Mike Lawrence and PitPass
Discussion
I like PitPass. It not only gives me something to read but it has plenty of opinion. I don't always agree with it but that makes the reading more interesting. Every now and again I can be convinced and what more could anyone ask of an article.
I especially like Mike Lawrence. He writes in English, somewhat unusual on web-based F1 publications. He's never afraid to take un unpopular stance - like suggesting that there was nothing of WWII German military about Mosley's orgy in the Chelsea basement - and supporting his argument with (somewhat dubious) comment.
It didn't convince me, I have to say, although it was good to read an alternative view.
But on PitPass at the moment there is what can only be described as an attack on Jackie Stewart all hidden behind a facade of an attack on Goodwin and RBS sports sponsorship.
The most telling criticisms seem to be that JS has not taken a cut in his pay in his contract with RBS whilst some Scottish tennis player has. Further that JS criticised tobacco sponsorship as unethical. There is a dismissal of Mosley's comments on JS's dress sense but without any mention of his despicable comment of 'half-wit', largely seen as a dig about his dyslexia. Unethical?
There's another criticism of JS being old. No comment of ML's age.
He goes on to mention the fraud of 'clan tartans' but I've got to say that if the Scots want to milk gullible tourists then good on them.
What has JS done? Have I missed something in the off-season? Has pushing tobacco products to third-world countries, with the support and connivance - for whatever reasons - of their governments despite the documented long-term health problems, suddenly become ethical? Has JS spat on ML?
Or is it, perhaps, off-season?
I especially like Mike Lawrence. He writes in English, somewhat unusual on web-based F1 publications. He's never afraid to take un unpopular stance - like suggesting that there was nothing of WWII German military about Mosley's orgy in the Chelsea basement - and supporting his argument with (somewhat dubious) comment.
It didn't convince me, I have to say, although it was good to read an alternative view.
But on PitPass at the moment there is what can only be described as an attack on Jackie Stewart all hidden behind a facade of an attack on Goodwin and RBS sports sponsorship.
The most telling criticisms seem to be that JS has not taken a cut in his pay in his contract with RBS whilst some Scottish tennis player has. Further that JS criticised tobacco sponsorship as unethical. There is a dismissal of Mosley's comments on JS's dress sense but without any mention of his despicable comment of 'half-wit', largely seen as a dig about his dyslexia. Unethical?
There's another criticism of JS being old. No comment of ML's age.
He goes on to mention the fraud of 'clan tartans' but I've got to say that if the Scots want to milk gullible tourists then good on them.
What has JS done? Have I missed something in the off-season? Has pushing tobacco products to third-world countries, with the support and connivance - for whatever reasons - of their governments despite the documented long-term health problems, suddenly become ethical? Has JS spat on ML?
Or is it, perhaps, off-season?
I have just read the Mike Lawrence article and I really can't figure what his problem is. Maybe he was an RBS shareholder? Maybe he is thinking that he was as capable as Sir Fred of messing up a bank and collecting a pension of £693k per year (although I read that it is actually £703k, and I would also have been just as capable of messing up, possibly even better). Whatever, the reason it does seem to be a cheap shot at JYS which helps no one by continuing the bad press.
It prompted me to re-read the section in JYS's autobiography about the relationship with RBS, and how they got involved with Williams F1. One could certainly argue that if the deal with JYS was sound for RBS when their reputation was good, it becomes even more important now that their reputation is less favourable - someone who still has the respect of many people is possibly capable of helping RBS to regain the previous good reputation and therefore returning some of the money all UK tax payers have put into it. I can't say that I have noticed large amounts of negative publicity about JYS and his contract with RBS, maybe I have missed it, but maybe people like Mike Lawrence want to stir things up where they don't need stirring.
Having said all of that, I am not necessarily supporting the deal and JYS receiving the amount of money he does from a largely public owned organisation. I really have no view as to what is the right thing for him to do.
It prompted me to re-read the section in JYS's autobiography about the relationship with RBS, and how they got involved with Williams F1. One could certainly argue that if the deal with JYS was sound for RBS when their reputation was good, it becomes even more important now that their reputation is less favourable - someone who still has the respect of many people is possibly capable of helping RBS to regain the previous good reputation and therefore returning some of the money all UK tax payers have put into it. I can't say that I have noticed large amounts of negative publicity about JYS and his contract with RBS, maybe I have missed it, but maybe people like Mike Lawrence want to stir things up where they don't need stirring.
Having said all of that, I am not necessarily supporting the deal and JYS receiving the amount of money he does from a largely public owned organisation. I really have no view as to what is the right thing for him to do.
I used to have Pitpass as my home page but one day I upset the editor, Chris Balfe, by expressing my opinion.
He threatened me with legal action which didn't happen.
I understand that many people have left his site/forum because of his attitude.
But to be fair some of the news he puts up is fresh and new. But then again some is just a rehash from Autosport.com or others sites.
Derek,
I like Mike L's articles, he doesn't hold back but some times (IMHO) he does go over the top.
Have you ever emailed him? Try it
I'm sure I've read/heard somewhere that Mike is very close BCE
He threatened me with legal action which didn't happen.
I understand that many people have left his site/forum because of his attitude.
But to be fair some of the news he puts up is fresh and new. But then again some is just a rehash from Autosport.com or others sites.
Derek,
I like Mike L's articles, he doesn't hold back but some times (IMHO) he does go over the top.
Have you ever emailed him? Try it
I'm sure I've read/heard somewhere that Mike is very close BCE
skeggysteve said:
Derek,
I like Mike L's articles, he doesn't hold back but some times (IMHO) he does go over the top.
Have you ever emailed him? Try it
I'm sure I've read/heard somewhere that Mike is very close BCE
Stewve, I've emailed him a number of times and he's always replied promptly and, unlike some others, seems to read the email. As all I'm doing at the moment is moaning about his article there's little point in discussing it with him.I like Mike L's articles, he doesn't hold back but some times (IMHO) he does go over the top.
Have you ever emailed him? Try it
I'm sure I've read/heard somewhere that Mike is very close BCE
But I'm with you: he's always worth a read and does get you thinking.
Your final comment does explain one or two suspicions I've had.
When I was in CID in the 80s I was with a DC (very Jewish, with skull cap and everything - nickname Paddy) who'd got a few weeks in and he knew Bernie of old. He really disliked him, it being sourced from the days when he was a car dealer in the East End. Paddy was a great bloke, very straight (this just after Operation Countryman and Paddy wasn't even on their list for iterviews) but could be closed mouthed when he wanted to be. He never told me of the reason for the 'conflict' but given how mild Paddy was generally it must have been a tremendous event. I asked a couple of other DCs but they told me to ask Paddy, probably because they didn't know either. There were lots of rumours about Bernie but none that could be substantiated so it might be that Paddy wasn't the only person he'd upset.
There is an excellent mag to which I subscribe called "Vintage Racecar".
http://www.vintageracecar.com/
Mike Lawrence writes a monthly column for it. The guy has been around for yonks, has known loads of people, and is a fount of great anecdotes. It has seemed lately, however, that he has begun to go off the rails.
The first sign was, as Derek says, his comments on the Mosley trial. IIRC, Lawrence's argument was that, because he Mike Lawrence was uninterested in learning of how Max Mosley sought titillation, the fact that it offended many other people should not matter. He further seemed to think that a guy who had been president of the FIA for 17 years, given countless tv interviews and speeches, and issued umpteen press releases, not least about why he was meting out the largest fine in sports history, was somehow not a public figure. Furthermore, as Derek says, he seemed to think that it is perfectly normal to go around shouting "We are the Aryans: blondes!".
It seemed that Lawrence the civil libertarian (if that's what he is) was blind to common decency. One could sort of see his logic, although his priorities and values seemed seriously out of whack.
This latest shot at Stewart has a personal feel to it, as if JYS had sometime in the past offended the author. It would be one thing - and the right thing, IMO - to call on Stewart to give something back to RBS (that is, to the public). He is, after all, a very wealthy man, and RBS would not have been in the position to give him such a lucrative contract without the over-dealing and hubris that ultimately brought them to their knees. In that sense, Stewart is like all the directors who were paid large sums prematurely for risks and rewards that would not be resolved for many years to come.
The odd thing is Lawrence's hypocrisy. There is no question that Stewart is technically entitled to the fulfillment of his contract. What one would like to see is for him to do the classy, indeed honourable, thing: to compromise of his own volition. In his case, the right compromise would be to decline some of what he will be owed. Lawrence criticises Stewart for not doing that honourable thing.
To be consistent, however, Lawrence ought to have criticised Mosley for having failed to do the honourable thing last year, when he ought to have resigned. It was not Mosley's fault that his dirty secrets were revealed, just as it is not Stewart's fault that RBS did stupid things. If noblesse oblige dictates that Stewart should voluntarily return some of the money that he is legally entitled to be paid, then surely it dictates that Mosley should resign and let motor sport move forward to deal with its challenges without the weight of all his baggage holding everything back.
One wonders where Lawrence is coming from: perhaps he's just worried about losing his PitPass.
In the next couple of months, Lawrence will have the opportunity to opine on Mosley's decision to break his word, again, and run for another term. If he should fail to excoriate Mosley at that time, his true colours will be plain to see.
http://www.vintageracecar.com/
Mike Lawrence writes a monthly column for it. The guy has been around for yonks, has known loads of people, and is a fount of great anecdotes. It has seemed lately, however, that he has begun to go off the rails.
The first sign was, as Derek says, his comments on the Mosley trial. IIRC, Lawrence's argument was that, because he Mike Lawrence was uninterested in learning of how Max Mosley sought titillation, the fact that it offended many other people should not matter. He further seemed to think that a guy who had been president of the FIA for 17 years, given countless tv interviews and speeches, and issued umpteen press releases, not least about why he was meting out the largest fine in sports history, was somehow not a public figure. Furthermore, as Derek says, he seemed to think that it is perfectly normal to go around shouting "We are the Aryans: blondes!".
It seemed that Lawrence the civil libertarian (if that's what he is) was blind to common decency. One could sort of see his logic, although his priorities and values seemed seriously out of whack.
This latest shot at Stewart has a personal feel to it, as if JYS had sometime in the past offended the author. It would be one thing - and the right thing, IMO - to call on Stewart to give something back to RBS (that is, to the public). He is, after all, a very wealthy man, and RBS would not have been in the position to give him such a lucrative contract without the over-dealing and hubris that ultimately brought them to their knees. In that sense, Stewart is like all the directors who were paid large sums prematurely for risks and rewards that would not be resolved for many years to come.
The odd thing is Lawrence's hypocrisy. There is no question that Stewart is technically entitled to the fulfillment of his contract. What one would like to see is for him to do the classy, indeed honourable, thing: to compromise of his own volition. In his case, the right compromise would be to decline some of what he will be owed. Lawrence criticises Stewart for not doing that honourable thing.
To be consistent, however, Lawrence ought to have criticised Mosley for having failed to do the honourable thing last year, when he ought to have resigned. It was not Mosley's fault that his dirty secrets were revealed, just as it is not Stewart's fault that RBS did stupid things. If noblesse oblige dictates that Stewart should voluntarily return some of the money that he is legally entitled to be paid, then surely it dictates that Mosley should resign and let motor sport move forward to deal with its challenges without the weight of all his baggage holding everything back.
One wonders where Lawrence is coming from: perhaps he's just worried about losing his PitPass.
In the next couple of months, Lawrence will have the opportunity to opine on Mosley's decision to break his word, again, and run for another term. If he should fail to excoriate Mosley at that time, his true colours will be plain to see.
flemke said:
The odd thing is Lawrence's hypocrisy. There is no question that Stewart is technically entitled to the fulfillment of his contract. What one would like to see is for him to do the classy, indeed honourable, thing: to compromise of his own volition. In his case, the right compromise would be to decline some of what he will be owed. Lawrence criticises Stewart for not doing that honourable thing.
To be consistent, however, Lawrence ought to have criticised Mosley for having failed to do the honourable thing last year, when he ought to have resigned. It was not Mosley's fault that his dirty secrets were revealed, just as it is not Stewart's fault that RBS did stupid things. If noblesse oblige dictates that Stewart should voluntarily return some of the money that he is legally entitled to be paid, then surely it dictates that Mosley should resign and let motor sport move forward to deal with its challenges without the weight of all his baggage holding everything back.
Excellent point flemke.To be consistent, however, Lawrence ought to have criticised Mosley for having failed to do the honourable thing last year, when he ought to have resigned. It was not Mosley's fault that his dirty secrets were revealed, just as it is not Stewart's fault that RBS did stupid things. If noblesse oblige dictates that Stewart should voluntarily return some of the money that he is legally entitled to be paid, then surely it dictates that Mosley should resign and let motor sport move forward to deal with its challenges without the weight of all his baggage holding everything back.
Eric Mc said:
I enjoy Lawrence's writings - his book on Colin Chapman - "Wayward Genius" is excellent.
However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Indeed.However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Eric Mc said:
I enjoy Lawrence's writings - his book on Colin Chapman - "Wayward Genius" is excellent.
However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Yes, it's good to have someone stirring things up, as a Devil's advocate.However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Do you not think there's a difference between a Devil's advocate who seeks a deeper, more searching analysis and a prejudiced kibbitzer who lobs in superficial, unexamined comments just to be contrary?
phumy said:
Sort of kills the article. No wimpish renegotiation for JS, but a refusual to take £4 mil.flemke said:
Eric Mc said:
I enjoy Lawrence's writings - his book on Colin Chapman - "Wayward Genius" is excellent.
However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Yes, it's good to have someone stirring things up, as a Devil's advocate.However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Do you not think there's a difference between a Devil's advocate who seeks a deeper, more searching analysis and a prejudiced kibbitzer who lobs in superficial, unexamined comments just to be contrary?
phumy said:
It will be interesting to see if there is a comment from Mike Lawrence. Even including my comments above, I am glad to see JYS take this action - especially as he is continuing with his commitment to RBS rather than walking away completely. Now, if only MM would walk away comletely, honouring his commitment to do so.
Eric Mc said:
flemke said:
Eric Mc said:
I enjoy Lawrence's writings - his book on Colin Chapman - "Wayward Genius" is excellent.
However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Yes, it's good to have someone stirring things up, as a Devil's advocate.However, he does have some odd views at times. However, I would prefer to have someone who is opinionated but sometimes wrong rather than someone who is totally bland and offends no one.
Do you not think there's a difference between a Devil's advocate who seeks a deeper, more searching analysis and a prejudiced kibbitzer who lobs in superficial, unexamined comments just to be contrary?
Derek Smith said:
phumy said:
Sort of kills the article. No wimpish renegotiation for JS, but a refusual to take £4 mil.andyps said:
flemke said:
and a prejudiced kibbitzer who lobs in superficial, unexamined comments just to be contrary?
The emboldened word even has dictionary.com stumped!http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kib...
It's Yiddish, I believe, and is in common use in places with large Jewish populations, such as the NYC region and Florida.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff