Mosley won't stand for another term

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

The faster Mosley is out of the FIA, the better!

People here seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to the FIA. Remember it is the FIA, not F1A. There are other motor sports struggling because of Max's failure to be ubiquitous. I keep reading great points about what Max has done for F1, but nothing else.

To be honest, my interests lie primarily in the WRC, but I am also a fan of F1. There my bias is now out in the open. This is why I am fretting over the FACT that Ford, Citroen, and Subaru seem to be looking for a way out of the WRC. So far there hasn't been much action spurring the need to spend millions on a sport that's dead in the water.

Ford has not renewed their contract with M-Sport to rally in 2009, Citroen has been interested in contesting with German manufacturers in DTM, and Subaru almost made a split earlier this year when Max stated that the WRC should only have 2WD cars onstage.

Idiocy...

---

:up:

It is sad to see WRC going downhill. It's the most versatile world championship out there, but its being hindered by FIA neglect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

:up:

It is sad to see WRC going downhill. It's the most versatile world championship out there, but its being hindered by FIA neglect.

---

Regarding the WRC. Can someone give me a quick overview of it?

Who holds the rights to WRC?

Because while I disagree the WRC is fast going downhill, I think its mainly to do with the commercial way its been handled?

Who controls what exactly in WRC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Not illegal?????

You need to read the court opinion where the judge said the beatings were illegal but where they did not make enough noise, the authorities did not prosecute, therefore the judge in essence thought the activities to not be illegal enough.... but admits the offense could be prosecuted.....so whatever.

Then there is his elaborate discussion of brothel keeping, but since max was using his brothel for his own purposes and pleasure according to the judge, he could not be convicted......but he ignored the fact clearly noted elsewhere, that the whores testified to taking time to pleasure each other and so forth when not busy servicing MaX......but when it comes to women, well in the world of maX and the old judge of women as objects to be degraded and humilated, that don't count.

Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping.

Again illegal but ignored.

And as I said elsewhere, liquidating jews and enemies of the third reich, violated no German law and indeed, was the duty of those so ordered. Nothing illegal there.......of course they lost, so some of them were hung for "crimes against humanity", a fiction created under the equally fictitious idea of international law. It was a fiction because Germany had never signed any such treaty as would be necessary to create any obligation on the part of any german to obey such a nebulous law.
So there all of you go, imposing your view of what is right ot wrong on people, and then punishing them ex post facto......

me? i got no problem with hanging them, but it had nothing to do with any applicable law as to whether their conduct was legal or illegal. Under the logic of some posters here as well as that of the old judge, NO Nazi "war criminal" would have existed and none of the accussed could have been punished, as after all, they really did not do anything illegal.

And with MaX, it is not an issue merely of right or wrong, but how his admitted behavior calls into severe question his character for being fair and honest, and being able to rely on him for leadership and opinions that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill....the certain 'witch hunt" comments, and the claims asserted by some as to how unfair the puishment of MaC.

So while I think Mac got what they got because they deserved it, given Max's own testimony, one can no longer say that it was fairness that was the basis of the actions by maX and not some perverted desire to inflict pain and sufferring because he could not control RD sufficiently to his liking :confused:

---

You think its correct for a man to lose his job over something which is technically illegal?

Your argument doesn't stand. Should a man be sacked from his job for eating an apple while in a traffic jam? Should a man be sacked for throwing a cigerrate on the floor?

The man was having consenting sex with escorts, its not my cup of tea, but its not illegal, as I've already said, neither is football, but I'm not going to sack someoone for enjoying football.

If the women consented to being humiliated (which is your opinion, I don't think they'd see it that way) - again he hasn't done anything wrong.

"Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping."

Can you link that for me please? I must be honest I didn't come across this point until now.

I must be honest, I find your English slightly hard to understand (not sure if English is your first language?) - but I think your making a point that nazism was legal back in 1940's as a basis for saying that the law isn't a good basis for judging what is right and what is wrong.

Well I've talked about this in a previous post, where at the end of the day, society shapes us. I don't want to get too deep, as could probably write a book on this, but society has come a long way in the last 70 years.

Using that as an argument, I could argue that 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls is acceptable, as it was back in the 1800s.

International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

But why does him enjoying S&M sessions in private not make him fair and honest in his work? I don't understand the connection?

Have you ever lied in your life? Presumably yes, does that make you dishonest and unfair?

And you say "that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill...."

I must ask you to source this please - being a Damon Hill fan I haven't come across this yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Regarding the WRC. Can someone give me a quick overview of it?

Who holds the rights to WRC?

Because while I disagree the WRC is fast going downhill, I think its mainly to do with the commercial way its been handled?

Who controls what exactly in WRC?

---

Let's see; originally Bernie held the rights as the FIA Promotional boss, but paid little attention to the sport. However he owned ISC - which he sold to Dave Richards/Apax. At the moment I think North One Television own ISC.

As for going downhill, it's already at the bottom - a dead duck Championship with only 2-3 possible winners, lack of interest (apart from Finland), no variety, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

You think its correct for a man to lose his job over something which is technically illegal?

Your argument doesn't stand. Should a man be sacked from his job for eating an apple while in a traffic jam? Should a man be sacked for throwing a cigerrate on the floor?

The man was having consenting sex with escorts, its not my cup of tea, but its not illegal, as I've already said, neither is football, but I'm not going to sack someoone for enjoying football.

If the women consented to being humiliated (which is your opinion, I don't think they'd see it that way) - again he hasn't done anything wrong.

"Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping."

Can you link that for me please? I must be honest I didn't come across this point until now.

I must be honest, I find your English slightly hard to understand (not sure if English is your first language?) - but I think your making a point that nazism was legal back in 1940's as a basis for saying that the law isn't a good basis for judging what is right and what is wrong.

Well I've talked about this in a previous post, where at the end of the day, society shapes us. I don't want to get too deep, as could probably write a book on this, but society has come a long way in the last 70 years.

Using that as an argument, I could argue that 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls is acceptable, as it was back in the 1800s.

International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

But why does him enjoying S&M sessions in private not make him fair and honest in his work? I don't understand the connection?

Have you ever lied in your life? Presumably yes, does that make you dishonest and unfair?

And you say "that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill...."

I must ask you to source this please - being a Damon Hill fan I haven't come across this yet.

---

go back and read the court opinion. read the posts about hill's comments on this forum. indeed, all the hypocrisy in the world, even with kool aid, is not enough to change it

you say:
International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

Well guess what? That ain't Max's view of how he wants things to be as demonstrated by his little parties through his own court testimony, and given his desire and success in dominanting others, well you will have to drop the hypocrisy to understand that character and judgment are determinations of the individual's morality.

And to say one thing in public, for example, condenming the spanish fan who "blackened up" while doing the opposite in private playing games where butts are beaten because they are a black and not blonde, and chanting we are the Aryans and all the rest, is about as extreme hypocrisy as you can find.
And by definition, hypocrisy is dishonesty, as is lieing and cheating on one's family for forty years and such private character like that results in public actions so aptly described by Hill as thus:
In a letter to F1's trade magazine Autosport, Hill spoke for many when he said: "To call him 'a certified halfwit' would be on the first level unkind, but on another level is nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim.
"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA.
"It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate."
Hill closed with a crushing flourish: "I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/col...e-Stewart.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

go back and read the court opinion. read the posts about hill's comments on this forum. indeed, all the hypocrisy in the world, even with kool aid, is not enough to change it

you say:
International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

Well guess what? That ain't Max's view of how he wants things to be as demonstrated by his little parties through his own court testimony, and given his desire and success in dominanting others, well you will have to drop the hypocrisy to understand that character and judgment are determinations of the individual's morality.

And to say one thing in public, for example, condenming the spanish fan who "blackened up" while doing the opposite in private playing games where butts are beaten because they are a black and not blonde, and chanting we are the Aryans and all the rest, is about as extreme hypocrisy as you can find.
And by definition, hypocrisy is dishonesty, as is lieing and cheating on one's family for forty years and such private character like that results in public actions so aptly described by Hill as thus:
In a letter to F1's trade magazine Autosport, Hill spoke for many when he said: "To call him 'a certified halfwit' would be on the first level unkind, but on another level is nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim.
"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA.
"It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate."
Hill closed with a crushing flourish: "I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/col...e-Stewart.html

---

How is Max disregarding peoples human rights if the ladies punishing him are consenting to punishing him? I honestly don't see the logic in that.

And again, I respect that you value a persons committment in marriage, and that you think its wrong that he lied to her. But that shouldn't impact his professional life.

Marriage is a cultural institution at end of the day, it should not and luckily has not impacted his position in his job directly.

While your more than entitled to your opinion, what your judging him on is something subjective. And you can't punish someone on something which is subjective, and that we have laws.

Laws in place to make sure people aren't judged by stereotypes and given a fair chance.

To you, what he did was wrong, despite it being legal. But what you see as wrong is totally subjective to how you view life. Personally, its not my cup of tea, but I'm not one to judge him on it. I believe what he does in his private time is up to him. As long as its in line with the law (which is objective).

In other societys, its frowned upon what women are allowed to drive on public roads, in others they think its weird women have equal rights, in others they think its wrong to eat bacon.

All different parts of the world have different cultures (despite globalisation ). And people brought up in these varying cultures, in some respects with good reason, form incredibly different opinions on certain issues to culture. So for example, someone brought up in Iran, is bound to have different stereotypes to us purely on the society (which are foundations for who we are) they’re from.

And I think people who say ‘blah blah should be sacked for this and that because I think its sick and wrong’ is dangerous. And I’m glad that we have laws in place which disregard personal views as to what is right and what is wrong. They have tendency to just take black and white issues into account. And that’s important, and your post above reinforces my opinion on this matter. With all due respect, what right have you got to say what’s sick and perverted?

That’s your opinion, and your more than entitled to it, but your opinion shouldn’t have any physical or material impact on someone else’s life. Which is how it is, and why we have laws in place like they currently are.

You also mention people in his position should be above getting caught etc. But once again, with all due respect, we’re all entitled to a private life, sure people in certain positions should be more careful if what they get up to is not the ‘norm’. But he did that, he hired out an apartment etc etc just for this. That’s more than good enough for taking care in activities. But considering he had people especially after him to catch him out, whatever he does, he was going to get caught no how careful he was. And in that respect that argument doesn’t stand.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70223

Very interesting article here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70223

Very interesting article here.

---

Bernie and the game about more money!

Quick change of position since he didn't manage to get rid of him! He was his best mate all along :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Quick change of position since he didn't manage to get rid of him! He was his best mate all along :laugh:

---

That's the way I read it.

Problem with Max and Bernie is that they can never use a mirror.

Not that they can't see their reflection but because the time it takes light to reflect back, they have changed their stance :D