Discussion
He's won !
Just going live on the BBC site
He won just £60k in damages - very low
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7459669.stm
They're saying the Nowt didn't have a case after witness e - didn't turn up and that they didn't translate the german that was spoken in the video. The judge was expected to have thrown out the case at that point !
Just going live on the BBC site
He won just £60k in damages - very low
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7459669.stm
They're saying the Nowt didn't have a case after witness e - didn't turn up and that they didn't translate the german that was spoken in the video. The judge was expected to have thrown out the case at that point !
Edited by woof on Thursday 24th July 10:05
They say these are record damages but they aren't in any real meaningful sense as this is the first case of its kind. And 60k! The lawyers fees will be more than that.
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
If the damages are just for the video, then I'll be more than happy with that. In fact, I would have said that the video is well out of order and should have generated more of a fine. If it's for invasion of privacy, then I've got my own 'old boy's network' draft article waiting.
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
If the damages are just for the video, then I'll be more than happy with that. In fact, I would have said that the video is well out of order and should have generated more of a fine. If it's for invasion of privacy, then I've got my own 'old boy's network' draft article waiting.
From what I'm hearing on the BBC - it's because the NOWT over hyped the Nazi overtones and that the star witness "E" didn't turn up to give evidence
If the judge had been persuaded that their was Nazi themes or mocking the Holocaust, then the judgment could of been different
Mosley is giving the award to a motoring charity
If the judge had been persuaded that their was Nazi themes or mocking the Holocaust, then the judgment could of been different
Mosley is giving the award to a motoring charity
Edited by woof on Thursday 24th July 10:22
In evidence, Mosley's brief quoted how many extra copies the NotW sold and how many extra hits its website got. £60k can be got back in advertising.
I can't help but think this is a battle and not the war. There was a threat of more exposures by the paper and the revelations of the Euston 40 must generate a follow up. From the brief details given in the press there does seem the possibility of an offence of brothel keeping and if Mosley has a financial interest then a revelation would be in the public interest.
I can't help but think this is a battle and not the war. There was a threat of more exposures by the paper and the revelations of the Euston 40 must generate a follow up. From the brief details given in the press there does seem the possibility of an offence of brothel keeping and if Mosley has a financial interest then a revelation would be in the public interest.
Max makes teflon Tony look like an amateur. I can't think of anyone else in his type of role who could survive and yet he has, if anything, come out of it more powerful than ever and with his ego boosted. He already thinks that he can do anything, what the hell is going to be like in the future?
Derek Smith said:
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
Full ruling here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_0... 54 pages long, I've onlr properly read the conclusion on page 54. £60k is very low, his legal fees must have been much higher, and when you add in his private investigators Max must be well out of pocket; if fact, he's taken a real beating.Fundamentally i don't think this changes anything.
He won the FIA vote of confidence (ok it was rigged)
FOM has made piece with him
A new Concorde agreement is being signed next month (if all the teams agree to it)
And we all know Max likes he's themed fancy dress parties now
I'm sure he's going to go at the end of his term - and that will be the end of it
There's some cracking stuff in the summary
"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was “shaved”. Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was “shaved”. Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
This is from the summary - it's actually a very interesting document - a good read - but interesting to see this
225. To what extent is he the author of his own misfortune? Many would think that if a prominent man puts himself, year after year, into the hands (literally and metaphorically) of prostitutes (or even professional dominatrices) he is gambling in placing so much trust in them. There is a risk of exposure or blackmail inherent in such a course of conduct. In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance. Yet he continued to arrange parties, such as those on 8 and 28 March, knowing of the heightened risk.
225. To what extent is he the author of his own misfortune? Many would think that if a prominent man puts himself, year after year, into the hands (literally and metaphorically) of prostitutes (or even professional dominatrices) he is gambling in placing so much trust in them. There is a risk of exposure or blackmail inherent in such a course of conduct. In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance. Yet he continued to arrange parties, such as those on 8 and 28 March, knowing of the heightened risk.
MG511 said:
Derek Smith said:
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
Full ruling here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_0... 54 pages long, I've onlr properly read the conclusion on page 54. £60k is very low, his legal fees must have been much higher, and when you add in his private investigators Max must be well out of pocket; if fact, he's taken a real beating.woof said:
There's some cracking stuff in the summary
"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was “shaved”. Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
Love this. No longer is the saying "as smooth as a Babies bottom", but "as smooth as MM's bottom". Could anyone meet him and keep a straight face now???"Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was “shaved”. Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display."
flemke said:
MG511 said:
Derek Smith said:
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
Full ruling here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_0... 54 pages long, I've onlr properly read the conclusion on page 54. £60k is very low, his legal fees must have been much higher, and when you add in his private investigators Max must be well out of pocket; if fact, he's taken a real beating.woof said:
flemke said:
MG511 said:
Derek Smith said:
Mind you, I'lll wait until the full ruling before moaning about how pathetic and out of touch the courts are.
Full ruling here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_0... 54 pages long, I've onlr properly read the conclusion on page 54. £60k is very low, his legal fees must have been much higher, and when you add in his private investigators Max must be well out of pocket; if fact, he's taken a real beating.Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff