Yes I think it's right to hide dirty secrets from your partner, and especially from the kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Can you challenge my opinion in any way?! I doubt it.
Printable View
Yes I think it's right to hide dirty secrets from your partner, and especially from the kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Can you challenge my opinion in any way?! I doubt it.
Than what did you mean with this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Shame on you Ioan!Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It is very wrong, for the very reasons Max is experiencing now - humiliation shame and depravation.
Trust, is a wonderful thing. There can be none in that family now. How does his wife now feel. Inadequate? Used? Violated perhaps?
What a horrid little man Max has turned out to be.
I tell you, I'm not saying my dung don't hum, but there are no skeletons in my closet.
I was dragged up proper me. Was taught respect, manners and integrity.
I hope that man loses his case.
NB - As for your opinion, can I refer you to Voltaire?
Thank god you're not a lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Arrows said that Max seems to be relishing the case rather than the implications.
How does this in any way trasnslate to Arrows even implying that Max doesn't have the right to defend himself.
:confused:
Good thing you're not a judge .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
How the hell do you know what Mrs. Mosely thinks ?
How would you know if this was news to her at all ?
How would you know whether she condones this activity or not ?
You assume .
You know Max is still married , don't you ?
You also know Max hasn't denied anything but that there was no Nazi connotation , don't you ?
You understand that this was clearly a sting , don't you ?
I must note it is ironic for you to use the phrase " rule of thumb" , when speaking about this affair , as some note the origin of the saying as being the maximum thickness of the stick with which you are allowed to beat your wife . Whilst it may not be the true etomology of the phase , it is very well known .
Mrs. Mosely , for all you or I know , might be into the same things .
ioan, what you've quoted has nothing to do with me denying Max the right to defend himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Oh I dunno...might be a bit of a larf :laugh: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Because, the way I read it, Arrows seems to think that the 'implications' are more important than the right to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
If that were the case, it would be impossible for anybody in any position of authority to ever try to clear their name. That would lead to easy blackmail and false accusations aimed solely at destroying lives.
Welcome to Zimbabwe, Mr Arrows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It does seem to imply that he shouldn't defend himself , in light of those "wider implications" , or that the decision to do so is corrupt in some way because of it's motivation .
Surely the motivation behind this sting is more corrupt than the glee that one might feel at getting one back on dirty opponents such as these foul swine .
Which would be an entirely incorrect assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Try , poor wording , since that's how I read it as well .Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Hey Bagwan, at least Arrows now knows how things can be misinterpreted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Just like a certain Mr Mosley.
Sorry Baggy but must object to the "sting" part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
A sting, in my opinion, relates to someone setting up a situation.
As far as I'm aware, Max instigated this little party entirely of his own volition and paid Ladies for indulging in sexual services.
It's funny how "I have never argued that Max does not have the right to defend himself in court" can be somehow not be clear.
Funny, but somehow not suprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
People can draw the wrong conclusions. I didn't take Arrows's words to in any way suggest Max hasn't the right to defend himself in a court of Law but others may have misinterpreted that.
Similarly, the NotW recorded Max in a Prisoner Role Play, involving German Military regalia and speaking in German and interpreted that as having a Nazi theme. In this they may too be mistaken and will be found out in the ongoing Court case but of course, they may not ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
:p : Hhmmmm.... What a Shame.
:rolleyes: Thanks for revealing your true character for the World to see !!!
;) Not being privy to the English Press... I'm not sure how much creditbility the Telegraph has...
but it does offer an interesting article on Max's escapades.
"Max Molsey & the Euston 40"...
questioning Max's involvement & financial interest in:
"event shows in a tawdy sex den" !!!
Like I said, thank god your not a lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Whilst you haven't specifically stated that Mosley should not have his day in court, you do constantly refer to the 'wider implications' of his court action and seem to place more emphasis upon this aspect of the saga than on Mosley's indisputable right to try to clear his name.
That is not how justice works nor should it ever be and is neither funny nor, sadly, surprising.
Eerrrrrmmmmm. Perhaps you should read what has been happening in the court case, you will read that Max has admitted he had successfully kept knowledge of his 'antics' from 'her indoors' and the 'ankle biters'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
We also know from other Maxisms that he said 'the missus was not best pleased'.
I know Max is still married. Can't think what it is about the multi millionaire that she sees in him though! ;)
He has denied only the Nazi connotations, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Woman 'D' said that the PhD student who blurted out about the Aryan race, did so (and this is the best bit) on the spur of the moment, not knowing its meaning! :rotflmao:
I have assumed very little Baggy, chosing to use quotes from the case in court.
HTH
Which has nothing to do with the facts in this case!Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The wider implications are to quote Tamb':Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
"If that were the case, it would be impossible for anybody in any position of authority to ever try to clear their name. That would lead to easy blackmail and false accusations aimed solely at destroying lives."
The wider implications you refer to have only served to sell more tabloids!
Motor racing is no worse off than it was before this event!
Justice will be meted out. The sad thing is that the tabloids are going to make the money
that this "situation" has produced.
I hope it sets a precedent to deter these slimeballs from pulling this cr@p in the future!
.....showing Max in not a very good light....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
Go read this then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sions.html
:eek:
You'll have to cut'n'paste that link - sorry.
Max should have his day in court but in my view (as I have said before) he should be there as a private citizen, not FIA President.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
To correct my mistake - Woman D is the PhD student.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Bag o' sh!te! :laugh:
Sorry , Knocky , but it was MI5 that used the word first .Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
They'd know what it means , don't you think ?
The sting refers to the plan to get pictures of the affair .
As has been implied in the excerpts of quotes from the girls , it was perhaps a regular thing , not a one-off .
Getting pictures in the news was a set-up .
Not sure where your going with that old beanQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Just becaure Max's hobby isn't R.C. boat racing
doesn't justify NoW's activity here.
And it wouldn't enhance Max's ability to do his job.
I await the outcome with quiet optimism!
I believe that Great Britain is not a Facist State.
Yet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Should I report this , or do you wish to apologise ?
Well, I can't be responsible for MI5 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I think the whole debarcle is quite amusing really.
The crux of the matter is that Max has been caught with his pants down engaging in conduct that many people find quite depraved. Don't know that I subscribe to that view as I would like nothing more than to give Max a sound thrashing but I suggest that a lot of people find his behavour quite weird.
However, as long as he hurts nobody, commit a criminal act and keeps it behind closed doors, it doesn't concern me. Cheating on his wife and engaging prostitutes for S&M sessions is a personal morality issue that Max can accept. But again, it's his and his familys personal business. I would go as far as to argue that dressing up as some sort of Nazi is neither here nor there. Again, it was behind closed doors and up to him to reason with his concience.
Was it a invasion of privacy for the NotW to run this story? I would suggest it was but that's what Newspapers do. They don't sell much copy by running a Headline "Max Molesy happily married and nothing to report"!
Thing is, it's not behind closed doors now. If I was Max, I would have let it blow over but he's obviously not so we get to see the whole issue drawn out through the courts.
I hear you , knock .Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
It's 45 of 48 years married , doing things behind the wife's back .
It's more damage than anyone on the board here can imagine .
The NOTW saw to it that it was not behind closed doors .
The suit is all he could do .
Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
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!
Apologise to who for what? For quoting a catchphrase of Paul Calf (Steve Coogan) when he describes students?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Take a look at this article from the Daily ConservativeQuote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-private.html
Scroll down and read about the Judge hearing the case.....
http://www.coogans-run.co.uk/paulcalf/Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Top right hand side on the above web site.
Apologise to me , for "bag of e" , like you did in that PM .Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I guess you don't like your dirty laundry aired in public then , not unlike our Max .
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.'Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
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
1. I was responding to my own post - not yours (see post #700)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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.
Given that Eady is presiding over a case in which in his barrister years, he would be acting for the NOTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
So the reference was relevant to setting precedents, as your post postulated.
Nice guy this Mosely, eh? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Now hang on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Again, I ask the question, if what Max has been doing is so harmless, why does he feel the need to conceal it?