Max says you're all wrong
Discussion
Today's Guardian : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/1...
The press are wrong, the judge was right, and the head of the FIA should be allowed to get spanked in private whilst begging in German whenever he wants to.
Commenting is enabled...
The press are wrong, the judge was right, and the head of the FIA should be allowed to get spanked in private whilst begging in German whenever he wants to.
Commenting is enabled...
I'm sure the use of 'non sequitor' gave someone away...
Mosley said :
In the end Dacre is just a bully. He delights in attacking those who cannot hit back. In open debate, which he always avoids, the intellectual and moral demolition of his position would be swift and complete. In the meantime, his championing of the Sun and the News of the World as society's moral guardians reveals the bankruptcy of his position.
Jeeeeesus, the hypocracy of this guy is incredible. I say:
In the end Mosley is just a bully. He delights in attacking those who cannot hit back. In open debate, which he always avoids, the intellectual and moral demolition of his position would be swift and complete. In the meantime, his championing of himself and the FIA as motorsports's moral guardians reveals the bankruptcy of his position.
In the end Dacre is just a bully. He delights in attacking those who cannot hit back. In open debate, which he always avoids, the intellectual and moral demolition of his position would be swift and complete. In the meantime, his championing of the Sun and the News of the World as society's moral guardians reveals the bankruptcy of his position.
Jeeeeesus, the hypocracy of this guy is incredible. I say:
In the end Mosley is just a bully. He delights in attacking those who cannot hit back. In open debate, which he always avoids, the intellectual and moral demolition of his position would be swift and complete. In the meantime, his championing of himself and the FIA as motorsports's moral guardians reveals the bankruptcy of his position.
Edited by garycat on Wednesday 12th November 09:30
So the crux of the matter revolves around what one considers to be 'morally ok' as long as others don't know about it?
If the Nazi allegations are true, Moseley's actions are on the sick side of things. Certainly the Nazi era is broadly a period of shame in the history of the German people. The problem seems to arise because of what it represents. If Moseley was having his b
ks slapped by a hooker and not shouting 'Sieg Heil!' or similar, then the incident would've been passed of as simply someone doing what they want to do - consensually - in private. However, the incorporation of 'war-play' into things is too distasteful for most. It's also compounded by the fact that there are a number of German companies involved with F1.
Let's flip things over. Let's say he had a black girl shackled and chained to a wall whilst he used racist remarks and pretended she was a slave. Would such activity be tolerated and/or swept under the rug like the Nazi incident?
If the Nazi allegations are true, Moseley's actions are on the sick side of things. Certainly the Nazi era is broadly a period of shame in the history of the German people. The problem seems to arise because of what it represents. If Moseley was having his b
ks slapped by a hooker and not shouting 'Sieg Heil!' or similar, then the incident would've been passed of as simply someone doing what they want to do - consensually - in private. However, the incorporation of 'war-play' into things is too distasteful for most. It's also compounded by the fact that there are a number of German companies involved with F1.Let's flip things over. Let's say he had a black girl shackled and chained to a wall whilst he used racist remarks and pretended she was a slave. Would such activity be tolerated and/or swept under the rug like the Nazi incident?
A. Being in a place (as a customer) in which multiple numbers of prostitutes work is illegal.
B. Hitting women is immoral however you look at it.
What should have happenend is that the facts should have been presented to the Police & not to the public in order to merely sell more newspapers.
Sadly Dacre is right when he points to Lord Justice Eady's reputation for favouring the perverse & so it is being argued that the official route to bringing men like Mosley to justice just doesn't work.
FYI I'm no fan of the Daily Heil or it's attempt to bend the privacy laws to it's own adavantage 'cos 2 wrongs don't make a right.
With that in mind I wish Mosely, Dacre & Eady would all just disappear out of public life fo ever but as that's unlikely to happen I find myself giving Dacre the support but with severe reservations:-
Should a member of the Royal Family (for example) be found enjoying consenual if unusual sex with somebody else then he/she is entitled to privacy & there's no way Dacre & his ilk should be encouraged. If however the case includes breaking both the Law of the land then the evidence should be given to the Police in the expectation that it will not be just swept under the carpet & that it's proven, to all of us, that nobody is above the law.
B. Hitting women is immoral however you look at it.
What should have happenend is that the facts should have been presented to the Police & not to the public in order to merely sell more newspapers.
Sadly Dacre is right when he points to Lord Justice Eady's reputation for favouring the perverse & so it is being argued that the official route to bringing men like Mosley to justice just doesn't work.
FYI I'm no fan of the Daily Heil or it's attempt to bend the privacy laws to it's own adavantage 'cos 2 wrongs don't make a right.
With that in mind I wish Mosely, Dacre & Eady would all just disappear out of public life fo ever but as that's unlikely to happen I find myself giving Dacre the support but with severe reservations:-
Should a member of the Royal Family (for example) be found enjoying consenual if unusual sex with somebody else then he/she is entitled to privacy & there's no way Dacre & his ilk should be encouraged. If however the case includes breaking both the Law of the land then the evidence should be given to the Police in the expectation that it will not be just swept under the carpet & that it's proven, to all of us, that nobody is above the law.
Chimune said:
Both. He has both a moral and legal right to do what the hell he wants in the privacy of his bedroom, as long as its legal.
There is no connection between legality and morality.There are no absolute morals. What we do have, though, is what is acceptable to the general public. It it repels the majority then all one can say is that it is repellent to the majority. It certainly doesn't make it immoral.
I remember a case where a group which beat up two gays said that it was justified as they were disgusted by them walking hand in hand. And it wasn't so long ago that accepted mitigating circumstances for rape was that the woman was wearing 'provocative' clothing: i.e. short skirts.
But I would suggest that a man in Mosley's position must have cognisance of what the public he serves finds acceptable and unacceptable. Cavorting with a number of prostitutes is, I would suggest, amongst the latter and getting your socks off by beating women is with it. I find it particularly reprehensible that he buys women off some sort of meat rack for this purpose.
And lastly, it wasn't his bedroom. It was a location he rented specifically for the purpose of beating women who dress up in German military uniforms, act out scenes reminiscent of the death camps and shout Aryans and the drop of their knickers.
In a slightly condensed form, we need to remember that Moseley is the head of a prestigious and (was) respected organisation which deals with people of power from countries across the world.
Moseley uses the media / advertising to his advantage in raising funds and increasing the profile of F1 across the world and IMO he has to take the flack when the same publicity works against him.
From what i remember he was banned from attending Bahrain over the issue as there are still people across the world who think (considering his public position) his private actions are as important as his public ones.
Honour and respect springs to mind.
Moseley uses the media / advertising to his advantage in raising funds and increasing the profile of F1 across the world and IMO he has to take the flack when the same publicity works against him.
From what i remember he was banned from attending Bahrain over the issue as there are still people across the world who think (considering his public position) his private actions are as important as his public ones.
Honour and respect springs to mind.
Funk, IF i had eggs i could have bacon and eggs if i had bacon. Excuse me for giving any story from a tabloid, that has the word Nazi in it, a large pinch of salt.
"However, the incorporation of 'war-play' into things is too distasteful for most."
I had no idea that 'most' were such delicate flowers whose minds would implode at the thought of someone not doing it missionary style with the light orf !
Seriously, i havnt followed this story closely. I am no Mosely fan, but i detest tabloids even more.
The red tops have fked many more people than Mosley can ever hope to.
"However, the incorporation of 'war-play' into things is too distasteful for most."
I had no idea that 'most' were such delicate flowers whose minds would implode at the thought of someone not doing it missionary style with the light orf !
Seriously, i havnt followed this story closely. I am no Mosely fan, but i detest tabloids even more.
The red tops have f
ked many more people than Mosley can ever hope to. Chimune said:
Both. He has both a moral and legal right to do what the hell he wants in the privacy of his bedroom, as long as its legal.
No one is saying otherwise (although the case of Mosley's Euston 40 may be a different matter).The question is whether someone in a public position, who by his own choice presumes to represent his organisation's millions of members in public activities around the world, is accountable to those members. What if they themselves do not want to be represented by someone who appears to them to be sympathetic to and sexually aroused by Nazi and Holocaust imagery? I certainly don't want to be represented by such a lowlife, and in that I am far from being alone.
If we were talking about, say, Ecclestone, who is only a private businessman, although a very powerful one, then such depraved antics would be private.
Mosley is not a private figure, however: he is a very public one. He represents millions of people, and they have a right to judge the morality and sanity of their "President".
Meh . All i can see here is recreational outrage.
You can fill acers of vdu screens with emotive words like Holocaust. Its not useful.
The hard part is disregarding your views of Mosley, F1, wierd sexual practices etc, and figuring out whether a judge or a tabloid editor is the best person to decide where to draw the line on privacy.
I'll take my chances with a judge thanks.
You can fill acers of vdu screens with emotive words like Holocaust. Its not useful.
The hard part is disregarding your views of Mosley, F1, wierd sexual practices etc, and figuring out whether a judge or a tabloid editor is the best person to decide where to draw the line on privacy.
I'll take my chances with a judge thanks.
Chimune said:
Meh . All i can see here is recreational outrage.
You can fill acers of vdu screens with emotive words like Holocaust. Its not useful.
The hard part is disregarding your views of Mosley, F1, wierd sexual practices etc, and figuring out whether a judge or a tabloid editor is the best person to decide where to draw the line on privacy.
I'll take my chances with a judge thanks.
Again, you seem not to grasp the point.You can fill acers of vdu screens with emotive words like Holocaust. Its not useful.
The hard part is disregarding your views of Mosley, F1, wierd sexual practices etc, and figuring out whether a judge or a tabloid editor is the best person to decide where to draw the line on privacy.
I'll take my chances with a judge thanks.
You yourself may be indifferent to whether the president of a large public organisation of which you are a member has values that most people find repugnant. You would of course be entitled to that indifference. If you would not object to such a person's representing you, that would be your right.
Not everyone, however, is indifferent. Those of us who do care about such things are also entitled, as you are, to have an opinion. If someone who speaks in my name is sympathetic to things that I despise, I want to know that, so that I can distance myself as far as possible from him.
Max Mosley made himself a public figure (assuming that he had not been one before that) when he became FIA President. By putting himself in that position, and asking for the mandate to represent millions of people, he inescapably undertook to be accountable to them by whatever criteria they might have. If he has been discovered doing things that would deeply disturb many of his organisation's members, they need to know that.
This is utter rubbish - I think that personal dislike of MM is clouding your judgement.
Everyone has a right to a private life - whatever your personal hangups or habits it would be deeply invasive for any of you to see yourself on the front page of NOTW - no matter what your day job.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
LOJO
Everyone has a right to a private life - whatever your personal hangups or habits it would be deeply invasive for any of you to see yourself on the front page of NOTW - no matter what your day job.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
LOJO
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff