Max Mosley opens a can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.
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!

---

Take a look at this article from the Daily Conservative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-private.html

Scroll down and read about the Judge hearing the case.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Should I report this , or do you wish to apologise ?

---

http://www.coogans-run.co.uk/paulcalf/

Top right hand side on the above web site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Apologise to who for what? For quoting a catchphrase of Paul Calf (Steve Coogan) when he describes students?

---

Apologise to me , for "bag of e" , like you did in that PM .

I guess you don't like your dirty laundry aired in public then , not unlike our Max .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Take a look at this article from the Daily Conservative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-private.html

Scroll down and read about the Judge hearing the case.....

---

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.'

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Apologise to me , for "bag of e" , like you did in that PM .

I guess you don't like your dirty laundry aired in public then , not unlike our Max .

---

1. I was responding to my own post - not yours (see post #700)
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

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.'

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

---

Given that Eady is presiding over a case in which in his barrister years, he would be acting for the NOTW.

So the reference was relevant to setting precedents, as your post postulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

It's 45 of 48 years married , doing things behind the wife's back .

---

Nice guy this Mosely, eh? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.
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!

---

Now hang on.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

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.

You are beating a dead horse, with this impact of Mosley's sexual life on Motorsport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

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.

Again, I ask the question, if what Max has been doing is so harmless, why does he feel the need to conceal it?