Printable View
Nowhere. I was just asking the questions as part of a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Not at all. My questions were in direct response to your opinion, which I disagree with, that it "is palpably not the case" that "embarassing headlines equate to damage". If those headlines are not damaging then what are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
They are merely embarassing....to one person.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
There have been no reports confirming that F1 has been damaged by the actions of one man in his private life....no headlines stating that there is proof that any damage has been done.
Therefore, it is plain that no damage to the sport has been done.
In fact....
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/110720...-sex-case.html
It now appears that the News Of The World has back-tracked on it's Nazi claim.
So it's just about a bloke and some prostitutes.
Which means it's nothing more than the embarrasing details of one mans sex life.... The thing that upset ADAC, BMW, Mercedes & Toyota turns out to have no basis.
Actually, if Max defended himself, you would have an arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
But, Max is representing the FIA in this matter as they are paying for the defence and therefore are directly associated in the case.
You cannot distance the FIA from this if they are bankrolling him.
Perhaps had Max fought this case as a private citizen that may have an element of truth, but even then he has already acknowledged the embarassment caused to his family.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
As the FIA President Max does not exist in a bubble. He is a public figure and he has accepted that as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
You see, this is where both your (repeated) lack of knowledge of the legal system exhibits itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The FIA is not named as a party in court. They are not named as a claimant. It is therefore a case of a private individual seeking damages.
Besides which, where is the evidence that the FIA are paying for his legal costs?
They are not mentioned here -
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/66360
Not here -
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68785
Nor here -
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/ite...15&h=417&f=416
Not here -
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43292
Not here -
http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option...017&Itemid=219
Not here -
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=35271
Not here -
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/...AIN-MOSLEY.php
In fact, the only mention of the FIA is this one -
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/050420...d-damages.html
Which is merely the report that the FIA have confirmed that 'Mr Mosley' is seeking damages. It makes no reference to the FIA being involved in the legal action.
Legally, the definition of 'Mr ------' seeking damages is that a private individual is seeking damages, not the corporation or organisation he works for. If that were the case, it would be called "The FIA vs The News of the World" in the court papers.
It isn't called "The FIA vs The News of the World"
Plenty of reference to his position as head of the FIA is made in the reports of the court case, but no mention whatsoever that the FIA is involved in this court action.
I suspect you have got the initial legal action, now dropped, by the FIA against the Sunday Times mixed up with this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
So, what if the FIA are paying for Max's costs? Would that make a difference to your stance or can you not see the hypocrisy of Max bringing a private prosecution but financing it from the FIA coffers?
See, this is the problem. Max and the FIA are so intricately linked that the reputation of the FIA seems to be Max's reputation.
So, before I dig up any evidence, what would your stance be if the FIA are bankrolling Max's defence?
Dig up the evidence first, otherwise it is merely hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
They are intricately linked in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Others with less of an axe to grind can see the difference between Max Mosley the private individual & Max Mosley in his role of FIA president.
I await your evidence that his case is being financed by the FIA.
I hope your evidence is going to be better than your fellow mud-slingers at the News of the World.
Blimey. Those of us who have been following the Max Mosley case have been saying blimey rather a lot lately. It isn't so much the details about the canings, strangely fascinating though they are. (Apparently the conscientious sado-masochist sets him or herself a target of 12 strokes and tries to reach it, and, afterwards, he or she likes to put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea.) No, it's the sang-froid.
The paper claims its sting operation, in which it clandestinely filmed him being caned, was in the public interest. He argues that it wasn't, and one can see his point. He's not a government minister or a moral He's not a government minister or a moral crusader
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../13/do1307.xml
Lets start the discussion here here
The News of the World has got more than it bargained for with Max Mosley. Its lawyer has been mopping his brow in court, that and sitting with his head in his hands.
What's going on, the paper's executives must be thinking. Aren't important men involved in sex scandals supposed to cower in shame?
What they haven't allowed for is that Mosley is an aristocrat. His father is routinely described in the press as the leader of the Blackshirts in the 1930s but he was also a war hero (having served with the Royal Flying Corps), an Olympic fencer and a baronet. Indeed, such was the blueness of Sir Oswald Mosley's blood, when he married the daughter of Lord Curzon in 1920, King George V and Queen Mary were among the guests
I suspect many on this forum fit this discription :p :
"Perhaps the News of the World does know that Max Mosley is "a toff", and that is why they are going after him. If in doubt, pander to the prejudices of your working-class readers.
I think this is a good characterization of motorsport fan base :D
It may be a social stereotype but the lower classes have traditionally been much more embarrassed about nudity, bodily functions and sex than the upper classes. Aristocrats thought it vulgar and bourgeois to care about such things, and probably still do. A wife was expected to produce an heir and a spare, then to take a lover, if she so chose, while the husband kept a mistress.
Here's the real world!
I suspect the News of the World has misjudged the mood of the nation. Most of us are mildly libertarian these days and it takes a lot to scandalise us. Even the Conservative Party seems to recognise that consenting adults can get their jollies any way they please, so long as no one gets (seriously) hurt.
Curiously, our newfound tolerance toward the sexual peccadilloes of others seems to coincide with a rise of intolerance towards them by Islamic fundamentalists. Islamists would rather see a woman stoned to death than allow her to get away with adultery.
This is what the "Sensible Seven" on this forum have been trying to get across to the self rigtious here
Sexual tolerance, even about the stuff that makes you say blimey, is something Western liberal democracies should be out there defending.
To the barricades.
Praise Max and pass the aloe vera.
Technically your legal opinion may very well have some merit. The everyday reality is very different.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Why did Max take the NOTW to court in France? Simply because the headquarters of the FIA is in France. Why is that relevant if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?
Why would the FIA appoint its own barrister, no doubt incurring costs to the FIA, if this is "a case of a private individual seeking damages"?