Max Mosley opens a can of worms.

[SGWilko]

Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.
I think a precedent needs to be set as to how far these "Newspapers" can go.
It's an issue all race fans would like to see go away. Max has a chance to contribute to setting the boundry.
He has nothing more to lose, and citizens private lives have much to gain!

Take a look at this article from the Daily Conservative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html

Scroll down and read about the Judge hearing the case.....

[SGWilko]

Should I report this , or do you wish to apologise ?

http://www.coogans-run.co.uk/paulcalf/

Top right hand side on the above web site.

[Bagwan]

Apologise to who for what? For quoting a catchphrase of Paul Calf (Steve Coogan) when he describes students?

Apologise to me , for "bag of e" , like you did in that PM .

I guess you don't like your dirty laundry aired in public then , not unlike our Max .

[Tazio]

Take a look at this article from the Daily Conservative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html

Scroll down and read about the Judge hearing the case.....

Some believe the right to privacy tends to be given more weight in his rulings than media's rights to freedom of expression. Media specialist Caroline Kean said last year: 'It's quite clear that Eady doesn't like tabloid newspapers.'

OK! this is the last part of that bio!^^^^^
What point is it are you suggesting I take away from it?

To be honest I really don't know British civil law. I'm assuming it's mandates are somewhat like ours are in the USA

[SGWilko]

Apologise to me , for "bag of e" , like you did in that PM .

I guess you don't like your dirty laundry aired in public then , not unlike our Max .

1. I was responding to my own post - not yours (see post #700)
2. My PM to you titled I see the confusion was sent subsequent to my post questioning why I should apologise.
3. Shame you are apparently one of the insecure few who like to threaten the report function - be a man.
My PM to Baggy:

Honestly mate, that was not a pop at you guvn'or. I was innocently quoting a character of Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge, Saxondale etc).

The character is Paul Calf, who, after he says 'are you a student', says Bag o' e.

I will apologise that you took it the wrong way, but not for posting it, because it was not about your Forum name or you.

Subject closed PM Ends.

Someone needs to lighten up.

Don't dare make out I am having a pop at you. I don't do that.

There, hope that sets the record straight.

[SGWilko]

Some believe the right to privacy tends to be given more weight in his rulings than media's rights to freedom of expression. Media specialist Caroline Kean said last year: 'It's quite clear that Eady doesn't like tabloid newspapers.'

OK! this is the last part of that bio!^^^^^
What point is it are you suggesting I take away from it?

To be honest I really don't know British civil law. I'm assuming it's mandates are somewhat like ours are in the USA

Given that Eady is presiding over a case in which in his barrister years, he would be acting for the NOTW.

So the reference was relevant to setting precedents, as your post postulated.

[SGWilko]

It's 45 of 48 years married , doing things behind the wife's back .


Nice guy this Mosely, eh? ;)

[SGWilko]

Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.
I think a precedent needs to be set as to how far these "Newspapers" can go.
It's an issue all race fans would like to see go away. Max has a chance to contribute to setting the boundry.
He has nothing more to lose, and citizens private lives have much to gain!

Now hang on.

Lets say I have one off the wrist in the downstairs cloakroom because the wife has a headache - again!

I don't expect the NOTW or similar to be recording and publishing the event. I am not sure an IT manager for a London Property Co is very highly regarded in the grand scheme of things.

But, if I held a high ranking position (that'll be the day!), in a very public industry or sport, and I start dressing in stockings & suspenders with half a Dyson vacuum cleaner pipe stuck where the sun don't shine, then maybe that's a different story.

I think really it is all about suitability of character. If all this stuff Max is up to is so harmless, why hide it?

[ioan]

I refer to the wider implications of this whole situation (not just the court case) simply because they impact on motorsport, and F1 in particular, and this is the F1 forum for F1-related discussion.

There is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport. Any example of team or sponsors leaving F1, or less people turning up in Silverstone? Quite the opposite I would say.

You are beating a dead horse, with this impact of Mosley's sexual life on Motorsport.

[SGWilko]

There is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport. Any example of team or sponsors leaving F1, or less people turning up in Silverstone? Quite the opposite I would say.

You are beating a dead horse, with this impact of Mosley's sexual life on Motorsport.

Not yet. But you can bet that an unhappy sponsor at an underperforming team could well use Max as the excuse to walk away.

Again, I ask the question, if what Max has been doing is so harmless, why does he feel the need to conceal it?

[MAX_THRUST]

Further allegations are likely to emerge in the coming weeks. In particular the only team with a driver who is of mixed race, is fined massively last year for there conduct in receiving information illegally. It is a tenuous link, but it is also the sort of story these news papers will sieze on.

The uncovering of more of Max Moselys past and his right wing attitudes and the fact he tried to stand as a pollitician for his farthers party is further information that Max could do with out being made public. Now that many of the countries involved with F1 here of these facts, his standing is going to be even less. Further more it was not so much the N**i connotations that upset various royal families it was the simple fact he was 1) paying proffesional ladies for their services, 2) the fact he was behaving dishonourably towards his family.

In many countries family, dignity and so on play a larger part in their lives than those of us in the UK, generally hold. Some may think it isn't so bad, many think it is appalling. Not only is Max dragging down the FIA, but he is slowly destroying his own reputation. He is clearly ill informed as to the publics opinion of him. The news coverage is hugely damaging for him. He's not a rock star, he's and old power crazed man who is loosing grip of reallity. If he wants to sue me, over it bring it on....!

[SGWilko]

In many countries family, dignity and so on play a larger part in their lives than those of us in the UK, generally hold. Some may think it isn't so bad, many think it is appalling.

Now, which country was it that that 30 year old woman has been nicked for sh*****g on a beach being out of wedlock (despite once being warned by the police)......?

[ShiftingGears]

Again, I ask the question, if what Max has been doing is so harmless, why does he feel the need to conceal it?

Because it isn't anyones business, except his own?

It's a simple right to privacy.

[ArrowsFA1]

There is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport...
So headlines like "Bizarre sex life of F1 boss Max Mosley revealed to court (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html)" has no impact on F1?

A GP organiser asking that Max does not attend the Bahrain GP.
Toyota, Honda, Mercedes & BMW criticise the FIA President and ask him to consider his position.
Germany's national motoring body request that that FIA President "reconsider his position".
Dutch Federation want Max the FIA President to resign.
American Automobile Association want the FIA President to quit.
Motorsport New Zealand, Canadian Automobile Association, Motorsport South Africa want the FIA President to quit.
Porsche say scandal makes F1 unattractive.
Past (Ickx, Lauda, Hill) and present drivers (Webber) say the FIA President should either quit or reconsider his position.
Israel withdraws invite to the FIA President to discuss motorsport in the region.
The FIA President unable to attend offical FIA functions at Monaco GP.
F1 engine manufacturers skip meeting with FIA President at Monaco.
19 automobile clubs ask the FIA President to resign.
Ecclestone calls for FIA President to resign.
Concerns of split within the FIA and F1 after the FIA President wins EGM vote.

No impact on F1 :confused: :crazy:

[Knock-on]

So headlines like "Bizarre sex life of F1 boss Max Mosley revealed to court (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html)" has no impact on F1?

A GP organiser asking that Max does not attend the Bahrain GP.
Toyota, Honda, Mercedes & BMW criticise the FIA President and ask him to consider his position.
Germany's national motoring body request that that FIA President "reconsider his position".
Dutch Federation want Max the FIA President to resign.
American Automobile Association want the FIA President to quit.
Motorsport New Zealand, Canadian Automobile Association, Motorsport South Africa want the FIA President to quit.
Porsche say scandal makes F1 unattractive.
Past (Ickx, Lauda, Hill) and present drivers (Webber) say the FIA President should either quit or reconsider his position.
Israel withdraws invite to the FIA President to discuss motorsport in the region.
The FIA President unable to attend offical FIA functions at Monaco GP.
F1 engine manufacturers skip meeting with FIA President at Monaco.
19 automobile clubs ask the FIA President to resign.
Ecclestone calls for FIA President to resign.
Concerns of split within the FIA and F1 after the FIA President wins EGM vote.

No impact on F1 :confused: :crazy:

That doesn't count if you have your head in the sand.

You should know that facts have no influence over ioans opinions :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Because it isn't anyones business, except his own?

It's a simple right to privacy.

OK, so why the use of pseudonyms. Not openly volunteering something is different to concealing it, isn't it?

[ShiftingGears]

Not openly volunteering something is different to concealing it, isn't it?

Correct. So what?

[SGWilko]

Correct. So what?

Why use a pseudonym. If it is all above board, that surely would not be necessary.

Perhaps he felt, his actions would not befit those of a man in his position.

So headlines like "Bizarre sex life of F1 boss Max Mosley revealed to court (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html)" has no impact on F1?

A GP organiser asking that Max does not attend the Bahrain GP.
Toyota, Honda, Mercedes & BMW criticise the FIA President and ask him to consider his position.
Germany's national motoring body request that that FIA President "reconsider his position".
Dutch Federation want Max the FIA President to resign.
American Automobile Association want the FIA President to quit.
Motorsport New Zealand, Canadian Automobile Association, Motorsport South Africa want the FIA President to quit.
Porsche say scandal makes F1 unattractive.
Past (Ickx, Lauda, Hill) and present drivers (Webber) say the FIA President should either quit or reconsider his position.
Israel withdraws invite to the FIA President to discuss motorsport in the region.
The FIA President unable to attend offical FIA functions at Monaco GP.
F1 engine manufacturers skip meeting with FIA President at Monaco.
19 automobile clubs ask the FIA President to resign.
Ecclestone calls for FIA President to resign.
Concerns of split within the FIA and F1 after the FIA President wins EGM vote.

No impact on F1 :confused: :crazy:

Not surprisingly, you didn't mention these....

Donington owners coughing up £100million to host British GP,
American looking at starting new F1 team.
Talk of US GP returning to Indy.
Middle Eastern countries wanting to host GP's.
No major manufacturers leaving F1.
More FIA members vote for Mosley to stay than to go.
Attendance & viewing figures, vital for sponsors, totally unaffected.

Compared to your list, most of which are non-issues outside the inner-workings of the FIA, that shows that interest in Formula One has not been affected by Mosley's personal-life activities.

In fact, I'd like to see your reasons why, if Mosley is such a dead duck, any of these have happened?

According to your stance, Mosley is damaging the sport.

The facts say otherwise.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not surprisingly, you didn't mention these....
I agree it's not surprising because I was directly responding to ioan's claim that "there is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport..." A claim that is demonstrably not true.

Compared to your list, most of which are non-issues outside the inner-workings of the FIA, that shows that interest in Formula One has not been affected by Mosley's personal-life activities.
The majority of the examples I gave relate directly to the inner workings of the FIA (i.e. the reaction of member clubs) or the effect on the FIA President's ability to do his job as normal (withdrawn invitations, cancelled meeting).

In fact, I'd like to see your reasons why, if Mosley is such a dead duck, any of these have happened?
Most haven't (!!) and if they do are more likely to be down to Bernie's persuasive powers than who is (or isn't) FIA President. The one example you give that relates to the FIA was hardly a surprise given that the EGM was called by the FIA President and run on his terms.

[Knock-on]

Not surprisingly, you didn't mention these....

Donington owners coughing up £100million to host British GP,
American looking at starting new F1 team.
Talk of US GP returning to Indy.
Middle Eastern countries wanting to host GP's.
No major manufacturers leaving F1.
More FIA members vote for Mosley to stay than to go.
Attendance & viewing figures, vital for sponsors, totally unaffected.

Compared to your list, most of which are non-issues outside the inner-workings of the FIA, that shows that interest in Formula One has not been affected by Mosley's personal-life activities.

In fact, I'd like to see your reasons why, if Mosley is such a dead duck, any of these have happened?

According to your stance, Mosley is damaging the sport.

The facts say otherwise.



Nobody ever claimed that this scandle has destroyed F1. Merely, that it has had a negative impact with the consequenses Arrows pointed out.

Do you disagree that Arrow's points are negative or do you disagree that they happened?

If not, you have to conceed that Max's actions and his continued role as head of the FIA has had a negative impact on F1 which is damaging to the sport.

I agree it's not surprising because I was directly responding to ioan's claim that "there is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport..." A claim that is demonstrably not true.

Then please demonstrate how motorsport has been affected.

If trying to claim that not being invited to a meeting or to attend a Grand Prix is of any significance to the overall health of Formula One is the best you can come up with, then it is laughable.

Formula One has been utterly unaffected. Nobody has left due to Mosley's personal life being exposed, no sponsors have left and no viewing figures have dropped.

Those are the FACTS! They are UNDENIABLE!

Do you disagree that Arrow's points are negative or do you disagree that they happened?

If not, you have to conceed that Max's actions and his continued role as head of the FIA has had a negative impact on F1 which is damaging to the sport.

And where is the damage?

[Tazio]

E, a dominatrix who secretly filmed the sadomasochistic session at a Chelsea flat in March, was due to give evidence together with her husband.

Mr Warby told Mr Justice Eady at London's High Court: "This morning, at about ten to eight, I received information which has later been elaborated on which leads those instructing me and my clients to take the view that her emotional and mental state is such that it would not be fair or reasonable to call her to give evidence."
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2389079.0.Mosley_SM_case_drama_as_star _witness_fails_to_appear.php

The only other reasons I can think of that she didn't show up is that she didn't want to perjure herself.
Or the defense never really planed on calling her at all. They just throw out a heap of accusations
they say she can corroborate, and then she takes a powder! Interesting psychological warfare!
However I don’t think this judge will appreciate it.

[Tazio]

I agree it's not surprising because I was directly responding to ioan's claim that "there is no impact on F1, or any other motorsport..." A claim that is demonstrably not true.

The majority of the examples I gave relate directly to the inner workings of the FIA (i.e. the reaction of member clubs) or the effect on the FIA President's ability to do his job as normal (withdrawn invitations, cancelled meeting).

Most haven't (!!) and if they do are more likely to be down to Bernie's persuasive powers than who is (or isn't) FIA President. The one example you give that relates to the FIA was hardly a surprise given that the EGM was called by the FIA President and run on his terms.

You have a fertile imagination!

You are very subjective in your argument!

I believe, as Tamb' pointed out,

you suffer from "selective amnesia"! :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

If trying to claim that not being invited to a meeting or to attend a Grand Prix is of any significance to the overall health of Formula One is the best you can come up with, then it is laughable.
As FIA President Max Mosley personally represents the FIA in its entirety worldwide. It is therefore not laughable that he has been snubbed by royalty, politicians and multinational corporations all of whom have a considerable stake in F1.

Nobody has left...


"With regret and incomprehension, the ADAC has learned from the decision by the General Assembly of the FIA in Paris to confirm Max Mosley in his function as president of the FIA," the ADAC said in a statement.
"For Europe's largest motoring club, this is a reason to put down all its functions and the involvement in the global organisation of motoring clubs with immediate effect and to step down from the globally active FIA working groups.
"The ADAC will stick to this attitude as long as Max Mosley will be on duty as president of the FIA.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67958

[Bagwan]

1. I was responding to my own post - not yours (see post #700)
2. My PM to you titled I see the confusion was sent subsequent to my post questioning why I should apologise.
3. Shame you are apparently one of the insecure few who like to threaten the report function - be a man.
My PM to Baggy:

Honestly mate, that was not a pop at you guvn'or. I was innocently quoting a character of Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge, Saxondale etc).

The character is Paul Calf, who, after he says 'are you a student', says Bag o' e.

I will apologise that you took it the wrong way, but not for posting it, because it was not about your Forum name or you.

Subject closed PM Ends.

Someone needs to lighten up.

Don't dare make out I am having a pop at you. I don't do that.

There, hope that sets the record straight.


There . You see how this made you feel ?
I told you that you didn't like your dirty laundry out , and you responded with outing more of it yourself .
That's not very unlike what Max did .

For Max , no response would have had him seen as accepting the characterization , in the eyes of the world , that he is all the things that are brought to mind when the word Nazi is uttered .
Unsurprisingly , he found that untenable .

For you , the thought that I would liken this to Max's situation , saying you didn't want the laundry on the line , prompted a response that countered the accusation you were a name-caller .
Again , unsurprising .

It's what humans do .


Shame you also feel it necessary to call me insecure and insinuate I am not a man in your #3 .
I wonder how the mods feel about the report post button carrying such stigma .

[Dave B]

The only other reasons I can think of that she didn't show up is that she didn't want to perjure herself.
Or the defense never really planed on calling her at all. They just throw out a heap of accusations
they say she can corroborate, and then she takes a powder! Interesting psychological warfare!
However I don’t think this judge will appreciate it.
If you're going to wildly speculate about "E"'s reasons for not showing up today, one could equally wonder whether she'd been bribed or threatened. I can think of plenty more reasons why she didn't show up! :dozey:

[Knock-on]

You have a fertile imagination!

You are very subjective in your argument!

I believe, as Tamb' pointed out,

you suffer from "selective amnesia"! :p :

I really fail to see what point some people here are trying to make. It seems that people here are argueing with Arrows for the sake of it rather than whether Maxgate has had a negative impact on F1. Perhaps there is more of a personal agenda here than a case for arguement?

If you trully believe that Maxgate hasn't damaged F1 then so be it. No amount of posting facts to the contrary will ever sway you but it seems silly to respond to a resoned arguement with this sort of post.

I'm sure that some people here will argue the poll results on this thread demonstrate that there is widespread concensus that Max should stay.

[Tazio]

Other European car manufacturers are considering joining the action on the Formula One grid, according to BMW Sauber boss Mario Theissen.

The German said he understands Audi, Volkswagen and Porsche are interested in the sport's current direction; like BMW's trajectory of success with a reasonable budget, and road-relevant new technologies like KERS.

Theissen also said some Asian manufacturers could follow suit.


"Already my colleagues in the road car research and development department are knocking on our door," Theissen added.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...06121528.shtml

It appears, according to the good doctor, that German makers are more
interested in F1 now than before the regrettable invasion into Max's life!
Apparently KERS trumps canes! :laugh:

As FIA President Max Mosley personally represents the FIA in its entirety worldwide. It is therefore not laughable that he has been snubbed by royalty, politicians and multinational corporations all of whom have a considerable stake in F1.


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67958

These would be the same Royalty, Politicians & Multinational corporations who have not announced they will not be continuing to host and sponsor motorsport events? Yes, they are.

Unless you can show proof of a motorsport event being cancelled or of sponsorship being withdrawn, you have no evidence to back up your weak argument.

ADAC, by the way, are responsible for the next Grand Prix are they not? That event is going full steam ahead....which utterly discredits your point that their withdrawal from the FIA has had any effect whatsoever.

[Tazio]

If you're going to wildly speculate about "E"'s reasons for not showing up today, one could equally wonder whether she'd been bribed or threatened. I can think of plenty more reasons why she didn't show up! :dozey:
A definate possibility. However all the conspiracy theories
that have been laid out on this forum have failed to materialize!
Fact: She took a powder!!

[Dave B]

It's probably we won't know the full effects for at least a year. Sponsors are in place, agreements have been signed, it's highly unlikely they'll pull out over Nazigate. What will be interesting is whether any potential future sponsors or manufacturers have been put off by this affair.

[Knock-on]

Other European car manufacturers are considering joining the action on the Formula One grid, according to BMW Sauber boss Mario Theissen.

The German said he understands Audi, Volkswagen and Porsche are interested in the sport's current direction; like BMW's trajectory of success with a reasonable budget, and road-relevant new technologies like KERS.

Theissen also said some Asian manufacturers could follow suit.


"Already my colleagues in the road car research and development department are knocking on our door," Theissen added.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headline...06121528.shtml

It appears, according to the good doctor, that German makers are more
interested in F1 now than before the regrettable invasion into Max's life!
Apparently KERS trumps canes! :laugh:

I think most people will agree that some recent rule changes have been a step in the right direction. No TC or LC for example has helped produce a better, fairer spectacle. Lets hope this continues to go in the right direction and the FIA don't cock the sport up again.

But that doesn't change the effect of Maxgate though. Are you suggesting that Max's scandle and subsequent behaviour has had no negative impact on the FIA and F1?

But that doesn't change the effect of Maxgate though. Are you suggesting that Max's scandle and subsequent behaviour has had no negative impact on the FIA and F1?

It doesn't appear to....unless you know of an event or deal that isn't going ahead because of it.

Do you?

That is the crux of this argument. Both you & Arrows claim that damage has been done, that F1 has suffered from the justifiably negative headlines generated by Max.

So far, neither of you have given us anything concrete to support your view.

[Tazio]

I really fail to see what point some people here are trying to make. It seems that people here are argueing with Arrows for the sake of it Perhaps you don't appreciate my style?
rather than whether Maxgate has had a negative impact on F1. Perhaps there is more of a personal agenda here than a case for arguement? But you are an excellent mind reader! :laugh:

[Tazio]

I think most people will agree that some recent rule changes have been a step in the right direction. No TC or LC for example has helped produce a better, fairer spectacle. Lets hope this continues to go in the right direction and the FIA don't cock the sport up again.

But that doesn't change the effect of Maxgate though. Are you suggesting that Max's scandle and subsequent behaviour has had no negative impact on the FIA and F1?
That question is too subjective for anyone to give an empirical answer.
I think that pitching him out has a degree of possibility that it could damage the sport.
I think the status quo is in the best interest of F1
I see no evidence that I will see noticeable damage unless we have Max's eminent demise!

[ArrowsFA1]

These would be the same Royalty, Politicians & Multinational corporations who have not announced they will not be continuing to host and sponsor motorsport events?
True, but that does not alter the fact they did not want to associate with an FIA headed by the current President.

Unless you can show proof of a motorsport event being cancelled or of sponsorship being withdrawn, you have no evidence to back up your weak argument.
By that deliberately selective and narrow set of conditions there has, as yet, been no damage done, or any effect felt. It's as if I were to say that unless you can show proof of Max being welcomed to this year's Bahrain GP by Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Al-Khalifa then you have no evidence to back up your weak argument.

We're going round in circles (http://www.actionext.com/names_g/george_harrison_lyrics/circles.html).

By that deliberately selective and narrow set of conditions there has, as yet, been no damage done, or any effect felt. It's as if I were to say that unless you can show proof of Max being welcomed to this year's Bahrain GP by Sheikh Salman Bin Hamad Al-Khalifa then you have no evidence to back up your weak argument.



I'm sorry, but there is no comparison.

Not being invited to attend a Grand Prix is not as important as a Grand Prix being cancelled or a sponsor withdrawing.

Therefore, your argument is immeasurably weaker than mine.

Please feel free to go round in circles and to quote the third best song-writer in a band...but come back when your argument has some less rotational direction.

Actually, make that any direction.

[SGWilko]

There . You see how this made you feel ?
I told you that you didn't like your dirty laundry out , and you responded with outing more of it yourself .
That's not very unlike what Max did .

For Max , no response would have had him seen as accepting the characterization , in the eyes of the world , that he is all the things that are brought to mind when the word Nazi is uttered .
Unsurprisingly , he found that untenable .

For you , the thought that I would liken this to Max's situation , saying you didn't want the laundry on the line , prompted a response that countered the accusation you were a name-caller .
Again , unsurprising .

It's what humans do .


Shame you also feel it necessary to call me insecure and insinuate I am not a man in your #3 .
I wonder how the mods feel about the report post button carrying such stigma .

WTF are you on about?

You made reference to a PM in your post, I merely posted it, so others can get a fair representation of what you referred to.

Where is all the name calling BS coming from. I posted about a PhD student, and made a witty comment about students as made by a S Coogan character.

You've put 3 and 5 together and got 76.2. :down:

NB as a moot point, I alleged (using the word apparently) you were insecure rather stated, as you erroneously wrote.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm sorry, but there is no comparison.
There is, but my example just doesn't produce the result that fits your argument. I don't claim that that makes your argument immeasurably weaker than mine.

There is, but my example just doesn't produce the result that fits your argument. I don't claim that that makes your argument immeasurably weaker than mine.

That's because you can't.

[Tazio]

If you're going to wildly speculate about "E"'s reasons for not showing up today, one could equally wonder whether she'd been bribed or threatened. I can think of plenty more reasons why she didn't show up! :dozey: Upon thoughtful consideration I believe that the defense has actually been truthful
in their portrayal of Woman E, in regard to why she didn’t appear in court.
Now she can't face the friends (including "Mike") that she betrayed.
She went down to the crossroads and signed her deal in blood, for a pittance!!
Ol' "leggba" ain't breakin' no deals. She can live on in the knowledge
that for the rest of her life she has Hellhounds on her trail! :eek:

[ioan]

So headlines like "Bizarre sex life of F1 boss Max Mosley revealed to court (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032803/Bizarre-sex-life-F1-boss-Max-Mosley-revealed-court-insists-Its-perfectly-harmless-private.html)" has no impact on F1?

A GP organiser asking that Max does not attend the Bahrain GP.
Toyota, Honda, Mercedes & BMW criticise the FIA President and ask him to consider his position.
Germany's national motoring body request that that FIA President "reconsider his position".
Dutch Federation want Max the FIA President to resign.
American Automobile Association want the FIA President to quit.
Motorsport New Zealand, Canadian Automobile Association, Motorsport South Africa want the FIA President to quit.
Porsche say scandal makes F1 unattractive.
Past (Ickx, Lauda, Hill) and present drivers (Webber) say the FIA President should either quit or reconsider his position.
Israel withdraws invite to the FIA President to discuss motorsport in the region.
The FIA President unable to attend offical FIA functions at Monaco GP.
F1 engine manufacturers skip meeting with FIA President at Monaco.
19 automobile clubs ask the FIA President to resign.
Ecclestone calls for FIA President to resign.
Concerns of split within the FIA and F1 after the FIA President wins EGM vote.

No impact on F1 :confused: :crazy:

Nothing happened, of all those "threats" you are listing, none came to a harmful conclusion to F1. Why because it wasn't anything serious.

However, keep flogging that dead horse! :laugh:

[ioan]

Not surprisingly, you didn't mention these....

Donington owners coughing up £100million to host British GP,
American looking at starting new F1 team.
Talk of US GP returning to Indy.
Middle Eastern countries wanting to host GP's.
No major manufacturers leaving F1.
More FIA members vote for Mosley to stay than to go.
Attendance & viewing figures, vital for sponsors, totally unaffected.

Compared to your list, most of which are non-issues outside the inner-workings of the FIA, that shows that interest in Formula One has not been affected by Mosley's personal-life activities.

In fact, I'd like to see your reasons why, if Mosley is such a dead duck, any of these have happened?

According to your stance, Mosley is damaging the sport.

The facts say otherwise.

Exactly! :up:

Cheers! ;)

[ioan]

There is, but my example just doesn't produce the result that fits your argument. I don't claim that that makes your argument immeasurably weaker than mine.

Let it go Arrows, you have no argument whatsoever, no facts to stand on, nothing, only your subjective opinion about Max's person. I can also tell you that it is because he had the guts to rightly hit McLaren and Ron last season. So you have a problem with max for all the wrong reasons.

[Knock-on]

Let it go Arrows, you have no argument whatsoever, no facts to stand on, nothing, only your subjective opinion about Max's person. I can also tell you that it is because he had the guts to rightly hit McLaren and Ron last season. So you have a problem with max for all the wrong reasons.

You forgot to add "in my opinion" as the facts Arrows has posted are referencable and proven.

I suppose your objectivity can be best demonstrated where you quote a post of Arrows where he directly references 14 specific examples that directly relate to the negative impact caused by Maxgate. You dismiss these facts without giving them a reasoned answer and yet when Tamburello quotes 7 examples, you accept them as Gospel.

Lets look at the things you agree with.

Donington owners coughing up £100million to host British GP, - They have been after the British GP for years. This is nothing to do with Max

American looking at starting new F1 team. - I'm looking to win the Lottery. Until it's starts a team, it's not real. Still, nothing directly attributal to Max again

Talk of US GP returning to Indy. - See above

Middle Eastern countries wanting to host GP's. - See above

No major manufacturers leaving F1. - That would be an extreme reaction, would it not? However, a more appropiate response may have been for Major Manufacturers voice their concern and ask Max to resign would it not? Mmmmm

More FIA members vote for Mosley to stay than to go. - Then you must also agree that the members that voted for Max to go represent the vast majority of the worlds larger clubs. When you have the German or American vote having the same clout as the Vatican city or Angola, then this sort of farce is likely to happen.

Attendance & viewing figures, vital for sponsors, totally unaffected. - Link Please.

So, Arrows posts facts that have occured as a result of Maxgate and you dismiss them because they are contrary to your view and yet you agree with points based that have nothing to do with the issue, are based on rumour or are opinion with no base in fact.

If you carry on flogging that dead horse, I'll set the RSPCA on you :D

[SGWilko]

If you carry on flogging that dead horse

peolple will call you Max!

So, Arrows posts facts that have occured as a result of Maxgate and you dismiss them because they are contrary to your view and yet you agree with points based that have nothing to do with the issue, are based on rumour or are opinion with no base in fact.

They have absolutely everything to do with the issue. There has been no significant or meaningful damage to the sport. The FIA continues to operate. All that has happened is a few press releases and a few withdrawn party invitations.

If that is your idea of damage, then it is a very strange one.

Arrows points are rightly dismissed because they are utterly irrelevant to the claims that 'damage' has been done. Real damage is loss of income, loss of events.

Once again....show us the damage!

Arrows has posted are referencable and proven.

Proven? He claims that damage has been done to the FIA which makes Mosley's tenure impossible. He has offered no proof to back this up.

Please provide the PROOF that Mosley's position is untenable.

[Knock-on]

They have absolutely everything to do with the issue. There has been no significant or meaningful damage to the sport. The FIA continues to operate. All that has happened is a few press releases and a few withdrawn party invitations.

If that is your idea of damage, then it is a very strange one.

Arrows points are rightly dismissed because they are utterly irrelevant to the claims that 'damage' has been done. Real damage is loss of income, loss of events.

Once again....show us the damage!

I have answered each of your points in detail. If you dispute what I have written, please explain why. That is what is called debate, not just stating "It is because I say so".

Primary school arguements don't cut it. Neither does stating the same old opinion make it fact.

To answer your claim about "real" damage, you first need to appreciate the worlds of business and diplomacy.

Credibility is key to doing business and Max has none. He is tainted goods and not someone that large corporations are keen to be associated with. The same with some Heads of State. These are facts as have been documented by Arrows.

Your arguement that a sponsor has not withdrawen from F1 because of this is irrelevant. You seem to equate damage with catastrophic failure!!

If you cannot understand these basic points, we will never be able to have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

[Knock-on]

Proven? He claims that damage has been done to the FIA which makes Mosley's tenure impossible. He has offered no proof to back this up.

Please provide the PROOF that Mosley's position is untenable.

Lots of people have claimed ax's position is untenable and called for him to resign. Even amongst his supporters.

We will see whether he can continue to do his job efectivly. Merely having the title he holds does not equate to being able to do his job.

[ioan]

You forgot to add "in my opinion" as the facts Arrows has posted are referencable and proven.

Proven what? Gossip?!

Just because these things were speculated for some time by some journos it doesn't mean they turned into facts.

[ioan]

Lots of people have claimed ax's position is untenable and called for him to resign. Even amongst his supporters.

Can't you see that you are talking bollocks?! How can one be called someone's supporter when he/she is airing opposite opinions? :rolleyes:


Please do name those supporters of Max who called for him to resign. Not the so called "supporters" or so called "friends", aka Bernie Ecclestone.

[MAX_THRUST]

I think the facts are this:

As this court case has been televised all week and even talked about on a UK TV show called 'Mock the Week', Max is fast becoming the butt of all jokes. His possition is realisticaly now untenable. He no longer has many parties left who will meet, negotiate or respect him any more. By all means sue the NOTW, but don't do it when you should be running the FIA.

Is he on holiday at the moment?

He should save the FIA anymore damage and have delt with this court case as a private matter rather than a rather than a publically damaging affair.

[MAX_THRUST]

Whoops, Moderators must have deleted that word from IOANs post.

Sorry to any who may have read my repeat of those words, and I await the email from the moderators.

Who said IOAN was a trouble maker, and upset people on this forum and used inappropriate language. Now you got me in trouble.

[SGWilko]

I think the facts are this:

As this court case has been televised all week and even talked about on a UK TV show called 'Mock the Week', Max is fast becoming the butt of all jokes. His possition is realisticaly now untenable. He no longer has many parties left who will meet, negotiate or respect him any more. By all means sue the NOTW, but don't do it when you should be running the FIA.

Is he on holiday at the moment?

He should save the FIA anymore damage and have delt with this court case as a private matter rather than a rather than a publically damaging affair.

That and he once tried to stand as right wing candidate. Oh Leopards change their spots do they.........


OH BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!

Didn't realise I could say that here..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpxtLgk88ZE

[Bagwan]

Would the picture taker please tell the court who asked her to sell the pictures taken to the NOTW ?

Wait now , where'd she go ?

[Knock-on]

Can't you see that you are talking bollocks?! How can one be called someone's supporter when he/she is airing opposite opinions? :rolleyes:


Please do name those supporters of Max who called for him to resign. Not the so called "supporters" or so called "friends", aka Bernie Ecclestone.

ioan. I really wish you would engage brain before hitting "submit reply".

You can support someone and yet express an objective comment. You don't have to blindly support someone. It's called being objective.

For example, I support Button but criticised him this week for being a bit defeatest about his chances with the Honda.


There was also a sense of shock from those involved in F1. Stirling Moss told The Times: "I don't see how he can continue. I hope he can, frankly, because I think he's very good at what he does. I suppose what goes on behind closed doors is his business but when a thing comes out like this . . . it's an absolute shocker."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66248

I love it that whenever you come out with these derogatory insults, you always end up with them rebounding on you :laugh:

BTW, ever find anything about Massa I've written that confirms your last accusation against me. Suppose it's too much asking for an apology :p :

[Knock-on]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpxtLgk88ZE

PML, hadn't seen that. :laugh:

[Bagwan]

ioan. I really wish you would engage brain before hitting "submit reply".

You can support someone and yet express an objective comment. You don't have to blindly support someone. It's called being objective.

For example, I support Button but criticised him this week for being a bit defeatest about his chances with the Honda.



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66248

I love it that whenever you come out with these derogatory insults, you always end up with them rebounding on you :laugh:

BTW, ever find anything about Massa I've written that confirms your last accusation against me. Suppose it's too much asking for an apology :p :

Knock , I wish we could ALL be a touch more respectful , and not bother with first lines like in this last post .

Moss says not that Max should go there , but that he can't see how he could stay .
These are different things .

He goes on saying that he is good at his job , which is essentially saying he should stay .

How is this contrary to what Ioan posted ?

[Knock-on]

Knock , I wish we could ALL be a touch more respectful , and not bother with first lines like in this last post .

Moss says not that Max should go there , but that he can't see how he could stay .
These are different things .

He goes on saying that he is good at his job , which is essentially saying he should stay .

How is this contrary to what Ioan posted ?

Baggy, it was an example of someone supporting Max but questioning his position.

I don't know about Canada but when you have an elder statesman of F1 saying he cannot see how someone can stay, it is a polite way of saying he thinks he should go.

He also said he has done a good job and is complimentary about Max.

Are people trying to be obtuse on purpose on this? It's not Rocket Engineering.

If you want more examples, please feel free to look on http://www.google.com

[SGWilko]

As a matter of interest. on the subject of Max's possible untenability....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvDsgP8oFkk&feature=related

The above 3 part interview on BBC World Talk, Max said;

'You see, the day that you start to think this can't operate without me, that's the moment you've got to stop'

That is a direct unabridged quote.

Now, what was it Max was saying about his role, that the FIA could not fight the fight without him.

I know of diseased cows that have less Foot and Mouth issues than Max! ;)

I have answered each of your points in detail. If you dispute what I have written, please explain why. That is what is called debate, not just stating "It is because I say so".

Primary school arguements don't cut it. Neither does stating the same old opinion make it fact.

To answer your claim about "real" damage, you first need to appreciate the worlds of business and diplomacy.

Credibility is key to doing business and Max has none. He is tainted goods and not someone that large corporations are keen to be associated with. The same with some Heads of State. These are facts as have been documented by Arrows.

Your arguement that a sponsor has not withdrawen from F1 because of this is irrelevant. You seem to equate damage with catastrophic failure!!

If you cannot understand these basic points, we will never be able to have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

You have not answered my questions with an answer that would confirm your opinion to be a fact-based one or one representing even a shade of truth.

You claim that Mosley is 'damaged goods' but offer no firm evidence that this is the case. Please don't quote Jackie Stewart or Striling Moss or any other ex-F1 British driver, as their opinion is no more effective than that of Joe Bloggs.

However, to prove that my interpretation, the one that claims that the FIA continues to operate and F1 has not been affected, I'll give you some quotes from those actually involved...not from 'rent-a-quotes' with no actual input so beloved of lazy British motorsport journalists & whom some around hear fawn over every word of.

So, here goes -

"Toyota Motorsport acknowledges the result of the Extraordinary General Assembly and accepts the decision taken"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67987

"The relevant bodies of the FIA have passed a vote of confidence in Max Mosley, which means he will see out his term of office as President of the FIA, ending in October 2009. We respect this decision, which was made by the delegates in full knowledge of the facts. It is important now for everyone concerned to turn their undivided attention back to the sport."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67962

"The Motor Sports Association respects the decision of the FIA General Assembly concerning President Mosley and considers that it is now time to move on and for the sport to pull together. The Motor Sports Association looks forward to continuing to work constructively as an important member of the FIA in the future."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67960

"I am happy that Max Mosley has been re-elected president of FIA. He has done excellent work for Formula 1 in recent years. With regard to the future, it will be entirely up to him to decide if and when he should take a step back."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67986

Even those organisations who have expressed their unhappiness about Mosley's continued position to continue to work with the FIA. ADAC is still the organising body responsible for the German Grand Prix. If you were really interested in 'debate' then you would have attempted to answer why ADAC has not cancelled this years race.

The simple reason why neither you nor Arrows cannot answer that is because you have no answer. At the very least, you have no answer capable of boosting your argument.

What a shame that you have lost the argument by your own failure to support your views with anything of worthwhile substance yet continue to deride others for having a "Primary school arguement".

Your argument hasn't left Kindergarten.

[SGWilko]

Tamb, Knocky.

Any chance you two can agree to disagree? :)

[Knock-on]

You have not answered my questions with an answer that would confirm your opinion to be a fact-based one or one representing even a shade of truth.

You claim that Mosley is 'damaged goods' but offer no firm evidence that this is the case. Please don't quote Jackie Stewart or Striling Moss or any other ex-F1 British driver, as their opinion is no more effective than that of Joe Bloggs.

The damage has already been done as demonstrated in Arrow's examples. Ignore them if you want but they are there in black and white. I'm not going to go over it again as it's very boring.


However, to prove that my interpretation, the one that claims that the FIA continues to operate and F1 has not been affected, I'll give you some quotes from those actually involved...not from 'rent-a-quotes' with no actual input so beloved of lazy British motorsport journalists & whom some around hear fawn over every word of.

So, here goes -

"Toyota Motorsport acknowledges the result of the Extraordinary General Assembly and accepts the decision taken"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67987

"The relevant bodies of the FIA have passed a vote of confidence in Max Mosley, which means he will see out his term of office as President of the FIA, ending in October 2009. We respect this decision, which was made by the delegates in full knowledge of the facts. It is important now for everyone concerned to turn their undivided attention back to the sport."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67962

"The Motor Sports Association respects the decision of the FIA General Assembly concerning President Mosley and considers that it is now time to move on and for the sport to pull together. The Motor Sports Association looks forward to continuing to work constructively as an important member of the FIA in the future."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67960

"I am happy that Max Mosley has been re-elected president of FIA. He has done excellent work for Formula 1 in recent years. With regard to the future, it will be entirely up to him to decide if and when he should take a step back."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67986

Even those organisations who have expressed their unhappiness about Mosley's continued position to continue to work with the FIA. ADAC is still the organising body responsible for the German Grand Prix. If you were really interested in 'debate' then you would have attempted to answer why ADAC has not cancelled this years race.

The simple reason why neither you nor Arrows cannot answer that is because you have no answer. At the very least, you have no answer capable of boosting your argument.

What a shame that you have lost the argument by your own failure to support your views with anything of worthwhile substance yet continue to deride others for having a "Primary school arguement".

Your argument hasn't left Kindergarten.

I acknowledge that the examples you quoted have done the right thing and drawn a line under the matter. Only the Ferrari comment at the end expresses any support for Max. The rest acknowledge the FIA's vote. Can't you feel the gritted teeth and resentment behind those statements?

There is a lot of unresolved business out there and there will be further ramifications. The knives are out.

By your reckoning, Gordon Brown has the support of the company and the electorate aren't going to kick him out at the first opportunity. This is another case of damage having been done although the ramifications haven't been played out yet.

So, I do not conceed that you have won the arguement but feel free to pat yourself on the back. It doesn't really matter because things will sort themself out in the long run. I can see some difficult times ahead though.

[Knock-on]

Tamb, Knocky.

Any chance you two can agree to disagree? :)

:laugh:

You must have written that as I was typing.

Really am getting bored of people that refuse to read what is posted and ignore anything contrary to their view so yes, I have given up :D

I acknowledge that the examples you quoted have done the right thing and drawn a line under the matter. Only the Ferrari comment at the end expresses any support for Max. The rest acknowledge the FIA's vote. Van't you feel the gritted teeth and resentment behind those statements?

There is a lot of unresolved business out there and there will be further ramifications. The knives are out.

The knives were out for Max long before his personal life was made public. His enemies already existed and were already known.

The knives were out for Balestre too....the knives in F1 & motorsport haven't seen a scabbard for 58 years!

You claim that Mosley's actions have damaged F1 & motorsport, when the simple fact is that all his actions have done is damage himself. Those are two very different matters. It's a shame you can't differentiate between the two....it would help if you could.

Really am getting bored of people that refuse to read what is posted and ignore anything contrary to their view so yes, I have given up :D

You must be very bored with yourself then.

[Knock-on]

You must be very bored with yourself then.


:z :

Tamb. I can see your point but do not agree with it. I think the ramification of this will go on for some time but we will just have to see, wont we.

I really cannot be bothered any more.

[Bagwan]

The knives were out for Max long before his personal life was made public. His enemies already existed and were already known.

The knives were out for Balestre too....the knives in F1 & motorsport haven't seen a scabbard for 58 years!

You claim that Mosley's actions have damaged F1 & motorsport, when the simple fact is that all his actions have done is damage himself. Those are two very different matters. It's a shame you can't differentiate between the two....it would help if you could.

Hit the nail right on the head , why don't ya ?

The fools thought Max couldn't turn this around . It turns out he's big enough to defend himself .

I think that there indeed has been damage done to the FIA , F1 and all of motorsport .
The damage , though , was done by those conspiring to sting Max , not by Max , himself . That they would stoop to such levels , shows the corrupt morals of the "elite" paddock club .

[Bagwan]

Baggy, it was an example of someone supporting Max but questioning his position.

I don't know about Canada but when you have an elder statesman of F1 saying he cannot see how someone can stay, it is a polite way of saying he thinks he should go.

He also said he has done a good job and is complimentary about Max.

Are people trying to be obtuse on purpose on this? It's not Rocket Engineering.

If you want more examples, please feel free to look on http://www.google.com

Knock , without the second part of the quote , I would agree .
But , as it reads to me , a perfect paraphasing of it would be "I hope he stays , but I don't think I could if I were him ." .

I don't know about Canada but when you have an elder statesman of F1 saying he cannot see how someone can stay, it is a polite way of saying he thinks he should go.

Stirling Moss is not an 'elder statesman'....he is just a retired driver. A statesman has some power and influence to wield, which Stirling doesn't. No ex-F1 driver outside the FIA does.

Too many times the British motorsport journalists hang on the words of yesteryears personalities as if they alone have insight and wisdom and, sadly, far too many British motorsport fans repeat parrot-fashion as if it is gospel.

Moss is entitled to his view, and I can understand why people have that view, but their opinions do not alter the facts of the matter, the fact of the matter being that in real terms there is no difference to the FIA in its day-to-day operations.

[markabilly]

Personally I find the whole trial bit to be 98% boring with much stupdity tossed to add spice. I thought we would hear who told on him, how it all got started, was that really Ron D. putting the camera in the bra or what?
And then the cross exam attacking max for being a crook running off with three hundred million, costing the FIA billions loading up his pockets, and so forth as attacking his credibility as a witness, but NO not one word of that.

Instead, it is "I wuz no nazi" and the response being "you wuz too (a nazi)"

The remaining 2% does show the rubber like nature of max and others similar such as bernie, to think they can just act like all this is nothing, no big deal, a little role play, topped off with some sex, 5k plus for the ladies, 37k plus for the apartment, thermoteers up the yang, and then there is this "theater" thing where one of the prostitutes (I would use the w word but why offend) causally mentioned regular orgies involving 30 men and ten women that was apprently some sort of business investment enterprize for Max, and so on.

No big deal.....and they just continue on..... :rolleyes:

What I find odd is how Max easily and clearly he portrayed it as no big deal, something of a hobby, much like some play golf or enjoy a good book, with the only outrage that the paper portrayed it as being Nazi related, (very "unerotic" as he put it) instead of what it really was: Max and his collection of girls playing dress up and slapping butts until they bleed, and so on, just something that brings him and others like him, a great deal of pleasure.

Well it seems that the real outrage voiced by Max is the slander "me as a nazi" aspect, but since slander has not been plead, there should be no damages for that alleged falsehood.

And if the other stuff is just fun and games of the usual nature for those special lovers of S and M, as Max has been quoted as portraying it to be, under oath, then where are his damages? Those damages would seem to be nothing.

Since Max claims to be enjoying humiliation, beatings and all that S & M stuff, then the humiliation from the tape/photos being made public that others might find painful and embarrassing to the "mainstream"** among us, should be very pleasurable for him. Afer all, this would seem to be the ultimate humiliation, to be stripped naked and beaten not merely in front of a bunch of hookers, but the whole world!!

What could someone truly into S & M want and enjoy more than that?

Maybe max was the one that secretly blew the whistle on himself? In any event, the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing, except to heap some more embarrassment upon the world of F1.....and just how now, is Max to sit in judgment of others who are alleged to have brought the sport into disrepute, given his own open, public testimony?

Again there was a time when old paranoid conspiracy nut case markabilly thought he could out do the FIA, maX and crew in coming up with such bizzare stuff, but if a year ago, I told you that this sequence of events would happen within a year, all of you would have laughed your heads off at anyone so stupid as suggest this possibily could ever come about.....truth stranger than fiction......

**AS bagwan put it: "a perfect paraphasing of it would be "I hope he stays , but I don't think I could if I were him ." ., yeah but folks like max and other politicans have no problem with it

[ArrowsFA1]

That's because you can't.
So you say, but that's irrelevant. The reason I don't claim that that makes your argument immeasurably weaker than mine is because I'm happy for you to hold whatever opinion you wish. No-one has exclusive rights to the absolute truth, but we all have the right to an opinion, and exchanging opinions form a discussion. Childish, petty put-downs don't make for a discussion. They're sometimes entertaining but their main purpose is to disrupt and prevent reasonable discussion.

Your claims of no damage in certain areas are true. Sponsors haven't walked away, and races haven't been cancelled as a direct result. But that does not mean everything in the garden is rosy. Far from it. This discussion would not exist if it was, and there are many good reasons why the thread title is appropriate.

Max Mosley, in damaging his own reputation (which you acknowledge he has done), has damaged the organisation and sport he represents simply because Max = F1 in the eyes of many. Once the story was made public Max's private life became very much a part of his public life. Those two parts of his life were very different matters, but they are not any more.

Perhaps the few (I refer to the thread poll) who think Max should stay do so because they object to the idea that a rag like the NOTW should invade someone's private life, and in doing so affect their public life as a result. That is an entirely different debate.

[Bagwan]

So you say, but that's irrelevant. The reason I don't claim that that makes your argument immeasurably weaker than mine is because I'm happy for you to hold whatever opinion you wish. No-one has exclusive rights to the absolute truth, but we all have the right to an opinion, and exchanging opinions form a discussion. Childish, petty put-downs don't make for a discussion. They're sometimes entertaining but their main purpose is to disrupt and prevent reasonable discussion.

Your claims of no damage in certain areas are true. Sponsors haven't walked away, and races haven't been cancelled as a direct result. But that does not mean everything in the garden is rosy. Far from it. This discussion would not exist if it was, and there are many good reasons why the thread title is appropriate.

Max Mosley, in damaging his own reputation (which you acknowledge he has done), has damaged the organisation and sport he represents simply because Max = F1 in the eyes of many. Once the story was made public Max's private life became very much a part of his public life. Those two parts of his life were very different matters, but they are not any more.

Perhaps the few (I refer to the thread poll) who think Max should stay do so because they object to the idea that a rag like the NOTW should invade someone's private life, and in doing so affect their public life as a result. That is an entirely different debate.

It is and it isn't .

In the end , it's about which aspect trumps the other .

Are the wierd Chelsea apartment transgressions more vile than the thought of someone catching something else on film ?
Is a dominatrix worse than a peeping Tom or a stinger ?
Is getting rid of Max worth condoning the invasion of his privacy ?


$300,000 is enough to hire a detective or perhaps a herd of them to find the creepy , seemy underbelly of the "elite" .
So , who's up for ousting Max , then ?

Back to business ; nothing to see here ; move along .

Childish, petty put-downs don't make for a discussion.

Best tell your buddy that....


ioan. I really wish you would engage brain before hitting "submit reply".


Primary school arguements don't cut it.

As for the notion that Mosley = F1 in the eyes of 'many'....well, if you want to judge only by the lowest common denominator of those with a sub-normal low IQ who can't see the wood for the trees, feel free, but once again it doesn't improve your argument.

The 'many' of which you speak is a totally unqualified statement. Please show proof that there are 'many' who have expressed this notion. The correct wording should have been 'some', but once again the detailed facts are something that you don't like to use.

Only ADAC have taken anything remotely like an action in relation to the workings of the FIA. For all the bluster, no other organisation has taken anyaction. Therefore, there has been no noticeable damage.

You seem to think that some embarassing headlines equate to damage. As is continually high-lighted to you, this is palpably not the case.

[markabilly]

Perhaps the few (I refer to the thread poll) who think Max should stay do so because they object to the idea that a rag like the NOTW should invade someone's private life, and in doing so affect their public life as a result. That is an entirely different debate.

And I could understand why many would feel that way, as I had a big discomfort with that smelly mess known as the NOTW.......but then max files suit and then gives his bizzare version of his view of his behavior---"I fundamentally disagree that any of this is depraved," (okay, so cheating on your family for years, getting off and on having one's butt spanked, humiliatied, and so forth is erotic but not depraved but dressing up as a nazi is "unerotic"?) and his lawyer says "Most people think spanking, whipping, role play and bondage is harmless and even funny," and as to the people who I would guess (since they have said nothing), his family who are not into humiliation as a form of sexual turn-on (i guess), all max can say on the witness stand is
"do nothing except suffer the consequences for something they have no responsibility for"

Now it sems certain fans of Ferrari seem duty bound to defend Max, and dismiss Max's behavior---especially his very public behavior in his actions in taking the stand and saying what he and his whores have said....this court case behavior strikes me as far more damaging to the sport and to him, then some mere photos with max being caught with his pants down---

If max has no problem being a clear liar and cheater to his family (and he could not have done it for this long without being an outright liar), and when caught, that is all he can say that..........then everyone involved in motorsports should know such a man has no honor, and if he would steal from his family, then he would steal even more willingly from business associates and would lie without hesitancy.





Only ADAC have taken anything remotely like an action in relation to the workings of the FIA. For all the bluster, no other organisation has taken anyaction. Therefore, there has been no noticeable damage.

You seem to think that some embarassing headlines equate to damage. As is continually high-lighted to you, this is palpably not the case.

If not before, then it certainly should be now.

The fact that it appears to not be the case, after Max takes it upon himself to sprew along with his paid prostitutes, in open court, says something very arrogant and unpleasant about the sport, FIA and all the rest. :down:



OTOH, If Max loses his job at the FIA, he could always pimp for a living: He also has an ‘interest' in "events shows" organized by Woman A near Euston, where, as my Telegraph colleague described it "up to 30 men pay around £200 to have sex with ten women in a stage-like setting."
Woman A said: "We describe it as like going to the theatre." Then letting loose a detail that I believe could be fatal for Max she added that Mr Mosley had a financial stake in the events and would telephone her three days beforehand to ask "how are the finances looking?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/kevin_garside/blog/2008/07/09/max_mosley_and_the_euston_40

[ArrowsFA1]

You seem to think that some embarassing headlines equate to damage. As is continually high-lighted to you, this is palpably not the case.
So the coverage enhances the respect and admiration for the FIA President, the FIA and for F1 does it? It portrays the sport and all the associated sponsors and manufacturers in a good light? It is good for the sport?

So the coverage enhances the respect and admiration for the FIA President, the FIA and for F1 does it? It portrays the sport and all the associated sponsors and manufacturers in a good light? It is good for the sport?

And where have I said that it has enhanced anything? Where have I claimed it is good for the sport?

I have merely claimed that the sport is undamaged. Not once have I claimed that the sport is enhanced.

It was you who made the claim that the sport had been affected.

I see we are back to your usual tactic....when your original argument is systematically destroyed by your opponent, you just invent another argument. Typical.

Perhaps, like Mclaren, you would be best accepting the case is lost and that you would do best to settle out of court?

[ArrowsFA1]

And where have I said that it has enhanced anything? Where have I claimed it is good for the sport?
Nowhere. I was just asking the questions as part of a discussion.

I see we are back to your usual tactic....when your original argument is systematically destroyed by your opponent, you just invent another argument. Typical.
Not at all. My questions were in direct response to your opinion, which I disagree with, that it "is palpably not the case" that "embarassing headlines equate to damage". If those headlines are not damaging then what are they?

Nowhere. I was just asking the questions as part of a discussion.

Not at all. My questions were in direct response to your opinion, which I disagree with, that it "is palpably not the case" that "embarassing headlines equate to damage". If those headlines are not damaging then what are they?

They are merely embarassing....to one person.

There have been no reports confirming that F1 has been damaged by the actions of one man in his private life....no headlines stating that there is proof that any damage has been done.

Therefore, it is plain that no damage to the sport has been done.

In fact....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/11072008/23/nazi-claim-dropped-max-mosley-sex-case.html

It now appears that the News Of The World has back-tracked on it's Nazi claim.

So it's just about a bloke and some prostitutes.

Which means it's nothing more than the embarrasing details of one mans sex life.... The thing that upset ADAC, BMW, Mercedes & Toyota turns out to have no basis.

[Knock-on]

They are merely embarassing....to one person.


Actually, if Max defended himself, you would have an arguement.

But, Max is representing the FIA in this matter as they are paying for the defence and therefore are directly associated in the case.

You cannot distance the FIA from this if they are bankrolling him.

[ArrowsFA1]

They are merely embarassing....to one person.
Perhaps had Max fought this case as a private citizen that may have an element of truth, but even then he has already acknowledged the embarassment caused to his family.

As the FIA President Max does not exist in a bubble. He is a public figure and he has accepted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece) that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.

Actually, if Max defended himself, you would have an arguement.

But, Max is representing the FIA in this matter as they are paying for the defence and therefore are directly associated in the case.

You cannot distance the FIA from this if they are bankrolling him.


Perhaps had Max fought this case as a private citizen that may have an element of truth, but even then he has already acknowledged the embarassment caused to his family.

As the FIA President Max does not exist in a bubble. He is a public figure and he has accepted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece) that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.

You see, this is where both your (repeated) lack of knowledge of the legal system exhibits itself.

The FIA is not named as a party in court. They are not named as a claimant. It is therefore a case of a private individual seeking damages.

Besides which, where is the evidence that the FIA are paying for his legal costs?

They are not mentioned here -

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66360

Not here -

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68785

Nor here -

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=133783&d=415&h=417&f=416

Not here -

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43292

Not here -

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4017&Itemid=219

Not here -

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35271

Not here -

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/07/sports/OUKSP-UK-BRITAIN-MOSLEY.php

In fact, the only mention of the FIA is this one -

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05042008/23/mosley-seeking-unlimited-damages.html

Which is merely the report that the FIA have confirmed that 'Mr Mosley' is seeking damages. It makes no reference to the FIA being involved in the legal action.

Legally, the definition of 'Mr ------' seeking damages is that a private individual is seeking damages, not the corporation or organisation he works for. If that were the case, it would be called "The FIA vs The News of the World" in the court papers.

It isn't called "The FIA vs The News of the World"

Plenty of reference to his position as head of the FIA is made in the reports of the court case, but no mention whatsoever that the FIA is involved in this court action.

I suspect you have got the initial legal action, now dropped, by the FIA against the Sunday Times mixed up with this case.

[Knock-on]

You see, this is where both your (repeated) lack of knowledge of the legal system exhibits itself.

The FIA is not named as a party in court. They are not named as a claimant. It is therefore a case of a private individual seeking damages.

Besides which, where is the evidence that the FIA are paying for his legal costs?

They are not mentioned here -

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66360

Not here -

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68785

Nor here -

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=133783&d=415&h=417&f=416

Not here -

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43292

Not here -

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4017&Itemid=219

Not here -

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35271

Not here -

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/07/sports/OUKSP-UK-BRITAIN-MOSLEY.php

In fact, the only mention of the FIA is this one -

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05042008/23/mosley-seeking-unlimited-damages.html

Which is merely the report that the FIA have confirmed that 'Mr Mosley' is seeking damages. It makes no reference to the FIA being involved in the legal action.

Legally, the definition of 'Mr ------' seeking damages is that a private individual is seeking damages, not the corporation or organisation he works for. If that were the case, it would be called "The FIA vs The News of the World" in the court papers.

It isn't called "The FIA vs The News of the World"

Plenty of reference to his position as head of the FIA is made in the reports of the court case, but no mention whatsoever that the FIA is involved in this court action.

I suspect you have got the initial legal action, now dropped, by the FIA against the Sunday Times mixed up with this case.


So, what if the FIA are paying for Max's costs? Would that make a difference to your stance or can you not see the hypocrisy of Max bringing a private prosecution but financing it from the FIA coffers?

See, this is the problem. Max and the FIA are so intricately linked that the reputation of the FIA seems to be Max's reputation.

So, before I dig up any evidence, what would your stance be if the FIA are bankrolling Max's defence?

So, before I dig up any evidence, what would your stance be if the FIA are bankrolling Max's defence?

Dig up the evidence first, otherwise it is merely hypothetical.

So, what if the FIA are paying for Max's costs? Would that make a difference to your stance or can you not see the hypocrisy of Max bringing a private prosecution but financing it from the FIA coffers?

See, this is the problem. Max and the FIA are so intricately linked that the reputation of the FIA seems to be Max's reputation.



They are intricately linked in your head.

Others with less of an axe to grind can see the difference between Max Mosley the private individual & Max Mosley in his role of FIA president.

I await your evidence that his case is being financed by the FIA.

I hope your evidence is going to be better than your fellow mud-slingers at the News of the World.

[Tazio]

Blimey. Those of us who have been following the Max Mosley case have been saying blimey rather a lot lately. It isn't so much the details about the canings, strangely fascinating though they are. (Apparently the conscientious sado-masochist sets him or herself a target of 12 strokes and tries to reach it, and, afterwards, he or she likes to put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea.) No, it's the sang-froid.

The paper claims its sting operation, in which it clandestinely filmed him being caned, was in the public interest. He argues that it wasn't, and one can see his point. He's not a government minister or a moral He's not a government minister or a moral crusader

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/13/do1307.xml


Lets start the discussion here here

The News of the World has got more than it bargained for with Max Mosley. Its lawyer has been mopping his brow in court, that and sitting with his head in his hands.

What's going on, the paper's executives must be thinking. Aren't important men involved in sex scandals supposed to cower in shame?

What they haven't allowed for is that Mosley is an aristocrat. His father is routinely described in the press as the leader of the Blackshirts in the 1930s but he was also a war hero (having served with the Royal Flying Corps), an Olympic fencer and a baronet. Indeed, such was the blueness of Sir Oswald Mosley's blood, when he married the daughter of Lord Curzon in 1920, King George V and Queen Mary were among the guests

I suspect many on this forum fit this discription :p :

"Perhaps the News of the World does know that Max Mosley is "a toff", and that is why they are going after him. If in doubt, pander to the prejudices of your working-class readers.

I think this is a good characterization of motorsport fan base :D

It may be a social stereotype but the lower classes have traditionally been much more embarrassed about nudity, bodily functions and sex than the upper classes. Aristocrats thought it vulgar and bourgeois to care about such things, and probably still do. A wife was expected to produce an heir and a spare, then to take a lover, if she so chose, while the husband kept a mistress.

Here's the real world!

I suspect the News of the World has misjudged the mood of the nation. Most of us are mildly libertarian these days and it takes a lot to scandalise us. Even the Conservative Party seems to recognise that consenting adults can get their jollies any way they please, so long as no one gets (seriously) hurt.

Curiously, our newfound tolerance toward the sexual peccadilloes of others seems to coincide with a rise of intolerance towards them by Islamic fundamentalists. Islamists would rather see a woman stoned to death than allow her to get away with adultery.

This is what the "Sensible Seven" on this forum have been trying to get across to the self rigtious here

Sexual tolerance, even about the stuff that makes you say blimey, is something Western liberal democracies should be out there defending.

To the barricades.
Praise Max and pass the aloe vera.

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA is not named as a party in court. They are not named as a claimant. It is therefore a case of a private individual seeking damages.
Technically your legal opinion may very well have some merit. The everyday reality is very different.

Why did Max take the NOTW to court in France? Simply because (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) the headquarters of the FIA is in France. Why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

Why would the FIA appoint (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67166) its own barrister, no doubt incurring costs to the FIA, if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

[MAX_THRUST]

What is he trying to do??????

Headlines like HAnky SPanky, on the BBC website......Oh this must be great for the FIA, no wonder no one wants to work with him any more.

Could he actually destroy the FIA as he looses more and more control of his sanity.

[Knock-on]

They are intricately linked in your head.

Others with less of an axe to grind can see the difference between Max Mosley the private individual & Max Mosley in his role of FIA president.

I await your evidence that his case is being financed by the FIA.

I hope your evidence is going to be better than your fellow mud-slingers at the News of the World.

I think that Arrows has answered your request for me.

:D

[Knock-on]

What is he trying to do??????

Headlines like HAnky SPanky, on the BBC website......Oh this must be great for the FIA, no wonder no one wants to work with him any more.

Could he actually destroy the FIA as he looses more and more control of his sanity.

I think there may well be a danger that the credibility of the FIA may not recover from this.

Lets just confirm things for the likes of Tamburello that fail to be objective and look at the bigger picture.

I don't really give a Monkeys what Max gets up to in his private life. It's private and as I have said before on this forum, it was an invasion of his privacy and he will probably win his court case.

When this blew up, he should of announced that he was standing down to clear his name, appointed someone to deputise for him and launched a private prosocution to skin the NotW alive.

He would have cleared his name, the FIA wouldn't have been dragged through the mire, the publicity would have evaporated much quicker, there would have been no FIA vote, the largest Automobile Associations would not have had their noses pushed out of joint, he would not have been persona non gratis around the world and he could have stepped back into the driving seat with the FIA.

Instead, we know what has happened.

[Dave B]

Even Channel 4's 8 Out Of 10 Cats spent a few minutes mocking Mosley and F1 in general this week, a programme which normally ignores anything not directly related to celebrities or Big Brother. It's got comparatively poor viewing figures but it does nothing to help the image of the FIA or the sport in general.

[BDunnell]

As the FIA President Max does not exist in a bubble. He is a public figure and he has accepted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece) that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.

But he has never been a role model to anyone, is not guilty of hypocrisy in this instance, and there should be no reason why public figures should have to subscribe to a higher moral code than you or I. In any case, what are the norms of behaviour to which we should all subscribe?

[ioan]

Why did Max take the NOTW to court in France? Simply because (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) the headquarters of the FIA is in France. Why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

Or maybe because he has the right to take them to court in any EU country he wants?!
Or is it because the French court are not as permissive as the UK ones in such cases?!

And I think there are many other reasons having more to do with the legal systemm than with the FIA.

However as long as the case isn't called the "FIA against NOTW" it is all about Max Mosley and no one else being involved in it.

[SGWilko]

Even Channel 4's 8 Out Of 10 Cats spent a few minutes mocking Mosley and F1 in general this week, a programme which normally ignores anything not directly related to celebrities or Big Brother. It's got comparatively poor viewing figures but it does nothing to help the image of the FIA or the sport in general.

The BBC are in on the act now - Fiona Bruce smacked Clarksons Harris on Top Gear (SIARPC) and he said he felt like Max Mosely!!! ;)

[BDunnell]

However as long as the case isn't called the "FIA against NOTW" it is all about Max Mosley and no one else being involved in it.

I agree. Most people won't make the association. If the FIA is stumping up any of his legal funds, it's wrong and it shouldn't happen. But I have seen no evidence that it is.

[ioan]

Even Channel 4's 8 Out Of 10 Cats spent a few minutes mocking Mosley and F1 in general this week, a programme which normally ignores anything not directly related to celebrities or Big Brother. It's got comparatively poor viewing figures but it does nothing to help the image of the FIA or the sport in general.

:rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

I don't really give a Monkeys what Max gets up to in his private life. It's private and as I have said before on this forum, it was an invasion of his privacy and he will probably win his court case.
And rightly so :up:

But he has never been a role model to anyone, is not guilty of hypocrisy in this instance, and there should be no reason why public figures should have to subscribe to a higher moral code than you or I.
Max Mosley has accepted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece) that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. That's Max saying that, not anyone on this forum.

And I think there are many other reasons having more to do with the legal system than with the FIA.
Perhaps, but the one his lawyer gave was that FIA headquarters are in Paris so, again, why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

[BDunnell]

Max Mosley has accepted (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece) that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. That's Max saying that, not anyone on this forum.

But presumably it would be no problem had it not been splashed all over the newspapers. I still maintain that he, like you or I, has a right to a private life and that it matters not a jot what he gets up to in that private life so long as it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. There is no evidence of this being the case. I think he should go for a whole lot of other reasons, but not this one.

By the way, regarding the issue of press freedoms that the Mosley case raises, I found it rather ironic that yesterday's Daily Mail was so critical of the Government proposals to keep records of everyone's telephone and internet use, given that the same newspaper has been a regular and highly illegal user of confidential information obtained from corrupt sources - for example, the telephone records of famous people. If it's hypocrisy you're after, don't bother with Max Mosley - look no further than Fleet Street.

[MAX_THRUST]

I like to think I am impartial and look at the bigger picture, but not mentioning any names (IOAN), seem incredibly blinkered to this whole affair.

It has become irrelavent, if this is an invasion of Max's private life or not. It maybe relevant to him and Ioan, but the rest of us can see the damge this is causing.

He should have stood down weeks ago. I can think of three tv shows in one week that have referred to the scandal. 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week, and Top Gear.

I understand logic, and logical arguments, but sometimes people just don't make any sense.......

[BDunnell]

I like to think I am impartial and look at the bigger picture, but not mentioning any names (IOAN), seem incredibly blinkered to this whole affair.

It has become irrelavent, if this is an invasion of Max's private life or not. It maybe relevant to him and Ioan, but the rest of us can see the damge this is causing.

He should have stood down weeks ago. I can think of three tv shows in one week that have referred to the scandal. 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week, and Top Gear.

I understand logic, and logical arguments, but sometimes people just don't make any sense.......

I think it makes a lot of sense to say that his private life should be his own, but that the whole affair is causing much damage, even if it ought not to because his own private predelictions should not have become public knowledge.

[Knock-on]

I think it makes a lot of sense to say that his private life should be his own, but that the whole affair is causing much damage, even if it ought not to because his own private predelictions should not have become public knowledge.


And this is the crux of the matter.

But some just cannot see the damage this whole thing is doing to the FIA and by association, F1.

BTW, is MAX_THRUST a new S&M position :D

[BDunnell]

BTW, is MAX_THRUST a new S&M position :D

:laugh:

[Tazio]

BTW, is MAX_THRUST a new S&M position :D
No! It's a standard one for any depraved sexual interlude!

[Tazio]

And this is the crux of the matter.

But some just cannot see the damage this whole thing is doing to the FIA and by association, F1.
But those with narrow views of life, and fertile imaginations can! :p :

[SGWilko]

But those with narrow views of life, and fertile imaginations can! :p :

So, a government minister gets caught having/giving a toe job and has to resign, but Max, doing his 'thang' does not?

I guess ole Slick Willy set the precedent.....

Max was so put out by lies of one team in F1, but Max has effectively been doing just that to his own family.

Doesn't own a canoe does he, and live near Seton Carew? ;)

[ioan]

I like to think I am impartial and look at the bigger picture, but not mentioning any names (IOAN), seem incredibly blinkered to this whole affair.

It has become irrelavent, if this is an invasion of Max's private life or not. It maybe relevant to him and Ioan, but the rest of us can see the damge this is causing.

He should have stood down weeks ago. I can think of three tv shows in one week that have referred to the scandal. 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week, and Top Gear.

I understand logic, and logical arguments, but sometimes people just don't make any sense.......

:rolleyes:

[ioan]

BTW, is MAX_THRUST a new S&M position :D

:rotflmao:

[Tazio]

So, a government minister gets caught having/giving a toe job and has to resign, but Max, doing his 'thang' does not?

I guess ole Slick Willy set the precedent.....

Max was so put out by lies of one team in F1, but Max has effectively been doing just that to his own family.

Doesn't own a canoe does he, and live near Seton Carew? ;)

I'm not familiar with your reference! (Nor do I have the time to google it)
But the world is evolving, as are it's social tolerances.

In other words most forward thinking people don't give a $h!t. about what he does on his spare time.

At worst this is a family issue!
Max had the Backbone to trash this trash!
I look on with great excitement to the day of the
disposition of this case,
and Max's triumphant return. ;)

Peace. Out!

[Knock-on]

I'm not familiar with your reference! (Nor do I have the time to google it)
But the world is evolving, as are it's social tolerances.

In other words most forward thinking people don't give a $h!t. about what he does on his spare time.

At worst this is a family issue!
Max had the Backbone to trash this trash!
I look on with great excitement to the day of the
disposition of this case,
and Max's triumphant return. ;)

Peace. Out!

I really couldn't care what he gets up to with a few Prostitutes or that his long suffering wife and family have been lied to. That's a matter for them.

I find it funny that the people personally attacking Ron and McLaren for being McLiars are the ones saying that lying to ones family is fine when it suits them :D

What I do care about is that F1 is being dragged through the mire by association and that the FIA has been corrupted to be Max's little Army.

[ArrowsFA1]

But presumably it would be no problem had it not been splashed all over the newspapers.
Very true. By all accounts Max has been enjoying his private life for decades with not one mention of it in public.

[ioan]

I really couldn't care what he gets up to with a few Prostitutes or that his long suffering wife and family have been lied to. That's a matter for them.

I find it funny that the people personally attacking Ron and McLaren for being McLiars are the ones saying that lying to ones family is fine when it suits them :D

What I do care about is that F1 is being dragged through the mire by association and that the FIA has been corrupted to be Max's little Army.

I find it funny how some people doesn't care that Ron and the McLiars were lying to the whole world including us F1 fans, but they are up in arms because someone might have been lying to his own family (what if Ms. Mosley knew about Max's affairs?)!

[BDunnell]

I find it funny how some people doesn't care that Ron and the McLiars were lying to the whole world including us F1 fans, but they are up in arms because someone might have been lying to his own family (what if Ms. Mosley knew about Max's affairs?)!

This is the one thing I don't understand about your opinion on this issue. Why do you think cheating at sport is a worse offence than cheating on your wife? After all, you are outraged by one and not the other.

[Knock-on]

This is the one thing I don't understand about your opinion on this issue. Why do you think cheating at sport is a worse offence than cheating on your wife? After all, you are outraged by one and not the other.

You have to see the irony of it :laugh:

I think that both are wrong but that's obviously because I love McLaren and hate Max ;) Had I supported Max and hated McLiars, then I would have to have a hypocrisy gland fitted :D

I await your evidence that his case is being financed by the FIA.

I hope your evidence is going to be better than your fellow mud-slingers at the News of the World.


Technically your legal opinion may very well have some merit. The everyday reality is very different.

Why did Max take the NOTW to court in France? Simply because (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) the headquarters of the FIA is in France. Why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

Why would the FIA appoint (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67166) its own barrister, no doubt incurring costs to the FIA, if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?


I think that Arrows has answered your request for me.

He hasn't answered it at all.

I still await your evidence. It appears that you have none to back up your claim, which currently makes your argument invalid.

Just for the record, this is why Max took action in France......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-opinion-max-mosley-goes-forum-shopping-in-paris-839562.html

"In his war over lurid press stories about his sex life, Max Mosley, president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), has sued the News of the World in France (for defamation and invasion of privacy) as well as in England (for breach of privacy). It is not the first time media litigants have opened up a second front in France.

Shrewd use of the differences between French and English law can give a decisive advantage. I was acting for defendants recently who were sued for libel in London by a US resident. The English court can order foreign claimants to pay money into court in London as security for the defendant's costs, but will usually not do so if the claimant has property in Europe. Our claimant gave a property he owned in France as his official address in the litigation.

Recalling that French courts are more willing to place charges over property, we tried an unprecedented strategy – my legal confederate, the Rennes advocate Dominique de Fremond, obtained a judicial mortgage over the claimant's French house, guaranteeing their potential costs claim if the claimant lost his London libel action. The claimant launched an appeal which was never heard, because this and other tactical pressure forced him to abandon his action, and my clients got their costs back.

The Barclay brothers (owners of the Telegraph group) sued for libel in France over an article in The Times. The case was settled, but in preliminary hearings in Paris a judge ruled that the French courts did have the jurisdiction to deal with the action.

So is Mr Mosley wise to sue for libel in France? French libel law looks more draconian: libel is a crime. But there is no prison sanction, the maximum fine is just 12,000 euros (£9,400), damages are lower than here and there is far more limited provision for the winner to reclaim his costs (although costs are likely to be a lot lower). And the Barclays' French libel action took more than two years to resolve (longer than an English libel action). The only plus point is that (unlike here) the court can order a paper to publish a correction.

It is open to doubt whether that advantage makes Mr Mosley's French libel action a good idea. The privacy side of his French action is a different matter. The criminal penalties are tougher: a possible year in prison and €45,000 (£35,400) fine. And the French law of privacy is stricter and more efficient than in England. Only a week or so ago, the French actor Olivier Martinez won a privacy complaint in Paris against the websites of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mirror – the French court accepted jurisdiction because the websites were naturally accessible in France.

The News of the World website is likely to be central to the Mosley case, especially the undercover video which leaves little room for doubt as to what he was up to. Mr Mosley failed to get an injunction in England stopping the video – and also failed in France (oddly, given the Martinez decision referred to above). But the French court did grant him an injunction over print copies of the paper, because there was self-evident "violation of the intimacy of his private life".

Mr Mosley will almost certainly get a swifter trial of his privacy complaint in Paris than in London. He stands a greater chance of it being in his favour than in London. Whether his strategy will pay off in this remarkable case only time and possibly a judge or two in Paris will tell.

Nick Armstrong is a media partner at the solicitors Charles Russell LLP"

Funny how there is no mention of the FIA headquarters being in Paris.

Funny how it is stated from a legal professional all the reasons why Mosley might take action in the French courts.

Funny how it destroys Arrows pathetic attempt at evidence!!!!!!

Talking of which, it is truly pathetic to try to claim that a barrister appointed by the FIA to provide a report to the FIA to be available for it's own delegates to read prior to the Extraordinary General Meeting in June is significant to the court action in London.

It is absolutely right of the FIA to get legal guidance prior to making any decision.

There is absolutely no evidence that the work of Anthony Scrivener QC is being used in Mosley's trial. Absolutely none.

To quote the FIA press release that is shown in Arrows link....


"Mr Scrivener QC will provide an opinion on whether the available evidence supports the use by the News of the World of this description. Should the FIA Extraordinary General Assembly so decide, this opinion will be available to the member clubs of the FIA on 3 June."

The hearing of the FIA on the 3rd of June is not the same as the Court case started in London in July.

It is thoroughly dishonest and misleading to try and link the two with regards to the FIA providing payment for Mosley's current legal action.

For somebody supposedly criticising Mosley for his lack of credibility, it is hypocritical.



I find it funny that the people personally attacking Ron and McLaren for being McLiars are the ones saying that lying to ones family is fine when it suits them

Please show me where I have said that 'lying to ones family is fine'?

I have never stated such an opinion.

And show us the evidence that the FIA is paying for Mosley's London court action.

Or at least be the decent person you make claim to and admit that you cannot.

Why did Max take the NOTW to court in France? Simply because (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67802) the headquarters of the FIA is in France. Why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?

If you really cannot understand why a private individual would seek legal action in the country where he is has his professional base, then you really are out of your depth.

Either that or deliberately trying to mislead.

To quote the lawyer in the article you linked to...

"In this case, the newspaper has plumbed the depths with a strategy of extremely violent and targeted attack. There is a characteristic desire to cause harm. The intention is clear: destroy Max Mosley as President of the FIA, the headquarters of which is in Paris."

Can you really not understand why a private individual, one who believes that there has been a plan to destroy him professionally, would wish for a court action to proceed in the country where he has his profession so he could clear his name?

So, since you have neither provided any worthwhile or indeed less than awful 'evidence' (although to be fair to the word 'evidence', nonsensical, ill-informed and verging on the moronic drivel would be a much more apt description of your links) I will again ask you to show the evidence that the FIA is linked to this legal action through anything more than them being mentioned as the organisation that Mosley works for?

I put it to you that you cannot, for the simple reason that it is not true.

I put it to you that you know that, but continued to misdirect, mislead and misquote in a deliberate attempt to bluff your way through an argument.

So, show us real evidence or admit that you are wrong. Don't try and hide away like you did after the Mclaren admission of their guilt, since that did your credibility no favours.

[ioan]

This is the one thing I don't understand about your opinion on this issue. Why do you think cheating at sport is a worse offence than cheating on your wife? After all, you are outraged by one and not the other.

Cheating in the sport and lying to the FIA, the media and the fans (like you and me) is a disregard to us as people who love the sport.

Cheating and lying to one's partner is a disregard to her/his partner and not to me.

In the first case I feel offended because my support to this sport in the second case it is not my business, it's they private problem.

I hope this makes things clear about my POV on these matters.

[ioan]

Just for the record, this is why Max took action in France......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-opinion-max-mosley-goes-forum-shopping-in-paris-839562.html

"In his war over lurid press stories about his sex life, Max Mosley, president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), has sued the News of the World in France (for defamation and invasion of privacy) as well as in England (for breach of privacy). It is not the first time media litigants have opened up a second front in France.

Shrewd use of the differences between French and English law can give a decisive advantage. I was acting for defendants recently who were sued for libel in London by a US resident. The English court can order foreign claimants to pay money into court in London as security for the defendant's costs, but will usually not do so if the claimant has property in Europe. Our claimant gave a property he owned in France as his official address in the litigation.

Recalling that French courts are more willing to place charges over property, we tried an unprecedented strategy – my legal confederate, the Rennes advocate Dominique de Fremond, obtained a judicial mortgage over the claimant's French house, guaranteeing their potential costs claim if the claimant lost his London libel action. The claimant launched an appeal which was never heard, because this and other tactical pressure forced him to abandon his action, and my clients got their costs back.

The Barclay brothers (owners of the Telegraph group) sued for libel in France over an article in The Times. The case was settled, but in preliminary hearings in Paris a judge ruled that the French courts did have the jurisdiction to deal with the action.

So is Mr Mosley wise to sue for libel in France? French libel law looks more draconian: libel is a crime. But there is no prison sanction, the maximum fine is just 12,000 euros (£9,400), damages are lower than here and there is far more limited provision for the winner to reclaim his costs (although costs are likely to be a lot lower). And the Barclays' French libel action took more than two years to resolve (longer than an English libel action). The only plus point is that (unlike here) the court can order a paper to publish a correction.

It is open to doubt whether that advantage makes Mr Mosley's French libel action a good idea. The privacy side of his French action is a different matter. The criminal penalties are tougher: a possible year in prison and €45,000 (£35,400) fine. And the French law of privacy is stricter and more efficient than in England. Only a week or so ago, the French actor Olivier Martinez won a privacy complaint in Paris against the websites of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mirror – the French court accepted jurisdiction because the websites were naturally accessible in France.

The News of the World website is likely to be central to the Mosley case, especially the undercover video which leaves little room for doubt as to what he was up to. Mr Mosley failed to get an injunction in England stopping the video – and also failed in France (oddly, given the Martinez decision referred to above). But the French court did grant him an injunction over print copies of the paper, because there was self-evident "violation of the intimacy of his private life".

Mr Mosley will almost certainly get a swifter trial of his privacy complaint in Paris than in London. He stands a greater chance of it being in his favour than in London. Whether his strategy will pay off in this remarkable case only time and possibly a judge or two in Paris will tell.

Nick Armstrong is a media partner at the solicitors Charles Russell LLP"

Thanks for clearing this up once and forever. :up:

[BDunnell]

Cheating in the sport and lying to the FIA, the media and the fans (like you and me) is a disregard to us as people who love the sport.

Cheating and lying to one's partner is a disregard to her/his partner and not to me.

In the first case I feel offended because my support to this sport in the second case it is not my business, it's they private problem.

I hope this makes things clear about my POV on these matters.

To some extent.

If your wife was a professional sportsperson and was found cheating, but had been entirely faithful and loving to you, would you chuck her out?

[Tazio]

I really couldn't care what he gets up to with a few Prostitutes or that his long suffering wife and family have been lied to. That's a matter for them.OK!


I find it funny that the people personally attacking Ron and McLaren for being McLiars are the ones saying that lying to ones family is fine when it suits them :D . Why are you quoting me when you make such a statement! I've never attacked Ron's personal life! I don't believe I've used the term Mcliars either!


What I do care about is that F1 is being dragged through the mire by association and that the FIA has been corrupted to be Max's little Army.That is a perception. It is not an empiracal fact!
Max winning a civil case for invasion of privacy will be an empiracal statement
in a very short period of time. As of now it is an opinnion. My opinnnion.
If you have a problem with IOAN's comments, quote him please!

[ioan]

To some extent.

If your wife was a professional sportsperson and was found cheating, but had been entirely faithful and loving to you, would you chuck her out?

If she didn't lie to me about her cheating during the sports tournament then I wouldn't. ;)
After all this is what we are talking about, who was lying to whom.

And BTW who said Ms. Mosley didn't knew about her husbands sexual escapades?!

[BDunnell]

And BTW who said Ms. Mosley didn't knew about her husbands sexual escapades?!

Max.

[ioan]

Max.

OK, I didn't knew about these details.

[ArrowsFA1]

Funny how there is no mention of the FIA headquarters being in Paris.
I'm sure you could find dozens of articles that make no mention of that, and yet when announcing that Max Mosley was taking legal action in France his lawyer made clear it was a factor.

I still await your evidence. It appears that you have none to back up your claim, which currently makes your argument invalid.
In your opinion.

Funny how it destroys Arrows pathetic attempt at evidence!!!!!!
The only thing being destroyed by that kind of comment is discussion.

Talking of which, it is truly pathetic to try to claim that a barrister appointed by the FIA to provide a report to the FIA to be available for it's own delegates to read prior to the Extraordinary General Meeting in June is significant to the court action in London.
Entirely misleading. The point was not that that fact "is significant to the court action in London". It is that it raises legitimate questions about this being a purely private case that affects no-one but Max Mosley as you claim.

Can you really not understand why a private individual, one who believes that there has been a plan to destroy him professionally, would wish for a court action to proceed in the country where he has his profession so he could clear his name?
That does not square with your opinion that there has been no damage to the FIA, and that this is simply a case of a private individual seeking damages.

So, since you have neither provided any worthwhile or indeed less than awful 'evidence' (although to be fair to the word 'evidence', nonsensical, ill-informed and verging on the moronic drivel would be a much more apt description of your links)...
:laugh: :laugh:

I will again ask you to show the evidence that the FIA is linked to this legal action through anything more than them being mentioned as the organisation that Mosley works for?
So if we are to remove all mention of the FIA it can be proved that the FIA are not involved. That's a very strong argument you have there.

I put it to you that you know that, but continued to misdirect, mislead and misquote in a deliberate attempt to bluff your way through an argument.
So you say.

So, show us real evidence or admit that you are wrong. Don't try and hide away like you did after the Mclaren admission of their guilt, since that did your credibility no favours.
So you say.

[MAX_THRUST]

So if Michael Schumacher had been caught doing this it wouldn't have mattered?????

One of the Shecter boys got caught, with a lady of the night, and lost his ride and killed his career by all accounts.

Max wants to be this big public figure then he has to deal with the fact his private life will start to disapear. He opend the can of worms, but the worms had teeth and bit him on his back side.

Max_Thrust refers to something else. Sadly no its not an S&M term as funny as that would be. Its a name that has been floating around for years. I have always used whilst remaing a private individual.

[ioan]

So if Michael Schumacher had been caught doing this it wouldn't have mattered?????

Bill Clinton was caught, did this have a negative impact on the whole US?!
Don't think so! Why is that? Because people around the World doesn't have such a tight vision like those on this forum.

[Knock-on]

OK!

Agreed


Why are you quoting me when you make such a statement! I've never attacked Ron's personal life! I don't believe I've used the term Mcliars either!

I apologise. I was not talking about you but about ioan and a couple of others. I should have said that "some" people but made a mistake. Sorry :)


That is a perception. It is not an empiracal fact!
Max winning a civil case for invasion of privacy will be an empiracal statement
in a very short period of time. As of now it is an opinnion. My opinnnion.
If you have a problem with IOAN's comments, quote him please!

It is my opinion that it has been dragged through the mire. It is also the perception that this has damaged F1 and the FIA backed up by public statements from leading figures that we all know about.

Even if Max wins, as he probably should, the reputation of the FIA will have been affected by this and the ongoing ramifications are yet to be realised.

[Tazio]

Agreed



I apologise. I was not talking about you but about ioan and a couple of others. I should have said that "some" people but made a mistake. Sorry :)



It is my opinion that it has been dragged through the mire. It is also the perception that this has damaged F1 and the FIA backed up by public statements from leading figures that we all know about.

Even if Max wins, as he probably should, the reputation of the FIA will have been affected by this and the ongoing ramifications are yet to be realised.First of all Thank you :)
And I'm beginning to see your point!
I simply think (and I'm talking about two different issues here)that in the grand scheme of things someones right to flip his pancake in any fashion
he sees fit is an inalienable right. ( As long as it doesn't impede someone else from flipping theirs) Secondly, peoples personal lives are exactly that, personal. Any perceived harm is a matter of perception. That is something that is always determined by your point of view.
Cheers

[ioan]

Even if Max wins, as he probably should, the reputation of the FIA will have been affected by this and the ongoing ramifications are yet to be realised.

Don't forget to start a thread in a few years time, after you find those yet not realized ramifications! ;)

I'm sure you could find dozens of articles that make no mention of that, and yet when announcing that Max Mosley was taking legal action in France his lawyer made clear it was a factor.

Entirely misleading. The point was not that that fact "is significant to the court action in London". It is that it raises legitimate questions about this being a purely private case that affects no-one but Max Mosley as you claim.

That does not square with your opinion that there has been no damage to the FIA, and that this is simply a case of a private individual seeking damages.

So if we are to remove all mention of the FIA it can be proved that the FIA are not involved. That's a very strong argument you have there.



I see you haven't provided the requested evidence.

However, for the sake of 'discussion', the thing you like so much even though you seem to have a severe problem with basing that on factual evidence, I will respond to your points.....

Max Mosley's lawyer pointed out that the News of the World had attempted to destroy his clients position as head of the FIA. In seeking a court action against them, in Paris, the base of the FIA, then it is obvious that his client wished to protect his own professional position from what he claims were lies.

In no way does that damage the FIA. The lawyer specifically states that -

"There is a characteristic desire to cause harm. The intention is clear: destroy Max Mosley as President of the FIA, the headquarters of which is in Paris."

The key word being 'him', not 'them'. Just to make things obvious....'Him' replies to the person, 'Them' would mean the FIA. Since 'Them' is not used, it is a private individual being talked about.

With regard to Anthony Scrivener QC being employed by the FIA to provide a report for the Extraordinary General Meeting, they are merely following what all decent employer would do when an employee is accused of something, namely to get legal advice so that a fair and informed decision can be made.

Presumably, from your objection to this, you did not wish to see the FIA take legal advice, or to follow due diligence or to even be fair & informed?

Just because you are neither fair nor informed, it does not stand that the FIA should also be such.

And now the really juicy bit....

"So if we are to remove all mention of the FIA it can be proved that the FIA are not involved. That's a very strong argument you have there"

Thank you for confirming the strength of my argument.

I asked you for specific evidence that the FIA was involved....which you have failed to provide. Mere reference to the FIA being Mosley's employer in reports is not good enough. It rather proves the opposite to your claims.

If you want real discussion, learn to back up your arguments with evidence, facts and sense.

I await your evidence to support your claims.

[ArrowsFA1]

I see you haven't provided the requested evidence.
It's already here in this thread. You've chosen to dismiss it. By wanting to remove the FIA from the equation and ignoring anything that illustrates the effect it has had beyond Max Mosley the private individual then your conclusions are inevitable.

I don't believe it is possible to view things in isolation in that way, and therefore I disagree with your conclusions.

[MAX_THRUST]

Dont remeber Bill Clinton getting caught with 5 prostitutes, besides he's a pollitician we all know they lie.....

TV watch. Max was again slaughtered on TV last night on MOCK THE WEEK. He was mentioned more than once. BBC2 2200.

[SGWilko]

Dont remeber Bill Clinton getting caught with 5 prostitutes, besides he's a pollitician we all know they lie.....

TV watch. Max was again slaughtered on TV last night on MOCK THE WEEK. He was mentioned more than once. BBC2 2200.

Slick Willy had an affair with an intern or whatever she was. But some on this forum seem to think adultery is acceptable. :rolleyes:

[Tazio]

Slick Willy had an affair with an intern or whatever she was. But some on this forum seem to think adultery is acceptable. :rolleyes: I think it depends on the individual relationship!
His wife didn't complain (for whatever reason you may think)
She, Monica, and Bill were the only ones that it affected. IMHO

[trumperZ06]

I think it depends on the individual relationship!
His wife didn't complain (for whatever reason you may think)
She, Monica, and Bill were the only ones that it affected. IMHO

:p : Hillary & Chelesa both complained... bitterly,

over the sex scandal.

;) For a time... the only friend Bill had... was his dog

and rumor was

that the dog wasn't fully committed to supporting Bill.

:dozey: As for your constant harping that Spanky's actions haven't brought the FIA in disrepute....

The continuing coverage by the press...

along with Foreign leaders, and Automobile Associations (six of which are presently considering withdrawing from the FIA), refusing to meet with Spanky,

Clearly demostrate that Max's refusal to resign after the publicity about his Sex Scandal, is harmful to the FIA and Motorsports.

:s mokin: Trumper

[Knock-on]

Sorry, I just cannot get a Bumper Sticker I saw out of my head. It read:

"I'm voting for the Interns, Lovers, Wife"!

Perhaps we will soon see:

"I support the Mistresses, Punters, Ex-Friends racing series"! :laugh:

[markabilly]

Bill Clinton was caught, did this have a negative impact on the whole US?!
Don't think so! Why is that? Because people around the World doesn't have such a tight vision like those on this forum.

You are so right, Billy boy gets caught, MaXy gets caught, so two wrongs do make a right. :D

Of course, Billy boy had an excuse, he was married to Hillary :burp: so he had to ......

Fact of the matter, if someone is going to be President of the USA, or Prime Minister, or some such, I expect him or her or "heshe" to be honest and responsible, someone worthy of trust and respect.

The same with sport, I would want to know the umpire is above reproach, and not some part time pimp and a cheating liar, worrying according to one of his own witnesses about covering the costs of his "theater" productions. And if a man lies to family, and cheats on them, he would lie to and cheat anyone.


I know call me a silly idealistic dreamer unaware of the real world, but without honor, we are nothing
Personally, I think violating anyone's privacy is a very serious wrong and injustice. OTOH, once it is out there, the damage is done..

It's already here in this thread. You've chosen to dismiss it. By wanting to remove the FIA from the equation and ignoring anything that illustrates the effect it has had beyond Max Mosley the private individual then your conclusions are inevitable.

I don't believe it is possible to view things in isolation in that way, and therefore I disagree with your conclusions.

There is no evidence that the FIA has been damaged, yet you choose to ignore that.

There is no evidence that the FIA is involved in a private individuals legal case, yet you chose to ignore that.

There is no evidence to support any of your arguments, therefore you have no worthwhile conclusion to agree with.

If you really want 'discussion', then you have to have something tangible to support your argument, yet you have constantly and repeatedly failed to bring anything tangible into the discussion.

All you have brought is your pre-determined dislike of Mosley. You have elected to use the News of the World article as a bat with which to beat him, regardless as to whether the article was truthful or not.

You have deliberately ignored the facts presented to you.

Bill Clinton was caught, did this have a negative impact on the whole US?!

Thank you for highlighting the fundamental flaw in the argument that the FIA has been damaged by the sex-life expose on Mosley.

If I recall, whilst embarrassing to the Clinton's, 'Slick Willy's' cigar-incident didn't bring the business of government in the United States crashing to a halt.

I'd be interested to know if any business deals were canceled solely due to the President's inability to keep his pants on, because I certainly don't recall any.

It's already here in this thread. You've chosen to dismiss it.

No it isn't.

All you've come up with are 'sound-bites' from people already known to have a grudge / axe-to-grind with Mosley and expressions of concern from four manufacturers expressed shortly after the News of the World published its story.

Just because Jackie Stewart or Damon Hill claim it is damaging F1 doesn't make it true. They have shown nothing to support their case, therefore it is merely subjective opinion.

Please note - Subjective opinion, even from those you admire, does not equate to a fact.

Just because four manufacturers expressed their discomfort with the lurid allegations made by the News of the World does not mean that Mosley has damaged F1.

It is interesting how, since Mosley started his legal action against the News of the World, the voices saying that he has damaged F1 have gone very, very quiet.

It appears that they are realizing that they formed an opinion in a knee-jerk response to a gutter-press tabloid headline as opposed to the facts.

If so, then you could learn something from that - wait for the facts.

Leaping to an automatic conclusion does not help 'discussion' nor does it ever come close to being informed. When the headlines were shown on the TV news, my initial response was that Mosley should resign....

.......but once the story began to be investigated, once the 'Nazi' claims were unsupported in court by the failure of the witness to attend, once the FIA had given Mosley a vote of confidence, having received legal advice on the situation, then it was no longer right or proper to think that Mosley should resign.

Just for once, take off your pre-concieved 'bigot-vision' glasses and read the whole story, not just the headlines you want to hear.

I don't believe it is possible to view things in isolation in that way, and therefore I disagree with your conclusions.

You evidently believe it is possible to view things in isolation from the evidence and facts that would support your view, so save us the sanctimonious lectuures.

You have been asked time and time again to provide evidence which confirms your view, and each time you have run away from your responsibility in this discussion to provide any.

Your attitude and behaviour is completely unbecoming of somebody who wishes to engage in frank and honest discussion.

You have shown yourself to be willing to throw mud in the hope that it sticks.

You, sir, are nothing better than a gutter-press tabloid journalist, which if nothing else explains why you cling to the News of the World article in the hope it will sink Mosley yet never check that your views match the facts.

[markabilly]

Sad thing, bottom line at the end of the day. A year ago, MaX and all certain folks being outraged over "mac-cheating", ban them for two years, and on and on......

Less than a year later, all is pretty much forgotten......

And now we have "Maxcheat and whip" brought on by the very person who sat and continues to sit in judgment of those who might bring the sport into disrepute, folks justifying Max remaining in office because he did not lie to me (Very true, 'me" is not the wife and two sons he pretends to love)...or to whoever, twisting up "no proof that he actually do it as a nazi" (after all where is SS badge and so forth??) as somehow equating it as all being perfectly acceptable for the morals of the person charged with acting as an umpire....sitting in judgment of Mac and so forth (and when he himself is not doing the judging of the rules, he is the head of the organization so responsible for it)

And in the world of Machievelli, Max knows well how to operate those principles to his advantage (and I well demonstrated how great last year that max was in terms of appying Machievelli to the mac issues and so forth)

In the world of Machievelli, these were brilliant moves. Pretend nothing wrong, grab staunch supporters to use to manipulate the FIA vote to your advantage, sue the villain newspaper, and literally present the matter as some private innocent role playing, only embarrassing because it was made public.......

and last but not least, pick a ruckus with Bernie, talk how you are the one true hope to prevent Max from greedily taking over, even start the rumor that Bernie may have been the tipster, because Max stands in the way of Bernie taking over...

The last being the biggest joke of all, max saving F1 from Bernie, when Bernie already owns it, because Max already sold it to bernie and then collected his 300 million gift, requiring the move to Monaco..... :rotflmao:

And if that story does not have the truth in it, max would have sued, just like he sued Brundle for suggesting that Max was into witch hunting

And now we have ferrari fans very fearful that somehow MaX departing the FIA will put the interests of Ferrari at risk

No matter other faults, in terms of an ability to apply well, the principles of Machievelli, I can point to no better example.

Such brilliance. And stupid and bizzare that anyone can get away with it...after all poor Billy Clinton was disbarred for perjury and he managed to beat it out of office before impeachment..politicans need to sudy well "Maxevelli" techniques for both public politics, private politics and corporate power

While one might debate for years as to max's merits, worthiness and so forth, bottom line is that Max's continued presence means the old line is still true: People get the kind of government and leaders that they deserve. :(

[Tazio]

Sad thing, bottom line at the end of the day. A year ago, MaX and all certain folks being outraged over "mac-cheating", ban them for two years, and on and on......

Less than a year later, all is pretty much forgotten......

And now we have "Maxcheat and whip" brought on by the very person who sat and continues to sit in judgment of those who might bring the sport into disrepute, folks justifying Max remaining in office because he did not lie to me (Very true, 'me" is not the wife and two sons he pretends to love)...or to whoever, twisting up "no proof that he actually do it as a nazi" (after all where is SS badge and so forth??) as somehow equating it as all being perfectly acceptable for the morals of the person charged with acting as an umpire....sitting in judgment of Mac and so forth (and when he himself is not doing the judging of the rules, he is the head of the organization so responsible for it)

And in the world of Machievelli, Max knows well how to operate those principles to his advantage (and I well demonstrated how great last year that max was in terms of appying Machievelli to the mac issues and so forth)

In the world of Machievelli, these were brilliant moves. Pretend nothing wrong, grab staunch supporters to use to manipulate the FIA vote to your advantage, sue the villain newspaper, and literally present the matter as some private innocent role playing, only embarrassing because it was made public.......

and last but not least, pick a ruckus with Bernie, talk how you are the one true hope to prevent Max from greedily taking over, even start the rumor that Bernie may have been the tipster, because Max stands in the way of Bernie taking over...

The last being the biggest joke of all, max saving F1 from Bernie, when Bernie already owns it, because Max already sold it to bernie and then collected his 300 million gift, requiring the move to Monaco..... :rotflmao:

And if that story does not have the truth in it, max would have sued, just like he sued Brundle for suggesting that Max was into witch hunting

And now we have ferrari fans very fearful that somehow MaX departing the FIA will put the interests of Ferrari at risk

No matter other faults, in terms of an ability to apply well, the principles of Machievelli, I can point to no better example.

Such brilliance. And stupid and bizzare that anyone can get away with it...after all poor Billy Clinton was disbarred for perjury and he managed to beat it out of office before impeachment..politicans need to sudy well "Maxevelli" techniques for both public politics, private politics and corporate power

While one might debate for years as to max's merits, worthiness and so forth, bottom line is that Max's continued presence means the old line is still true: People get the kind of government and leaders that they deserve. :(

Then by your, and Machievelli's logic, The people of Zimbabwe "deserve" Robert Mugabe. :(
Now why can't I take your arguement seriously. Or does it only apply in trivial matters? :rotflmao:

[markabilly]

Then by your, and Machievelli's logic, The people of Zimbabwe "deserve" Robert Mugabe. :(
Now why can't I take your arguement seriously. Or does it only apply in trivial matters? :rotflmao:


They failed to take the necessary action to prevent Mugabee from getting there and continuing. They did not want to pay the price, and now they reap the whirlwind. I feel sorry for them, but if they will not help themselves, so be it.

The FIA and those who support F1 failed to take action to prevent MaX from getting there and continuing. And in this case, the FIA and motorsports have all the resources necessary to stop this non-sense, but instead they are lead around like a bunch of old goats to the slaughter.

Actually I could care less about who or what he screws in his own personal private life. But when it comes public, if there is one thing to know, it is that if a man lies to his own sons and wife for years-not for their benefit, but to hide his own his own personal illicit pleasure--- this is a man who would lie far more willingly to someone who is merely someone he knows or to the general public. If the president of the FIA has no honor and there is not one reason to trust him to safeguard the sport, then there is no reason for him to be there.

What I do not like is how he has managed to screw the FIA out of billions and gave it to bernie, in return for what is nothing more than a 300 million dollar bribe. Now the general public may not comprehend the latter, they should be able to comprehend the former.

I find disgusting the hypocrisy and lack of any sense of morality or honor. That one who preached and lead the circus in punishing Mac for bringing the sport into disrepute (regardless of whether you think that they should or should not have been punished), should be caught, and yet continue on with this court case, especially with the bizzare nonsense that sprewed forth from his own mouth and that of his whores, in open court, under oath (as though that means anything with max), is beyond hypocrisy.

If he had not sued, and then said what he did in open court, my attitude would be like it was before. But no more. Tis my opinion, that he would have been better off to have never sued. Once he got what he wanted--to keep his presidency--he should have shut up. But no, rather than to have some think he might be something of scum, he goes to court and proves it out of his own mouth.

Motorsports should now know, if based on nothing else but his own court case, what a rotten old joke that the FIA has become with a leader like that.

And if you want the evidence, just read or listen to the trial testimony and think that this is the president of the FIA, the arbiter of disputes, the protector from those who would bring the sport into disrepute... :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Someone forgot to drink his kool aid. :D

[markabilly]

Someone forgot to drink his kool aid. :D




:beer: just a little drop will do you, just fine
Thanks, feel better already

[Tazio]

They failed to take the necessary action to prevent Mugabee from getting there and continuing. They did not want to pay the price, and now they reap the whirlwind. I feel sorry for them, but if they will not help themselves, so be it.

The FIA and those who support F1 failed to take action to prevent MaX from getting there and continuing. And in this case, the FIA and motorsports have all the resources necessary to stop this non-sense, but instead they are lead around like a bunch of old goats to the slaughter.

Actually I could care less about who or what he screws in his own personal private life. But when it comes public, if there is one thing to know, it is that if a man lies to his own sons and wife for years-not for their benefit, but to hide his own his own personal illicit pleasure--- this is a man who would lie far more willingly to someone who is merely someone he knows or to the general public. If the president of the FIA has no honor and there is not one reason to trust him to safeguard the sport, then there is no reason for him to be there.

What I do not like is how he has managed to screw the FIA out of billions and gave it to bernie, in return for what is nothing more than a 300 million dollar bribe. Now the general public may not comprehend the latter, they should be able to comprehend the former.

I find disgusting the hypocrisy and lack of any sense of morality or honor. That one who preached and lead the circus in punishing Mac for bringing the sport into disrepute (regardless of whether you think that they should or should not have been punished), should be caught, and yet continue on with this court case, especially with the bizzare nonsense that sprewed forth from his own mouth and that of his whores, in open court, under oath (as though that means anything with max), is beyond hypocrisy.

If he had not sued, and then said what he did in open court, my attitude would be like it was before. But no more. Tis my opinion, that he would have been better off to have never sued. Once he got what he wanted--to keep his presidency--he should have shut up. But no, rather than to have some think he might be something of scum, he goes to court and proves it out of his own mouth.

Motorsports should now know, if based on nothing else but his own court case, what a rotten old joke that the FIA has become with a leader like that.

And if you want the evidence, just read or listen to the trial testimony and think that this is the president of the FIA, the arbiter of disputes, the protector from those who would bring the sport into disrepute... :rolleyes: I judge him on his record as an arbiter. Nothing else!
I'm not intersested in what people think about him as an indiviual.
I'll leave that to the bleeding hearts!
Plus I believe he was spanking, and getting spanked
Roll playing, hardley a case of adultry!

[markabilly]

I judge him on his record as an arbiter. Nothing else!
I'm not intersested in what people think about him as an indiviual.
I'll leave that to the bleeding hearts!


The honesty of a judge can not be seperated from his opinions. Without an impeccable record of honesty and honor, one can never "judge him on his record" without the question of whether the opinion is one worthy of respect or one worthy of the bribe paid to him or other deceit.....

Tis a qualification inseperable from the job he took upon himself. Many jobs have no such qualifications, and he should have stuck to one of those....

The fundamental basis for judgment of respect, honor and truthfulness is based upon the provable presence or absence of such acts, and has long been the law in many civilized countries on issues of impeachment.

And were he to give testimony, my question to him would be "and this is your word, your opinion, based upon your honor, your oath, from you who has admitted to repeatedly lying to those who should be closest to you, to hiring prostitutes and setting them up in an apartment...yada yada yada....."

Well, people continue to pay and go see races so what?? Well people go to pro werstlin, and pay.....so what is the difference? In the former one expected there to be fair play and all that and in the latter, we know it is not. And now the difference is nothing.


Such behavior simply provides fuel that teh FIA is simply corrupt, for example, the argument that the mac judgment was not really based on the facts and a sense of justice and fair play, but on a dishonest desire to see Ferrari win, (perhaps some kickbacks maybe???)and so by corrupting the basis for the opinion, one adds fuel to that fire, and destroys respect for the basis of any action taken by a person in such a position. Max should have kept quiet after he escaped with his presidency....but no..

[Tazio]

The honesty of a judge can not be seperated from his opinions. Without an impeccable record of honesty and honor, one can never "judge him on his record" without the question of whether the opinion is one worthy of respect or one worthy of the bribe paid to him or other deceit.....

Tis a qualification inseperable from the job he took upon himself. Many jobs have no such qualifications, and he should have stuck to one of those....

The fundamental basis for judgment of respect, honor and truthfulness is based upon the provable presence or absence of such acts, and has long been the law in many civilized countries on issues of impeachment.

And were he to give testimony, my question to him would be "and this is your word, your opinion, based upon your honor, your oath, from you who has admitted to repeatedly lying to those who should be closest to you, to hiring prostitutes and setting them up in an apartment...yada yada yada....."

Well, people continue to pay and go see races so what?? Well people go to pro werstlin, and pay.....so what is the difference? In the former one expected there to be fair play and all that and in the latter, we know it is not. And now the difference is nothing.


Such behavior simply provides fuel that teh FIA is simply corrupt, for example, the argument that the mac judgment was not really based on the facts and a sense of justice and fair play, but on a dishonest desire to see Ferrari win, (perhaps some kickbacks maybe???)and so by corrupting the basis for the opinion, one adds fuel to that fire, and destroys respect for the basis of any action taken by a person in such a position. Max should have kept quiet after he escaped with his presidency....but no..
Your ancesters came over on the Mayflower, didn't they?
I'm glad he persued this case. NotW is going to fry!!! :eek:
And justice for all!!!! :p

[markabilly]

Your ancesters came over on the Mayflower, didn't they?
I'm glad he persued this case. NotW is going to fry!!! :eek:
And justice for all!!!! :p

There you go engaging in personal attacks, bringing my mother into and all...

They should fry....they should all fry...... :arrows: .. B&M included :love:

But hey, this stuff does sound like it came right out of that movie "And Justice for All" :rotflmao:

only problem is that they don't have Al Pac. to do justice

[Tazio]

There you go engaging in personal attacks, bringing my mother into and all...

They should fry....they should all fry...... :arrows: .. B&M included :love:

But hey, this stuff does sound like it came right out of that movie "And Justice for All" :rotflmao:

only problem is that they don't have Al Pac. to do justice

So true :p :
What a freak show! :eek:
I love it! All the little cock-a-roches!
peace bro.

[ArrowsFA1]

You have deliberately ignored the facts presented to you.
Once again...so you say. Your attempts to force your interpretation of events on others and, in particular, repeated misrepresentation of my opinion are little more than personal attacks. Your self-proclaimed "facts" are your opinion, nothing more.

[BDunnell]

It is interesting how, since Mosley started his legal action against the News of the World, the voices saying that he has damaged F1 have gone very, very quiet.

It appears that they are realizing that they formed an opinion in a knee-jerk response to a gutter-press tabloid headline as opposed to the facts.

I would point out that we don't know what these 'facts' are yet. The jury has not yet reached a decision. You are just as guilty as anyone else of jumping to a conclusion. The News of the World story is yet to be legally disproved. I believe it will be disproved, but until such time as it is, I wouldn't accuse others of being sanctimonious or making up their minds without reference to 'the facts'.

[markabilly]

I would point out that we don't know what these 'facts' are yet. The jury has not yet reached a decision. You are just as guilty as anyone else of jumping to a conclusion. The News of the World story is yet to be legally disproved. I believe it will be disproved, but until such time as it is, I wouldn't accuse others of being sanctimonious or making up their minds without reference to 'the facts'.


Only thing at this point the court can do, is give its opinion of the evidence as to what it means. Anyone who watched tv or read the transcripts can do the same. Will the judge draw certain inferences from those facts, to make an ultimate ruling? Sure.


Glad it shall be over, because all in all, when not very boring, it was actually very silly

[Valve Bounce]

They failed to take the necessary action to prevent Mugabee from getting there and continuing. They did not want to pay the price, and now they reap the whirlwind. I feel sorry for them, but if they will not help themselves, so be it.



Are you for real? Mugabe got there by getting guns and massacring his opposition. The only price his opponents could pay was either lie down and die if they didn't run and flee the country.

I think you should check the facts before spouting such nonsense.

[pino]

Machiavelli, Mugabe, Bill Clinton, personal attacks...I've had enough of this thread. Closed !