Max wins case against NOTW

[Dave B]

Being reported by BBC News now, full verdict expected soon.

Let's see how long this thread lasts...

[Dave B]

Here we go:



World motorsport boss Max Mosley has won a legal action against a Sunday newspaper that claimed he took part in a Nazi-style orgy with prostitutes.
The High Court ruled the News of the World did breach Mr Mosley's privacy, awarding him £60,000 in damages.


Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523034.stm
Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69414

[F1boat]

Cool! Max deserved to win it.

[MAX_THRUST]

He's still a scumbag, that was involved in ilegal activities and has brought the FIA into disrepute with his actions........I hope he feels smug knowing the whole world knows what a corrupt sad little man he is, but then he probably enjoys being called that.........

As for the NOTW I never liked the paper or their behaviour towards so many innocent members of public, but for once I wanted them to win. How much did max pay the powers at be.....

[SGWilko]

Missing a few emails Max? (Mosely, not Thrust)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4388875.ece

Two faced hypocritical oik (probably).

[ShiftingGears]

He's still a scumbag, that was involved in ilegal activities and has brought the FIA into disrepute with his actions........I hope he feels smug knowing the whole world knows what a corrupt sad little man he is, but then he probably enjoys being called that.........

As for the NOTW I never liked the paper or their behaviour towards so many innocent members of public, but for once I wanted them to win. How much did max pay the powers at be.....

Wait, you wanted them to win, even though it was a disgusting breach of privacy?

[BDunnell]

This is the only fair outcome - including the damages, which thankfully haven't been inflated to a ridiculous degree. Hopefully, it will force the tabloids into curtailing some of their more dubious activities that are in no way connected to any public interest, but I doubt it.

[ArrowsFA1]

The judge said in his ruling that there was no evidence of Nazi behaviour. “I decided that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property," said Mr Justice Eady.
“I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4388875.ece

That's very clear, and given that MM's privacy has been invaded, it's the inevitable outcome.

[ArrowsFA1]

Hopefully, it will force the tabloids into curtailing some of their more dubious activities that are in no way connected to any public interest, but I doubt it.
I doubt that as well although this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7521405.stm) suggests "the Mosley judgment further tips the scales in favour of greater privacy."

[Dave B]

Hopefully, it will force the tabloids into curtailing some of their more dubious activities that are in no way connected to any public interest, but I doubt it.
Probably not, £60K (plus whatever the costs were, possibly >100K) is a small price for the News of the World to pay for all the extra publicity and sales they'll have gained from this episode.

Also Mosley is an expert in the legal system, what are the odds that a soap star or reality show contestant would be in the position to challenge a tabloid in the same way?

[Dave B]

If anybody's interested in the full 54 page verdict here's a link:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2008/07/24/mosley_v_news_group.pdf

[Dave B]

To put the £60K into context:



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

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

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/24/privacy.newsoftheworld2

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

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

[BDunnell]

To put the £60K into context:



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

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

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

[Camelopard]

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

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

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

Those demands were based on a lie.

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

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

[BDunnell]

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

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

Those demands were based on a lie.

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

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

[Dave B]

The costs, by the way, are reported to be near £850,000 and have been awarded against the News of the World.
My guesstimate was only three-quarters of a million out! What's that between friends? :p

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

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

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

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

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

Your obviously not friends with lawyers!!!!!

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

[MAX_THRUST]

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

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

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

[BDunnell]

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

Er - yes it does, for he is the President of the FIA, and every time the story or the case is mentioned in the media, so is his job.



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

I agree, but this doesn't mean to say that it suddenly ceases to have existed.



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

I doubt they will be embarrassed in the slightest.

Er - yes it does, for he is the President of the FIA, and every time the story or the case is mentioned in the media, so is his job.


Yet the Judge felt it was purely a private matter. I'll take his opinion over yours....purely on the basis that his has an effect, nothing personal.



I doubt they will be embarrassed in the slightest.

Then neither should the FIA.

[Valve Bounce]

Why keep on whipping a dead horse? :eek:

I agree, but this doesn't mean to say that it suddenly ceases to have existed.

But since the Court has ruled that it was wholly improper for the story to have ever been published, that it had no public interest to warrant it's publication and that the 'Nazi' element has been proven to be fictitious, then those who perpetuate it are nothing short of vindictive.

The fact that Mosley won the case and that the judge ruled the 'Nazi' allegation to be false and a bare-faced lie, then the FIA have nothing to be embarrased about.

Why keep on whipping a dead horse? :eek:

How dare you accuse me of being an Equine-Sadistic-Necrophiliac!!!

I'll see you in court!

[ArrowsFA1]

No. It's embarrassing to Mosley personally, but since he wasn't shouting "I'm the President of the FIA, I demand you suck my xxxx!" then it has nothing to do with the FIA.
In purely legal terms that may very well be true, but practically speaking it is not IMHO. The Judge said (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2008/07/24/mosley_v_news_group.pdf) "[Max Mosley] is hardly exaggerating when he says his life was ruined". Are we to understand that "his life" means his private sex life, his family life, or his professional life? Or all three?

[Valve Bounce]

How dare you accuse me of being an Equine-Sadistic-Necrophiliac!!!

I'll see you in court!

:D :rotflmao:

In purely legal terms that may very well be true, but practically speaking it is not IMHO. The Judge said (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2008/07/24/mosley_v_news_group.pdf) "[Max Mosley] is hardly exaggerating when he says his life was ruined". Are we to understand that "his life" means his private sex life, his family life, or his professional life? Or all three?

If you read the full transcript of the Judge's verdict

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup.pdf

He does not mention the FIA, nor at any time mention anything related to Mosley's employers. The judge does not state that Mosley has a job.

Therefore the Judge is referring solely to Mosley as a private individual, since this was indeed a private individuals case, so it can only be interpreted to mean Mosley's private life.

Example -

"It could be thought unreasonable to absolve him of all responsibility for placing himself and his family in the predicament in which they now find themselves"

I would have to say that was fecking obvious to those bothered to read.

[ArrowsFA1]

If you read the full transcript of the Judge's verdict....He does not mention the FIA, nor at any time mention anything related to Mosley's employers. The judge does not state that Mosley has a job....I would have to say that was fecking obvious to those bothered to read.
See "The nature of the claim" point 1 (page 2).

[BDunnell]

But since the Court has ruled that it was wholly improper for the story to have ever been published, that it had no public interest to warrant it's publication and that the 'Nazi' element has been proven to be fictitious, then those who perpetuate it are nothing short of vindictive.

The fact that Mosley won the case and that the judge ruled the 'Nazi' allegation to be false and a bare-faced lie, then the FIA have nothing to be embarrased about.

Yes it does, for surely the damage has been done by the inevitable coverage of the case in the press in terms of making the FIA's boss a subject of ridicule.

However, I would agree that this is not all that serious in the grand scheme of things. After all, no-one died and we can all sleep soundly in our beds. I very much doubt that FIA-sanctioned motorsport will be affected by this, so enthusiasts need have few worries on that score.

[ioan]

So, now that it's clear that there was no Nazi connotation to it, I think everyone including the German associations will calm down and forget that it ever happened.

Cheers to that!

Let's see if Max will ever say who was the one who set him up, he should know it by now! :D

See "The nature of the claim" point 1 (page 2).

I apologise, but since the 'Nature of the Claim' is not the verdict per se, as anyone with even a vague knowledge of the law would testify, the point remains valid.

See Point 3 (Page 2)

3. The cause of action is breach of confidence and/or the unauthorised disclosure of personal information, said to infringe the Claimant’s rights of privacy as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention&#8221 ;) . There is no claim in defamation and I am thus not directly concerned with any injury to reputation.

Check mate.

[BDunnell]

So, now that it's clear that there was no Nazi connotation to it, I think everyone including the German associations will calm down and forget that it ever happened.

While this would be reasonable, the fact is that people do remember things about other people. The case will continue to follow Max Mosley around, even if this doesn't really have any effect.

[ArrowsFA1]

So, now that it's clear that there was no Nazi connotation to it, I think everyone including the German associations will calm down and forget that it ever happened.
Interesting point. I wonder, had the headline just been "F1 BOSS HAS ORGY WITH 5 HOOKERS" how different the reaction among FIA member associations would have been.

Let's see if Max will ever say who was the one who set him up, he should know it by now! :D
The Judge was clear (#226): "I have no evidence to suggest that the surveillance he was warned against had any connection with Woman E or the News of the World." Perhaps the set-up idea will be dropped as quietly as the Brundle libel case.

[BDunnell]

Interesting point. I wonder, had the headline just been "F1 BOSS HAS ORGY WITH 5 HOOKERS" how different the reaction among FIA member associations would have been.

One would hope that there would have been far less outrage, but a lot of people just find any 'sex scandal' appalling no matter what, because the papers they read tell them that it is appalling, so it must be.

[MAX_THRUST]

Oh I'm sure the roayl families of some countries and those countries with strong relegious beliefs will be so relieved he didn't have a N*** based orgy, and just a straight forward S&M orgy, which he would have paid for, because I doubt very much any women would even consider sleeping with that old fart, without a large sum of money.

Damage is done, and the paper has won in that respect. All doopey Max has done is drag up more stuff in the press and had to stand up and say I'm a bit of a deviant.

My best wishes goes to his family, and I hope his wife sees sense and sues him.......oh she can't because he'll buy the judge again.

[ioan]

One would hope that there would have been far less outrage, but a lot of people just find any 'sex scandal' appalling no matter what, because the papers they read tell them that it is appalling, so it must be.

Luckily those aren't the people who are in important position all around the world (i.e. people who can think by themselves without the need of a journalist!).

[BDunnell]

Luckily those aren't the people who are in important position all around the world (i.e. people who can think by themselves without the need of a journalist!).

I don't know. A lot of senior politicians in the UK are obsessed with what the papers will say about their policies, because of the way the papers form opinions.

[Tazio]

hope he feels smug knowing the whole world knows what a corrupt sad little man he is, but then he probably enjoys being called that.....
I hope he feel satisfaction for helping draw a line between "News" and Maniacal Tabloid Greed.



As for the NOTW I never liked the paper or their behaviour towards so many innocent members of public, but for once I wanted them to win. How much did max pay the powers at be..... Get use to disappointment! :p :

[Bagwan]

Here's the part of the article from BBC that Wilco posted that I don't get :


[The newspaper had originally promised her £25,000 if the story was the front-page splash but the Editor Colin Myler reduced the fee to £12,000, blaming the credit crunch.

Asked if Woman E - and her husband who had originally contacted the News of the World with the story - were a bit disappointed by the lower rate, Mr Thurlbeck said: “Actually they weren’t.” ]


They weren't disappointed ?
Half of the money promised and they weren't upset ?

This smells to me like they were being paid by someone else as well , perhaps making the loss of the 12 thousand quid quite insignificant .

The wording seems also to implicate the MI5 agent had more involvement than merely being the husband .


It seems to me that this is a far bigger scandal than the big scandal that hit the pages of the NOTW .

[ioan]

I don't know. A lot of senior politicians in the UK are obsessed with what the papers will say about their policies, because of the way the papers form opinions.

That's sad and bad. If your politicians care more about what the papers say than about what they really should do, than you got a problem.
Elect someone else next time.

[Dave B]

I don't know. A lot of senior politicians in the UK are obsessed with what the papers will say about their policies...
Or their bicycle security :p

[Dave B]

May I please nominate my favourite paragraph from the verdict:


"The claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved - apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) 'shaking with laughter'. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."

Remember people: never shake when you're having your backside shaved! Wise words.

[ioan]

:rotflmao:

[BDunnell]

:laugh:

That sort of thing is exactly why this will hang over Max until he steps down from what amounts to public life. It's just funny.

[BDunnell]

That's sad and bad. If your politicians care more about what the papers say than about what they really should do, than you got a problem.
Elect someone else next time.

In my view, it's largely the fault of the electorate for being so easily led, not the politicians — though they should just ignore it.

[BDunnell]

The newspaper had originally promised her £25,000 if the story was the front-page splash but the Editor Colin Myler reduced the fee to £12,000, blaming the credit crunch.

:laugh:

Thank goodness it wasn't the Daily Express in the dock, otherwise they would somehow have roped in Princess Diana and house prices.



They weren't disappointed ?
Half of the money promised and they weren't upset ?

This smells to me like they were being paid by someone else as well , perhaps making the loss of the 12 thousand quid quite insignificant .

The wording seems also to implicate the MI5 agent had more involvement than merely being the husband .


It seems to me that this is a far bigger scandal than the big scandal that hit the pages of the NOTW .

Nah. Tabloids, for want of a better phrase, f*** people over like that all the time. I think the 'wife of MI5 agent' bit of the story is purely coincidental. Private Eye, the satirical magazine with a long and excellent tradition of investigative journalism, hasn't even mentioned it.

[Dave B]

deleted

[Valve Bounce]

So, now that it's clear that there was no Nazi connotation to it, I think everyone including the German associations will calm down and forget that it ever happened.

Cheers to that!

Let's see if Max will ever say who was the one who set him up, he should know it by now! :D

I'm surprised that you havn't twigged that NOTW are the CHEATERS who snuck the camera into the brothel to film the whole episode. :eek:

However, I suspect the tabloid press and websites made more money out of this whole shebang than the fine and expenses imposed on NOTW.

[Valve Bounce]

That's sad and bad. If your politicians care more about what the papers say than about what they really should do, than you got a problem.
Elect someone else next time.

You're not suggesting we should elect lawyers, are you? :eek:

[Valve Bounce]

May I please nominate my favourite paragraph from the verdict:


"The claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved - apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) 'shaking with laughter'. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."

Remember people: never shake when you're having your backside shaved! Wise words.

I hope they weren't using a cut-throat razor. :D :rotflmao:

[PolePosition_1]

He's still a scumbag, that was involved in ilegal activities and has brought the FIA into disrepute with his actions........I hope he feels smug knowing the whole world knows what a corrupt sad little man he is, but then he probably enjoys being called that.........

As for the NOTW I never liked the paper or their behaviour towards so many innocent members of public, but for once I wanted them to win. How much did max pay the powers at be.....

Erm...I think you'll find it wasn't illegal.

The only thing bringing the FIA into disrepute is the NOTW invasion of privacy and people's narrow minded and judgemental views.....such as yourselfs by looks of it

[PolePosition_1]

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

I can understand why its embarrassing. But its not Max's fault that his privacy was invaded. So why should he be punished for something out of his doing?

If he was forced to step down, it would have been a victory for trial by media.

Though he won the case, and NOTW were fined. There nothing to stop them doing it again in the future. This needs to be looked at, every month we get newspapers getting successfully sued, but yet they still keep printing crap. Surely the law should be looked at how we can actually stop this.

[PolePosition_1]

That's sad and bad. If your politicians care more about what the papers say than about what they really should do, than you got a problem.
Elect someone else next time.

Unfortunately its true. But all our parties are like that, it doesn't matter which you vote for, they all influenced by the media.

Its dangerous, as tabloid papers have such a large presence in UK society, and they can't be trusted to give a proper and unbiased verdict on anything.

That said, freedom of media is important.

I get impression in many nations, the media is run (maybe run is too much, but differently influenced by government) - and in my mind thats equally dangerous, the government can then use the media to manipulate people for their own benefits.

Its just a question of who would you rather be manipulated by, the goverment or media?

Example is in France, where TF1 (biggest channel in France) has a new newsreader, one of Sarko's ex-misses, who got the job because the boss of TF1 is a close friend to Sarko.

I'm sorry but thats not a healthy siuation to have at all!! Where the president has a visible influence over newsreading on most watched news programme of France.

[ArrowsFA1]

I can understand why its embarrassing. But its not Max's fault that his privacy was invaded.
That's not entirely how the Judge views (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69430) it:

225. To what extent is he the author of his own misfortune? Many would think that if a prominent man puts himself, year after year, into the hands (literally and metaphorically) of prostitutes (or even professional dominatrices) he is gambling in placing so much trust in them. There is a risk of exposure or blackmail inherent in such a course of conduct. In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance. Yet he continued to arrange parties, such as those on 8 and 28 March, knowing of the heightened risk.

226. To a casual observer, therefore, and especially with the benefit of hindsight, it might seem that the Claimant's behaviour was reckless and almost self-destructive. This does not excuse the intrusion into his privacy but it might be a relevant factor to take into account when assessing causal responsibility for what happened. It could be thought unreasonable to absolve him of all responsibility for placing himself and his family in the predicament in which they now find themselves. It is part and parcel of human dignity that one must take at least some responsibility for one's own actions.

That's not entirely how the Judge views (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69430) it:

And in that respect Max made an error of judgement in his private life. However, it still remains his private life.

If everybody who made an error of judgement somewhere in their private life had to resign from their professional life, then there wouldn't be anyone in employment.

Well, apart from Saint Francis of Assisi, maybe.

The fact remains that in his professional position, Max has not done anything wrong.

Unfortunately, those with a pre-determined dislike of Mosley as President of the FIA and those who already had an axe to grind (step forward Jackie Stewart & Paul Stoddart) don't want to recognise that somebody's private life is just that, private.

That probably says more about them not knowing the limits than it does about Mosley's ability to run the FIA.

Funny how those who were appalled at Mosley's 'Half-Wit' comment to Stewart, on the grounds that it was personal due to the common knowledge that Stewart suffered from dyslexia are not appalled that Stewart is using something personal to attack Max.

Just so that everybody can clearly see that there is nothing to get in a furore over anymore....

"The principal argument on public interest related to the Nazi theme," Eady writes. "I have come to the conclusion (although others might disagree) that if it really were the case, as the newspaper alleged, that [Mosley] had for entertainment and sexual gratification been 'mocking the humiliating way the Jews were treated', or 'parodying Holocaust horrors', there could be a public interest in that being revealed at least to those in the FIA to whom he is accountable.

"He has to deal with many people of all races and religions, and has spoken out against racism in the sport. If he really were behaving in the way I have just described, that would, for many people, call seriously into question his suitability for his FIA role. It would be information which people arguably should have the opportunity to know and evaluate.

"[...] On the other hand, since I have concluded that there was no such mocking behaviour and not even, on the material I have viewed, any evidence of imitating, adopting or approving Nazi behaviour, I am unable to identify any legitimate public interest to justify either the intrusion of secret filming or the subsequent publication."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69440

[PolePosition_1]

That's not entirely how the Judge views (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69430) it:

To a casual observer, therefore, and especially with the benefit of hindsight, it might seem that the Claimant's behaviour was reckless and almost self-destructive. This does not excuse the intrusion into his privacy

The judge openly admitts with hindsight things could be done definately, as everything can be in life.

[BDunnell]

I can understand why its embarrassing. But its not Max's fault that his privacy was invaded. So why should he be punished for something out of his doing?

If he was forced to step down, it would have been a victory for trial by media.

Here's another example. The married Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten left his job as the party's home affairs spokesman after it was revealed by a newspaper that he had had an affair with two rent boys. He wasn't a hypocrite, in that he didn't particularly moralise about the behaviour of others, so there wasn't a public interest justification on that score. If someone is being a hypocrite — for instance, being against gay rights while privately being gay — I think there is some justification. But I digress. Oaten deemed the revelations too embarrassing to continue in the post. When I think about him now, it's not about his qualities as a politician — my first thought is about the rent boys story. These things follow people around for a long, long time, and it can't be helped.

I ought to add that my primary reason for wanting Max out is his record in his job, and certainly not his private life.



Though he won the case, and NOTW were fined. There nothing to stop them doing it again in the future. This needs to be looked at, every month we get newspapers getting successfully sued, but yet they still keep printing crap. Surely the law should be looked at how we can actually stop this.

The one thing I would add to this is that I hope any legislation does not preclude legitimate investigative journalism, of which the Mosley story wasn't an example.

[PolePosition_1]

I don't particularly like everything that Mosley has suggested or undertaken, but overall his work on improving safety alone for me would mean he merits his job.

If you add that to any possible replacements of his (primarily Jean Todt), I'd rather he stay.

[Dave B]

Now Max is taking on the Germans:


Formula one boss Max Mosley has filed a £1.2m lawsuit against the publisher of Germany's largest newspaper following his privacy win against the News of the World.

The lawsuit - over breach of trust, violations of copyright laws and fraud - was launched after the Bild newspaper followed up the News of the World's original story in March, which wrongly alleged that Mosley's sadomasochistic sex session with five prostitutes had "Nazi connotations".
Source and full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/25/mosley.privacy4

Here's another example. The married Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten left his job as the party's home affairs spokesman after it was revealed by a newspaper that he had had an affair with two rent boys. He wasn't a hypocrite, in that he didn't particularly moralise about the behaviour of others, so there wasn't a public interest justification on that score..........Oaten deemed the revelations too embarrassing to continue in the post. When I think about him now, it's not about his qualities as a politician — my first thought is about the rent boys story. These things follow people around for a long, long time, and it can't be helped.

To be fair, though, Mark Oaten had promoted his 'normal family virtues', most notably with photo opportunities with his wife.

I think that's the reason he decided to resign.

Max's situation is not the same.

Now Max is taking on the Germans:


Formula one boss Max Mosley has filed a £1.2m lawsuit against the publisher of Germany's largest newspaper following his privacy win against the News of the World.

The lawsuit - over breach of trust, violations of copyright laws and fraud - was launched after the Bild newspaper followed up the News of the World's original story in March, which wrongly alleged that Mosley's sadomasochistic sex session with five prostitutes had "Nazi connotations".
Source and full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/25/mosley.privacy4

And is suing the News of the World for libel.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69448

"FIA president Max Mosley has begun libel proceedings against the News of the World over claims that he lied in denying there was a Nazi element to an S&M orgy he took part in.

Just 24 hours after Mosley won a privacy action against the British tabloid newspaper for their reports that the orgy had a Nazi theme, Mosley's solicitors have confirmed that they will be taking further action.

A statement issued by Mosley's solicitors said: "Max Mosley has today issued proceedings against the News of the World for libel.

"Following his successful privacy claim, and the attempts by the editor and staff of the News of the World to devalue the outcome of that claim, Mr. Mosley will now be pursuing a claim for damages and aggravated damages in relation to the defamatory allegations in the April 6 edition of the News of the World."

That edition of the paper carried an interview with the dominatrix who filmed the events, in which she was said to have claimed that there was a Nazi theme to the party.

And there was editorial comment in the newspaper claiming that Mosley was a liar for denying such claims.

However, the High Court ruled that there was no evidence of a Nazi theme to the party, and Women E also told Sky News today that she too clarified there was no Nazi element.

"I know for a fact, that it was spoken about, that Max actually found it quite a turn-on to speak to them in German," she said. "He liked the German language. It was prison uniforms because we were doing a German prison scene. But it wasn't Nazi."

Mosley's action against the News of the World comes alongside another action he has launched against German newspaper Bild.

According to the lawsuit, he is demanding one million Euro from Bild newspaper and a further 500,000 Euro from the newspaper's online edition in damages for their reports on his S&M orgy that took place in March"

Also thought it was worth mentioning, since there had been some expressions on this forum that the FIA was paying for Max's legal costs, that his family were not exactly paupers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

"Mosley was the eldest of three sons of Sir Oswald Mosley, 5th Baronet, of Ancoats (1874–1928), and his wife, Katharine Maud Edwards-Heathcote (1874–1950), the second child of Captain Justinian Edwards-Heathcote, of Market Drayton, Shropshire. Mosley's family were Anglo-Irish but his branch were prosperous landowners in Staffordshire"

http://www.thornber.net/cheshire/htmlfiles/mosley.html

Here's another example. The married Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten left his job as the party's home affairs spokesman after it was revealed by a newspaper that he had had an affair with two rent boys. He wasn't a hypocrite, in that he didn't particularly moralise about the behaviour of others, so there wasn't a public interest justification on that score. If someone is being a hypocrite — for instance, being against gay rights while privately being gay — I think there is some justification. But I digress. Oaten deemed the revelations too embarrassing to continue in the post. When I think about him now, it's not about his qualities as a politician — my first thought is about the rent boys story. These things follow people around for a long, long time, and it can't be helped.



To be fair, though, Mark Oaten had promoted his 'normal family virtues', most notably with photo opportunities with his wife.

I think that's the reason he decided to resign.

Max's situation is not the same.

Just to provide the 'evidence' to back up my claim....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5215162.stm

"The 42-year-old MP had portrayed himself as a traditional family man with a wife and two daughters, inviting cameras into the family home when he announced he would stand for the party leadership.

But that image was shattered forever by revelations in The News of the World that he visited rent boys over a six-month period in 2004 and 2005"

So basically, the only similarity is that the News of the World was involved.

[Bagwan]

Now that even woman E has stated that it wasn't about anything Nazi , we can start on correcting those wrongs that those opposed to Max were spouting for reasons for dismissal .
Presumably that particular connotation was what brought forth a major part of the criticism and subsequent lack of hand-shaking at events on the calendar .
This being the case , the NOTW unable to back the claim , should restore that critical element to the paddock .

I know I must speak for a lot of us here when I say how much I have missed seeing Max shaking hands with dignitaries .
F1 just hasn't been the same without it .

Now that he hasn't got Nazi hands , he can get back to shaking normally and put a lot of minds to rest on that issue .

[BDunnell]

Just to provide the 'evidence' to back up my claim....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5215162.stm

"The 42-year-old MP had portrayed himself as a traditional family man with a wife and two daughters, inviting cameras into the family home when he announced he would stand for the party leadership.

But that image was shattered forever by revelations in The News of the World that he visited rent boys over a six-month period in 2004 and 2005"

So basically, the only similarity is that the News of the World was involved.

Yes, this is a fair point. I'd forgotten about that. Glad that you recognise that there can sometimes be a public interest justification.

However, do you think Mark Oaten would have resigned had it not been for the photocalls with his family? I'm sure he would.

[ioan]

Also thought it was worth mentioning, since there had been some expressions on this forum that the FIA was paying for Max's legal costs, that his family were not exactly paupers.

Well in fact all those people were wrong simply because it is NOTW who's paying Max's legal costs! ;)

[markabilly]

Now that even woman E has stated that it wasn't about anything Nazi , we can start on correcting those wrongs that those opposed to Max were spouting for reasons for dismissal .
Presumably that particular connotation was what brought forth a major part of the criticism and subsequent lack of hand-shaking at events on the calendar .
This being the case , the NOTW unable to back the claim , should restore that critical element to the paddock .

I know I must speak for a lot of us here when I say how much I have missed seeing Max shaking hands with dignitaries .
F1 just hasn't been the same without it .

Now that he hasn't got Nazi hands , he can get back to shaking normally and put a lot of minds to rest on that issue .
:D :rotflmao:

Yes, this is a fair point. I'd forgotten about that. Glad that you recognise that there can sometimes be a public interest justification.

However, do you think Mark Oaten would have resigned had it not been for the photocalls with his family? I'm sure he would.

I don't think I'd ever said that there could never be a 'public interest' justification. Had, for example, it had been proven that Mosley had been role-playing as a Nazi death-camp commandant, then he would have been guilty of hypocrisy given the FIA's anti-racism campaign, not to mention that it is understandably viewed as being morally repugnant.

What I had said was that, since Mosley had intially denied the claims and then sought legal redress to prove those claims to be false, nobody should have judged him until the case had been heard & nobody should have called for his resignation until the court had ruled.

Had the court found in favour of the News of the World, then I believe that Mosley would have had no option but to resign.

For the record, I initially stated, when the News of the World published its story, that I thought that he should resign....but, perhaps naively, at that time I supposed that the story was not as fictitious as it evidently was.

As soon as Max did not resign and started legal action, I realised that there may well be less to the claims, and for that reason I defended his right to stay in his job whilst he fought to clear his name.

As for Mark Oaten, I can't say definitively that he would have resigned were it not for the obvious hypocrisy that the revelations revealed, but I think that it is highly likely that he would.

However, I say that not because I believe he should have resigned without the photocalls with his family being a key reason, but because as a politician, there is a much more justification for intruding on what would, at first glance, appear to be a private matter.

The moral code for an MP is higher than that of the President of what, to all intents and purposes, is a club.

Oaten, for example, as a Member of Parliament, would have the ability to vote on key issues regarding family life, laws relating to sexuality and so on, and therefore would have to expect to adhere to an unwritten but expected level of code of conduct befitting to someone who can influence the jurisdiction of the country.

The President of the FIA wields power only in motorsport and motoring, and therefore does not compare to the actions of an MP.

[markabilly]

I don't think I'd ever said that there could never be a 'public interest' justification. Had, for example, it had been proven that Mosley had been role-playing as a Nazi death-camp commandant, then he would have been guilty of hypocrisy given the FIA's anti-racism campaign, not to mention that it is understandably viewed as being morally repugnant.

What I had said was that, since Mosley had intially denied the claims and then sought legal redress to prove those claims to be false, nobody should have judged him until the case had been heard & nobody should have called for his resignation until the court had ruled.

Had the court found in favour of the News of the World, then I believe that Mosley would have had no option but to resign.

For the record, I initially stated, when the News of the World published its story, that I thought that he should resign....but, perhaps naively, at that time I supposed that the story was not as fictitious as it evidently was.

As soon as Max did not resign and started legal action, I realised that there may well be less to the claims, and for that reason I defended his right to stay in his job whilst he fought to clear his name.

MP.


Sooner or later, one of these defense lawyers are going to wake up, hire a shrink, and point out the very obvious: The clear connection between sadisitic behavior of wearing a uniform while engaging in sadistic abuse and a nazi behavior

what do you think is the connection between Jonestown, Aushwitz, and the type of behavior that max engaged in with the uniforms?

That little quote of max will come back in the hands of the right lawyer..."unerotic"

Sure, and pigs fly

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1634/1/Diss_6_2+%26+3_11_OCR.pdf

a easy to find starting place, and then there was the "Aryan" comment, as in opppsss

another is http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/LiftonT377.shtml

[markabilly]

And for the basis of the new lawsuit, Woman E recants, but then acknowledges her proir statement

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69446

She claims:I constantly told them that I didn't want to put my name to that. I would never have said it was Nazi - I would never have said he was a liar. There was lots in that second article that didn't come from me.

"I signed the article but I was put under massive pressure as I was told I would be put on the front cover and basically they would do a story on me anyway"

Of course she apparently was paid 10k to say the latest......so which do u believe??

And as to her version:""I know for a fact, that it was spoken about, that Max actually found it quite a turn-on to speak to them in German. He liked the German language. It was prison uniforms because we were doing a German prison scene. But it wasn't Nazi."

In germany, do they still say "sieg heil" in prison and “We are Aryan, the blondes” ?


The breach of privacy was one thing, proving slander and libel much tougher, never mind the dicta of the fellow barrister eady,

All it takes is one shrink to note the same basis for sadistic abuse that runs throughout all of this in court.... and he filed it in Germany of all places.....

The stupidity of this hypocrisy continues to sprew forth......

[BDunnell]

I don't think I'd ever said that there could never be a 'public interest' justification. Had, for example, it had been proven that Mosley had been role-playing as a Nazi death-camp commandant, then he would have been guilty of hypocrisy given the FIA's anti-racism campaign, not to mention that it is understandably viewed as being morally repugnant.

What I had said was that, since Mosley had intially denied the claims and then sought legal redress to prove those claims to be false, nobody should have judged him until the case had been heard & nobody should have called for his resignation until the court had ruled.

Had the court found in favour of the News of the World, then I believe that Mosley would have had no option but to resign.

For the record, I initially stated, when the News of the World published its story, that I thought that he should resign....but, perhaps naively, at that time I supposed that the story was not as fictitious as it evidently was.

As soon as Max did not resign and started legal action, I realised that there may well be less to the claims, and for that reason I defended his right to stay in his job whilst he fought to clear his name.

As for Mark Oaten, I can't say definitively that he would have resigned were it not for the obvious hypocrisy that the revelations revealed, but I think that it is highly likely that he would.

However, I say that not because I believe he should have resigned without the photocalls with his family being a key reason, but because as a politician, there is a much more justification for intruding on what would, at first glance, appear to be a private matter.

The moral code for an MP is higher than that of the President of what, to all intents and purposes, is a club.

Oaten, for example, as a Member of Parliament, would have the ability to vote on key issues regarding family life, laws relating to sexuality and so on, and therefore would have to expect to adhere to an unwritten but expected level of code of conduct befitting to someone who can influence the jurisdiction of the country.

The President of the FIA wields power only in motorsport and motoring, and therefore does not compare to the actions of an MP.

Excellent post, if I may say so.

[uncoversport]

You can even sign a petition calling on the News of the World to appologies to mighty maxy!

http://www.supportmax.net/

[TMorel]

Very wise and calm words there from tamburello - really good post.

As the courts found in his favour, despite my dislike for Max, I'm looking forward to seeing how he puts this behind him and moves forward.
It's not going to be easy as he's shown some serious errors in judgement but Ron has been given the chance to rebuild his reputation despite the witch hunt actually finding him guilty so Max hopefully will get the same opportunity.

[ioan]

One nice editorial about this whole history:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=35543

My apologies if it has already been posted.

[Knock-on]

One nice editorial about this whole history:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=35543

My apologies if it has already been posted.

Very good article for once.

So, if Max is convicted of being a Pimp, do you agree that he should resign?

After all, having a financial interest in a Brothel is illegal isn't it :laugh:

[ioan]

Very good article for once.

So, if Max is convicted of being a Pimp, do you agree that he should resign?

After all, having a financial interest in a Brothel is illegal isn't it :laugh:

If he is convicted I will agree he has to go.

[markabilly]

Of course, if that should be the standard for MaX, with his role as the head dog of the FIA and then that should be the standard for Mac as well.

They have never been convicted of stealing, cheating or anyhting else in a real court of law so maX needs to pay them back their money, give them back their points...... :rolleyes:

But whatever you do, don't read the opinion of the old judge where he notes that it would have been a brothel, if it served more than one man other than MaX, (seems the women servicing each other don't count for the old sexist judge) or the part about the illegal spanking not being prosecuted often enough to be illegal enough, or the Euston theater where one of the hookers testified to maX worrying over his investment......

[Anderton]

Max doesn't deserve to win any money from and newspapers. Prostitution is illegal, end of.

[ioan]

Max doesn't deserve to win any money from and newspapers. Prostitution is illegal, end of.

There he is at it again! :rolleyes:

You clearly didn't understand what the case was about! :\

[Dave B]

Anderton didn't say that Max wasn't legally entitled to the victory, only that in his view it was undeserved.

You clearly didn't understand what his/her post was about :mark:

[ioan]

Anderton didn't say that Max wasn't legally entitled to the victory, only that in his view it was undeserved.

You clearly didn't understand what his/her post was about :mark:

Why was it undeserved?
If you did understand his post "better" than maybe you can also answer my question.
I'm waiting for a serious answer, that shows that you understood his post and also the case that Max just won.

[Dave B]

I don't know Anderton's motives for saying Max's damages were "undeserved" - I was off sick the day we did mind-reading at school.

[ioan]

I don't know Anderton's motives for saying Max's damages were "undeserved" - I was off sick the day we did mind-reading at school.

Then next time mind your own business.

[Anderton]

I know what the case was about, i'm basically saying that he may have won the case about his privacy being broken (i'm pretty sure that's what the case was about). I just don't beleive that he should be paid money by the NOTW for them reporting on him committing an illegal act.
Max was entitled to the legal victory, but not entitled to the money...
Hopefully that makes sense for you?

[markabilly]

I know what the case was about, i'm basically saying that he may have won the case about his privacy being broken (i'm pretty sure that's what the case was about). I just don't beleive that he should be paid money by the NOTW for them reporting on him committing an illegal act.
Max was entitled to the legal victory, but not entitled to the money...
Hopefully that makes sense for you?
Bless his heart Ioan was NOT a mAX supporter at all, until he, like some others, woke up and thought, what will happen to Ferrari without Max?? :eek:

I never thought Max did all that good of a job of taking care of Ferrari........but he did lead to the charge to punish Mac, it just was not as tough a punishment as max wanted.....with his own testimony, one can now question the emotional/honesty/fairness/justice/other basis/ reasons for Max's actions, hence the need to defend max

If he had never testified, that particular basis for attacking max would not exist, as all one is left with is some scuzzy photos and an old rag newspaper and speculation as to what really was going on in the brain of max

or this H

http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm


but no one pays attention to that because it does not catch the public' eye. Indeed as pointed out in the article, max was smart enough not to sue (or he was smart enough to listen to those who said not to sue) and in the case of his hookers once he secured his position at the FIA, he should have been as smart......

sic transist gloria

[ioan]

I know what the case was about, i'm basically saying that he may have won the case about his privacy being broken (i'm pretty sure that's what the case was about). I just don't beleive that he should be paid money by the NOTW for them reporting on him committing an illegal act.
Max was entitled to the legal victory, but not entitled to the money...
Hopefully that makes sense for you?

Why wasn't he entitled to the money? After all the newspaper has to pay in one way or another for being wrong, especially over the Nazi claims!

[ioan]

Bless his heart Ioan was NOT a mAX supporter at all, until he, like some others, woke up and thought, what will happen to Ferrari without Max?? :eek:

Make sure you got enough koolaid around next time you decide to post something. It might help you reason.

[markabilly]

Why wasn't he entitled to the money? After all the newspaper has to pay in one way or another for being wrong, especially over the Nazi claims!

The damages were small change for mAX, probably does not come close to covering his bills for his "parties" in a year; besides he said he was giving them to charity...


Make sure you got enough koolaid around next time you decide to post something. It might help you reason.



Here's to you,
:beer:

Let us see, nazi, facist, sadist, sexist, racist, gee I see with much clarity the common thread for all these folks, and that is hatred towards someone because they are the memeber of a group

Thanks, that does help.



And from http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/richard-ingrams-week-when-in-trouble-pass-the-buck-all-the-way-to-the-us-871769.html


"Given Mr Justice Eady's record in privacy cases, we journalists should look forward with trepidation to his ruling in the Max Mosley case. Because this judge in the past has showed himself rather too keen to rule in favour of rich important people who claim that their right to privacy has been jeopardised by the so-called gentlemen of the press.
Were Mr Eady to rule that Max Mosley, pictured, is entitled to privacy when he attends a sadomasochistic club, then it is likely that others – MPs for example – might bring actions when they were accused of much less outrageous behaviour. Who next? Boris Johnson? Mr Speaker Martin or his wife?
Whilst on the Mosley issue, I am grateful to a correspondent who has taken issue with the FIA chief's assurances that he has never supported the ideas of the far right, exemplified by his Fascist father, Sir Oswald.
He reminds me that Mosley, my contemporary at Oxford, once gave an interview to a rather scurrilous student magazine called Parson's Pleasure, which was edited for a time by me and my great friend Paul Foot.
"Do you stand by your father's statements before and after the War?" he was asked. His answer: "All that I have come across, YES."

Well of course.



And the explanation on the lack of those nazi cheap artifacts in the party, weeelll when you shop with all of the finest of people, those shops do not carry such stuff, and what English gentleman would be caught not dressed out in the finest of fashion, as Max himself has said:

"Had I wanted a Nazi scene, I would have said I wanted one and A would have got some of the inexpensive Nazi stuff from the joke shop that provides uniforms and would not have gone to Marks and Spencer and got quite expensive jackets." - Max


Or it could be the fashion of the "Oswald facist blackshirts," who like Mussolini brown shirts, actually avoided military insiginia's....... and merry old england to stop riots in 1936, had actually outlawed marching around in military uniforms....

"The young men didn't have much money but they could buy cheap shirts from Marks & Spencer" to quote his mother. His mother, not only was a Hitler groupie who denied the holocast, and married at the house of goebbels with Hitler as a guest of honor, when she died, still had a diamond encrusted swastika to remind her of the good old days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mosley

But yes, there is the common thread of hatred and a desire to sadistically punish.....thanks Ioan, that was good advice...... :D

[Knock-on]

BBC News - Max Mosley wins privacy case in France (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15641211)

Slap on the wrist for the NotW for publishing the photo's but interestingly no defamation.

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting to see that Max is now giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/24/leveson-inquiry-jk-rowling-sienna-miller-live).

12.10pm Mosley says he has never sought publicity in his job. It's a bit like a hotel, if it's run properly, you never see the manager.
Really?

[BDunnell]

What an utterly bonkers statement for him to make. I felt some time ago that events had turned his mind somewhat, and this is further proof. What a shame there is no-one there to counter his ludicrous claims.

[Mark]

Especially when we hear nothing of Jean Todt, he just gets on with the job, whereas Mosley was making press statements about something every week.

[ArrowsFA1]

I do remember Max being quoted by Martin Brundle as saying in the F1 paddock that "you won't be see me much around here in future" when he first became FIA President.

:p

[wedge]

Interesting to see that Max is now giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/24/leveson-inquiry-jk-rowling-sienna-miller-live).

Really?



What an utterly bonkers statement for him to make. I felt some time ago that events had turned his mind somewhat, and this is further proof. What a shame there is no-one there to counter his ludicrous claims.


Was Max courting the media as bad as the McCanns?

[BDunnell]

Was Max courting the media as bad as the McCanns?

I don't recall Max having a missing daughter. This may explain the McCanns' prevalence in the media at one time, possibly.

[wedge]

I don't recall Max having a missing daughter. This may explain the McCanns' prevalence in the media at one time, possibly.

Whereas Max sought a private life away from the media, the McCanns revealed to the tabloid press how their sex life was affected by the investigation.

[BDunnell]

Whereas Max sought a private life away from the media, the McCanns revealed to the tabloid press how their sex life was affected by the investigation.

Whatever one may think of the McCanns, it is a fact that Max was hardly a figure in the background of public life even before the scandal. And no matter what one thinks of his private life — it doesn't bother me and never has — I find the spectacle of him offering moral judgment on others a bit hard to take, given that this is a man who, when he was a student — so hardly a naive kid — demonstrated on behalf of his father's fascist organisation, and later threatened, in what turned out to be decidedly empty fashion, legal action against those who dared to criticise him.

[wedge]

Whatever one may think of the McCanns, it is a fact that Max was hardly a figure in the background of public life even before the scandal. And no matter what one thinks of his private life — it doesn't bother me and never has — I find the spectacle of him offering moral judgment on others a bit hard to take, given that this is a man who, when he was a student — so hardly a naive kid — demonstrated on behalf of his father's fascist organisation, and later threatened, in what turned out to be decidedly empty fashion, legal action against those who dared to criticise him.

That really isn't the point.

The point is to what extent do public figures regardlesss of political affiliations and no matter how their dubious morals have a right to privacy from the media?

[Dave B]

That really isn't the point.

The point is to what extent do public figures regardlesss of political affiliations and no matter how their dubious morals have a right to privacy from the media?

In my view the defence of "in the public interest" has mutated to become "things the public are interested in". Not the same thing at all, but the tabloids don't appear aware of the distinction.

[BDunnell]

That really isn't the point.

The point is to what extent do public figures regardlesss of political affiliations and no matter how their dubious morals have a right to privacy from the media?

No, but it is another, not unrelated, point.

I believe it becomes relevant when (a) someone is a hypocrite for having done whatever it is they've done — an MP who espouses family values having an affair, for example; or (b) someone has committed a criminal act. There is now a third category, too: those who take out super-injunctions, for these represent a curb too far on press freedom, not relating to stories about celebrities shagging but in terms of the effect they can have on the reporting of more serious matters. Therefore, I believe those who take advantage of them deserve to be exposed. And the future of much legitimate investigative journalism would have been called into question under the laws Mosley was espousing, but which thankfully didn't get very far.