Spankie looses ( European court privacy law bid)
Discussion
ker!
Mosley has, regrettably, been much in the news in recent weeks, and been given loads of air-time. What has been quite disappointing has been the almost-free ride that interviewers have given him. For example:
- Without fail, the interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that the Nazi allegation was "shown" to have been false, or was "proved" false. Regardless of what self-serving term the legal profession may wish to associate with itself, the fact was that one lone judge, David Eady, the same guy who has now single-handedly and notoriously rewritten UK privacy and defamation law, in Mosley's court action disregarded facts, ignored common sense, and gave his personal opinion about whether there were any Nazi connotations. His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
- Without fail, the same interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that whatever sex acts one has engaged in with consenting adults are a necessarily private matter, not in the public interest.
That's very well for the scion of aristocrats loftily to declare, and it may apply to most British, or even most European citizens. It most certainly does not, however, apply to the entire human race.
Max Mosley, by his own choice and pursuing avidly his own ambition, was president of an international body with more than 100 million underlying members, representing almost every religion and set of values. Just because he and his sophisticated pals consider what he got up to as strictly private would not mean that all 100 million of his organisation's members believed the same. It is not up to him, it is up to the members whether what their president was doing was acceptable to them.
- As a trained barrister, Mosley continues to try to baffle with bull5hit. This is of a piece with when, in the aftermath of the Chelsea Embankment revelations, he kept claiming that someone had "set him up". No one "set him up". Someone simply recorded and then revealed what he, Max Mosley, had set up himself.
An adult - especially one with large responsibilities who meets with heads of state and lectures the European Parliament - must be accountable for his own actions. He may not have wanted anyone to learn what he got up to with his five hooker friends, but, by consciously choosing, apparently on numerous occasions, to get up to it, it was his problem that the truth came out.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the basement.
- Without fail, the interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that the Nazi allegation was "shown" to have been false, or was "proved" false. Regardless of what self-serving term the legal profession may wish to associate with itself, the fact was that one lone judge, David Eady, the same guy who has now single-handedly and notoriously rewritten UK privacy and defamation law, in Mosley's court action disregarded facts, ignored common sense, and gave his personal opinion about whether there were any Nazi connotations. His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
- Without fail, the same interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that whatever sex acts one has engaged in with consenting adults are a necessarily private matter, not in the public interest.
That's very well for the scion of aristocrats loftily to declare, and it may apply to most British, or even most European citizens. It most certainly does not, however, apply to the entire human race.
Max Mosley, by his own choice and pursuing avidly his own ambition, was president of an international body with more than 100 million underlying members, representing almost every religion and set of values. Just because he and his sophisticated pals consider what he got up to as strictly private would not mean that all 100 million of his organisation's members believed the same. It is not up to him, it is up to the members whether what their president was doing was acceptable to them.
- As a trained barrister, Mosley continues to try to baffle with bull5hit. This is of a piece with when, in the aftermath of the Chelsea Embankment revelations, he kept claiming that someone had "set him up". No one "set him up". Someone simply recorded and then revealed what he, Max Mosley, had set up himself.
An adult - especially one with large responsibilities who meets with heads of state and lectures the European Parliament - must be accountable for his own actions. He may not have wanted anyone to learn what he got up to with his five hooker friends, but, by consciously choosing, apparently on numerous occasions, to get up to it, it was his problem that the truth came out.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the basement.
Well said flemke. A lot of painful home-truths there. Nonetheless, valid points in a thread such as this.
I watched his interview with Jeremy Paxman tonight on Newsnight (BBC). As many will no doubt testify, Paxman's incisive intelligence can give a notoriously rough ride but Max seemed very much at ease with the gentle choreography we were presented with, and was given ample opportunity to make his point - which not surprisingly, he did rather well.
However, I feel there is one thing I should add:
Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
I do not applaud some of the things Mosley has done within motor-racing (particularly his interesting position with regard to Ferrari) but I acknowledge that he is a man of conviction who has a personal integrity beyond most, even if I do not agree with some of his principals. And oddly enough, I am of the belief that in his latter years, his ability to see the writing on the wall in the face of potential economic difficulty was rather fortunate for F1.
His private life doesn't interest me in the least. But I do recognise that my view might be out of tune with what I hold to be a general interest in trivia and 'other people' by the masses (and the press hand which feeds them) who seem to have so little else with which to amuse themselves.
That said, I also acknowledge the responsibility of public office, particularly on an international scale; as well as a certain irony with regard to the use of propoganda: something Max Mosley knows only too well but has once again become its ultimate victim in unpopular minority, just as the once powerful Nazis are now largely frowned upon. The irony is that public opinion is (potentially) the result of manipulation by the powerful; the media; the 'popular press'; the very tool with which he sought a controlling influence, just as did his father before him, in spite of his (popularised) claim to have distanced himself from his father's ideology and methodology; and that his plentiful 'appearances' could easily be seen as a chronic desire to alter public perception by seeking to stand on a conveniently provided pedestal-cum-lectern.
Max Mosley is clever. Even Paxman recognises it…
I watched his interview with Jeremy Paxman tonight on Newsnight (BBC). As many will no doubt testify, Paxman's incisive intelligence can give a notoriously rough ride but Max seemed very much at ease with the gentle choreography we were presented with, and was given ample opportunity to make his point - which not surprisingly, he did rather well.
However, I feel there is one thing I should add:
Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
I do not applaud some of the things Mosley has done within motor-racing (particularly his interesting position with regard to Ferrari) but I acknowledge that he is a man of conviction who has a personal integrity beyond most, even if I do not agree with some of his principals. And oddly enough, I am of the belief that in his latter years, his ability to see the writing on the wall in the face of potential economic difficulty was rather fortunate for F1.
His private life doesn't interest me in the least. But I do recognise that my view might be out of tune with what I hold to be a general interest in trivia and 'other people' by the masses (and the press hand which feeds them) who seem to have so little else with which to amuse themselves.
That said, I also acknowledge the responsibility of public office, particularly on an international scale; as well as a certain irony with regard to the use of propoganda: something Max Mosley knows only too well but has once again become its ultimate victim in unpopular minority, just as the once powerful Nazis are now largely frowned upon. The irony is that public opinion is (potentially) the result of manipulation by the powerful; the media; the 'popular press'; the very tool with which he sought a controlling influence, just as did his father before him, in spite of his (popularised) claim to have distanced himself from his father's ideology and methodology; and that his plentiful 'appearances' could easily be seen as a chronic desire to alter public perception by seeking to stand on a conveniently provided pedestal-cum-lectern.
Max Mosley is clever. Even Paxman recognises it…
cosicave said:
However, I feel there is one thing I should add:
Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
In that case he is nothing.Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
Consider his machinations with regards the well documented cheating by the Benetton team. Ask yourself what his principles were there. Was it a search for the truth? Protection of those who worked in the sport? The sponsors or the public?
The situation was one of the most dangerous in recent years and there was no punishment.
The Stepneygate fiasco showed his lack of principles.
Then there was his claim about how clever he was with regards safety in the sport whereas, despite a report on his desk as to the risks the drivers were taking, it took the death of two drivers - one would assume that Ratzenberger's alone would have been ignored - for him to give in to the pressure to do his job.
Principles are working within the limits of a fundamental truth or law, not merely doing things your way. If it was the latter then thieves, where the motivation is normally total selfishness, would be principle led.
Remember that the NotW showed a man who bought women in order to humiliate. Defending such actions does not show a belief in principles. If he had met up with Doris and Enid down the pub and put the scenario to them and they'd agreed then it would be nothing to do with any of us. Whatever your belief about the rights and wrongs of prostitution, there is a fundamental element of exploitation.
I normally do agree with Flemke and normality rules in this case as well. I had the joy of seeing his politics in action some years ago. Nothing in his life has shown that he has changed. His half brother has disassociated himself from his father's beliefs and actions. That was acting on principle.
We can, at the moment at least, make our own minds up about Eady's decision as to whether there was any nazi theme in mosley's sordid little games. After some years following the sport of law I have found that in some cases it is about as corrupt as you can get. That said, I have worked with residents judges whom I have admired tremendously, examples of honesty and service, examples to us all. However, judgeing is a mixed ability profession. Not all are principle led.
mosley has done little with his life. He has, we are told, a fierce intellect yet the sport was in a much worse state at the end of his tenure than when he took over. And given how Balestre ran it, this is a remarkable achievement. The FIA and F1 were the better for his going.
mosley appears to be totally self-centred. He seems to believe it is all about him whereas the sport was more concentrated on avoiding him.
A man is what he does and my belief is that is how you should judge him.
mosley's contribution to the image of the sport consists of:
1/ the high profile Benetton let off where cheating was condoned and the risk of a raging fire engulfing the pits was ignored;
2/ the USA GP one-car-race where teams said they would put on a show for the fans, and of course the credibility of the sport, and not be included in the results, but mosley seemed intent on destroying any chance of F1 racing in the USA ever again:
3/ the Stepneygate fiasco which seemed little more than a witch-hunt. The man of principle was challenged by the Whitmarsh (actually lawyer) written rejection of the findings of the FIA and backed down, even having to go so far as to apologise to Dennis in a photo-op on the steps outside (outside! How cool was that?) McLaren HQ;
3/ the debacle of the prostitutes. If mosley had any consideration for the image of the sport he should have resigned immediately. As it was quite squalid prostitution was indelibly associated with the FIA and F1 around the world.
4/ the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna occurred on his watch.
5/ the sale of the television rights for a pittance.
As a CV it is not one of the greatest. And it doesn't even cover the health of WRC, WSC, WTC, F2.
He was forced out of his position as head of the FIA. He engineered the election of Todt in a way that repelled many. Not much evidence of a belief in principle there.
My dislike, my strong dislike, for mosley started in my teens when I was taken to see him and his father pushing their racist agenda in the East End. The images stay with me still. But when he took up motor racing with March and then took the battle to Balestre (or rather ran with Eccs as he went for him) I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
In his first couple of years I thought he'd changed. I was never a fan but we all make mistakes and following your father unquestionably is what many of us do. But I changed my mind. And the more he did the more the Brick Lane image came back to me.
Single-minded selfishness is not principle. Rejection of evidence of mistakes is not confidence. The man was a disaster for F1 and many other branches of motor sport. For all of Balestre's faults, he was a fan of motor sport. Not an accusation you can make about mosley.
I think the man should be vilified - on principle - at every opportunity.
A man of principle?
A man of conviction?
Its *really* not very often you will find me agreeing with anything Derick says, in fact this may be the first time, but in this we agree. Spankie has the integrity of wet cardboard.
Derick is wrong on one point though, he "bought" women in order to be humiliated. Bit different.
A man of conviction?
Its *really* not very often you will find me agreeing with anything Derick says, in fact this may be the first time, but in this we agree. Spankie has the integrity of wet cardboard.
Derick is wrong on one point though, he "bought" women in order to be humiliated. Bit different.
flemke said:
His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
Unfortunately this man's opinion is more than yours or mine in this case, it carries the weight of law. So it isn't surprising Mosely is chosing to position himself (excuse the pun) as exhonorated, and the media reports likewise. You might have expected a more questioning attitude from the media of course, as courts have shown themselves to be just as flawed as the rest of us. But I do take a bit of issue with you seeming to dismiss a judge's deliberation so easily, it kind of surprised me to be honest 
AndrewD said:
Unfortunately this man's opinion is more than yours or mine in this case, it carries the weight of law. So it isn't surprising Mosely is chosing to position himself (excuse the pun) as exhonorated, and the media reports likewise. You might have expected a more questioning attitude from the media of course, as courts have shown themselves to be just as flawed as the rest of us. But I do take a bit of issue with you seeming to dismiss a judge's deliberation so easily, it kind of surprised me to be honest
Judges make decisions in law and we have to accept them or else be in contempt. However we can express bewilderment. Mosley suggests that the Eady decision was a decision regarding privacy when, quite clearly it wasn't. It is not the sort of mistake one would expect a lawyer to make. His case was a very specific on, on the definition of one word: themed. The NotW suggested that the antics were nazi themed and Eady, by some logic that escapes me, disagreed. One might have expected that, as there were a number of elements in the process that gave support to the nazi suggestion, any damages would have been light in the extreme. What damage was done to a man who was a major player in the Union (nazi themed in a big way) Movement by suggesting it was nazi themed? Not a lot was my guess but I was proved wrong. It was around £60,000 plus costs. Remember that this man had convictions with regards to supporting right wing demonstrations, including a vehicle load of offensive weapons.
My guess is that many of us who had decdied on what the teme of the sex acts was did not have our mind changed by the decision.
mosely was not exhonerated. All that happened is that he challenged one word in the NotW's report. Eady decided that it was wrong so then mosley suggested, I suppose, that he did not indulge in sex acts with prostitutes and bring a whole wost of disrepute onto F1.
flemke said:
- Without fail, the interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that the Nazi allegation was "shown" to have been false, or was "proved" false. Regardless of what self-serving term the legal profession may wish to associate with itself, the fact was that one lone judge, David Eady, the same guy who has now single-handedly and notoriously rewritten UK privacy and defamation law, in Mosley's court action disregarded facts, ignored common sense, and gave his personal opinion about whether there were any Nazi connotations. His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
Isn't this just you basically saying, "I disagree with the verdict"? Or do you say that no-one can claim anything is proven by a court case decided by a single judge?Quoting Nigel Roebuck:
"Seventy or so years ago the celebrated diarist James Lees-Milne wrote this:
'It became clear he was a man of overweening egotism. He did not know the meaning of humility. He brooked no argument, would accept no advice. He was overbearing and over-confident. He had in him the stuff of which zealots are made. He was madly in love with his own words. It could be a terrible day, I fancied, when they ran away with him, and took the wrong turning.'
Lees-Milne was writing of Oswald Mosley. On recent evidence it would seem the apple didn't fall far from the tree."
"Seventy or so years ago the celebrated diarist James Lees-Milne wrote this:
'It became clear he was a man of overweening egotism. He did not know the meaning of humility. He brooked no argument, would accept no advice. He was overbearing and over-confident. He had in him the stuff of which zealots are made. He was madly in love with his own words. It could be a terrible day, I fancied, when they ran away with him, and took the wrong turning.'
Lees-Milne was writing of Oswald Mosley. On recent evidence it would seem the apple didn't fall far from the tree."
AndrewD said:
flemke said:
His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
Unfortunately this man's opinion is more than yours or mine in this case, it carries the weight of law. So it isn't surprising Mosely is chosing to position himself (excuse the pun) as exhonorated, and the media reports likewise. You might have expected a more questioning attitude from the media of course, as courts have shown themselves to be just as flawed as the rest of us. But I do take a bit of issue with you seeming to dismiss a judge's deliberation so easily, it kind of surprised me to be honest Reasonable people can disagree on something - they usually do. In those countless instances, the bone of contention resides in a grey area. Maybe it's 60/40 one way, maybe it's 60/40 the other way. If you're one way, and I'm the other, that's fair enough.
What was outrageous and incredible in the Mosley verdict was that Eady didn't say that it was 60/40, or even 90/10. He asserted:
Eady verdict said:
"I have concluded that there was...not even...any evidence of imitating, adopting or approving Nazi behaviour".
and
"I found no evidence that the gathering...was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust".
Yet part of the evidence was a tape in which one of the women "gasped", "We are the Aryan race - blondes!"and
"I found no evidence that the gathering...was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust".
In another passage, one of the women referred to her fellow actor as "Schwartze", which in German means "black" but, in reference to specific persons, is also racist slang for a black-skinned person, equivalent to the "n" word. In her testimony, one of Mosley's women friends claimed that it was a reference merely to her brunette hair. Eady accepts this claim at face value, and uses it as part of his rejection of the "Nazi connotations" argument. My native German acquaintances scoff at the synonym-for-"brunette" claim. Eady criticised NotW for not getting the German recorded on tape properly translated, yet he himself failed to do the same thing.
The above were, of course, additional to the stuff on the video and in the still images.
If someone were to say that, on balance, it seemed to be 60/40 (or whatever) against Nazi connotations, I would disagree, but I could not say that that conclusion was certainly wrong.
When someone, the judge in this case, has said not that, on the balance of probabilities there were no Nazi connotations, but rather that there was no evidence at all, that opinion is simply not credible.
Put another way, if Max Mosley had claimed that the activity had in fact had Nazi connotations, and presented the recorded material as his evidence, would you object, "Don't be silly - this has nothing to do with Nazism"?
In light of Eady's 100% certitude, rather than showing some proportionality, and also, I must say, in light of other of his judgments with which I am familiar, I consider him to be unworthy of the High Court.
SamHH said:
flemke said:
- Without fail, the interviewers and Mosley have taken pains to assert that the Nazi allegation was "shown" to have been false, or was "proved" false. Regardless of what self-serving term the legal profession may wish to associate with itself, the fact was that one lone judge, David Eady, the same guy who has now single-handedly and notoriously rewritten UK privacy and defamation law, in Mosley's court action disregarded facts, ignored common sense, and gave his personal opinion about whether there were any Nazi connotations. His verdict was not exactly up there with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as regards standard of proof. It was one tendentious man's opinion, nothing more.
Isn't this just you basically saying, "I disagree with the verdict"? Or do you say that no-one can claim anything is proven by a court case decided by a single judge?My thoughts on the verdict are in my post directly above.
As regards your other point, it is a technical fact that the British legal system empowers individuals to listen to arguments, study evidence and reach conclusions, and that those conclusions, unless successfully appealed, are thenceforth presumed to be correct for practical purposes. It is, alas, also a fact that, as in every other walk of life, in the judiciary there are biased judges and stupid judges. Biased people and stupid people tend not to think well. Although one is expected to presume that the verdict was correct, that expectation, like the verdict itself, is not morally definitive, it is merely temporal.
Derek, Flemke,
As usual, you make the points far better than I ever could, and I learn something (yet again) from both your posts.
I think it's important that we can read opinions on him that are, shall we say, from a different viewpoint to the image he prefers to portray.
There's nothing else I can really add, so.... have a virtual pint on me
As usual, you make the points far better than I ever could, and I learn something (yet again) from both your posts.
I think it's important that we can read opinions on him that are, shall we say, from a different viewpoint to the image he prefers to portray.
There's nothing else I can really add, so.... have a virtual pint on me
cosicave said:
Well said flemke. A lot of painful home-truths there. Nonetheless, valid points in a thread such as this.
I watched his interview with Jeremy Paxman tonight on Newsnight (BBC). As many will no doubt testify, Paxman's incisive intelligence can give a notoriously rough ride but Max seemed very much at ease with the gentle choreography we were presented with, and was given ample opportunity to make his point - which not surprisingly, he did rather well.
However, I feel there is one thing I should add:
Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
I do not applaud some of the things Mosley has done within motor-racing (particularly his interesting position with regard to Ferrari) but I acknowledge that he is a man of conviction who has a personal integrity beyond most, even if I do not agree with some of his principals. And oddly enough, I am of the belief that in his latter years, his ability to see the writing on the wall in the face of potential economic difficulty was rather fortunate for F1.
His private life doesn't interest me in the least. But I do recognise that my view might be out of tune with what I hold to be a general interest in trivia and 'other people' by the masses (and the press hand which feeds them) who seem to have so little else with which to amuse themselves.
That said, I also acknowledge the responsibility of public office, particularly on an international scale; as well as a certain irony with regard to the use of propoganda: something Max Mosley knows only too well but has once again become its ultimate victim in unpopular minority, just as the once powerful Nazis are now largely frowned upon. The irony is that public opinion is (potentially) the result of manipulation by the powerful; the media; the 'popular press'; the very tool with which he sought a controlling influence, just as did his father before him, in spite of his (popularised) claim to have distanced himself from his father's ideology and methodology; and that his plentiful 'appearances' could easily be seen as a chronic desire to alter public perception by seeking to stand on a conveniently provided pedestal-cum-lectern.
Max Mosley is clever. Even Paxman recognises it…
There is no need for me to repeat any of Derek's articulate points. I watched his interview with Jeremy Paxman tonight on Newsnight (BBC). As many will no doubt testify, Paxman's incisive intelligence can give a notoriously rough ride but Max seemed very much at ease with the gentle choreography we were presented with, and was given ample opportunity to make his point - which not surprisingly, he did rather well.
However, I feel there is one thing I should add:
Mosley is nothing if not a man of principle and it is difficult not to admire his stoicism in the face of a manipulated, force-fed (and thus highly critical) public, in spite of the fact that my views may differ to (what I am led to believe are) his.
I do not applaud some of the things Mosley has done within motor-racing (particularly his interesting position with regard to Ferrari) but I acknowledge that he is a man of conviction who has a personal integrity beyond most, even if I do not agree with some of his principals. And oddly enough, I am of the belief that in his latter years, his ability to see the writing on the wall in the face of potential economic difficulty was rather fortunate for F1.
His private life doesn't interest me in the least. But I do recognise that my view might be out of tune with what I hold to be a general interest in trivia and 'other people' by the masses (and the press hand which feeds them) who seem to have so little else with which to amuse themselves.
That said, I also acknowledge the responsibility of public office, particularly on an international scale; as well as a certain irony with regard to the use of propoganda: something Max Mosley knows only too well but has once again become its ultimate victim in unpopular minority, just as the once powerful Nazis are now largely frowned upon. The irony is that public opinion is (potentially) the result of manipulation by the powerful; the media; the 'popular press'; the very tool with which he sought a controlling influence, just as did his father before him, in spite of his (popularised) claim to have distanced himself from his father's ideology and methodology; and that his plentiful 'appearances' could easily be seen as a chronic desire to alter public perception by seeking to stand on a conveniently provided pedestal-cum-lectern.
Max Mosley is clever. Even Paxman recognises it…
If I may, and with respect, I would like to demur from some of what you, cosicave, have written.
Derek has richly illustrated Mosley's known history of acting without principle (unless the principles were: looking after Bernie; looking after Ferrari and Benetton; and indulging in egocentrism, bullying, disingenuousness, deceiving his family, gratuitously slurring men who have accomplished vastly more in their lives than he has done in his own, treating motor sport fans and the legacy of international motor sport with contempt, and being first a member of the Union Movement, then a would-be Tory MP, and then a would-be Labour MP).
A man of principle, regardless of whether he believed that his exposers had acted illegitimately, would not have put the reputation of his 100 million-member organisation at risk for the sake of nothing more than the selfish hope that he could cling to power for its own sake.
A man of principle would have resigned when it was revealed that one of his friends had somehow orchestrated 40% of all the votes cast in his favour, without which bloc of votes Mosley indeed would have been summarily sacked.
A man of principle, who evidently is immensely rich, would repay the far-from-immensely-rich Chris Amon the £75,000 that he has owed him for 40 years.
I read Mosley's campaign to change privacy laws not as motivated by principle. Instead, it seems to me to be motivated by an irresistible need impelling Mosley to avenge his humiliation and downfall. The man patently believes that he is superior to us commoners (and probably to most aristocrats, as well).
I doubt that we normal, healthy people can imagine how bitter he must be about what happened to him. He can't make his sexual proclivities a secret again. As a practical matter, he cannot abuse his position to harm us, the public, the way that he abused his position to harm Ron Dennis, to try to harm Briatore and Symonds, and to slander Jackie Stewart.
He's now a hollow shell of his former princely self. The only vengeance now available to him (apart from revealing the identity of the blackguard who "set him up" - you know, the revelation that's been coming "any day now" for the last 1000 days) is to "prove" that the exposure of his secret hobby was illegitimate, and to restore, by force of law, that barrier of privilege that once separated persons of his rank from the likes of us.
Wrt his foresight about racing becoming too expensive, I would offer a few thoughts.
The first is that his saying in 2005 that Formula One was getting too expensive (with IIRC 5 teams that year having budgets in excess of $400m each) was a bit like saying that property prices in the US and UK were getting ahead of themselves - not the most original and trenchant observation in human history.
The second is that it seemed clear, at least to me, that his motive was not to get costs down, but rather to disaffect the wealthy manufacturer teams, which teams were by far the biggest threat to his personal position of power in motor racing.
Third, if he cared that much about getting costs down, why would he have unilaterally imposed the move to V8s (which collectively must have cost the sport at least $100m, if not twice that)? Why twist arms to bring in and adopt KERS? Why conspire with Bernie to keep tobacco advertising (and especially Ferrari's and Marlboro's flouting of the prohibition) in for as long as possible? Why would he have approved for the new Commercial Rights Holders a group of financiers who didn't have a red cent to invest in the sport, and whose exclusive objective was to take as much money out of it as they possibly could do?
I truly believe that Max Mosley couldn't give a flying fu<k about motor sport and, especially, about its fans. All his posturing and manoeuvring about costs was a way for him to exercise his (presumed) natural role of command, whilst scaring off the wealthier entrants, who were far more difficult for him to push around than the small teams were.
Like you, his private life doesn't interest me, either. What does interest me are the dynamics after the revelation, and Mosley's unbelievably condescending dismissal of the values and indeed in some cases religious tenets of the ignorant hoi polloi who had the impertinence to be critical of his tastes. So much of what he has said and done since has meant that, to him, what they might think of what he did doesn't matter, because they don't matter.
Nobody is all-bad, or all-good. Either is pretty much impossible. Therefore I have confidence that there is some part of Max Mosley that is decent. For a man who has been so much in the public eye, however, it's taking him a bloody long time to manifest what that part might be.
My view is that ANY person who actually courts publicity and uses any position they hold to push themselves into public view to have their opinions heard, be that as an employee or a private individual in a position to, and push themselves into view in a manner that goes far and beyond the remit of said position, then they have no grounds to complain like this when the mainstream public show the level of titillating interest in their private affairs. Especially when conducted with such indiscretion.
I find it utterly ridiculous that this man, for the few years leading up to this had courted the press on a weekly basis, openly conducted himself in the questionable professional manner he did, and publicly bullied both verbally and via his employers press office, anyone who disagreed with him, turns around and complains when the public at large who's attention he has sought out takes such a huge interest in matters of this nature that he participated in.
Whilst I agree that there should be a point of law and not a 'sliding scale of justice' that factors in your behaviour, the public perception of you and how well known you might be, there requires some sensibilities. Don't court publicity knowing you behave this way in private, and do so with what are effectively other members of the public. You have nobody else to blame, and this was merely Mad Max trying to continue to do so.
I find it utterly ridiculous that this man, for the few years leading up to this had courted the press on a weekly basis, openly conducted himself in the questionable professional manner he did, and publicly bullied both verbally and via his employers press office, anyone who disagreed with him, turns around and complains when the public at large who's attention he has sought out takes such a huge interest in matters of this nature that he participated in.
Whilst I agree that there should be a point of law and not a 'sliding scale of justice' that factors in your behaviour, the public perception of you and how well known you might be, there requires some sensibilities. Don't court publicity knowing you behave this way in private, and do so with what are effectively other members of the public. You have nobody else to blame, and this was merely Mad Max trying to continue to do so.
Edited by spunkytherabbit on Thursday 12th May 10:14
Slight correction Flemke, he "tried" to harm Ron. As per the usual pattern in the preceeding 30yrs he failed, Ron has emerged far stronger and with ba far the greater reputation. Mosely however, has lost everything. I also highly doubt Ron and Macca have paid anything like the amount of the fine.
Ahem…
I did not suggest his principles were positive in any way. Neither am I speaking of his dealings with other people, which I was at pains to make clear I disagreed with. I used the word "principle" in the most literal sense; that of a proposition which serves as a foundation for a system of belief (or behaviour), together with any associated logic or chain of reasoning. And as you, flemke know, that need not be positive at all.
In referring to his 'personal integrity', I was attempting to adopt his perspective looking out to a world which has turned against him, and this is where I see the stoicism; the glimmer of the possibility of the positive within; which you flemke, have also allowed for.
What I was trying to convey was that he appears true to his own set of values, however unsavoury they may be. To put it another way, he appears true to his own megalomania!
I do not like Mosley or what he stands for. Neither do I admire the way he has rejoiced in his own life-long 'principles'; to besmirch in an effort to crush all-comers into cringing, whimpering dogs, pleading to be let off of his hook and begging for mercy when they cannot escape his seemingly vindictive grip. Yes, this would seem to be his personal code of conduct. These seem to be his sense of values. He appears to need to feel powerful and to let everyone know all the time.
I proffer that these are the principles that drive him and have done so from an early and impressionable age, and that they continue to form his modus operandi, just as they always have. In this sense and from his point of view, I believe he has remained true to his own peculiar set of values, which surely equates to his version of integrity, regardless of what you flemke, or I think.
I began my contribution earlier by praising you, since I felt that you made some valid points. I too am highly critical of Mosley. I chose to add the small bitter/sweet that I'd seen but in no way was I making excuses for him; it was a mere flavouring of the thread. However, it seems to have enriched the debate somewhat more than I'd intended!
I did not suggest his principles were positive in any way. Neither am I speaking of his dealings with other people, which I was at pains to make clear I disagreed with. I used the word "principle" in the most literal sense; that of a proposition which serves as a foundation for a system of belief (or behaviour), together with any associated logic or chain of reasoning. And as you, flemke know, that need not be positive at all.
In referring to his 'personal integrity', I was attempting to adopt his perspective looking out to a world which has turned against him, and this is where I see the stoicism; the glimmer of the possibility of the positive within; which you flemke, have also allowed for.
What I was trying to convey was that he appears true to his own set of values, however unsavoury they may be. To put it another way, he appears true to his own megalomania!
I do not like Mosley or what he stands for. Neither do I admire the way he has rejoiced in his own life-long 'principles'; to besmirch in an effort to crush all-comers into cringing, whimpering dogs, pleading to be let off of his hook and begging for mercy when they cannot escape his seemingly vindictive grip. Yes, this would seem to be his personal code of conduct. These seem to be his sense of values. He appears to need to feel powerful and to let everyone know all the time.
I proffer that these are the principles that drive him and have done so from an early and impressionable age, and that they continue to form his modus operandi, just as they always have. In this sense and from his point of view, I believe he has remained true to his own peculiar set of values, which surely equates to his version of integrity, regardless of what you flemke, or I think.
I began my contribution earlier by praising you, since I felt that you made some valid points. I too am highly critical of Mosley. I chose to add the small bitter/sweet that I'd seen but in no way was I making excuses for him; it was a mere flavouring of the thread. However, it seems to have enriched the debate somewhat more than I'd intended!
cosicave said:
I did not suggest his principles were positive in any way.
My understanding of the definition of the word principle, as something to abide by, is that they are positive. Indeed, in following them there is generally an attribute of self sacrifice.'A man of principle' might resign a position in order to stop harm to an institution that was in no way to blame for, for instance, generating negative publicity for taking part in something which he believes was his right to do. This is just one instance I pulled from nowhere.
He gives the impression to me, and seemingly to many others, of pursuing a course of self interest. That is not principle. Nor is mere belief a principle.
For mosley to be given the accolade of a man of principle one would need some evidence of sacrifice, of going against his own self interest, in order to follow a code or set of values. I would suggest that I have seen nothing to support this. A beleif in following the money is not principle but just behaviour.
One definition of principle given by a dictionary I have is: A personal code of conduct. Had mosley followed a pesonal code of conduct then one would not have to agree with it to accept that a follower would be a man of princple.
Principle was defined to me by the way it can be modified by a simple preposition.
'In principle' and 'on principle' mean two entirely different things.
A politician might suggest that a certain course of action is right in principle but . . . i.e. he will not follow what he believes to be morally right.
A polician might also suggest that he is following a course of action that costs him votes on principle, i.e. it is a matter of marols and not expediency.
You cannot have a principle that expediency is the best route.
It has been suggested that no man is entirely bad. I can accept that in principle. However . . .
This is an argument about the definition of one word. Perhpas I could suggest that instead of suggesting mosley is a man of principle we could accept that he follows his own course of action regardless of its effects on others. This can be a good thing and it can also result in harm to F1 and other motor sports.
Most of us do things because we want to and there are very few examples of a totally altruistic behaviour. Most of us follow our principles because we do not want to appear to others and ourselves as selfish. So the actual credit that goes to someone who acts on princple might be limited. Someone who acts out of self interest entirely might well have reasons, such as lack of example when in formative years, so the degree of blame attached to them might also be limited.
I once approached a Salvation Army chap on a freezing cold morning along the Embankment in the wee smalls. He had called the police for a collapsed - actually dead - vagrant. There was frost on his hair from his breath and he was rubbing his hands and stamping his feet. He said somethin like, "I ate this weather." I asked him why he came out in it. He nodded towards the live(ish) vagrants and said: "If I don't then my friends would have to work harder and the [vagrants] would suffer."
I call that principled behaviour. He was thinking of others.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff