Max wins case against NOTW

[Dave B]

If anybody's interested in the full 54 page verdict here's a link:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...news_group.pdf

[Dave B]

To put the £60K into context:

Actors Catherine Zeta Jones and her husband Michael Douglas were awarded £14,600 against Hello! magazine in 2001 after it published unofficial pictures of their wedding, while model Naomi Campbell won £3,500 against the Daily Mirror in 2004 after it printed a photo of her leaving a drugs counselling session.

Recent out-of-court settlements have included £37,500 to actor Sienna Miller from the News of the World and £58,000 to actors Hugh Grant, Liz Hurley and her husband Arun Nayar.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...ewsoftheworld2

So £60K is actually quite a high punishment by recent standards, but I still maintain it's a small price for a Murdoch group newspaper to pay out. How many views did the video generate? All that extra website traffic alone was worth a fortune.

British tabloids, especially the Sundays, will see this as carte blanche to say whatever they want about whoever they want. The risk of it making it to court are slim, and even then the papers would only get a slapped wrist.

[BDunnell]

To put the £60K into context:



So £60K is actually quite a high punishment by recent standards, but I still maintain it's a small price for a Murdoch group newspaper to pay out. How many views did the video generate? All that extra website traffic alone was worth a fortune.

British tabloids, especially the Sundays, will see this as carte blanche to say whatever they want about whoever they want. The risk of it making it to court are slim, and even then the papers would only get a slapped wrist.

Just as they have done over the equally fundamental issue of the illegal use of phone-tapping and the employment of 'informants' in such as phone companies and banks to obtain the private details of prominent people. Ironically, the Daily Mail has been one of the most enthusiastic users of such information, which makes its high moral tone all the more revolting. In another News of the World-related case, the BT employee who installed a bug in a junction box near Angus Deayton's home in order to assist the paper in its stories about his private life was reportedly only given a warning and allowed to keep his job!

[Camelopard]

A victory for common sense, the fact that the alleged star witness, a prostitute married to a former MI5 agent failed to appear to give her evidence says a lot about the state of the 'secret service' in the UK. How on earth did an MI5 agent get a security clearance if he was married to an alleged prostitute?

I like the way that the News of the World says that the case is a gag on the freedom of the press.....hmmm, whereas publishing bollocks and lies isn't???

Since the judge says there was no justification in the News of the World story and that it was not in the public interest, that therefore makes it stand to reason that there was no justification for the demands for Mosley to step down from his position of head of the FIA.

Those demands were based on a lie.

Hopefully those who made them will now apologise and learn not to indulge in 'knee-jerk' reactions.

The costs, by the way, are reported to be near £850,000 and have been awarded against the News of the World.

[BDunnell]

I like the way that the News of the World says that the case is a gag on the freedom of the press.....hmmm, whereas publishing bollocks and lies isn't???

Since the judge says there was no justification in the News of the World story and that it was not in the public interest, that therefore makes it stand to reason that there was no justification for the demands for Mosley to step down from his position of head of the FIA.

Those demands were based on a lie.

Hopefully those who made them will now apologise and learn not to indulge in 'knee-jerk' reactions.

OK, forget the fact of the alleged Nazi part of the story. Surely you can understand why his sexual preferences being in the open (even though this was unjustified, and Max Mosley has never been a 'role model' to anyone) is rather embarrassing for the FIA and its image?

[Dave B]

The costs, by the way, are reported to be near £850,000 and have been awarded against the News of the World.

My guesstimate was only three-quarters of a million out! What's that between friends?

OK, forget the fact of the alleged Nazi part of the story. Surely you can understand why his sexual preferences being in the open (even though this was unjustified, and Max Mosley has never been a 'role model' to anyone) is rather embarrassing for the FIA and its image?

No. It's embarrassing to Mosley personally, but since he wasn't shouting "I'm the President of the FIA, I demand you suck my xxxx!" then it has nothing to do with the FIA.

Like the Judge said, the story was of no public interest.

I would say that knee-jerk reactions based on a load of, now legally proven to be, bull is actually more professionally embarrassing for those who made them.

My guesstimate was only three-quarters of a million out! What's that between friends?

Your obviously not friends with lawyers!!!!!

Thankfully, I'm more than just friends with one. Well, I say 'thankfully' although if she ever wants a divorce I fear I'm fecked!!!

[MAX_THRUST]

The ruling appears to be about the N*** claim, and that's it. The rest of it the judge has said was MAx's own doing, and basically his fault for his lack of prudence.

Friends of mine have been dragged through the NOTW papers a few years back, so I know the pain it can cause. There life was hell. MAx life is far from ruined, its his own fault. The 13th Commandment is thou shalt not get caught!!!

Funny how does the NOTW get a camera in without some sort of invite. Someone invited them in.........?