Printable View
The statement forms a part of Mr Justice Eady's final judgement in the case of Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
IMHO the last sentence is clear, and I think contradicts PolePosition_1's opinion on the issue of responsibility, which was the reason for posting it.
Allright I'll play!Quote:
The statement forms a part of Mr Justice Eady's final judgement in the case of Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers.
IMHO the last sentence is clear, and I think contradicts PolePosition_1's opinion on the issue of responsibility, which was the reason for posting it.
What is the definition of "some resposibility"
As far as I'm concerened. He could have already acheived that.
For instance He may have told his wife. Hey it's a bummer that you had to hear from these Crumb-bums that I was getting spanked on a regular basis.
Remember when you refused to spank my hinder 40 years ago. Well I found someone who would. I hope you understand. Then wifey says "yes Max You could have come to me and we could have sorted it out without you having to do the Princess Dy dash all over Europe. I understand honey. I'm just very embarrased about the way that filth had to drag your dick through the dirt!"
The point is we should never know what, and how people reconcile their intimate transgressions!
Would it have been irresponsible to have not gone to great lengths for 45 years to keep this secret ?
"This does not escuse the intrusion into his privacy..." should be the line that rings truest .
There is no ambiguity there .
The "but" he includes is saying that , if he wasn't doing it , he couldn't have been photographed doing it . That's just stupid .
It is much like saying a girl should be raped for the clothes she dares to wear .
He was a target because he is high profile , and he is suggesting that it was a plot .
Again, I think it is totally inappropriate that such a comparison with Max's case should be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
So , you don't like my example , but make no comment on the gist of my statement .Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Regardless of what Max did , is it not an assault on his privacy to have photographed him in secret ?
What if his wife was there ?
Would that have made a difference ?
What if he was in "black-face" Al Jolson make-up , re-enacting the way slaves were beaten ?
We are beyond what happened now .
What's important now is to catch those Max believes are responsible , and change things so that nobody needs worry about hidden bra-cams becoming the norm .
Yes it was, as I have said a number of times before now. Max won his case against the NoTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Sorry, but I am yet to be convinced about this so-called "plot" Max talks about. Perhaps that has something to do with him being capable of deceiving those closest to him and so being capable of spinning the odd yarn or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
If Max wants to take up a new job to restrict press freedom then good luck to him. I don't happen to think that is within the remit of the FIA President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I agree, but I don't think you should punish those for errors in their way. And then we have the debate as to what we class as integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Integrity is associated with cultural beliefs, which one is right and which one is wrong?
And I'm a firm believer of a secular state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I agree their personal life can be a reflection of their work ethics. But I don't think you should actually judge someone and punish them pending on their private life. And whether that private life is seen to be 'ok' by society, which is largely influenced by religion, upbringing and the media.
Regarding the rape comparison, its typical to what I'm refering to when talking about society, and what society says is right and wrong, which often has no bearing on legal and illegal.
If a rape victim wants to keep her / his rape private, its their right. If it somehow gets out though, people will talk about it, and its an invasion of their privacy.
This is a perfect example, because it shows when society says the person is a victim, they're entitled to their privacy, but when society sees as what happens as wrong - people argue its the 'victims' fault that their privacy has been invaded.
It highlights the double standards demonstrated on this topic, and where the role of what is seen as 'normal' in today's society places a huge role in peoples views on two different events, with essentially the same principles.
Thank You :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I'm happy to be a member of this if it means we're all fighting for the end of judgement by tabloid media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Ok, if your using this as back up, I hope you acknowledge he recieved largest compo claim for this invasion of privacy, a clear indicator that his privacy was indeed invaded.