport, and probably know as much about it as anybody else, I have attended approaching 400 Grands Prix, 158 as a driver. I have spilt blood, broken bones, shed tears, generated tanker loads of sweat, tasted the champagne glories and plumbed the depths of misery. I have never been more passionate about F1 and will always share my opinions in an honest and open way, knowing readers will make up their own minds."
More good reading here:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19924.html

[SGWilko]

From Martin Brundle's article in The Sunday Times 9th December 2007:
""As a former Formula 1 driver, I have earnt the right to have an opinion about the sport, and probably know as much about it as anybody else, I have attended approaching 400 Grands Prix, 158 as a driver. I have spilt blood, broken bones, shed tears, generated tanker loads of sweat, tasted the champagne glories and plumbed the depths of misery. I have never been more passionate about F1 and will always share my opinions in an honest and open way, knowing readers will make up their own minds."
More good reading here:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19924.html

The writing is on the wall, isn't it? I guess it is only a matter of time now....

[I am evil Homer]

Yeah but '94 was 13 years ago! :rolleyes:

Max was a team owner to in the past, and is the FIA president for some time already.

There is really no support for Brundle knowing more about what happens in F1 than Max does.

Help me out here, teams hide things from the FIA but tell it to Brundle, so that he can publish their secrets in the newspaper? What sense does that make?!

He also manages DC so i'm sure he knows about Red Bull....but this whole affair is ridiculous. I don't particularly like Max but I also think he has a thankless task on his hands.

However, the problem is he seems happy making statements about some teams, drivers and owners but not others. Whether that is a fault of Max, or the FIA and structure around F1 is hard to see.

[SGWilko]

He also manages DC so i'm sure he knows about Red Bull....but this whole affair is ridiculous. I don't particularly like Max but I also think he has a thankless task on his hands.

However, the problem is he seems happy making statements about some teams, drivers and owners but not others. Whether that is a fault of Max, or the FIA and structure around F1 is hard to see.

I think his position is quickly becoming untenable. His role is coming into question from more and more interested parties.

Why, back in whenever did the FIA panic when Max resigned? Surely the short term pain of finding areplacement at short notice (can they not plan for the future?) is better than today's farce and the bettering the 'impartial' FIA and WMSC is getting at the hands of Max?

Unless he hangs out with Britney, there is no excuse for his bullying tactics, kick him out before he does any more damage.......

[ArrowsFA1]

Help me out here, teams hide things from the FIA but tell it to Brundle, so that he can publish their secrets in the newspaper? What sense does that make?!
Team personnel may speak to Brundle openly precisely because they know it will not appear in any newspaper. He may use that information on tv or in his column in a way that does not betray any confidence, but does explain the workings of F1 better to viewers and readers.

As a former driver who has worked with the likes of Briatore and Dennis, Brundle knows how things work, and what goes on behind the scenes. He probably has stories that would make your eyes pop out if he were ever to reveal them.

In my experience what we humble armchair viewers think we know can sometimes bear little or no relation to the reality.

[ioan]

Team personnel may speak to Brundle openly precisely because they know it will not appear in any newspaper. He may use that information on tv or in his column in a way that does not betray any confidence, but does explain the workings of F1 better to viewers and readers.

As a former driver who has worked with the likes of Briatore and Dennis, Brundle knows how things work, and what goes on behind the scenes. He probably has stories that would make your eyes pop out if he were ever to reveal them.

In my experience what we humble armchair viewers think we know can sometimes bear little or no relation to the reality.

I think people are hyping up Brundle's knowledge of F1 teams and their doings a bit to much.

Expecting an ex-driver and now journalist to know more about what's going on in F1 than the FIA itself (who has people that are there specially to insure the interface with the teams, check the cars and so on) it's way over the top.

[markabilly]

In my experience what we humble armchair viewers think we know can sometimes bear little or no relation to the reality.


And the difference is????

Given all that has happenned this year, reality is far more strange and bears little or no relation to what any sane or even paranoid conspiracy nut case could ever think it could be.......

Brundle's is just one of many opinions expressed by many different people during the course of the season.

Different?

Stewart, Hill & Brundle are all retired British racing drivers.

That's not exactly a wide cross-section of the world.

[Scrap_Iron]

Different?

Stewart, Hill & Brundle are all retired British racing drivers.

That's not exactly a wide cross-section of the world.
From the article in grandprix.com, the link for which I posted above:
"In F1 circles almost everyone is saying the same, but no-one wants to be quoted. The FIA says this is not the case but that is certainly our experience. Brundle agrees."

[F1boat]

I wouldn't pay attention to grandprix.com either. They are way too biased in favour of McLaren.

[Scrap_Iron]

I wouldn't pay attention to grandprix.com either. They are way too biased in favour of McLaren.
Doesn't make them wrong

[ioan]

Doesn't make them wrong

Just biased.

[Easy Drifter]

Every paper and larger magazine employ lawyers well versed in libel and deframation to check every story that has any chance of resulting in a lawsuit. The papers very very rarely lose. You can be sure Brundle's opinion pieces were looked at carefully.
ioan: You keep claiming McLaren cheated. That has never been established. They certainly had Ferrari data but there has never been proof that anything was on the car.
One point that seems to have been overlooked is that Renault tried to use McLaren info re the J damper. They just didn't understand how it worked.

[ioan]

ioan: You keep claiming McLaren cheated. That has never been established.

Bull$hit, they were found guilty twice, thrown out of the championship, were facing a 2 seasons ban possibility and were fined a record $100 millions because of unsporting behaviour, and as far as I know that is cheating!

[markabilly]

Bull$hit, they were found guilty twice, thrown out of the championship, were facing a 2 seasons ban possibility and were fined a record $100 millions because of unsporting behaviour, and as far as I know that is cheating!

Cheating?

Excuse me, but you should apologize to RD and Easy Drifter, as I recall they were found quilty of bringing the sport into disrepute, unsporting behavior, being chronic liars and deceivers, stealing secrets, hiding evidence and obstructing justice, aiding and abetting stealing, refusing to cooperate at their own appeal with evidence of their fuel temps, issuing illegal team orders and various other rule violations and such, but no where did the FIA say "cheating" ....... :dozey:

[raikk]

good for Brundle... It's only a matter of time until there will be more and more voices of concern over Max's rule..Max is just a disrespectful snob.. he has no respect for sir Jackie Stewart who was one of the first to make F1 safer.. you would think Max would be working closely with him but nooooo he calls him a half witt.. very cleaver Max...I can't wait till this guy is canned..

[gloomyDAY]

This lawsuit is a joke!

What advantage can F1 (FIA, fans, teams, etc.) take from going to court?

Max better start a queue of newspapers he wants to sue for every insult that is aimed at the FIA. Brundle expressed an opinion in the Sunday Times and should not have to be taken to court. Max got his feelings hurt; someone should tell him that this is bound to happen in a public forum.

[ArrowsFA1]

"...if it is not cleaned up, Formula 1 will end up in a quagmire of plagiarism, chicanery and petty rule interpretation, manipulated by people for whom the word 'sport' has no meaning."
Colin Chapman (1981)

[ioan]

It seems that time has come for a good spring cleaning! (February 2008! :D )

[Garry Walker]

If this results in Mosley (this guy is very clever) being questioned by Libel Barristers (who no doubt will be the highest quality barristers out there, very sharp), then this will be a sight I dearly want to see, for entertainment purposes only.

[fandango]

There must be a lot more to this than meets the eye. My guess is that there's a real possibility that McLaren will suffer more because of the spying scandal. The knock-on effect of this is that Britain's star new driver could be out of F1, or at least of out a chance to be champion next year. The financial implications for the BRDC would be significant, considering how it would affect F1's popularity in the UK (which is NOT the whole world).

One thing that a lot of people seem to miss is that F1 doesn't go by state law. It's a private club/business. The first rule is that the FIA is the boss. So fairness, while necessary for the health of the sport, the entertainment value, is not a right, but rather a good idea. This talk of Mosley being a fascist like his father is silly, irrelevant and immature. McLaren were heavily punished because they betrayed the trust of the FIA, who can't police everyone, so they overreact with the ones they catch. Renault played it better. I can't understand why Brundle doesn't see it like that, so I can only imagine his motive is not as high and mighty as we would like to think. If Hamilton had left McLaren and Alonso had stayed, I don't think he'd be kicking up such a fuss, no matter how much he loves F1.

[dwboogityfan]

Firstly I think Max Mosley has generally been an excellent president of the FIA. His record in improving the most important area of the sport - driver safety - is excellent and he should be congratulated for that.
However, I think that it may be time for Max to retire. The whole 'Spygate' affair has (in my opinion) been handled very poorly by the FIA, regardless of whether the punishments were right or wrong.
I also believe that the teams involved DID factor into the FIA's punishment of McLaren. Would the FIA have reacted in this way had it been Spyker and Super Aguri involved rather than McLaren and Ferrari? I think that is extremely doubtful.
As for the lawsuit against the Sunday Times and McLaren I think that it would be laughed out of a court of law. The Sunday Times could easily use a 'fair comment' defence, while Brundle could use a 'privelage to comment' defence.
Of course it is more a message to Brundle from the FIA than a serious law-suit. Max and Martin don't see eye to eye ever since the Alonso/Monza incident which Martin publicly challenged Max on.
My biggest worry is that ITV's coverage will be affected. IMO Brundle is an excellent analylist (possibly the best in sport today) and should the FIA force him out it would be a crying shame.

[Sandfly]

One thing that a lot of people seem to miss is that F1 doesn't go by state law. It's a private club/business. The first rule is that the FIA is the boss. So fairness, while necessary for the health of the sport, the entertainment value, is not a right, but rather a good idea.


I agree with much of what you say, but I do not think the FIA is free to "govern" the international businesss of motorsport without some "controling legal authority". Whether that is a court of international trade or other overseer of international law relating to business there must be some authority to regulate the improper actions of the FIA with regard to it's dual interest 1) Promoting/contoling F1,, and 2) Regulating the world of international motorsport as self proclaimed authority. The FIA cannot fairly represent all other race sanctioning bodies while they are acting as the agent for F1.

For them to use the threat of liscence revocation against drivers, is a form of coercion bordering on extortion. ( It needs to be determined if they can "legally" use such "persuasion" to achieve control through intimidation), Same applies to the international calander where the FIA sets rules based on it's interpretation of safety - which may not be the proven best - and uses this or other excuses to "protect" F1 from any scheduling conflicts-- meaning Business or marketing threats.

It is simply not right and the current debacle in F1 is an example of the inbred nature of the whole enterprise.

[tintop]

Anywho, although Brundle can be a bit rough on people, at a minimum his challenge of Max's attempts to restrict the press are admirable. The cozy and beneficial relationship that M&B have with Ferrari is kind of pointless to deny given Ferrari's recent alignment with them (as opposed to those other dreaded manufacturers) the only real question is how deep that relationship goes. :)

[ioan]

Do you wake up every morning and put on your Ferrari/FIA/Bernie/Max glasses before you approach the PC?

Sure I do! Way better than using the McStupidLiars&Cheaters ones you use! :p :

[BDunnell]

I say 'good on Brundle'.

Some people here who ought to know better are complaining about someone merely expressing an opinion again, and I'm heartily sick of it. That some of these same people have moaned at other times about 'political correctness' is deeply hypocritical. Sometimes, hearing or reading opinions that differ from your own can hurt, but it's worth looking closely at what they are saying rather than just ignoring them or throwing insults at the person making those opinions because they differ from your own.

In this case, I believe Brundle has just as legitimate a complaint to make about the FIA as the complaint about McLaren has turned out to be. I'm glad to see at least one F1 journalist daring to 'bite the hand that feeds them', so to speak, because it needs doing. Journalism isn't all about the reporting of bare facts. There has to be opinion as well, and I believe Brundle to be not only justified in having his opinions, but also right.

I now await the usual suspects suggesting that I am as biased in one way as they are in another...

[BDunnell]

Sure I do! Way better than using the McStupidLiars&Cheaters ones you use! :p :

I think the record has now cracked completely, ioan.

[tintop]

Sure I do! Way better than using the McStupidLiars&Cheaters ones you use!


Of course, in your calculus, you'd have to identify what team (that wasn't your team) that I'd be supporting. But of course you can't, because I have none. I can only imagine how pedantic it must be like on a daily basis, to be supporting the unsupportable because of some internal turmoil.

Brundle, seems equally demonized as you, and again, I find him a bit harsh, but at least he makes some sense, and as a racer/team man he does know what he is talking about, unlike Max and....

[janneppi]

Back on topic, ok.

[BDunnell]

Anywho, although Brundle can be a bit rough on people, at a minimum his challenge of Max's attempts to restrict the press are admirable. The cozy and beneficial relationship that M&B have with Ferrari is kind of pointless to deny given Ferrari's recent alignment with them (as opposed to those other dreaded manufacturers) the only real question is how deep that relationship goes. :)

I haven't seen any actual evidence of Max and Bernie having too close a relationship with Ferrari. The 'recent alignment' that you speak of is, I feel, more of a coincidence to do with events. It is also interesting that others have argued that they have too close a cosy and beneficial relationship with Hamilton/McLaren, which proves to me that the allegation is baseless either way round.

However, I do agree that it's very good to see someone sticking up for the freedom of journalists to voice views that are less than palatable to some.

However, I do agree that it's very good to see someone sticking up for the freedom of journalists to voice views that are less than palatable to some.

It's not so much the freedom of the press that has exercised Mosley, more the incorrect accusations thrown at the FIA in defence of the now self-confessed indefensible.

After Mclaren's admission and apology, there can be no argument that the FIA were right to investigate Mclaren the way they did.

There can neither be an argument to say that Mclaren were victims as they have proved themselves to be utterly untrustworthy and willing to lie in front of two meetings of the WMSC.

Those who proclaimed it as an unjustifiable 'witch-hunt' now have the problem of disposing of the body of the 'witch' caught by the 'hunt'........Funny how Mr Hill & Mr Stewart have lost their tongues now that the truth about the lies told by Ron Dennis have come out.

Hopefully it will have taught them to judge by facts and not from a pre-determined emotional viewpoint.

Both Hill & Stewart have proven that they would be totally incapable of running the FIA, just as Brundle has shown that he is totally incapable of presenting a correct version of events in print.

[SGWilko]

It's not so much the freedom of the press that has exercised Mosley, more the incorrect accusations thrown at the FIA in defence of the now self-confessed indefensible.

After Mclaren's admission and apology, there can be no argument that the FIA were right to investigate Mclaren the way they did.

Agreed, but - I still think there are glaring inconsistencies between the McLaren and Renault IP theft situations. Mole aside, the FIA's handling of the Renault situation was very low profile in comparison to the McLaren one - IMO.


There can neither be an argument to say that Mclaren were victims as they have proved themselves to be utterly untrustworthy and willing to lie in front of two meetings of the WMSC.

Those who proclaimed it as an unjustifiable 'witch-hunt' now have the problem of disposing of the body of the 'witch' caught by the 'hunt'........Funny how Mr Hill & Mr Stewart have lost their tongues now that the truth about the lies told by Ron Dennis have come out.

In fairness to Hill et al, the season is over, and gaining a casual quote from a name in the paddock is not happening 'out of season'.


Hopefully it will have taught them to judge by facts and not from a pre-determined emotional viewpoint.

Both Hill & Stewart have proven that they would be totally incapable of running the FIA, just as Brundle has shown that he is totally incapable of presenting a correct version of events in print.

It is still just their opinion, expressed albeit to a large audience. There still lingers the issue of Max branding Jackie a certified halfwit. Again, yes his opinion, but I guess he can give his, but others giving theirs against his organisation are not permitted.

While I still cannot forgive McLaren for what has happened, Renault were guilty too, I guess they just were not as guilty, or guilty in a nice way. Remember that Flavio was banging on at the time about Pontious Pilate or someone similar, when McLaren were found guilty but not punished.

So I guess what I am saying is that the FIA has a perception issue they need to clear up, and work a bit harder on their consistency.

[TMorel]

Surely a witch hunt is still a witch hunt even if you catch a witch?

Max may have been right in the end, but the way he has gone about it was all wrong (in my opionion - don't sue me for it)

[BDunnell]

It's not so much the freedom of the press that has exercised Mosley, more the incorrect accusations thrown at the FIA in defence of the now self-confessed indefensible.

After Mclaren's admission and apology, there can be no argument that the FIA were right to investigate Mclaren the way they did.

There can neither be an argument to say that Mclaren were victims as they have proved themselves to be utterly untrustworthy and willing to lie in front of two meetings of the WMSC.

Those who proclaimed it as an unjustifiable 'witch-hunt' now have the problem of disposing of the body of the 'witch' caught by the 'hunt'........Funny how Mr Hill & Mr Stewart have lost their tongues now that the truth about the lies told by Ron Dennis have come out.

Hopefully it will have taught them to judge by facts and not from a pre-determined emotional viewpoint.

Both Hill & Stewart have proven that they would be totally incapable of running the FIA, just as Brundle has shown that he is totally incapable of presenting a correct version of events in print.

There is no actual evidence that Ron Dennis lied. I'd be most impressed if you were able to find any. Saying something that later turns out to be untrue does not constitute a lie. This is as far as the 'lying' case can ever be proved to go.

I have previously outlined my serious objections to the way the FIA has handled this whole affair, so there's no need to go over those again. Suffice to say, I think it was a catalogue of failures.

[BDunnell]

Agreed, but - I still think there are glaring inconsistencies between the McLaren and Renault IP theft situations. Mole aside, the FIA's handling of the Renault situation was very low profile in comparison to the McLaren one - IMO.

The profile of the McLaren case in the UK was massively heightened by Lewis Hamilton's rise to prominence, let's not forget.



It is still just their opinion, expressed albeit to a large audience. There still lingers the issue of Max branding Jackie a certified halfwit. Again, yes his opinion, but I guess he can give his, but others giving theirs against his organisation are not permitted.

Exactly. :up:

To me, that comment by Mosley goes way beyond anything Brundle has said or written.

[Bagwan]

Max should have said "Jackie is acting like a certified half-wit" .

Jackie has done a lot for the sport , and should be commended , but he was speaking waaaaaaaay out of turn here .

He was spouting that the FIA is in Ferrari's pocket , and that "Integrityman" could never have done such wrong .
We see Jackie knew nothing of what was really going on , and his silence shows it true .
The first thing the journo(s) that quoted him the first time would have done after the apology letter came out , would have been to call up Jackie to get a new opinion on the matter . If I thought of this , not being a member , be assured they would .
I would have been on the phone to him once the e-mails came out .

I'm quite sure Jackie's had lots of opportunity to set the record straight .


Brundle , being a member of the press , himself , has every chance to get himself out of hot water .

However , he could also drown in it .

[Malbec]

It's not so much the freedom of the press that has exercised Mosley, more the incorrect accusations thrown at the FIA in defence of the now self-confessed indefensible.

After Mclaren's admission and apology, there can be no argument that the FIA were right to investigate Mclaren the way they did.

There can neither be an argument to say that Mclaren were victims as they have proved themselves to be utterly untrustworthy and willing to lie in front of two meetings of the WMSC.

Those who proclaimed it as an unjustifiable 'witch-hunt' now have the problem of disposing of the body of the 'witch' caught by the 'hunt'........Funny how Mr Hill & Mr Stewart have lost their tongues now that the truth about the lies told by Ron Dennis have come out.

Hopefully it will have taught them to judge by facts and not from a pre-determined emotional viewpoint.

Both Hill & Stewart have proven that they would be totally incapable of running the FIA, just as Brundle has shown that he is totally incapable of presenting a correct version of events in print.

I'm afraid I have difficulty following your logic.

You can't sue people for libel if they didn't have particular information to hand at that time. Brundle was writing an article that was factually correct at that time. McLaren only wrote a letter of apology last week, Brundle wrote his article several months ago. I'm afraid journalists like Brundle don't have time machines to seek out facts from the future.

I'm not sure if you've read the article in question. Brundle merely summarises the key points leading into the second McLaren Stepneygate hearing then adds his opinion "For me this has all the feeling of a witchhunt". I'm not sure whether English is your first language but this is quite a subtle point and is different to saying "this IS a witchhunt". It establishes that it is his opinion, not that it is fact that it is a witchhunt.

Just to reiterate, it is his opinion of events. There is nothing factually wrong with the article.

Similar editorials are written about many many individuals in the public eye. If Max or the FIA do not like having editorials written about them then it is for them to remove themselves from the public eye, not for the press to be silenced by law suits. If a politician sued a newspaper for a similar article (and lets face it, far harsher articles are written about them) there would be an outcry about freedom of the press.

It is also interesting that the case is to be heard in France where the burden of proof for the defendant is lighter (ie its easier for a defendant in a libel case to win than in Britain) but if found guilty they can be classified as having committed a criminal act.

[Malbec]

There's another point which hasn't been touched on yet.

The Sunday Times is part of a large media empire - News Corp - owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In the UK, News Corp has a serious level of clout. Outspoken support of various parties and criticism of others by its papers has previously influenced election results. Its papers also helped increase public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK by dripfeeding stories about Saddam's atrocities and WMD through both its down and upmarket newspapers.

The closest analogy I can think of elsewhere is Ferrari deciding to sue a Berlusconi owned newspaper or TV channel in Italy. Whether or not the FIA has a strong case is irrelevant, its taking on a very powerful organisation owned by someone with considerably more global clout than Max who also has a serious inability to deal with people who have differing views from him.

After the FIA announced it was suing the Sunday Times, the paper let Brundle write two more articles that, if anything, are even more critical of the FIA and also published another article written by a different journalist that was equally scathing. Its safe to say they aren't being intimidated by the FIA unlike ITV.

What will be interesting is whether News Corp decides to have a close look at the FIA and Max Mosely himself to see what skeletons there are hidden in his cupboards. News Corp practically destroyed the Conservative party in the UK a decade ago by releasing stories about corruption and sleaze within the party. If Max didn't like Jackie Stewarts comments about him then Rupert Murdoch has the ability to make him feel like a brain tumour is a birthday present. Lets hope for Max's sake he hasn't made dodgy deals in the past or had affairs he doesn't want people to know about.

[gloomyDAY]

Great observation! ^^^

Rupert has the same kind of control over the media here in America through a news outlet called Fox. They're conservative and at times contoversial. You're right about one thing, this lawsuit will probably bring out a lot of misgivings Mr. Mosley has been hiding.

[Daniel]

There's another point which hasn't been touched on yet.

The Sunday Times is part of a large media empire - News Corp - owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In the UK, News Corp has a serious level of clout. Outspoken support of various parties and criticism of others by its papers has previously influenced election results. Its papers also helped increase public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK by dripfeeding stories about Saddam's atrocities and WMD through both its down and upmarket newspapers.

The closest analogy I can think of elsewhere is Ferrari deciding to sue a Berlusconi owned newspaper or TV channel in Italy. Whether or not the FIA has a strong case is irrelevant, its taking on a very powerful organisation owned by someone with considerably more global clout than Max who also has a serious inability to deal with people who have differing views from him.

After the FIA announced it was suing the Sunday Times, the paper let Brundle write two more articles that, if anything, are even more critical of the FIA and also published another article written by a different journalist that was equally scathing. Its safe to say they aren't being intimidated by the FIA unlike ITV.

What will be interesting is whether News Corp decides to have a close look at the FIA and Max Mosely himself to see what skeletons there are hidden in his cupboards. News Corp practically destroyed the Conservative party in the UK a decade ago by releasing stories about corruption and sleaze within the party. If Max didn't like Jackie Stewarts comments about him then Rupert Murdoch has the ability to make him feel like a brain tumour is a birthday present. Lets hope for Max's sake he hasn't made dodgy deals in the past or had affairs he doesn't want people to know about.
Quite a good point :up:

I personally think Brundle should shut his gob and stop trying to bed Lewis and Ron. But he has his right to free speach within limits also.

[Robinho]

he may have been wrong on this occasion, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to vent his opinion. in this case i think sopme sort of retraction would do, as the evidence has shown that the FIA were on the right track, despite what some of the paddock wisdom thought, but i dodn't see anything particularly wrong in what was written, it wasn't exactly libellous when compared with some of the things MM has said of others in the (recent) past

[markabilly]

There's another point which hasn't been touched on yet.

The Sunday Times is part of a large media empire - News Corp - owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In the UK, News Corp has a serious level of clout. Outspoken support of various parties and criticism of others by its papers has previously influenced election results. Its papers also helped increase public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK by dripfeeding stories about Saddam's atrocities and WMD through both its down and upmarket newspapers.

The closest analogy I can think of elsewhere is Ferrari deciding to sue a Berlusconi owned newspaper or TV channel in Italy. Whether or not the FIA has a strong case is irrelevant, its taking on a very powerful organisation owned by someone with considerably more global clout than Max who also has a serious inability to deal with people who have differing views from him.

After the FIA announced it was suing the Sunday Times, the paper let Brundle write two more articles that, if anything, are even more critical of the FIA and also published another article written by a different journalist that was equally scathing. Its safe to say they aren't being intimidated by the FIA unlike ITV.

What will be interesting is whether News Corp decides to have a close look at the FIA and Max Mosely himself to see what skeletons there are hidden in his cupboards. News Corp practically destroyed the Conservative party in the UK a decade ago by releasing stories about corruption and sleaze within the party. If Max didn't like Jackie Stewarts comments about him then Rupert Murdoch has the ability to make him feel like a brain tumour is a birthday present. Lets hope for Max's sake he hasn't made dodgy deals in the past or had affairs he doesn't want people to know about.


Well duh, "Lets hope for Max's sake he hasn't made dodgy deals in the past or had affairs he doesn't want people to know about."
Now if you were going to bet, would you want to be beting on or against the fine, upright moral fiber of maX's backbone......????

Somewhere, I once heard, "it is one bad enough to be called a liar, it is far worse to sue and then be proven to be such beyond doubt"

And when it comes to the all mighty power of the press, it would be easy to win the suit in a court, only to have public perception go further down the toilet based on more stories.

And news organizations are well known for never letting truth get in the way of "reporting" a good story

Anyway in America, the chances of success would be zero, as MaX would be considered a public figure, and it is open season on them......

BUT I AM THRILLED THAT MaX HAS DONE GONE AND DONE IT!!!

Go GET THEM MaX, SUE THE BA$TA$RD$
Amen!!

:bounce:

And many of you here should also quit whining about the poor old newspaper getting sued and join with me, and say great Christmas gift!!

Why?
It will be the opportunity to put old MaX under oath, and make him give a very detailed deposition, examining every little detail of the whole mess as to what proof he has that it was not a witch hunt, force more of the truth about Spygate, Renault, and all the rest, more then we would ever ever hope to learn.....

I bet old MaX is right now, doing his best to erase as many emails as possible from his computer before the subpenas are served on him..........

unless the reason for the suit in France is to avoid such intensive fact finding thorugh the lagel process.........

[Malbec]

Why?
It will be the opportunity to put old MaX under oath, and make him give a very detailed deposition, examining every little detail of the whole mess as to what proof he has that it was not a witch hunt, force more of the truth about Spygate, Renault, and all the rest, more then we would ever ever hope to learn.....

I bet old MaX is right now, doing his best to erase as many emails as possible from his computer before the subpenas are served on him..........

unless the reason for the suit in France is to avoid such intensive fact finding thorugh the lagel process.........

I doubt very much that there would be any need to delve deep into Stepneygate regarding this article. The case doesn't revolve around the facts about Stepneygate, more about the right to express an opinion about figures in the public eye.

In fact all that is technically required here is for the Sunday Times and Brundle to point out that both the FIA and Max Mosley are organisations and persons in the public eye and that as members of the press they have the right to express opinions in public about them, unless Max can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the factual elements in Brundle's article are actually wrong.

The only danger is that the French legal system can sometimes make rather odd decisions that favour the party that is deemed to be the more French regardless of legal precedence. Here of course the FIA is at a distinct advantage being based in Paris but Max himself is British. Murdoch probably has few friends in France.

Murdoch doesn't need to release stories about Max to hurt the FIA. The biggest satellite channels in China and India, StarTV, are owned by him. He owns Fox in the US and various media outlets in many other countries. Star TV in particular would be key to increasing interest in F1 in India and China, but not if Murdoch doesn't particularly want to. There are many other sports the Indians and Chinese are equally interested in like football that would be quite profitable for Murdoch thanks.

[Valve Bounce]

Max's latest schpeel about not trusting Ron Dennis and all that will come in handy for Rupert Murdoch's lawyers. This thing is going to take up so much of Max's time that it will drive him even crazier. In the end, Murdoch will just make more money with his multi media worlwide.

[markabilly]

I doubt very much that there would be any need to delve deep into Stepneygate regarding this article. The case doesn't revolve around the facts about Stepneygate, more about the right to express an opinion about figures in the public eye.

In fact all that is technically required here is for the Sunday Times and Brundle to point out that both the FIA and Max Mosley are organisations and persons in the public eye and that as members of the press they have the right to express opinions in public about them, unless Max can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the factual elements in Brundle's article are actually wrong.

The only danger is that the French legal system can sometimes make rather odd decisions that favour the party that is deemed to be the more French regardless of legal precedence. .

As I noted, in America the public figure rule, would also squash the lawsuit beyond any doubt, but in France, is there such a rule? If not, was the absence of such a rule, the reason why France was picked for place of filing or was it because mac and their English supporters chose to bash the national honor of France by picking on Renault, resulting in some potential blow back on Mac that leaks over to Martin and the Sunday Times??

I would think if the public figure rule is very weak or non-existant in France, then the question would become one of whether true or not, and that is where the fun would begin.

And if I were Murdoch and just so inclined, even if such a public figure rule existed, I might well be inclined to charge into the facts anyway, just to try and give credence to the witch hunt theory, just to be mean and nasty.

I just wonder what could be dug up......

[ioan]

There's another point which hasn't been touched on yet.

The Sunday Times is part of a large media empire - News Corp - owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In the UK, News Corp has a serious level of clout. Outspoken support of various parties and criticism of others by its papers has previously influenced election results. Its papers also helped increase public opinion for the war in Iraq in the UK by dripfeeding stories about Saddam's atrocities and WMD through both its down and upmarket newspapers.

The closest analogy I can think of elsewhere is Ferrari deciding to sue a Berlusconi owned newspaper or TV channel in Italy. Whether or not the FIA has a strong case is irrelevant, its taking on a very powerful organisation owned by someone with considerably more global clout than Max who also has a serious inability to deal with people who have differing views from him.

After the FIA announced it was suing the Sunday Times, the paper let Brundle write two more articles that, if anything, are even more critical of the FIA and also published another article written by a different journalist that was equally scathing. Its safe to say they aren't being intimidated by the FIA unlike ITV.

What will be interesting is whether News Corp decides to have a close look at the FIA and Max Mosely himself to see what skeletons there are hidden in his cupboards. News Corp practically destroyed the Conservative party in the UK a decade ago by releasing stories about corruption and sleaze within the party. If Max didn't like Jackie Stewarts comments about him then Rupert Murdoch has the ability to make him feel like a brain tumour is a birthday present. Lets hope for Max's sake he hasn't made dodgy deals in the past or had affairs he doesn't want people to know about.

Maybe that's why Max decided to sue them in France not in the UK or USA?!
And by the way it isn't Max who is taking legal action against Brundle, it's the FIA a world wide established organization that is very well known in every country. Organization that was grounded in France a very long time ago.

Anyway, after McLaren acknowledged that they were in the wrong and the FIA was right, they pretty much destroyed any chances that Brundle had in this case.

[Malbec]

Maybe that's why Max decided to sue them in France not in the UK or USA?!
And by the way it isn't Max who is taking legal action against Brundle, it's the FIA a world wide established organization that is very well known in every country. Organization that was grounded in France a very long time ago.

Anyway, after McLaren acknowledged that they were in the wrong and the FIA was right, they pretty much destroyed any chances that Brundle had in this case.

The FIA wouldn't have taken the decision to sue the ST or Brundle without Max approving it in some form or another.

Yes, I do think the French may be biased towards a French based organisation like the FIA.

Unfortunately your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Journalists or indeed anyone can only write articles based on the information they have to hand. And, given the information he had to hand when he wrote the article there are no factual inaccuracies in the article. It all boils down to whether or not Brundle has the right to state that in his opinion it FEELS like a witchhunt.

In England Max would be laughed out of court and the case wouldn't last more than a few minutes. In France the same should be true and the prosecution acting for the FIA will have a harder time than in England but there is a history of the French making odd legal decisions. Time will tell.

[markabilly]

The FIA wouldn't have taken the decision to sue the ST or Brundle without Max approving it in some form or another.

Yes, I do think the French may be biased towards a French based organisation like the FIA.

Unfortunately your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Journalists or indeed anyone can only write articles based on the information they have to hand. And, given the information he had to hand when he wrote the article there are no factual inaccuracies in the article. It all boils down to whether or not Brundle has the right to state that in his opinion it FEELS like a witchhunt.

In England Max would be laughed out of court and the case wouldn't last more than a few minutes. In France the same should be true and the prosecution acting for the FIA will have a harder time than in England but there is a history of the French making odd legal decisions. Time will tell.

The real question is just how did the FIA approve it? Where was the vote and meeting? May be i just missed it.

Anyway, if the public figure rule, for whatever reason, is not applied, then it should be open warfare on maX's background and how he conducted the investigation, I would think.

Indeed, that would be how best to force a dismissal, as lawyers often do, much like Fa told RD about the laptop, do you really want everyone to know what is buried there?

But at the end of the day, so what? maX and FIA is entitled to millions because the hunt was successful? What? And just how do you kill a dog that is already dead?

Here, a few months ago, we have Bernie going on about how all spying should be handled internally to avoid bad PR fall out, and then here comes the FIA or MaX presenting the perfect opportunity and justification for more mud slinging and digging in the same pit. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

The FIA wouldn't have taken the decision to sue the ST or Brundle without Max approving it in some form or another.

Yes, I do think the French may be biased towards a French based organisation like the FIA.

Unfortunately your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Journalists or indeed anyone can only write articles based on the information they have to hand. And, given the information he had to hand when he wrote the article there are no factual inaccuracies in the article. It all boils down to whether or not Brundle has the right to state that in his opinion it FEELS like a witchhunt.

In England Max would be laughed out of court and the case wouldn't last more than a few minutes. In France the same should be true and the prosecution acting for the FIA will have a harder time than in England but there is a history of the French making odd legal decisions. Time will tell.

Exactly. The comment to which you refer betrays a complete lack of understanding of how journalism or the courts work.

[ioan]

In England Max would be laughed out of court and the case wouldn't last more than a few minutes.

And you think that's normal?! :rolleyes:


In France the same should be true and the prosecution acting for the FIA will have a harder time than in England but there is a history of the French making odd legal decisions. Time will tell.

Why do British think that what they have and what they do is better than in other places? Must be because of the ****ty weather!

[BDunnell]

And you think that's normal?! :rolleyes:

Yes, because many a pointless libel case launched for personal reasons rather than actual hurt has been thrown out almost as soon as it arrives in court, and this should be no different. It's a complete waste of the courts' time.



Why do British think that what they have and what they do is better than in other places? Must be because of the ****ty weather!

I think British justice, albeit with some notable exceptions that should never be forgotten, is generally far more fair, reasoned and balanced than that of several other European countries. It's not perfect, but neither is it as bad as some that could be mentioned.

[ioan]

Yes, because many a pointless libel case launched for personal reasons rather than actual hurt has been thrown out almost as soon as it arrives in court, and this should be no different. It's a complete waste of the courts' time.

So if a journo destroys a persons public image he should be helped by the legal system to do it?!

I'm glad I don't live in UK! And you people believe that is right! Or maybe you just do not see the difference between freedom of speech and defamation?!


I think British justice, albeit with some notable exceptions that should never be forgotten, is generally far more fair, reasoned and balanced than that of several other European countries. It's not perfect, but neither is it as bad as some that could be mentioned.

I don't know, judging by what has been posted around here British justice isn't worth 2 pence. It look like they would rather throw a case off than judge it. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

So if a journo destroys a persons public image he should be helped by the legal system to do it?!

I'm glad I don't live in UK! And you people believe that is right! Or maybe you just do not see the difference between freedom of speech and defamation?!



I don't know, judging by what has been posted around here British justice isn't worth 2 pence. It look like they would rather throw a case off than judge it. :rolleyes:

I think you have a lot to learn about these issues, and ought to return when you have taken the time to find out how a free press and a sensible legal system really work. Your ideas of them and reality are far, far removed, thank goodness.

[Malbec]

And you think that's normal?! :rolleyes:

Yes I do think its normal.

I don't think you understand whats going on.

Brundle has written an opinion piece where he has summarised the facts known at that point and offered his opinion, ie he said it felt like a witchhunt.

He wrote this about the FIA and Max Mosley, both of which are very much in the public eye, administering a sport watched by millions.

In British law and in fact in every country within the EU people have the right to offer opinions about the actions of people in the public eye (under British law those opinions have to be seen as being reasonable given the proffered facts by the average layman). I see you're Romanian. Since you've joined the EU your laws will be in line with Britain and the rest of the EU on this issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been allowed to join. Its all about protecting the right of free speech.

If Brundle had made factually incorrect statements about the FIA then he would be open to litigation which would likely be successful, however he didn't. He proffered his opinion.

If Brundle had written an article about Brown's economic policies, listing them then saying "In my opinion Brown is not a competent Prime Minister, the economy is not safe in his hands." and PM Brown had then sued there would have been a national outcry. Why is Max any different?

Your posts do suggest you don't understand the principles underlying free speech. I agree with Ben's suggestion that you read up about it. I find it deeply worrying that people continue to suggest that opinions critical of people in the public eye be suppressed if they don't agree with a particular point of view.

[Malbec]

The real question is just how did the FIA approve it? Where was the vote and meeting? May be i just missed it.

Anyway, if the public figure rule, for whatever reason, is not applied, then it should be open warfare on maX's background and how he conducted the investigation, I would think.

Indeed, that would be how best to force a dismissal, as lawyers often do, much like Fa told RD about the laptop, do you really want everyone to know what is buried there?

But at the end of the day, so what? maX and FIA is entitled to millions because the hunt was successful? What? And just how do you kill a dog that is already dead?

Here, a few months ago, we have Bernie going on about how all spying should be handled internally to avoid bad PR fall out, and then here comes the FIA or MaX presenting the perfect opportunity and justification for more mud slinging and digging in the same pit. :rolleyes:

I think it was all decided after the council meeting that looked into the Renault spying case. The press release about it came immediately after the one about Renault.

Having said that Nigel Roebuck wrote in this months motorsport magazine that Brundle had been informed at the Monza GP that the FIA was looking into his article. In France libel cases have to be filed within three months of the publishing date and apparently this case was filed right on the deadline.

I think there are three main reasons why the case was filed in France. Firstly the FIA is French-based and the article was available in France (the article has to have been available in the country you are suing in). Secondly while the case would appear to be an open and shut victory for the ST and Brundle the French have been known to make the odd decision that favours the French side. Thirdly if found guilty Brundle and the ST will be found guilty of a crime. In every other country in the EU libel is a civil case, not a criminal one. In France its a criminal offence.

Overall though I don't think its about Brundle or the ST (I'm sure we've all read much more aggressive and critical articles about the FIA/Max), to quote the French its pour encourager les autres, to threaten other sites and media outlets to not criticise the FIA. Noticed how few articles have been written about the FIA suing Brundle? Noticed how carefully worded the few articles written about it are?

[markabilly]

Overall though I don't think its about Brundle or the ST (I'm sure we've all read much more aggressive and critical articles about the FIA/Max), to quote the French its pour encourager les autres, to threaten other sites and media outlets to not criticise the FIA. Noticed how few articles have been written about the FIA suing Brundle? Noticed how carefully worded the few articles written about it are?

MaXimusarrogantum, then.


One way toplay the games, oh the Prince would be proud then

[Malbec]

MaXimusarrogantum, then.


One way toplay the games, oh the Prince would be proud then

Its going to get interesting isn't it. The old man has always kept pulling rabbits out of the hat, saving himself at the last moment, always ending up winning out somehow. The thing is, in the past he's held court in his own back yard when dealing with the F1 teams and manufacturers who can be threatened and cajoled into doing as he says.

Now he's taken on a real world adversary, one that is far more powerful than him and has a global reach and isn't bound by constraints like ethics. Is Max going to pull another rabbit out of his hat? Has he used up his nine lives? Surely he's got something up his sleeve, surely.

[BDunnell]

Thirdly if found guilty Brundle and the ST will be found guilty of a crime. In every other country in the EU libel is a civil case, not a criminal one. In France its a criminal offence.

It can be a criminal offence in the UK as well — or, at least, it could. I don't know whether criminal libel has been removed from the statute books. This, of course, is what Sonia Sutcliffe took Ian Hislop and Private Eye to court for, in a case that proves that the most stupid libel actions can turn common sense on its head.

[markabilly]

Its going to get interesting isn't it. The old man has always kept pulling rabbits out of the hat, saving himself at the last moment, always ending up winning out somehow. The thing is, in the past he's held court in his own back yard when dealing with the F1 teams and manufacturers who can be threatened and cajoled into doing as he says.

Now he's taken on a real world adversary, one that is far more powerful than him and has a global reach and isn't bound by constraints like ethics. Is Max going to pull another rabbit out of his hat? Has he used up his nine lives? Surely he's got something up his sleeve, surely.

Well many years ago, I listened to lawyer Racehorse Haynes give a speech about playing in your own backyard, and how tough it was to jump into someone else's backyard and he said something about F Lee Bailey went to France to the aid of some client, only to be met by a very irritated French lawyer, who informed him that his services were not necessary, as "arrangements" had been made with the French judge, and that the judge was a man of honor who would always honor those arrangements....

On the other hand, the trick may be just too intimidate the press as you mentioned and at some point, they will just quietly drop the matter, point being made. Personally, assuming a fair system of justice that would let you do it, it would be great just to let the dogs loose and see what they dig up........I would love to see those emails that must be out there...the ones with max and his crew thinking what to do to who....and hear some stuff under oath....but oh well.

[BDunnell]

Its going to get interesting isn't it. The old man has always kept pulling rabbits out of the hat, saving himself at the last moment, always ending up winning out somehow. The thing is, in the past he's held court in his own back yard when dealing with the F1 teams and manufacturers who can be threatened and cajoled into doing as he says.

Now he's taken on a real world adversary, one that is far more powerful than him and has a global reach and isn't bound by constraints like ethics. Is Max going to pull another rabbit out of his hat? Has he used up his nine lives? Surely he's got something up his sleeve, surely.

Let's not forget that News International has been shown before to be less than honourable towards its 'employees' in such matters. A good example occurred in 1998, when the Sun decided to be nice towards gay people for once after the various 'outings' of Labour cabinet ministers, because of its support for Labour at the time. It performed a complete volte-face on previous editorial policy (which had included columnist Garry Bushell starting an 'inqueery' into 'limp-wristed politicians', and the headline about Britain being run by a 'gay mafia'), and sacked Matthew Parris as a columnist after his 'outing' of Peter Mandelson on Newsnight. At least the excellent Parris was not dismissed by the other Murdoch paper that employed, and employs, him, the Times.

It is conceivable that, under some sort of pressure, News International could decide to leave Brundle out in the cold and at the mercy of the FIA without the company's support. I sincerely hope not.

[Malbec]

It is conceivable that, under some sort of pressure, News International could decide to leave Brundle out in the cold and at the mercy of the FIA without the company's support. I sincerely hope not.

I think News Corp has already made a decision about that, Brundle has been pretty scathing about the FIA in the articles he's written since he found out he's being sued. I doubt they would have let him write more of the same if they weren't going to back him up. Also I believe both the ST and Brundle are being sued so they would still be in the firing line if they sacked him.

ITV on the other hand seem to have dropped him, there aren't any recent articles from him and apparently they delete any reference to the FIA case from their forums.

[Malbec]

Well many years ago, I listened to lawyer Racehorse Haynes give a speech about playing in your own backyard, and how tough it was to jump into someone else's backyard and he said something about F Lee Bailey went to France to the aid of some client, only to be met by a very irritated French lawyer, who informed him that his services were not necessary, as "arrangements" had been made with the French judge, and that the judge was a man of honor who would always honor those arrangements....


I've heard many similar stories.... hence the wisdom of pursuing the case in France.

[ioan]

Yes I do think its normal.

I don't think you understand whats going on.

Brundle has written an opinion piece where he has summarised the facts known at that point and offered his opinion, ie he said it felt like a witchhunt.

He wrote this about the FIA and Max Mosley, both of which are very much in the public eye, administering a sport watched by millions.

But how on earth can you publicly insult someone based only on your feelings and get away with it???

If Brundle would have had the facts to support his opinion he would have been in the right, but he had no such facts and now there is McLaren acknowledging that the FIA was right to pursue them.

It's pretty clear that Brundle and ST have printed defamatory articles based on nothing.

[Malbec]

But how on earth can you publicly insult someone based only on your feelings and get away with it???

If Brundle would have had the facts to support his opinion he would have been in the right, but he had no such facts and now there is McLaren acknowledging that the FIA was right to pursue them.

It's pretty clear that Brundle and ST have printed defamatory articles based on nothing.

Read the article. Where is the insult? Quote it please.

He stated his opinion that things looked like a witchhunt. How is that insulting like calling someone a certified halfwit?

Brundle did have facts. He wrote them in the article, I can only presume you haven't read it. BTW McLaren's letter of apology is irrelevant as it was written 3 and a half months after Brundle wrote his article.

Do you read political editorials? What Brundle wrote was nothing compared to the criticism politicians undergo every day in every paper. Presumably you want those silenced too when they don't agree with your opinions.

[BDunnell]

Read the article. Where is the insult? Quote it please.

He stated his opinion that things looked like a witchhunt. How is that insulting like calling someone a certified halfwit?

Brundle did have facts. He wrote them in the article, I can only presume you haven't read it. BTW McLaren's letter of apology is irrelevant as it was written 3 and a half months after Brundle wrote his article.

Do you read political editorials? What Brundle wrote was nothing compared to the criticism politicians undergo every day in every paper. Presumably you want those silenced too when they don't agree with your opinions.

I couldn't agree more.

ioan, you now ask 'how on earth can you publicly insult someone based only on your feelings and get away with it???' You are arguing against yourself here, because the same could be said of Max Mosley's description of Jackie Stewart as a 'certified halfwit'. Has Jackie Stewart actually been certified as a halfwit? No. Is it an insult? Yes. Is it based on feelings? Yes. Was it made in public? Yes. Why do you view those remarks as having been acceptable and Brundle's as having been unacceptable? Let me answer that for you — it's simply because you agree with one set of remarks and not the other. This is not how free speech works.

[Bagwan]

The not so subtle difference between Jackie and Martin , is that Jackie was being interviewed BY the press , and Martin IS the press .

There has been a different reaction from each as well .
Jackie has been quiet .
Martin is angry and defiant .

Some of you folks seem to think that casting the McLaren investigation as a "witch hunt" , alleging that the only motivation for it was to give Ron a hard time , is OK .
It is not .

But , given that Martin set to making a return statement immediately upon receiving notice he would be sued , I would tend to think there were more communications between Max and Martin that transpired than are available for us to see or hear .

It might have gone like this :
Max- "Martin , now that you see that McLaren were found to have much more evidence of foul play in the investigation , will you retract your previous statement that this was a "witch hunt" ?
(Of course , he might have said "Take that back , you half-wit")
Martin- "No" .

Some human issues are just that simple .
Martin is digging his feet in , with the press firmly behind him . It will cost a lot of money any way you look at it , and in the end , we will have exactly what we have now - agro .

Once the FIA investigators had found evidence enough that McLaren's Whitmarsh issued the apology , Martin's idea that they would find nothing was as corrupt as McLaren itself .
With his tirade in reply , he attempted to deflect criticism of his earlier statement that McLaren were being hunted for no reason , by showing that the FIA had not been fair in another case .

Sorry , Martin , but they found more than enough evidence to show that it was anything but a "witch hunt" .
The issue you have with how they treated Renault is a different matter .

Go talk to Jackie about this , Martin . He got really quiet after he realized that Ferrari wasn't being favoured , but rather screwed .
Half-wit might have been , rather than referencing dyslexia , referring to him being only half informed , in a sense . He certainly was not looking at it from Ferrari's point of view . He doesn't sound like he has many red friends .

Martin could end all this , I'm quite sure , with a retraction of the phrase "witch hunt" .

More animosity between the Ferrari and McLaren camps is not what we need .
F1 needs to heal .

[BDunnell]

Some of you folks seem to think that casting the McLaren investigation as a "witch hunt" , alleging that the only motivation for it was to give Ron a hard time , is OK .
It is not .

It is if it's his opinion and he feels strongly about it. And it's not just his opinion but, seemingly, that of many in the paddock.

As it happens, I don't really agree with Brundle's assessment, but defend his right to print it given that it was not personally insulting in the manner of calling someone a name and it is an honestly-held view.

[Bagwan]

It is if it's his opinion and he feels strongly about it. And it's not just his opinion but, seemingly, that of many in the paddock.

As it happens, I don't really agree with Brundle's assessment, but defend his right to print it given that it was not personally insulting in the manner of calling someone a name and it is an honestly-held view.

"Witch hunt" , I'm assuming refers to the Salem trials , where those of dissenting opinion were persecuted unfairly for thier views . That sounds pretty insulting for a governing body of a sport .

[markabilly]

"Witch hunt" , I'm assuming refers to the Salem trials , where those of dissenting opinion were persecuted unfairly for thier views . That sounds pretty insulting for a governing body of a sport .
Perhaps it is Brundle who is being unfairly prosectuted for his diseenting views, so may be the lawsuit should have such a label.

Actually the Salem "witches" were anyhtingbut witches, just innocent girls caught up by mass hysteria, that conitnued until one of the chief leaders of the group crying "witch" focused her attention on the wife of one of the big leaders.....and of course, all the nonsense came to a complete stop.

So it is okay to bite the little dogs but not the big dogs who bite back

[BDunnell]

"Witch hunt" , I'm assuming refers to the Salem trials , where those of dissenting opinion were persecuted unfairly for thier views . That sounds pretty insulting for a governing body of a sport .

I think the phrase is used a little more generally than that nowadays — it's more of a figure of speech. When I use the phrase 'witch-hunt', I'm not automatically making a reference to the Salem trials, and I very much doubt that Martin Brundle was either.

And no, I don't believe that saying the FIA was engaged in a witch-hunt is as insulting as calling someone with dyslexia a 'certified halfwit', etc.

[Bagwan]

Perhaps it is Brundle who is being unfairly prosectuted for his diseenting views, so may be the lawsuit should have such a label.

Actually the Salem "witches" were anyhtingbut witches, just innocent girls caught up by mass hysteria, that conitnued until one of the chief leaders of the group crying "witch" focused her attention on the wife of one of the big leaders.....and of course, all the nonsense came to a complete stop.

So it is okay to bite the little dogs but not the big dogs who bite back

It leaves us with the question , if a real witch is found , can it have been called a "witch hunt" ?
Brundle had 3 months to recant , and we heard from Pedro and Fernando about the e-mails in that time frame .
But , he had Jackie , and Damon hollering with him , so he stayed in tune , even though his harmonists stopped singing long ago , once they found they didn't know the right words for the song .

They realized that there were no innocent girls caught up in mass hysteria working at McLaren , or at least Ron wasn't aware of it if there were .

So , it is okay for the big dogs to react to the little dogs who bite the hand that feeds them .

[Bagwan]

I think the phrase is used a little more generally than that nowadays — it's more of a figure of speech. When I use the phrase 'witch-hunt', I'm not automatically making a reference to the Salem trials, and I very much doubt that Martin Brundle was either.

And no, I don't believe that saying the FIA was engaged in a witch-hunt is as insulting as calling someone with dyslexia a 'certified halfwit', etc.

Just what are you making reference to then ?
I'm not being cheeky here , but , honestly , what does the term refer to , if not the idea that the investigation was unwarranted and otherwise motivated ?
Whether Martin was referring directly to Salem or not , the idea generated by the phrase is that the FIA and WMSC were doing it to spite Ron , is it not ?

I would like to know the opinion of your "many in the paddock" now that Whitmarsh made his statement , and if any of them are thanking thier lucky stars they made no un-informed "half-wit" comments themselves , in the heat of the moment .


I don't like either side in this lawsuit .
I think Brundle should recant , and , even if he doesn't , I think Max should drop the suit , having made his point , and get on with it .

[SGWilko]

Unless I am mistaken, the UK employs a democratic parliamentary system, and we have something called freedom of speach. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just visit speakers corner in London if you don't believe me.....

If we have suddenly become a dictatorship however..........

An opinion is just that, an opinion.

[markabilly]

Unless I am mistaken, the UK employs a democratic parliamentary system, and we have something called freedom of speach. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just visit speakers corner in London if you don't believe me.....

If we have suddenly become a dictatorship however..........

An opinion is just that, an opinion.




Actually real free speech was invented in America when tossing out the redcoats, you know Thomas Jefferson who said I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Back then there was sort of free speech but the Brits had something called the riot act, which meant all some redcoat need do was to read it to whoever, and they were required to shut up and leave, or the soldiers were free to bayonent those who did not immediately leave or who were too slow in going....and often did


Billy Graham would have said that if you can claim I have sex with my mother because I am a public figure, then what is a little witch hunt to you dude.

To me the more interesting question is that someone can something in GB or even say it in the USA, but get sued and convicted, then go to jail in France? I do not care that the comments are later also published in France, it just seems what is said in some country, should be legal or illegal in that country, and no where else.

Otherwise "free speech" truly becomes a joke

[ioan]

I couldn't agree more.

ioan, you now ask 'how on earth can you publicly insult someone based only on your feelings and get away with it???' You are arguing against yourself here, because the same could be said of Max Mosley's description of Jackie Stewart as a 'certified halfwit'. Has Jackie Stewart actually been certified as a halfwit? No. Is it an insult? Yes. Is it based on feelings? Yes. Was it made in public? Yes. Why do you view those remarks as having been acceptable and Brundle's as having been unacceptable? Let me answer that for you — it's simply because you agree with one set of remarks and not the other. This is not how free speech works.

Stewart has every right to sue Mosley.
And the FIA has the right to sue Stewart for the same reason they sued Brundle.

Stewart didn't sue Mosley and he wasn't sued by him either. The point is moot.

Brundle on the other hand is less lucky and has nothing against the FIA, while they have all they need to sue him.

[BDunnell]

Brundle on the other hand is less lucky and has nothing against the FIA, while they have all they need to sue him.

No they don't — at least, not by any reasonable standards. But, as I said earlier, your concepts of free speech, reasonable journalism and justice are not ones I recognise, thank goodness.

[ioan]

Unless I am mistaken, the UK employs a democratic parliamentary system, and we have something called freedom of speach. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just visit speakers corner in London if you don't believe me.....

If we have suddenly become a dictatorship however..........

An opinion is just that, an opinion.

So why is that people get banned in this forum if they say something bad about another forum member?

This being a UK based forum and given that you British seem to believe that free speech means that you can say whatever you want with no punishment I would say that all those that were banned around here were done illegally by the moderators.

Based on the same view about the free speech I should have the right to voice my opinion and call all those whom opinions I don't like a bunch of "£$%^&*%$£ because it's my right to express my opinion, and as BDunnell insinuates I "feel strongly about it"!

Honestly I do feel that you people do believe that Democracy = all the rights you can dream about and No duties whatsoever!
I'm afraid democracy doesn't work like that and you are confusing it with anarchy! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

But, as I said earlier, your concepts of free speech, reasonable journalism and justice are not ones I recognise, thank goodness.

Than we share the same view of each other as I found your concepts about equity very lousy.

[BDunnell]

So why is that people get banned in this forum if they say something bad about another forum member?

This being a UK based forum and given that you British seem to believe that free speech means that you can say whatever you want with no punishment I would say that all those that were banned around here were done illegally by the moderators.

Based on the same view about the free speech I should have the right to voice my opinion and call all those whom opinions I don't like a bunch of "£$%^&*%$£ because it's my right to express my opinion, and as BDunnell insinuates I "feel strongly about it"!

Honestly I do feel that you people do believe that Democracy = all the rights you can dream about and No duties whatsoever!
I'm afraid democracy doesn't work like that and you are confusing it with anarchy! :rolleyes:

ioan, as someone who lives in a healthy democracy with great traditions of free speech and campaigning journalism about which I'm sure you know little, I could do without being lectured on the matter by you, thank you very much.

There are ways of expressing opinions that are acceptable and ways that aren't — hence why some people get banned on here for expressing their views, whether of things or people, in ways that aren't deemed acceptable while others get by without being banned.

[ioan]

ioan, as someone who lives in a healthy democracy with great traditions of free speech and campaigning journalism about which I'm sure you know little, I could do without being lectured on the matter by you, thank you very much.

Since I was 20 I live in France, and believe me it's a democracy where there is free speech (do not confuse it with unpunished defamation based on strong feelings!).
So you better keep your lecturing for yourself.

I also know what dictatorship means as I was born in Romania, something you surely don't know to much, but I will not lecture you about it because I have a doubt you won't understand it.

As you see I know both sides of the coin with all the differences, while you can't differentiate democracy and anarchy.


There are ways of expressing opinions that are acceptable and ways that aren't — hence why some people get banned on here for expressing their views, whether of things or people, in ways that aren't deemed acceptable while others get by without being banned.

And I believe that the term of "witch hunt" used by Brundle to attack the FIA was not acceptable, thus he has a problem now.

[Malbec]

To me the more interesting question is that someone can something in GB or even say it in the USA, but get sued and convicted, then go to jail in France? I do not care that the comments are later also published in France, it just seems what is said in some country, should be legal or illegal in that country, and no where else.

Yes they can.

If the article in question is available either in print, video or even internet form in the country concerned you can sue there.

People like to sue in Britain because whilst its difficult to sue successfully for libel the compensation payments are often much higher than in other countries. Hence why you're often asked to specify which country you're from when you register on online newspaper sites like the washington times or NY Times. The version we get online in the UK is subtly different to the US version. Any risque stuff is carefully edited out of ours.

I'm rather worried by the general lack of knowledge of some forumers (not you markabilly) about the concept of free speech in democracy.

[Malbec]

Brundle on the other hand is less lucky and has nothing against the FIA, while they have all they need to sue him.

Has it crossed your mind that News International employs lawyers to read articles prior to publishing to ensure that there is little risk the company gets sued?

This is a company that isn't exactly a stranger to libel courts anywhere in the world.

Whilst I'm sure you fancy yourself as being a legal expert on libel and free speech I'd rather trust the well-paid lawyers of News Corp. They're standing behind Brundle 110%, you can rest assured of that.

[ioan]

Has it crossed your mind that News International employs lawyers to read articles prior to publishing to ensure that there is little risk the company gets sued?

This is a company that isn't exactly a stranger to libel courts anywhere in the world.


They may very well employ lawyers to read their news before publishing them, but were those lawyers aware about what exactly was happening in F1 at the moment, about what was really happening, not what Brundle, Hill and Stewart were blabbering?

Anyway the FIA made a wise move when they decided to sue them in France, where the FIA is located.



Whilst I'm sure you fancy yourself as being a legal expert on libel and free speech...

Believe me, I'm not, I'm happy doing other things.

[BDunnell]

Yes they can.

If the article in question is available either in print, video or even internet form in the country concerned you can sue there.

People like to sue in Britain because whilst its difficult to sue successfully for libel the compensation payments are often much higher than in other countries. Hence why you're often asked to specify which country you're from when you register on online newspaper sites like the washington times or NY Times. The version we get online in the UK is subtly different to the US version. Any risque stuff is carefully edited out of ours.

I'm rather worried by the general lack of knowledge of some forumers (not you markabilly) about the concept of free speech in democracy.

:up:

This is my last word on the matter, because, as I have explained via PM to one of the moderators, I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain civil in my responses to some of what passes for 'opinion' here.

[Malbec]

They may very well employ lawyers to read their news before publishing them, but were those lawyers aware about what exactly was happening in F1 at the moment, about what was really happening, not what Brundle, Hill and Stewart were blabbering?

Of course not, the lawyers weren't interested at all in what was really happening, that would have no influence whatsoever on what they'd pass as being acceptable or not! Are you for real?

Not only that, they've allowed him to write two more articles attacking the FIA since the legal proceedings began and let another journalist write a similar article.

[Malbec]

I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain civil in my responses to some of what passes for 'opinion' here.

To be fair I think its simple ignorance and lack of objectivity that leads many to hold the opinions about free speech that they do, not any sense of real malice.

[ArrowsFA1]

Stewart has every right to sue Mosley.
And the FIA has the right to sue Stewart for the same reason they sued Brundle.
:crazy:

All this madness brings to mind George Harrison's "Sue Me, Sue You Blues":

You serve me
And I'll serve you
Swing your partners, all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I'll bring mine
Get together, and we could have
a bad time

:dozey:

[janneppi]

To be fair I think its simple ignorance and lack of objectivity that leads many to hold the opinions about free speech that they do, not any sense of real malice.
The real problem is that people take sports, such as F1 way too seriously, I mean it's just bunch of cars going around a track trying to get to finish line first. It's not like it's actually anything of real importance, such as who wins the next Bride for the single mom reality show or why I like some beers better than others.
;)

[janneppi]

So why is that people get banned in this forum if they say something bad about another forum member?

Because this forum doesn't run according to the British legal system, it runs according to what Mark says.

[janneppi]

Here's a concept for you guys, if you can't stick to the bloody subject without getting personal in your comments, leave the post reply button alone and go take nice walk, come back and try again.

[Malbec]

The real problem is that people take sports, such as F1 way too seriously, I mean it's just bunch of cars going around a track trying to get to finish line first. It's not like it's actually anything of real importance, such as who wins the next Bride for the single mom reality show or why I like some beers better than others.
;)

I agree, and it goes all the way up to the top too, I think Max Mosley takes F1 and the FIA far too seriously.

[Garry Walker]

:up:

This is my last word on the matter, because, as I have explained via PM to one of the moderators, I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain civil in my responses to some of what passes for 'opinion' here.

oh look, we have an angel amongst us. Get off your high horse.


Has it crossed your mind that News International employs lawyers to read articles prior to publishing to ensure that there is little risk the company gets sued?

This is a company that isn't exactly a stranger to libel courts anywhere in the world.
If they have lawyers reading over every article before it gets published and they are no strangers to courts and indeed have suffered numerous losses in courts, that suggests their lawyers are not doing a good job, isnt that so?



I agree, and it goes all the way up to the top too, I think Max Mosley takes F1 and the FIA far too seriously.

Yes, how dare he try to do his job properly and maintain order.

[Malbec]

If they have lawyers reading over every article before it gets published and they are no strangers to courts and indeed have suffered numerous losses in courts, that suggests their lawyers are not doing a good job, isnt that so?

Yes, how dare he try to do his job properly and maintain order.

Not given the huge amount of material News Corp publishes including a lot of show-biz gossip which generates the most libel cases.

Yes Max does take things too seriously as do we all. At the end of the day all the FIA is is a conglomeration of car owners clubs. It just happens to run a sport thats very important to us but in real world terms thats all it is. You can't compare its clout to real world powers like News Corp.

[tintop]

Yes, how dare he try to do his job properly and maintain order.

Please, order? He's trying to maintain his ridiculously monopolistic power position, any suggestions of order maintenance in F1 are ludicrous. He's a thin- skinned unpleasant man that meets out arbitrary punishment to suit his needs. He actually said that he was glad that Ferrari won the WDC! From his personal standpoint, I can understand this statement but for a standing leader of a sporting organization to publicly favor one team or another is pathetic.

As far as the Newspaper case is concerned, the Witch-hunt assertions seem to be based upon the vigor with which the Dennis investigation was carried out vs. the FIA’s lack luster efforts in other matters like say fuel temperatures, movable floors & wings, and Renault this year (vs. last year where they seemed quite keen to go after the dampers in a competitive car with vigor, hmmm). The fact that McLaren were found guilty does not diminish the claims of arbitrary enforcement or prosecution – Max’s attempts to limit access to only favorable press confirms his lack of integrity.

[SGWilko]

Since I was 20 I live in France, and believe me it's a democracy where there is free speech (do not confuse it with unpunished defamation based on strong feelings!).
So you better keep your lecturing for yourself.

I also know what dictatorship means as I was born in Romania, something you surely don't know to much, but I will not lecture you about it because I have a doubt you won't understand it.

As you see I know both sides of the coin with all the differences, while you can't differentiate democracy and anarchy.



And I believe that the term of "witch hunt" used by Brundle to attack the FIA was not acceptable, thus he has a problem now.

Freedom of speach, lets see now, an example.

"In my opinion, you are gorgeus" (that is an expression of an opinion, and I am entitled to do so).

Now, if I were to post, "you are a bafoon", that is not acceptable, as it comes across as an expression of fact.

NB - I do not think you are a bafoon, I just used that word as an example.

In Brundles' column, he expressed his opinion, he did not say that the McLaren was WAS a witch hunt.

That is all I was trying to relay earlier.

I hope that makes sense. :)

[markabilly]

The real problem is that people take sports, such as F1 way too seriously, I mean it's just bunch of cars going around a track trying to get to finish line first. It's not like it's actually anything of real importance, such as who wins the next Bride for the single mom reality show or why I like some beers better than others.
;)
Said that before and then all of you get your noses so so soooo bent out of shape, and the parties most quilty sometimes seem to be moderators. But then that would mean it is all about entertainment, revenue and generating income, much like pro werstling and nastycar, drink your beer and throwed that there helmet at the other driver for bumping harder than he bumped me......

AND THAT IS NOT what I have always thought F1 should be: That place being a set of fair and rigidly enforced rules and regulations, designed to ensure those who create the fastest cars to go with the fastest drivers, are rewarded accordingly, not excusing cheaters when caught or punishing same based on when it is better for revenue. But even with this standard, there are not children dying in the ruins or getting blown up in the name of god (moslem, christain, hindu or whoever), country and glory

Now please note, I have not said Reverend Billy Graham or any of you posters have sex with their mother on an irregular or regular basis......but if I did, could you all go run off to France and sue me? (not that I am worried about the ultimate success, because, public figures or not, first you have to prove the statement to be false..... :D )

Regardless of the law of France, I think it should not be so.....but anyway, any such statements would only be for fun

[janneppi]

Do you people have any more insightfull comments on thew actual subject or are you about done here so I can close this thread?

[markabilly]

Do you have any more insightfull comments on thew actual subject or are you about done here so I can close this thread?
Sorry, I did not mean for you to take it "personal"..... :D

close away, not much else anyone can say about the merits of the filing that has not already been said, until some lawyer (if permitted) gets real agressive and starts exposing the dirty undies of the Saints of the Federation Internationale, :eek: anyhow

Of course, the words of a wise old lawyer to someone who wanted to sue for being called a crook, "better to be merely accussed of such without proof, than to sue and have it proven true"

[janneppi]

Sorry, I did not mean for you to take it "personal"..... :D

It wasn't intented specially towards you, but to the general populace of this thread.
When a thread of this kind has mostly three or four people having their normal pleasant discussions, it's pretty much guaranteed to run out of topic after the third page, rest is just the normal ego bolstering and personal issues with each other.
As usual. :p :

Slightly off-topic, as in not written by Brundle or published by the Sunday Times, is the latest edition of Autosport.

What I find amusing and ironic is that Autosport has barely any coverage of Mclaren's apology and acceptance of guilt.

Forget 'Witch-Hunt', try 'White-Wash'.

Even though Nigel 'Copy & Paste' Roebuck has thankfully backed off, it seems that the main British motorsport magazine is still happy to support Ron Dennis.

A decent magazine would have the lying ******* spit-roasted in its editorial, but the cowards at Autosport say nothing.

And if you really think that Autosport is 'on the pulse' of motorsport, check out the 'Letter of the Week' in this weeks edition.....un-believable.

For those of you without a copy to hand, the letter is from some knob who is crying that it's totally unfair that while he can't afford a £100 set of tyres for his kart, Renault are paying Fernando Alonso £25 million, money that should have gone to the grass-roots.

That Autosport even published that, let alone gave it 'Letter of the Week' status, shows just what a bunch of cretins they are.

[Malbec]

For those of you without a copy to hand, the letter is from some knob who is crying that it's totally unfair that while he can't afford a £100 set of tyres for his kart, Renault are paying Fernando Alonso £25 million, money that should have gone to the grass-roots.

That Autosport even published that, let alone gave it 'Letter of the Week' status, shows just what a bunch of cretins they are.

Don't you think he has a point?

The FA push back a lot of money from the higher echelons of football back into the bottom edges of the sport to make sure they always have a supply of talented footballers in the UK. Just about every football administration in the world does the same. Any kid who wants to become a footballer and shows signs of talent has a chance.

Meanwhile most of the profit from F1 goes into the pockets of just one man who isn't exactly a pauper as it is. Many manufacturers (Actually Renault does a lot for junior grade racing) don't do anything to shift funds to the bottom either. A lot of talent is lost just because drivers on the lowest rungs can't find enough money to keep a kart or a car going. Britain is lucky in that there is still a lot of money available for the junior rungs. Ask the French and Italians how easy it is for karters there to raise funds.... It isn't a coincidence that despite having a rich racing history we're reduced to one French and one Italian driver in F1 next season, both quite old. Where are their replacements?

Surely you can see how thats hurting the sport in the long run?

[markabilly]

Don't you think he has a point?

The FA push back a lot of money from the higher echelons of football back into the bottom edges of the sport to make sure they always have a supply of talented footballers in the UK. Just about every football administration in the world does the same. Any kid who wants to become a footballer and shows signs of talent has a chance.

Meanwhile most of the profit from F1 goes into the pockets of just one man who isn't exactly a pauper as it is. Many manufacturers (Actually Renault does a lot for junior grade racing) don't do anything to shift funds to the bottom either. A lot of talent is lost just because drivers on the lowest rungs can't find enough money to keep a kart or a car going. Britain is lucky in that there is still a lot of money available for the junior rungs. Ask the French and Italians how easy it is for karters there to raise funds.... It isn't a coincidence that despite having a rich racing history we're reduced to one French and one Italian driver in F1 next season, both quite old. Where are their replacements?

Surely you can see how thats hurting the sport in the long run?
Sure it is hurting (but I thought VL was Italian and SB was French) but point was how focused Autosport was on everything pro-Brit as much as possible. Car of the year? MacFerrari, well why not? It deserved it as it did have the "best of both worlds"....

but then they give driver of the year to Lewis, for setting the record for championship choking away the largest lead ever for the last two races...and for throwing two fits, one at Monaco and one at Hungary, that cost his teamate 5 grid places and eventually his team 100 million......but let us not dwell on that either

But we all know the media is objective and always acts only with and based on the facts behind its backside, just as when they said that old witch hunter MaX was engaging in a witch hunt (see I can keep a thread on topic :D :D )

[SGWilko]

MacFerrari

Lewis

choking

throwing two fits, one at Monaco and one at Hungary

that cost his teamate 5 grid places and eventually his team 100 million......but let us not dwell on that either


Are you sure you have never worked in the BBC as head of light entertainment?

You repeat yourself so much, that job is just crying out for you.

Give it a rest will you, please? Say it once, by all means, but going on and on and on and on is tiresome to say the least.

[Malbec]

Sure it is hurting (but I thought VL was Italian and SB was French) but point was how focused Autosport was on everything pro-Brit as much as possible. Car of the year? MacFerrari, well why not? It deserved it as it did have the "best of both worlds"....

but then they give driver of the year to Lewis, for setting the record for championship choking away the largest lead ever for the last two races...and for throwing two fits, one at Monaco and one at Hungary, that cost his teamate 5 grid places and eventually his team 100 million......but let us not dwell on that either

But we all know the media is objective and always acts only with and based on the facts behind its backside, just as when they said that old witch hunter MaX was engaging in a witch hunt (see I can keep a thread on topic :D :D )

Autosport is becoming a tabloid, however if you're going to beat them with a stick pick the right one will ya?

Autosport didn't pick McLaren/Hamilton as team/driver of the year. They held a poll where the readers picked them. Given that Autosport is read by an English speaking audience many of whom are British its not surprising the poll results are pro-British are they?

Now this is a wild stab in the dark but I reckon if an Italian mag was to have the same poll the Italian readers might just vote Ferrari/Raikonnen top.

Oh and the drivers I was referring to were SB and Fisi. Looks like Liuzzi will be out next year sadly.

[Malbec]

And speaking of media bias, ITV hasn't mentioned Brundle being sued by the FIA once on its website and deletes references to the case from its forum. Bit odd since he does the odd bit of F1 commentating now and then for them too isn't it?

[markabilly]

Are you sure you have never worked in the BBC as head of light entertainment?

You repeat yourself so much, that job is just crying out for you.

Give it a rest will you, please? Say it once, by all means, but going on and on and on and on is tiresome to say the least.
I would but you keep forgetting, when you certain posters are so busy slamming Freddie and defending MaC..... :D

[markabilly]

And speaking of media bias, ITV hasn't mentioned Brundle being sued by the FIA once on its website and deletes references to the case from its forum. Bit odd since he does the odd bit of F1 commentating now and then for them too isn't it?





Is it just odd quirck that makes them wish to try to ignore it?

Is it fear of suit?
Do they fear offending certain powers and losing rights to TV the races?

If the latter two, then so much for the freedom of the press, and all those other ideals, so that all that remains is to be reduced to just being an advertizement venue a/k/a prostitute for providing Formula One entertainment, governed by fear of truly offending bernie, MaX and crew

Maybe they will have an opening "for light entertainer" :D and I should apply---oopps on second thought, MaX is probably only really humored when he sees small dogs and other beloved pets being tortured, so I guess even if hired, one small joke about Kool aid, and I would be Tost (opps I meant toast) and then end up like Freddie, having to take a cut in pay to say like 20 million or so per year, working for some second rate outfit like SpeedTV and having to listen to David Hobbs hollar "push" in my ear, while some poor go-karter goes tireless....forget it, I think I will stick to what I do best,whatever that is (besides tiring out poor old SG, would not want him to go "tireless")

Don't you think he has a point?


No, I think he is typical of the pathetic whingers who cry that they never got the chance because it's always somebody else's fault.

Giving them the chance to air their pathetic cries in a supposedly intelligent journal does nothing for their or the journals credibility.

Perhaps, instead of crying to Autosport, the sad individual would do better if he actually got off his arse and really worked for his £100 tyres.

[Malbec]

No, I think he is typical of the pathetic whingers who cry that they never got the chance because it's always somebody else's fault.

Giving them the chance to air their pathetic cries in a supposedly intelligent journal does nothing for their or the journals credibility.

Perhaps, instead of crying to Autosport, the sad individual would do better if he actually got off his arse and really worked for his £100 tyres.

You've managed to miss the big picture regarding cashflow in motorsport haven't you....

You've managed to miss the big picture regarding cashflow in motorsport haven't you....

No, not when it is considered that it has always been thus.

[ArrowsFA1]

Any further news on this? I've seen it suggested that the case against Brundle has been dropped, but can't find any confirmation.

[Daniel]

Any further news on this? I've seen it suggested that the case against Brundle has been dropped, but can't find any confirmation.
Did they ever even have a case.... :mark:

[SGWilko]

Did they ever even have a case.... :mark:

This may be the wrong thread, but not only is Max suing the NOTW in the UK (civil case), he is filing a criminal suit en Francais.

For a guy in un unpaid job, working in a not for profit organisation, he sure has been paid a lot to be able to afford these costs.

Or is he expecting the FIA to foot the bill if he loses?

[Valve Bounce]

I don't think Max has considered the loss option yet!! :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

Or is he expecting the FIA to foot the bill if he loses?
Given that Max's legal action says (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) of the NOTW "The intention is clear: destroy Max Mosley as President of the FIA" then it seems he will be in court as the FIA President, not a private individual.

[Knock-on]

Given that Max's legal action says (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) of the NOTW "The intention is clear: destroy Max Mosley as President of the FIA" then it seems he will be in court as the FIA President, not a private individual.

This really has gone on long enough.

Max claims that it was personal infringement of privacy but defends as the president of the FIA.

Hypocritical me thinks.

Either his personal life has NOTHING to do with his role as the President of the FIA and thus his active role in F1 or it doesn't.

If people wonder WTF his private life has to do with F1, perhaps this will address their confusion.

[Bagwan]

This really has gone on long enough.

Max claims that it was personal infringement of privacy but defends as the president of the FIA.

Hypocritical me thinks.

Either his personal life has NOTHING to do with his role as the President of the FIA and thus his active role in F1 or it doesn't.

If people wonder WTF his private life has to do with F1, perhaps this will address their confusion.

Had this invasion of privacy not occurred , Knock , there would not be any issue with his role as president .
Therefore , although linked allegedly by those interested in deposing him , the private life should have no bearing on whether he can perform his job , as he was likely engaging in these activities for years , or perhaps his whole life .
Of course , he must defend himself as the president , as , he is the president , and it is in that role which he alleges he is being attacked .
In other words , he is being attacked because he holds that position .
Who and specifically why this attack was ordered is of maximum importance here .
As he said , he's leaving next year anyway . Why now ?

I suspect Max knows who did this .
He's made no further comment in response to Bernie .

I think we'll see another expose , timed perfectly for the press to really sink the teeth in , not too long before the extraordinary meeting .

Someone will be leaving , but I still don't think it's Max .

[ioan]

This really has gone on long enough.

Max claims that it was personal infringement of privacy but defends as the president of the FIA.

Hypocritical me thinks.

Either his personal life has NOTHING to do with his role as the President of the FIA and thus his active role in F1 or it doesn't.

If people wonder WTF his private life has to do with F1, perhaps this will address their confusion.

Hypocritical?
Yeah as much as it is to be asked to step down as President of the FIA for personal reasons, because there is no fault with the job he is doing!

His personal life has nothing to do with his position as President of the FIA, that's why it shouldn't be all over the internet.


If people wonder WTF his private life has to do with F1, perhaps this will address their confusion.

I don't think so, you seem a bit confused.

[ArrowsFA1]

His personal life has nothing to do with his position as President of the FIA, that's why it shouldn't be all over the internet.
But it IS.

[ioan]

But it IS.

And that's why he started a legal procedure against NOTW.
Why is that hypocritical?!

[SGWilko]

And that's why he started a legal procedure against NOTW.
Why is that hypocritical?!

And what's your take on the 'Bernie is trying to take over F1, I am the only man who can stop this' cohones? If I were an FIA member, that to me would insult my intelligence.

His personal life has nothing to do with his position as President of the FIA, that's why it shouldn't be all over the internet.


But it IS.

Yes, Arrows, it is....which is why I've said from the first time this story appeared that Mosley should resign.

What I do find strange, however, is that you want to see a man removed for actions in his private life yet did not once call for the dismissal or resignation of any of the chiefs at Mclaren, who oversaw the most disgraceful activities in the recent history of the sport, failed to act in a decent manner and brought the sport into disrepute.

Now that is hypocritical.

Until I hear you say that Ron Dennis should have fallen on his sword and acted like a gentleman and not the two-faced deceiving liar that he ended up admitting to be, I feel it is utterly unfair of you to demand the resignation of a man whose professional activities have not been tainted by such a disgrace.

[SGWilko]

Ron Dennis the two-faced deceiving liar that he ended up admitting to be,

Do you refer to the M Whitmarsh letter of apology, hastily despatched to placate a certain FIA president, and prevent the likely removal of McLaren from the 2008 championships by any chance?

Or is there some admission by Ron himself I have missed?

The Whitmarsh letter had me seething, because to me it proved McLarens guilt.

However, this spygate affair may well come back to haunt Max. If a lot of the methods he used to screw over McLaren and Mercedes are used against Max in his legal cases when they get to court (and I think we can safely assume that the best of the legal world will be employed by both parties) then a LOT of poopy is going to hit the wind tunnel turbine......

They'll be more mud flowing than a Silverstone car park in April....

[SGWilko]

it is utterly unfair of you to demand the resignation of a man whose professional activities have not (*yet*) been tainted by such a disgrace.

Give it time, even Max's 5h1t stinks, I bet. Once the lawyers go down the abuse of power path, Max'll struggle to keep his head above the water. ;)

An Australian media magnate is sitting in a plush office somewhere rubbing his hands with glee and anticipation....

And, if Max is voted out on the 3rd, can he still use FIA wonga to defend his position?

Do you refer to the M Whitmarsh letter of apology, hastily despatched to placate a certain FIA president, and prevent the likely removal of McLaren from the 2008 championships by any chance?

Or is there some admission by Ron himself I have missed?

If Whitmarsh wrote that letter without Ron's express consent, I'd be amazed.

Whitmarsh reports directly to Dennis, therefore the Mclaren statement represents Dennis. Just because Dennis didn't have the balls to put his own name to it, doesn't mean that he wasn't involved in it. No way could he not of been, unless he really is clueless....and even I admit that he isn't that.

Although it does show that 'gutless' is another of his dubious attributes.

[SGWilko]

If Whitmarsh wrote that letter without Ron's express consent, I'd be amazed.

Whitmarsh reports directly to Dennis, therefore the Mclaren statement represents Dennis. Just because Dennis didn't have the balls to put his own name to it, doesn't mean that he wasn't involved in it. No way could he not of been, unless he really is clueless....and even I admit that he isn't that.

Although it does show that 'gutless' is another of his dubious attributes.

I can only speculate and hypothesise, but I would hazard a guess that Whitmarsh was told to sign that letter by Max, just to humiliate Ron.

Humiliation does seem to be high on Max's agenda now we know what a deranged individual he appears to be.

[ioan]

I can only speculate and hypothesise, but I would hazard a guess that Whitmarsh was told to sign that letter by Max, just to humiliate Ron.

Because Max is Whitmarsh's boss now?! :rolleyes:
You're no good at speculation and hypothesizing.

I can only speculate and hypothesise, but I would hazard a guess that Whitmarsh was told to sign that letter by Max, just to humiliate Ron.

Humiliation does seem to be high on Max's agenda now we know what a deranged individual he appears to be.

Yes, he may well be a deranged individual who enjoys sexual humiliation, but as of yet we have no evidence that he has been in control of an organisation which has deliberately concealed the extent of its corrupt and grevious actions.

All along, I've said that Mosley should resign as his actions in his personal life are incompatible with his position as head of the FIA.

All along, I've said that Ron Dennis should have been run out of his position as a team owner as his teams actions were incompatible with integrity, something he hypocritically claimed his team had.

It is hypocritical to want Mosley out but remain utterly silent, as Arrows always does, on the disgraceful activities of Mclaren, the team principal of which, and therefore the man in charge, was and is Ron Dennis.

[ioan]

What I do find strange, however, is that you want to see a man removed for actions in his private life yet did not once call for the dismissal or resignation of any of the chiefs at Mclaren, who oversaw the most disgraceful activities in the recent history of the sport, failed to act in a decent manner and brought the sport into disrepute.

Now that is hypocritical.

Until I hear you say that Ron Dennis should have fallen on his sword and acted like a gentleman and not the two-faced deceiving liar that he ended up admitting to be, I feel it is utterly unfair of you to demand the resignation of a man whose professional activities have not been tainted by such a disgrace.

Agreed! But double standards are the standard for Mclaren fans, always been always will be.

[SGWilko]

Agreed! But double standards are the standard for Mclaren fans, always been always will be.

Classy. Not the least bit stereotypical with that one, are you fella?

[ioan]

Classy. Not the least bit stereotypical with that one, are you fella?

No, I'm not, that's a proven fact, like it or not.
Go take a look, in the thread about the McLaren spying scandal, it's all in there! :D

[Azumanga Davo]

When is the next Rich List published by the way? You know it's going to be a bad one when Max's lawyer overtakes him... :D

[SGWilko]

No, I'm not, that's a proven fact, like it or not.
Go take a look, in the thread about the McLaren spying scandal, it's all in there! :D

Wow, the entire global McLaren fan base, all in one thread, anyone got Norris MCWerters number, cause that's gotta be a record! Trumpet at the ready Roy? :laugh:

[ioan]

Wow, the entire global McLaren fan base, all in one thread, anyone got Norris MCWerters number, cause that's gotta be a record! Trumpet at the ready Roy? :laugh:

You may laugh as long as you wish, that won't change the reality.

[SGWilko]

You may laugh as long as you wish, .
I will be chuckling on your little pearl of wisdom for a while yet I should think..... ;)

[janneppi]

If you're going to start the silly McLaren fighting all over again, do it in another thread.

[SGWilko]

If you're going to start the silly McLaren fighting all over again, do it in another thread.
Shucks, he started it! :laugh:

[Bagwan]

Max believes there was someone behind this .
He certainly knows he was being watched . Whether he knows this because the watchers were being watched , or that they were one and the same is less than clear .

That is the central issue here . Mi5 has essentially confirmed this in saying they were not responsible for this "sting" .

If he's right , and they are found , there will be significant pressure to let Max carry on to his stated end , as the addition of his being expelled will add to the damages for which to be paid .

That leads directly to , why now ?
If such conspiracy exists , there must be some reason that next October is not as good as now .

Is it the Concorde agreement , and it's details ?
Is it in the sporting regulations ?

If one believes that this was more than just the work of a rogue money hungry hooker , then one needs someone else who would risk such risky , in the press moves , instead of just waiting it out , to fill the role .

Max has stated , I believe , that he wants any Concorde issues all cleared up before he leaves .
That points to someone with issues with the agreement .

There been a lot of agro over customer cars .
That points to a competitor or would-be competitor .

Someone he insulted , or cost money ?

It's a big suspect list . He seems to have few friends at times .

But , I recall him trying to quit not so long ago .
They wouldn't let him .
That's how good he is at the job . There was nobody who anybody could think of who could do his job as well , or at all , for that matter .

Now , since he's known from the front cover of NOTW , he can't do his job .

Naw , sorry , smell a bit fishy .
I see a messy situation coming soon .

[ArrowsFA1]

What I do find strange, however, is that you want to see a man removed for actions in his private life...
Incorrect. My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Max can no longer carry out his duties as FIA President, and that by remaining as FIA President he is damaging that office, and the FIA as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

If he does not, and he survives the FIA EGM, the remainder of his term (until October 2009) will see him operating as a lame duck FIA President which will do yet further damage.

[SGWilko]

But , I recall him trying to quit not so long ago .
They wouldn't let him .
That's how good he is at the job . There was nobody who anybody could think of who could do his job as well , or at all , for that matter .


That's how much no one else wanted the job more like. Max knew this, and that's why he tried the token resignation thing. Gave him the license to abuse his position.... He might be thick, but he aint stupid.

If he knew he was being watched, why did he go ahead and do the third reich malarkey? Beggars belief that does - he might not be stupid, but he's thick alright.

Incorrect. My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Max can no longer carry out his duties as FIA President, and that by remaining as FIA President he is damaging that office, and the FIA as a whole. That being the case he should resign.


If only you could have brought yourself to type this too....

My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Ron can no longer carry out his duties as Mclaren President, and that by remaining as Mclaren President he is damaging that office, and the Mclaren name as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

No difference....only hypocrisy makes it different.

Your attacks at Mosley are warranted, your lack of a similar attack on Ron Dennis was disgraceful.

[Mk2_Escort_RS]

If only you could have brought yourself to type this too....

My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Ron can no longer carry out his duties as Mclaren President, and that by remaining as Mclaren President he is damaging that office, and the Mclaren name as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

No difference....only hypocrisy makes it different.

Your attacks at Mosley are warranted, your lack of a similar attack on Ron Dennis was disgraceful.

But isn't MM president of a public organization and RD president of a private corporation?

[Zico]

Not sure if anyone has linked this before.. Dated 27th April, Bernie putting pressure on Max..

"
The pressure on embattled motorsport boss Max Mosley has increased after it emerged Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone wants him to resign.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7369696.stm

I cant understand why Ferrari, Toro Rosso and Williams wouldnt sign it. What do they have to lose, too valuable an ally?



And today, further pressure from all FIA linked groups in a letter demanding Max's resignation.. The letter was signed by representatives from America (AAA and AATA), Singapore (AAS), Germany (ADAC), Finland, (AL), Canada (CAA), Brazil (CCB), Denmark (FDM), France (FFA), India (FIAA), Japan (JAF), the Netherlands (KNAC), Sweden (M), Hungary (MAK), Israel (MEMSI), Austria (OEMTC), Spain (RACC and RACE), Belgium (TCB) and Switzerland (TCS).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7425422.stm


And still he hangs on...

[SGWilko]

But isn't MM president of a public organization and RD president of a private corporation?

I also don't think Ron has been procuring the services of prostitutes blah blah etc.

If Max hasn't brought the FIA into disrepute, the [current] pope wasn't one of Hitler's 'children'.

[Valve Bounce]

An Australian media magnate is sitting in a plush office somewhere rubbing his hands with glee and anticipation....



I think you will find that the guy is not an Aussi anymore. He went that route, giving up his Australian citizenship, to get his hooks into more media and is now a citizen of the USA.

However, he is one of the most powerful men on this planet, and anyone who wants to sue him or his press had better be squeaky clean. Because the guy can dig up dirt.

I am sure News of the World has more worms in their can than they have show so far, and Max will have this thrown in his face in court.

[Valve Bounce]

If only you could have brought yourself to type this too....

My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Ron can no longer carry out his duties as Mclaren President, and that by remaining as Mclaren President he is damaging that office, and the Mclaren name as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

No difference....only hypocrisy makes it different.

Your attacks at Mosley are warranted, your lack of a similar attack on Ron Dennis was disgraceful.

Quite wrong in perspective here. I saw Ron standing on the podium at Monaco, happy as Larry. On the other hand, Max was too ashamed to show his face; basically he is Persona non Grata.

[cy bais]

max's a douche bag !

[ShiftingGears]

If only you could have brought yourself to type this too....

My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Ron can no longer carry out his duties as Mclaren President, and that by remaining as Mclaren President he is damaging that office, and the Mclaren name as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

No difference....only hypocrisy makes it different.

Your attacks at Mosley are warranted, your lack of a similar attack on Ron Dennis was disgraceful.

You're forgetting that McLaren was punished for their actions and bringing the sport into disrepute (and rightfully so), whereas Max has not.

Insert punishment joke here.

[ArrowsFA1]

No difference...
We hold different opinions, that's the difference here.

You're insisting that to hold the view that x=x we must agree with you that a=b. The two are unrelated. No amount of 'hypocracies' or 'disgracefuls' thrown in alters that.

Anyway...whatever happened to that Brundle case :confused: :crazy:

[Valve Bounce]

Anyway...whatever happened to that Brundle case :confused: :crazy:

You'll have to ask Max - we are completely in the dark here. :confused:

[ioan]

Quite wrong in perspective here. I saw Ron standing on the podium at Monaco, happy as Larry. On the other hand, Max was too ashamed to show his face; basically he is Persona non Grata.

And there is the problem, Ron isn't ashamed about lying to us for half a season about how there was no chance that his team might have been involved in any cheating and spying on Ferrari technicalities. We all know what the public letter from December contained.

I fully agree with tamburello! Ron should have given up on his position after making a mockery of F1, a very very public sport!

[Knock-on]

If only you could have brought yourself to type this too....

My view is, and the evidence exists to support this view, that Ron can no longer carry out his duties as Mclaren President, and that by remaining as Mclaren President he is damaging that office, and the Mclaren name as a whole. That being the case he should resign.

No difference....only hypocrisy makes it different.

Your attacks at Mosley are warranted, your lack of a similar attack on Ron Dennis was disgraceful.


This really is quite disgracefull and I am saddened by people with some perverse crusade against Ron personally.

For your information, I will recount mine, and a great many McLaren fans views on the Spygate fiasco.

Many of us believed that this was rougue employees at Ferrari and McLaren. Although it is accepted that this sort of cross-pollenation of information occurs at every team, we did not want to believe that this dossier was in anyones possession apart from MC.

However, it transpired that the dossier was known to other members of McLaren and they were punished. Not just punished, but received the largest fine in the history of sport and the sort of fine that is virtually unheard of in business. They were also penalised by having their constructors points taken away from them last year, being hampered / still being hampered this year and publically humiliated by Mosely.

Now, I personally think the punishment was draconian and driven by some part by Max and his feud with Ron but that is immaterial. They were punished and I, like most McLaren fans, accept this punishment.

Surely, that should be the end of the case shouldn't it? Should we not draw a line and move on or keep bringing it up as a little dig in every other thread?

Give it a rest. It's over, it's done. They did wrong and were punished.

[ioan]

Many of us believed that this was rougue employees at Ferrari and McLaren.

Well, it's obvious that many can't accept reality because it hurts their ego to much.

The rogue employee was apparently suspended at McLaren 2 months after he started the business. However 7 months later the FIA found a number of systems on the new Mclaren contender, developed by the other engineers, that were copies of the systems used by Ferrari!

It seems to me that it was more than one rogue employee, it was whole rogue team, starting with that hypocrite crying liar called Ron Dennis. A shame for F1 that is. Way bigger than paying for whores.

[ioan]

Anyway...whatever happened to that Brundle case :confused: :crazy:

Good question! However the Ron Dennis topic is a pretty interesting one too! :D

[janneppi]

the topic is FIA suing Sunday Times over Brundle column, not Ron Dennis, or McLaren.

[Valve Bounce]

No disrespect, janneppi, but I think this thread is : about Max's decision to sue the Sunday Times for publishing an article by Martin Brundle criticising the way, in his opinion, the FIA have pursued a vendetta against McLaren. (see leading post in this thread)

The downside of such an action, of course, is the mobilisation of the owner of the Sunday Times, one of the most powerful men in the world, against any action by Max.

I really don't know how far this case will go, in view of the action Max is taking against another of the media tycoon's tabloids over the Smackgate affair. The media has money and time on their side, and it will be interesting to see how long this particular case will drag out, and whether it will precede the News of The World case.

[aryan]

I think you will find that the guy is not an Aussi anymore. He went that route, giving up his Australian citizenship, to get his hooks into more media and is now a citizen of the USA.


Australia and United States, as with most countries in the world, accept dual citizenship. You don't have to give up your nationality to gain another one, and Murdoch is now Australian-American.

The aforementioned Australian-American is one of the world's most powerful and influential people on the planet, and whilst he is not directly in charge of News of the World, I think Max will soon realise that he is fighting a goliath hundreds of times his weight and power.

[Valve Bounce]

Australia and United States, as with most countries in the world, accept dual citizenship. You don't have to give up your nationality to gain another one, and Murdoch is now Australian-American.

No he's not!! He had to give up his Australian citizenship to buy into the extra media outlet here because Australians were not permitted to. In his greed, he took up US citizenship instead.

I know about dual citizenship - my daughter has dual Australian - American citizenship.

[janneppi]

No disrespect, janneppi, but I think this thread is : about Max's decision to sue the Sunday Times for publishing an article by Martin Brundle criticising the way, in his opinion, the FIA have pursued a vendetta against McLaren. (see leading post in this thread)

The last 30 posts about McLaren haven't really been about wheter FIA was right to punish McLaren, but the same old **** posted time and time again which adds nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
And I'm fed up with it.

[ioan]

The parallel between Mosley's and Ron Dennis' actions being detrimental to F1 was however a very valid one!
I'll take care about that however! ;)

[Knock-on]

The parallel between Mosley's and Ron Dennis' actions being detrimental to F1 was however a very valid one!
I'll take care about that however! ;)

There is as much parrellel between Ron and Max as there is between Rons Hair and Flavio's, i.e. they both reside on their owners head.

[Valve Bounce]

The last 30 posts about McLaren haven't really been about wheter FIA was right to punish McLaren, but the same old **** posted time and time again which adds nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
And I'm fed up with it.

Understood!! you have a valid point. I'll certainly keep out of the discussion except where it refers to Brundle's article in the original post on this thread. ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

So it now seems (no link) that Max's case against Brundle has been quietly dropped. After all that fuss :dozey:

Now, when is Stepney in court, or will that be quietly dropped as well? :dozey:

[Knock-on]

So it now seems (no link) that Max's case against Brundle has been quietly dropped. After all that fuss :dozey:

Now, when is Stepney in court, or will that be quietly dropped as well? :dozey:

Max has a big Drum that he likes to bang. Will NotW go the same way :laugh: