Mosley 'knows' who set him up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Depends, personally I'd say yes, but I'm objective enough to understand you should not sack someone for their moral judgements on a matter unrelated to their work.

---

I agree. He shouldn't be sacked for his personal life. For the sake of his dignity and the embarrassment it caused to his family he may have choosen to resign but that's a moral choice and morally, Max is found wanting.

What he should be sacked for is the way he has run F1 and the corrupt manner in which the commercial rights were frittered away and the backhand he received.

perhaps we can leave Hanky Panky and worry about what he has done against the good of the sport instead now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Blaming anyone and everyone for the circumstances he finds himself in

---

:confused:
I just thought he was blaming the lady with the camera in her bra,
The NotW, and whoever it was that put her up to it.

Personally I'm believe the Anglo Mafia was behind this. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Are you saying that if your not ashamed of it, you should declare it public, and if tabloids choose it worthy, they should be allowed to publish it for their headlines?

---

No I'm not saying that because I fully agree he had a right to keep it secret, but saying he is not ashamed suggests this is something about which there was no reason for secrecy. That's different to saying he should have publicly declared his activities.

The reality is Max knew all along that his private life was something he had to keep secret because were it to be made public it would damage him privately and professionally, and it has. Despite that he appears to have taken no personal responsibility for what has happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Why did he conceal it against his wife? Because he was breaking a promise he made to her when they married. Thats why. Is it wrong? Depends, personally I'd say yes, but I'm objective enough to understand you should not sack someone for their moral judgements on a matter unrelated to their work.

---

Is it entirely unrelated to his work though? We're talking about someone who was prepared to deceive those closest to him for decades. Knowing that, would you have full confidence and trust in someone prepared to behave in that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

I can fast track you however, as one of our distinguished members is on vacation :p :
Wait a second I haven’t heard from Bag's in a while!
Is he also on vacation :confused:

---

Not to worry . I'm here , Taz .

This debate goes in circles .

But , have you seen anyone write that Max should be stopped from participating in these activities ?
Wouldn't you think that someone should should be outraged that he might still be meeting with these girls(well , maybe not one of them) ?

As far as Max's secrets go , they're out . We're not likely to hear any more details , if that's what folks are worried about .
The issue here is not the depravity , but rather , that it's out .

Max is more than suggesting that he was stung by someone inside F1 .
This is not a case of digging up the past . This is a case of someone allegedly paying someone else to publicly humiliate them for the express purpose of ousting him from his position as head of the FIA .
This is a hit at the fundamental rights to privacy for any individual .

Rather than disparage , I believe Max should be applauded for not only trying to sort this out , but for going to great lengths to find the cowardly swine that stooped this low .

If that person or group is still in the pitlane , I hope they are looking nervously over their shoulder .

That is an expose I will read in full .


I vote for Pole , Taz . He seems sensible enough .

Baggy.

I can't see how you can applaud a man that has been exposed as a liar and broken his promise. As Arrows says, it shows a distinct lack of moral fibre. How can he be trusted is what people will say?

What I find incrediable is how he was trusted before all this nonsense with his track record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

No I'm not saying that because I fully agree he had a right to keep it secret, but saying he is not ashamed suggests this is something about which there was no reason for secrecy. That's different to saying he should have publicly declared his activities.

The reality is Max knew all along that his private life was something he had to keep secret because were it to be made public it would damage him privately and professionally, and it has. Despite that he appears to have taken no personal responsibility for what has happened.

Is it entirely unrelated to his work though? We're talking about someone who was prepared to deceive those closest to him for decades. Knowing that, would you have full confidence and trust in someone prepared to behave in that way?

---

I can't say how he truely feels, because I can't get inside his head. But he has said he is not ashamed of what he did. I disagree with the fact that it suggests there is no need for secrecy, I personally wouldn't want everyone knowing who I'd slept with in the past, I'm not ashamed of it, but its my private business.

He knew he had to keep it secret, because he's clever, he knows leakage of this information would make headlines. In much the same way a sex tape of him and his wife would. Only difference here is that what he was caught doing something against societies "norm".

And no, why should he take responsibility? If you agree his privacy was breached, then you can't expect him to take responsibility.

If a woman is raped, and its made public, everyone will gossip about her, should she take responsibility for the fact that its been made public?

Be honest with yourself here Arrows, you seem unenable to detach yourself from your moral judgement to realist judgement of law. The fact you go on about his deception to his family highlights this fact for me.

Is there any solid evidence that his position has been compromised in quantitive terms since these relevations?

Rod Stewart has been married several times. Therefore breaking his vows to several women, does this mean that he cannot be trusted? Of course not, its his personal life, you cannot and should not judge someones professional capability on their private life, you should judge them on their professional capability.

If people decide Max should go for professional reasons, fair enough, but absolutely no way he should go because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Because he was breaking a promise he made to her when they married.

---

That statement tells me all I need to know to make an informed opinion about the man. Can we not now see why he should not be trusted with business decisions (promises if you like) when he casually casts aside his own marriage vows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

That statement tells me all I need to know to make an informed opinion about the man. Can we not now see why he should not be trusted with business decisions (promises if you like) when he casually casts aside his own marriage vows?

---

So would I be right in saying you believe anyone with a divorce under their name should not be trusted with business decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

So would I be right in saying you believe anyone with a divorce under their name should not be trusted with business decisions?

---

If the divorce was as a result of adultery for example, then the same principle applies, yes. If it is because two people have genuinely fallen out of love and split amicably then it is whole different kettle of anchovies....

It's trust and integrity that is at the crux of this argument, isn't it? Max broke the trust betwixt himself and his wife, his integrity is in tatters as a result of the way he has 'serially' broken that trust and sought to keep his infidelity hidden from what ought to be the most important person in your life.

If you think that is testicles, then therin lies the answer - in part - to the general erosion of moral society the world over - i.e. no-one (or at least very few) give a 5h!t anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

If the divorce was as a result of adultery for example, then the same principle applies, yes. If it is because two people have genuinely fallen out of love and split amicably then it is whole different kettle of anchovies....

It's trust and integrity that is at the crux of this argument, isn't it? Max broke the trust betwixt himself and his wife, his integrity is in tatters as a result of the way he has 'serially' broken that trust and sought to keep his infidelity hidden from what ought to be the most important person in your life.

If you think that is testicles, then therin lies the answer - in part - to the general erosion of moral society the world over - i.e. no-one (or at least very few) give a 5h!t anymore.

---

Well, what can I say. I'm glad we don't have people like you running the country. Where every man and woman who has cheated on their wife / husband is sacked from their jobs if they're in a management job, loses their income, quite possibly home.

Can I ask if you'd like adultery seen as a criminal activity?

I also take that your for trial by moral judgement, and not whether its legal or illegal?