Might be an interesting read - BBC's Panorama investigation of FIA/FOM/FOCA Etc...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...t_16_11_98.txt
...some of text doesn't quite line up but you'll get the gist
Regards
Printable View
Might be an interesting read - BBC's Panorama investigation of FIA/FOM/FOCA Etc...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...t_16_11_98.txt
...some of text doesn't quite line up but you'll get the gist
Regards
Which comes back to what I was saying about the position of the motoring organisations within the FIA. Surely this is now pointless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
On this, I'm afraid I disagree. If you extend this reasoning, surely public figures would have to declare everything they get up to in private before being caught, and thus have no private lives at all? I don't see why the rights or wrongs of what you get up to in private should suddenly change if you are a public figure and you get caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
I believe that prominent individuals are entitled to some degree of privacy, and that only when it's in the public interest to know should it be made public — for example, a politician being against gay rights while secretly having gay affairs. OK, so Max took the moral high ground over McLaren last year and is now known to not apply this to his personal life (though, again, that's only when his behaviour is measured against society's perceived norms), but it's a bit of a leap from one to the other.
I very much agree with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
Hence, basically, why I think he should go, although he may well have been treated unfairly by the News of the World. His subsequent actions are simply not acceptable — worse, in my view, than the original 'offence'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
What you suggest will ensure domination of India and China in FIA ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
Lets consider a situation, where every country in world is a member of FIA, what would it be then? Around 220 countries? We have a vote.
The 7 most populated countries all put together ( China, India, Pakistan, USA, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil ) make over 52% of worlds population and could outvote everyone. Do you think that is fair?
China and India on themselves make almost 40% of all votes. Is that fair?
I quite agree. To be honest, this part of it is a side issue. Huge supra-national organisations of any sort can never hope to be totally democratic in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Already Platon thought that Democracy is the worst possible form of ruling a country, with the exception of Tyranny. Aristotle referred to Democracy as one of the three "bad" ways of forms of country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:D
the population or the population density is irrelevant to a fair and democratic vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by F1boat
what he is suggesting is that there should be representation with some weighting towards the number of motorists, not the number of people, given that the FIA - and by extension, Max - purports to represent the world's motorists.
a democratic voting process to achieve pro-rata representation for the world's motorists is a very different thing from a voting process to achieve the voting outcome Mosley wanted.
as has been written here before, the number of motorists in china and india might be growing but is, at present, negligible compared to those in the US, Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Japan, Italy etc.
A Ruling Council within the FIA is required to control on the direction of motorsport. Countries which have an active participation in international events such as World Championship Rallying, F1, Champcars or whatever it has evolved into these days, and so on should vote on matters concerning the running of the FIA. Countries which have no active participation in International events (including the hosting of such events) would have no say.
So countries like Italy, Germany, France, and the UK which holds International events, as well as having teams in F1 would be the ideal candidate.
The other extreme would be Burma which has nothing to do with International Motorsports of any kind.
If this idea fails, and I am sure it will, then the countries which have a vested and high monetary interest in F1 will pull out of the FIA so that they can control their destiny.
Take crimes as an analogy:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
as long as the crook can keep his e.g. robberies „private“ everything and everyone ´s cool. But wait `til the delicts become public... Nontheless its illegal in both cases. I guess its fundamental that one can only react to and deal with things when he gets knowledge of them.
for you and me, you are right and it probably isn't relevant. For someone in max's position, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'll explain why i think so.
Max's job entails basically two things. motorsport and some road-safety initiatives.
to gets these jobs done requires the complicity of governments and big business.
if the government of the day is democratically elected, then the electorate will usually have a "moral majority" of conservative voters who will be appalled at Mosley's behaviour.
if this slice of the constituency is not happy with the government maintaining its dealings with a man whose morals they find questionable, then the government is placed in an awkward position.
similarly, if it's an individual politician, are they going to risk taking a road-safety decision that's right for the public if it gives that same public a tangible link between him/herself and mosley, especially in an election year?
there is also the risk that the politicians or senior bureaucrats themselves, in whatever slice of government mosley's FIA is trying to convince, are conservative and will make their personal morals part of their overall decision-making processes.
if it's a national figurehead, there is simply no way the British Queen, the Spanish King or princes from Bahrain or Monaco are ever going to let themselves be photographed with Mosley again. and that rules out Max's future as a "figurehead" president of the FIA.
If it's not a democracy, max will still need to deal with the moral opinions of one man or several men/women. given their positions, you have to assume they will have political strength to at least approach max's, but unlike max, they still need to answer to somebody.
If a government is being asked to invest millions of taxpayer dollars to host a sporting event or entertain a road-safety initiative (eg, building an NCAP test centre), do you really think they won't be worried about their constituents making a link between max's personal morals and his professional morals?
similarly in business, it will not be enough for max to be cleared of the nazi connotations in court, because enough customers already have heard it and believe it.
that being the case, if you're a business wanting to sell into a country where the worst nazi-related activities occured (germany, austria, hungary, poland, russia, romania), you will not want any taint of that stain on your current activities.
and, when two of the six manufacturers in your premier category have wartime business activities that benefited from such activities, don't be surprised if they are shuddering with discomfort, and that this discomfort will have repercussions internally and externally. By WWII alliance, four of the six works teams have an association here.
Benz and BMW (and, as a senior DTM runner, Audi) will have already done studies to measure how many sales they will directly lose for this reason if one of their senior people is photographed with Mosley.
and how do you think it is with Force India's sponsorship and credibility? India is a country where a broadcasting a public kiss is considered insulting to women...
even in companies who support F1 financially, there will be repercussions. Board members will be grilled by any shareholder offended by his personal actions and they will, in turn, grill any senior manager who approved the $30 million sponsorship arrangement with, for example, an F1 team.
once this sort of personal activity spills into the public arena, it is not unreasonable for people to wonder whether he operates so far from the moral and ethical norm in his professional life as well.
but it is mostly because his very being there and being associated with the FIA's management will make decision makers from all sides of the FIA's life uncomfortable - sometimes with reconciling their association with their own standards, sometimes with their spouse's opinions, sometimes with the people they are answerable to in business or politics.
this is why people resign immediately when these sorts of scandals break. it's not because what they've done is right or wrong. it's because the knowledge makes life incredibly uncomfortable and awkward for the people they have to deal with in their business lives. and that makes business and/or politics harder to maintain.
it's something that's done out of respect for the continued effective functioning of the organisation you work for, the organisations you work with and the people in both.
and max doesn't seem to have it.