Is the President of the FIA a public figure?
Discussion
The latest from the Shameless One:
Mosley wants to keep secrets in the closet
FIA President Max Mosley has decided to continue his campaign to increase privacy laws by taking his spanking case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He wants newspapers across Europe to have to tell the subject of a story about any revelations before they are published. Mosley said that a tabloid editor can "destroy a family and wreck a life" without being answerable to anyone. There are some who would argue that newspapers should have the right to draw attention to the sordid activities of public figures who are betraying their wives and families and thus should not be trusted with any form of power, but Mosley clearly does not see himself in this mould as his lawyers argue that he is not a public figure and there is no public interest involved.
The FIA says that its member clubs "represent over 100 million motorists and their families" and that it "actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies". If this is the case, one has to ask how the FIA can be the represented by someone who is not in a public role.
Mosley's case is actually against British law and he is arguing that his right to privacy under the European convention on human rights is not sufficiently protected by the laws of England, which allow more journalistic freedom than in other countries, where public figures are allowed to get away with all manner of untrustworthy activities in their private lives while pretending to be clean, upstanding citizens in public. The classic example of this was France's President Francois Mitterand, who had numerous extramarital affairs, one of which resulted in a daughter who remained a secret for over 15 years.
(source - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20836.html)
What do others think? Is someone who has been in his position for 17 years, following his previous involvement in other activities, a public figure?
Mosley wants to keep secrets in the closet
FIA President Max Mosley has decided to continue his campaign to increase privacy laws by taking his spanking case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He wants newspapers across Europe to have to tell the subject of a story about any revelations before they are published. Mosley said that a tabloid editor can "destroy a family and wreck a life" without being answerable to anyone. There are some who would argue that newspapers should have the right to draw attention to the sordid activities of public figures who are betraying their wives and families and thus should not be trusted with any form of power, but Mosley clearly does not see himself in this mould as his lawyers argue that he is not a public figure and there is no public interest involved.
The FIA says that its member clubs "represent over 100 million motorists and their families" and that it "actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies". If this is the case, one has to ask how the FIA can be the represented by someone who is not in a public role.
Mosley's case is actually against British law and he is arguing that his right to privacy under the European convention on human rights is not sufficiently protected by the laws of England, which allow more journalistic freedom than in other countries, where public figures are allowed to get away with all manner of untrustworthy activities in their private lives while pretending to be clean, upstanding citizens in public. The classic example of this was France's President Francois Mitterand, who had numerous extramarital affairs, one of which resulted in a daughter who remained a secret for over 15 years.
(source - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20836.html)
What do others think? Is someone who has been in his position for 17 years, following his previous involvement in other activities, a public figure?
Flemke
Give it a rest about Mosley, it has got boring. Your question is a bit of a leading one too. Is he a public figure? Not any more so than a CEO of a multi national corporation or some other entity. If these guys are up to a bit of no good with some extra marital affairs, that's their look out, nothing to do with me, or you, or anyone else not immediately involved. I don't think it effects a person's judgement just because they like a bit of german themed hanky panky. Before March this year we did not know about Mosley's proclivaties, and we thought he was an aresehole, now we know for sure, but tell me, what difference does it make on his ability to make a decision re the running of motorsport. The difference is only in our eyes which I would suggest is our problem not his. That is he made questionable decisions before the scandal and he still makes them, so hookers or no, there's no difference.
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
Give it a rest about Mosley, it has got boring. Your question is a bit of a leading one too. Is he a public figure? Not any more so than a CEO of a multi national corporation or some other entity. If these guys are up to a bit of no good with some extra marital affairs, that's their look out, nothing to do with me, or you, or anyone else not immediately involved. I don't think it effects a person's judgement just because they like a bit of german themed hanky panky. Before March this year we did not know about Mosley's proclivaties, and we thought he was an aresehole, now we know for sure, but tell me, what difference does it make on his ability to make a decision re the running of motorsport. The difference is only in our eyes which I would suggest is our problem not his. That is he made questionable decisions before the scandal and he still makes them, so hookers or no, there's no difference.
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
Stockhatcher, I am not sure I agree totally with your argument, if Moseley gets the law changed it may have far reaching consequences beyond just the little women whipping naked tea drinking jack booter. Cases such as Jonathon Aitken would not be made public, Jeffrey Archer or other notable slime balls will be free to be corrupt and morally bankrupt to their hearts content. The media, like or loathe them have brought some very unpleasant characters into the public eye and rightfully so.
In Moseley’s case, yes he is a public figure, yes he has ruined motor sport but Moseley presides over the whole of the fia, including things like the speed I can drive my car, the safety protection and N cap ratings. He has professed his desire that all cars have speed limiters fitted (sitting in judgent over my judgement), but yet has shown he has the moral compass of a……well a women beating lice checking pervert. As a consequence of taking a job that requires respect at all levels he should lead his life in a moral upstanding way. If however you do not sit in judgement or a have a position of public office then the press will leave you alone.
If, as stated, the FIA "represent over 100 million motorists and their families" (and families ?? ) then surely Max is a public figure.
If he doesn't like his sordid affairs being made public then he should think twice before engaging in them. Simple really Max.
Trying to get the law changed to suit your ends is just odious.
BTW Flemke the ) at the end of the link makes it 404
If he doesn't like his sordid affairs being made public then he should think twice before engaging in them. Simple really Max.
Trying to get the law changed to suit your ends is just odious.
BTW Flemke the ) at the end of the link makes it 404
stockhatcher said:
Flemke
Give it a rest about Mosley, it has got boring. Your question is a bit of a leading one too. Is he a public figure? Not any more so than a CEO of a multi national corporation or some other entity. If these guys are up to a bit of no good with some extra marital affairs, that's their look out, nothing to do with me, or you, or anyone else not immediately involved. I don't think it effects a person's judgement just because they like a bit of german themed hanky panky. Before March this year we did not know about Mosley's proclivaties, and we thought he was an aresehole, now we know for sure, but tell me, what difference does it make on his ability to make a decision re the running of motorsport. The difference is only in our eyes which I would suggest is our problem not his. That is he made questionable decisions before the scandal and he still makes them, so hookers or no, there's no difference.
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
Max, is that you?Give it a rest about Mosley, it has got boring. Your question is a bit of a leading one too. Is he a public figure? Not any more so than a CEO of a multi national corporation or some other entity. If these guys are up to a bit of no good with some extra marital affairs, that's their look out, nothing to do with me, or you, or anyone else not immediately involved. I don't think it effects a person's judgement just because they like a bit of german themed hanky panky. Before March this year we did not know about Mosley's proclivaties, and we thought he was an aresehole, now we know for sure, but tell me, what difference does it make on his ability to make a decision re the running of motorsport. The difference is only in our eyes which I would suggest is our problem not his. That is he made questionable decisions before the scandal and he still makes them, so hookers or no, there's no difference.
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
stockhatcher said:
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
Max wasn't thrust into the limelight, he chose to take on a role which has a very public profile (especially amongst motor sport fans) and has chosen to build on that role in as many areas as he can get his grubby little fingers, including the suggestion that all cars are governed automatically to the speed limit of the road on which they are being driven. If he thinks he has that much power over the public, he is a public figure.I don't really want to know what he gets up to, but the simple fact is that the activities he has been involved in for 45 years made him corruptible by those who knew about something he wanted to keep secret. One thing we don't know is how many of the very questionable decisions he has made were influenced by others knowing about his unusual sexual proclivities and putting pressure to get a decision favourable to them. Once such proclivities are exposed, that sort of influence is reduced which has to be in the public interest.
The other point about the obnoxious non-Nazi taking this to the European court is that all it will do is drag the reputation of F1 even lower than he has already taken it. For a man who can fine a team $100m for bringing the sport into disrepute on unproven charges to do this is beneath contempt. I just hope he loses his case, and as much money as he has ever taken from his mismanagement of the sport in costs.
Of course he is a public figure
Steve
stockhatcher said:
what difference does it make on his ability to make a decision re the running of motorsport.
Well, it gives you some idea about the man's judgement and decision making, not to mention morals. If he thought it was a good idea to visit an illegal establishment and have sexual relations with more than one woman, without the permission of his wife, knowing full well the consequences of his actions on both his private and professional life then his decision making and judgement are both seriously flawed.Steve
flemke said:
The latest from the Shameless One:
Mosley wants to keep secrets in the closet
FIA President Max Mosley has decided to continue his campaign to increase privacy laws by taking his spanking case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He wants newspapers across Europe to have to tell the subject of a story about any revelations before they are published. Mosley said that a tabloid editor can "destroy a family and wreck a life" without being answerable to anyone. There are some who would argue that newspapers should have the right to draw attention to the sordid activities of public figures who are betraying their wives and families and thus should not be trusted with any form of power, but Mosley clearly does not see himself in this mould as his lawyers argue that he is not a public figure and there is no public interest involved.
The FIA says that its member clubs "represent over 100 million motorists and their families" and that it "actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies". If this is the case, one has to ask how the FIA can be the represented by someone who is not in a public role.
Mosley's case is actually against British law and he is arguing that his right to privacy under the European convention on human rights is not sufficiently protected by the laws of England, which allow more journalistic freedom than in other countries, where public figures are allowed to get away with all manner of untrustworthy activities in their private lives while pretending to be clean, upstanding citizens in public. The classic example of this was France's President Francois Mitterand, who had numerous extramarital affairs, one of which resulted in a daughter who remained a secret for over 15 years.
(source - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20836.html)
What do others think? Is someone who has been in his position for 17 years, following his previous involvement in other activities, a public figure?
It's not a question of whether he is a public figure or not, the issue is how much latitude should newspaper editors have to go around digging up the dirt on anyone they please. mosley is n ot alone in this, several "public figures" feel the press should exercise some restraint or if they cannot control themselves they should be regulated in some way by an outside agency. Even "public fiugures" have the right to a private life but they find it impossible.Mosley wants to keep secrets in the closet
FIA President Max Mosley has decided to continue his campaign to increase privacy laws by taking his spanking case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He wants newspapers across Europe to have to tell the subject of a story about any revelations before they are published. Mosley said that a tabloid editor can "destroy a family and wreck a life" without being answerable to anyone. There are some who would argue that newspapers should have the right to draw attention to the sordid activities of public figures who are betraying their wives and families and thus should not be trusted with any form of power, but Mosley clearly does not see himself in this mould as his lawyers argue that he is not a public figure and there is no public interest involved.
The FIA says that its member clubs "represent over 100 million motorists and their families" and that it "actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies". If this is the case, one has to ask how the FIA can be the represented by someone who is not in a public role.
Mosley's case is actually against British law and he is arguing that his right to privacy under the European convention on human rights is not sufficiently protected by the laws of England, which allow more journalistic freedom than in other countries, where public figures are allowed to get away with all manner of untrustworthy activities in their private lives while pretending to be clean, upstanding citizens in public. The classic example of this was France's President Francois Mitterand, who had numerous extramarital affairs, one of which resulted in a daughter who remained a secret for over 15 years.
(source - http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20836.html)
What do others think? Is someone who has been in his position for 17 years, following his previous involvement in other activities, a public figure?
This is not meant to condone or justify Mosley's alleged actions. But in this case he is equal to the rest of us and subject to the laws of the land and any allegations should be judged as such. Trial by newspaper is not in the domain of a civilised society.
Actually, the simple fact is that the newspaper editors would only print a story such as the one about Mosley if the person is a public figure. If they are not a public figure it would have no appeal and not shift copy - and at the end of the day that is what matters to the editor. A simple example being that I have only ever bought the News of The World twice, and both copies were bought shortly after Easter this year.
andyps said:
If he thinks he has that much power over the public, he is a public figure.
Says it all really.andyps said:
how many of the very questionable decisions he has made were influenced by others knowing about his unusual sexual proclivities
We will never know but still a good point to make.andyps said:
For a man who can fine a team $100m for bringing the sport into disrepute on unproven charges
But then again I'm confused as to how Mandelson is back in the cabinet!
To answer Flemkes question, before spankygate I think he was probably not a public figure, even after all the McLaren/Ferrari stuff last year. Most people did not have a clue who he was.
Of course anyone with a reasonable interest in motorsport or the politics of the automobile would know about him but I think it is a tough call to say he was a public figure.
And I don't recall the FIA setting speed limits... Lobbying maybe..
D
Of course anyone with a reasonable interest in motorsport or the politics of the automobile would know about him but I think it is a tough call to say he was a public figure.
And I don't recall the FIA setting speed limits... Lobbying maybe..
D
andyps said:
stockhatcher said:
I applaud him taking on the tabloids, there is a big difference for those whose public visibility/wealth depend on media copy e.g Jade Goody, and those who are thrust into the limelight for other reasons. I think it must be very difficult to keep a grip on reality and morality when you are extremely wealthy and influential with a bunch of yes men as hangers on. You might not get involved in 5 way sex with some hookers, but your own moral compass may be skewed if you were in a position of power and influence. He wants to protect his privacy, good I don't want to know about it either. Any corrupt or fraudulent activity wil be dealt with by the law anyway.
Max wasn't thrust into the limelight, he chose to take on a role which has a very public profile (especially amongst motor sport fans) and has chosen to build on that role in as many areas as he can get his grubby little fingers, including the suggestion that all cars are governed automatically to the speed limit of the road on which they are being driven. If he thinks he has that much power over the public, he is a public figure.I don't really want to know what he gets up to, but the simple fact is that the activities he has been involved in for 45 years made him corruptible by those who knew about something he wanted to keep secret. One thing we don't know is how many of the very questionable decisions he has made were influenced by others knowing about his unusual sexual proclivities and putting pressure to get a decision favourable to them. Once such proclivities are exposed, that sort of influence is reduced which has to be in the public interest.
The other point about the obnoxious non-Nazi taking this to the European court is that all it will do is drag the reputation of F1 even lower than he has already taken it. For a man who can fine a team $100m for bringing the sport into disrepute on unproven charges to do this is beneath contempt. I just hope he loses his case, and as much money as he has ever taken from his mismanagement of the sport in costs.
ks! I think you are over estimating the fame that Mosley has. He is the head of a sporting authority. Without looking it up I'd bet that you (and most other people) on this site would struggle to name another, possibly the head of the olympics maybe the football? CAn you tell me the name of the head of the international rowing committee? cycling?, rugby? All these people have chosen to run their sport as they believe that they can do it better, or have a vision for it, I don't believe that they do it for fame. Indeed Mosley was elected in 1991 FFS! No one had heard of him outside the sport and before the spanking fiasco I'd wager that was still the case.You are right in that he has chosen to build on his role - but I would say that that is absolutely the no 1 priority of a head of any organisation, it is prudent to the FIA to be involved in green matters, motoring policy, to use green technology in f1 - it goes some way to appeasing the green movement. Would you rather he hadn't done this - left the sport way more exposed and in a perilous state than his extra curricular activities could ever of done.
I assume by your hatred of Mosely that you are some sort of god fearing presbytarian, devoid of objectivity and only governed by morality. Good for you if you are - I take you find the world a very loathsome place to be.
I think you are making connections between Ferrari and Mosley that are not there to be made, I doubt they had anything on him, I doubt this as Bernie was more surprised than anyone about the scandal and i think it is true to say that if he does not know what is going on - it is well hidden....
I am not sure of your connection between Mosleys upcoming court case, and its effect on tarnishing F1, it was f
ked last year by the cheating scandal, it was fked by the ferrari bias in the decisions made since, but there has always been Ferrari bias, some of it with good reason, some of it is mystifying but none of it is related to Mosley's spanking desires.In summary this is a very old topic now that has been debated to death, with nothing new being added and the views of each side becoming more entrenched as the days go by. Fundamentally I think in your case - you don't like him, the sex scandal gives you reason to.. and any thing else that happens you just try to fit in to the picture of this Tifosi loving FIA ruler.
I remember back in the day when Mosley did a lot of good for F1 - safety being the main thing, that said I too think he is past his best and should go, but not for the reasons you so obviously believe to be true; because - if it is true that a leopard cannot change its spots - and lets assume for a minute that his incident this year was not a one off - we can therefore assume that he has always been like that - and that your view that the scandal makes him less fit for office does not hold water.
He has a tremendous amount of authority and as has been shown he cannot be removed from his post.
He engages in activities, on his own admission, the revelations of which have had a massive negative impact on his family and made him something of pariah. He has admitted he has done such things for 40 years. Therefore he rendered himself liable to blackmail. We have no way of knowing whether his desicisions, which have limited check nor ability to be overturned, have been influenced by those who have threatened to reveal such disgusting matters.
There have been rumours that Mosley/FiA are biased towards Ferrari. To fight such matters, Max Rufus should have behaved in a manner where the ability to blackmail him are limited. Instead of that he has behaved in a mannner which is careless of his responsibilities.
MI5 agents, police officers, school teachers and many other professions are obliged to restrict the activities in their private life. All i would suggest, would have been obliged to resign in they had beaten women they had bought off a meat rack.
Mosley also refers to the revelations as intrusion in the bedroom when he was in a sordid little cellar he had rented sp;ecially for the purpose.
Whether the video should have been shown to the public is a subject separate to this. What is clear is that some of our politicians behave in a manner which is inappropriate to their positions. Such laws as are proposed by Max Rufus whould limit the newspapers' ability to reveal them. Indeed, it is suggest that the Washington Post would not have been able to reveal Watergate.
Blunkett's behaviour, unacceptable to those who serve McRubbish, would be obscured by law in Max Rufus is allowed to promote his right wing self interest.
He engages in activities, on his own admission, the revelations of which have had a massive negative impact on his family and made him something of pariah. He has admitted he has done such things for 40 years. Therefore he rendered himself liable to blackmail. We have no way of knowing whether his desicisions, which have limited check nor ability to be overturned, have been influenced by those who have threatened to reveal such disgusting matters.
There have been rumours that Mosley/FiA are biased towards Ferrari. To fight such matters, Max Rufus should have behaved in a manner where the ability to blackmail him are limited. Instead of that he has behaved in a mannner which is careless of his responsibilities.
MI5 agents, police officers, school teachers and many other professions are obliged to restrict the activities in their private life. All i would suggest, would have been obliged to resign in they had beaten women they had bought off a meat rack.
Mosley also refers to the revelations as intrusion in the bedroom when he was in a sordid little cellar he had rented sp;ecially for the purpose.
Whether the video should have been shown to the public is a subject separate to this. What is clear is that some of our politicians behave in a manner which is inappropriate to their positions. Such laws as are proposed by Max Rufus whould limit the newspapers' ability to reveal them. Indeed, it is suggest that the Washington Post would not have been able to reveal Watergate.
Blunkett's behaviour, unacceptable to those who serve McRubbish, would be obscured by law in Max Rufus is allowed to promote his right wing self interest.
stockhatcher said:
bks! I think you are over estimating the fame that Mosley has. He is the head of a sporting authority.
I think he's also something to do with the FiA as well, of which F1 is a minor sideshow.ks! I think you are over estimating the fame that Mosley has. He is the head of a sporting authority. stockhatcher said:
Without looking it up I'd bet that you (and most other people) on this site would struggle to name another . .
I remember back in the day when Mosley did a lot of good for F1 - safety being the main thing,
I bet most people (and you) would struggle to name one safety feature that mosley brought into F1 that wasn't promoted, developed and pushed by others.I remember back in the day when Mosley did a lot of good for F1 - safety being the main thing,
Derek Smith said:
I bet most people (and you) would struggle to name one safety feature that mosley brought into F1 that wasn't promoted, developed and pushed by others.
so are you saying that he has to have invented, developed, and then promoted something to be considered its architect? or to be considered the driver behind its implementation..when was the last time Bill Gates did that? At that level of seniority you don't get involved in the nitty gritty, you develop knowledge of your market, listen to advice, research trends and then create a plan/direction that your minions fill in.
Edited by stockhatcher on Sunday 5th October 21:25
From the FIA website.
So yes he is a public figure as he is representing the public within politics.
fia said:
The FIA has been dedicated to representing the rights of motoring organisations and motor car users throughout the world via campaigns and activities that defend their interests. On issues such as safety, mobility, the environment and consumer law the FIA actively promotes the interests of motorists at the United Nations, within the European Union and through other international bodies.
He is leading an organisation that "promotes the interests of motorists" e.g. the driving public. In a political arena e.g. the UN and Europen Union.So yes he is a public figure as he is representing the public within politics.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff