New Twist In The Sobriety Of The Mosley-gate

[cavallino 2]

I'd vote for him.

Of course he also has an IQ of 65, and his views on F1 are similar to DOF and wants robots driving robot cars, but then, you were more interested in his sexual preferences and now it's too late because you already voted for him

[Quiet One 15]

Of course he also has an IQ of 65, and his views on F1 are similar to DOF and wants robots driving robot cars, but then, you were more interested in his sexual preferences and now it's too late because you already voted for him

Sounds like Mosley, except he has a higher IQ than Max

(Something tells me that the level of our arguments has decayed a little!)

[Max Mosley 2]

But again Muzza you are applying your values on us. You may not find his behaviour particularly distasteful but there are lots who do. Why should I change them? How could I even try to do do so? Moreover why should I? How can I change the attitude of the Japanese politicians and motor sport clubs who probably expect high standards of honour and see his behaviour as an unacceptable indiscretion for a man in his position?

Well as you know it's a tough question: what to do when different people have conflicting values. But I think we can keep the (fascinating) philosophical debate to a minimum here.

As a bare minimum, you should make your views clearly known. If you think his sex life is irrelevant to his job then say so. If you think other people are wrong to judge him in a particular way then say so. If you have values, then stand up for them!

In practical terms, of course you can't do much to affect Japanese politicians....except to argue your views and to try to discuss the issue in a way that helps both sides understand each other. When that happens I have no doubt that the Japanese will agree with me (frankly I know a lot of Japanese people, and they are not so different from us - many would already agree with me). This is not cultural arrogance or imperialism. It's confidence and conviction in my own moral values. Rarely, I have altered my own views when convinced I was wrong.

Finally I think you're hiding behind nice words. Many people consider it dishonourable for a woman to lead a company - does that mean any company that deals with those people can fire someone for being female and hence dishonourable in many people's eyes?

I also take issue that I should be more reflective - I'm a father, nay grandfather and this is the ultimate responsibility in shaping the culture and thinking of others and is a responsibility I take very seriously. I don't read newspapers (hate the popular press), don't like most "popular TV", am not religious, don't support any political parties and so on the face of it I am actually different from the majority. Having said all that, we are all programmed to a degree by the people around us and no doubt about it are influenced by popular culture - you and I are British and demonstrate traits that others outside of our country/culture can easily spot.

I was careful to say "more reflective on this issue". I'm sure you are a fine father....though no one is perfect, spotty bum.

Finally I think the comparison between Max's bedroom antics and gay sex is probably not a fair one - one is a sexual orientation carried out by a large percentage of the world's population whereas the other is very niche and says something about the mindset of Max - anyone who pays to enact fantasies about prison camps, whilst speaking German and being thrashed is not quite right in the head.

Another reason for him to go imho.

Again, that is prejudice. 20 years ago, homophobes said that gay sex was niche and not right. To me, the idea of being spanked on the a## is far more acceptable than someone thrusting a penis into it in order to fill me with his semen.

Indeed, I propose the FIA chief be a straight white 'aryan' monogamous married male with a wife covered from head to toe, a father who died in the world war, a mother who was always covered from head to toe so we never knew what she did, two kids, a son and a daughter (c from h to t) and a son who gets high marks at school and doesn't look at girls who aren't c from h 2 t.

I'd vote for him.

No you wouldn't. In my culture Jews can't vote. It's dishonourable. Sorry.

[Eric 0]

Exclusive Report: Bernie Ecclestone Had Sex

Stunning details about Communist-style orgy

News of the World can officially report that Bernard Ecclestone, President and CEO of Hobbit Appreciation Int'l, had sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife in December 1976. Ex-F1 driver Al Pease is urging Ecclestone to step down.

In our 3-hour porno flick of Bernie, it is revealed that at one point during the video he has an orgasm in Russian. No, we don't know how to groan in Russian, but he does. This clearly shows that he is in favor of a Communist revolution in England and is the reincarnation of Stalin.

Max Mosley, who was not Bernie's sex partner but wishes he was, said, "Knowing Bernie, this was all some sort of a joke. Everyone knows he is loyal to ze German state."

We will release more details as they become available. Currently, we have people investigating grafitti in bathroom stalls to help secure the remaining details of this sick, twisted scandal.

[aussief1 4]

Funny stuff Eric.

[Oli 1]

As far as I can see the whole moral argument is irrelevant from both sides. Whether you think it's morally wrong of Max or not to do what he does makes no difference. Equally, whether you think getting rid of someone because of his dodgy private life is wrong is irrelevant.

The fact is, one of the FIA's reponsibilities is the promotion of motorsport in developing countries. Whilst their values may not be on the same level as ours, the fact is we have to accomodate them to achieve our own goals. For example, in Saudi Arabia women are second-class citizens, which you or I may find deplorable. However there's no point in standing on principal and trying to send a woman to negotiate an oil deal- you're not going to have any effect on their culture; you're simply going to hurt your own aims.

The question is whether the FIA can continue to be effective if it has a leader who has lost the respect of its member states and clubs. I think no, and if you want to persuade me otherwise then continuing to defend his actions is not the way to do it.

Here's another example from the world of English TV. A few years ago a presenter of a long running TV news quiz (Have I Got News For You) called Angus Deayton was caught taking cocaine with a bunch of hookers. Now obviously this is endemic in the TV world, but he was fired and could never return to the show. This was not because of what he did, since I think the vast majority of the public forgave his transgressions (I did, despite my views on prostitution), but because it was impossible for him to continue doing a comedy news quiz which would often involve jokes at the expense of MPs and public figures guilty of the same sort of things. His copresenters would have been continually taking the p**s out of him, and the show would have become boring and unworkable. Defending his actions on the basis that he was hurting no one and everybody is guilty of sin s totally irrelevant to the argument.

Now I forgave Deayton because he apologised for his actions and because I think everybody else in TV is doing much the same thing. However that doesn't mean I want him back on the programme. I know this seems like a frivolous analogy, but it's a good way of explaining why in practical terms the "let he who be without sin cast the first stone" doesn't always work.

Strangely enough I did anticipate the above response. I had hoped that it wasn't necessary to clarify it, but clearly I was wrong as so often.

You are quite correct. Yes, you got me. But what if someone "in a position of global importance" has the same flaws as me? You're saying that a speeding ticket is enough to disqualify anyone from any "position of global importance"? Anyone who has ever indulged in a luxury for themselves instead of giving to charity should be barred from important roles?

I'm only winding you up- you know you love it.....

[Oli 1]

As an aside, I find it interesting that it's much the same people who attack the Bible in the "Creationism" thread for being unneccessary since people should have the ability to form their own moral code, who in this thread don't seem to be able to respect that others may have different moral codes to theirs......

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well I don't know if I have the patience or interest to engage in going backwards and forward on this.... Max is not someone I particularly care about.

Max is a diplomat and does more than just F1; the FIA governs most global motorsports, campaigns and lobbies for road safety both at governmental level and also with motor manufacturers and heads up over 200 motorsports clubs and organisations. The role of president is therefore as a figurehead, is diplomatic and involves working with senior government officials globally to promote motoring related activities (many of which have an impact upon tourism). This places the presidential role above head of F1 (which is more Bernie) and even though he is not at the same level as, say Kofi Anan, nevertheless it is a role of influence.

Someone operating at this level therefore needs to be taken seriously and command respect.

My point is simply that given all that has gone on he can no longer do this. Rightly or wrongly many country's motoring organisations don't feel comfortable with him continuing and also the way it was all exposed and the nature of what he did makes him a laughing stock. It is this combined that in my opinion makes it untenable for him to continue. If he carries on, this will come back to haunt him on a regular basis, some organisations and countries won't want to deal with him and he will continue to be in the cross-hairs of the press. The FIA will get damaged and schisms will appear as Max's influence will wain. Ze punishment will continue until eventually he will have to leave because he won't be taken seriously. We've seen similar situations with Blair and Thatcher when they lost the plot, lost support and stayed on longer than they should have - it just never works and the end is inevitable.

I'm not moralising as personally I don't give a damn what he gets up to.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Bernie Ecclestone had sex

Ew, ew, ew. What a yucky thought

[pabloh20 1]

Well I don't know if I have the patience or interest to engage in going backwards and forward on this.... Max is not someone I particularly care about.

Max is a diplomat and does more than just F1; the FIA governs most global motorsports, campaigns and lobbies for road safety both at governmental level and also with motor manufacturers and heads up over 200 motorsports clubs and organisations. The role of president is therefore as a figurehead, is diplomatic and involves working with senior government officials globally to promote motoring related activities (many of which have an impact upon tourism). This places the presidential role above head of F1 (which is more Bernie) and even though he is not at the same level as, say Kofi Anan, nevertheless it is a role of influence.

Someone operating at this level therefore needs to be taken seriously and command respect.

My point is simply that given all that has gone on he can no longer do this. Rightly or wrongly many country's motoring organisations don't feel comfortable with him continuing and also the way it was all exposed and the nature of what he did makes him a laughing stock. It is this combined that in my opinion makes it untenable for him to continue. If he carries on, this will come back to haunt him on a regular basis, some organisations and countries won't want to deal with him and he will continue to be in the cross-hairs of the press. The FIA will get damaged and schisms will appear as Max's influence will wain. Ze punishment will continue until eventually he will have to leave because he won't be taken seriously. We've seen similar situations with Blair and Thatcher when they lost the plot, lost support and stayed on longer than they should have - it just never works and the end is inevitable.

I'm not moralising as personally I don't give a damn what he gets up to.

Indeed, Sir.

The simple fact is, that even engaging in practices like this with your wife could end up not being a private matter, if you split up with your wife. If you tell a friend about your fetishes, it has ceased to be a private matter. If you tell 5 friends about your fetish, then it has even less chance of being a private matter. And if you pay 5 people to indulge in your said fetish? Well..................................you get the picture

If it's not that much of an issue, nor something that should affect his job, then he should have told us all about it before now - 'My name is Max and I'm a dirty ole b@astard that likes to bark orders to women in a German accent before being spanked til my cheeks are red raw'.

[Jean Todt 4]

I agree with people who have said Max shouldn't be judged by his sexual choices, infact, what Max did is nothing compared to what is happening in and around the world with their sexual preferences.

At the same time, Max indeed deserves through kicking for what he did to Mclaren last season. I know guys like Cav will tell Mclaren deserved it, but Max over stepped his position last season. I don't what this thread to take us back to the spy scandal. Max is down, and everyone is kicking him. I am joining too. Hell with Max, bring some one who will bring stable rules.

[Max Mosley 2]

I know this seems like a frivolous analogy, but it's a good way of explaining why in practical terms the "let he who be without sin cast the first stone" doesn't always work.

The situation is completely different. Making fun of politicians' sexual peccadilloes was a huge part of his job. Of course he can't continue if he's more risible than they are. Anyone appearing on that show clearly is giving up the right to be treated with common decency and respect while they're on it, given that the whole point of the show is to make fun of people for amusing but usually frivolous reasons.

But Max does a proper job, where totally different standards apply. It is stupid to suggest that anyone who becomes a laughing stock or who is not respected should be fired from a proper job. Many women aren't taken seriously on City trading floors, and their work suffers inevitably. Generally these women are viewed by the law as victims of discrimination. No doubt you would simply tell them to get a job where their colleagues deign to respect them, or else a husband who will deign to feed them.

As an aside, I find it interesting that it's much the same people who attack the Bible in the "Creationism" thread for being unneccessary since people should have the ability to form their own moral code, who in this thread don't seem to be able to respect that others may have different moral codes to theirs......

It's interesting but easily explicable. People who reject the Bible as a source of ultimate morality usually do so because they take the view that folk should think for themselves about morality. That doesn't mean that anything goes. Quite the opposite: it means we all have an obligation to reflect on our moral codes, and to stand up for our own values.

Well I don't know if I have the patience or interest to engage in going backwards and forward on this....

Frankly I don't think we're going anywhere with this. Folk have been saying the same things over and over again without actually thinking. It's not exactly unusual for this place, although I did think all the people I've replied to in this thread might have done better.

All you really said in that long post was (1) Max is an important man; and (2) some people think his sex life is relevant to his work life; and (3) you personally don't care about his sexual habits. I think that's a shoddy and lazy argument that shamelessly panders to backward and stupid people's prejudices.

Max is not someone I particularly care about.

Yes and this is the point. You won't stand up for your values because you don't like the victim. Andres admitted the same thing, which surprised me. If I used racist language against a black guy we all disliked it would be different. And that's really why I find it hard to respect the PC moral majority.

[Fed up 0]

The debate is going around in circles it seems fueled mainly by Murray's obtuse views on the world.

In the overall scheme of things Max's behaviour as exposed by the NOTW was displicable and disgusting. Will he be able to command the respect within his organisation and it's members? No! - it is for this reason that his position is untenable and he should and must go.

Everthing else is just chat and Murray citing all manner of exmaples from gays to women to ethnic minorities - there is no connection whatsover

[Max Mosley 2]

If you were paying attention you'd have understood by now that we all do despicable things.

[pabloh20 1]

The situation is completely different. Making fun of politicians' sexual peccadilloes was a huge part of his job. Of course he can't continue if he's more risible than they are. Anyone appearing on that show clearly is giving up the right to be treated with common decency and respect while they're on it, given that the whole point of the show is to make fun of people for amusing but usually frivolous reasons.

But Max does a proper job, where totally different standards apply. It is stupid to suggest that anyone who becomes a laughing stock or who is not respected should be fired from a proper job. Many women aren't taken seriously on City trading floors, and their work suffers inevitably. Generally these women are viewed by the law as victims of discrimination. No doubt you would simply tell them to get a job where their colleagues deign to respect them, or else a husband who will deign to feed them.

It's interesting but easily explicable. People who reject the Bible as a source of ultimate morality usually do so because they take the view that folk should think for themselves about morality. That doesn't mean that anything goes. Quite the opposite: it means we all have an obligation to reflect on our moral codes, and to stand up for our own values.

Frankly I don't think we're going anywhere with this. Folk have been saying the same things over and over again without actually thinking. It's not exactly unusual for this place, although I did think all the people I've replied to in this thread might have done better.

All you really said in that long post was (1) Max is an important man; and (2) some people think his sex life is relevant to his work life; and (3) you personally don't care about his sexual habits. I think that's a shoddy and lazy argument that shamelessly panders to backward and stupid people's prejudices.

Yes and this is the point. You won't stand up for your values because you don't like the victim. Andres admitted the same thing, which surprised me. If I used racist language against a black guy we all disliked it would be different. And that's really why I find it hard to respect the PC moral majority.

Oh for crying out loud, stop being a wind up merchant and talking bollocks!

Your Dad Max has been an egotistical d#ckhead and got caught doing something he obviously didn't want people to know about. Now, everyone knows my standards or values are not very high, but if it was me in that situation, I would expect repurcussions. The first thing out of my mouth wouldn't have been 'I have been set up, someone gave me a script to read and it said use a German accent while spanking these girls'. Even if you suspect a set up, you don't blurt it out as soon as you get caught.

So it's nothing to do with not defending him because I don't really care for him, it's because he hasn't even measured up to my unusually low standards

[Fed up 0]

If you were paying attention you'd have understood by now that we all do despicable things.

Yes we do, but we are not all judged by our characters. You, for example, would be lynched if you held public office and expressed some of the weird views you espouse on this forum. Of course your views are faceless and therefore not subject to properr scrutiny, but Max is a public figure and will always be judged by his character, perceived or real.

Perhaps you are the one that should be paying attention as you seem devoid of any common sense.

[pabloh20 1]

If you were paying attention you'd have understood by now that we all do despicable things.

What???? How did you know????

Look, I had an itch in my nose, honest and the only way to clean my finger afterwards was by licking it. I mean, I wouldn't have wanted it to get on my keyboard, that would be gross.

[cavallino 2]

The debate is going around in circles it seems fueled mainly by Murray's obtuse views on the world.

In the overall scheme of things Max's behaviour as exposed by the NOTW was displicable and disgusting. Will he be able to command the respect within his organisation and it's members? No! - it is for this reason that his position is untenable and he should and must go.

Everthing else is just chat and Murray citing all manner of exmaples from gays to women to ethnic minorities - there is no connection whatsover

I don't get it. What he did is pretty tame, since he didn't harm anyone or put anyone else at risk - unlike all the F1 drivers who routinely get caught for speeding - someone whose name I forget, starts with a Ham and ends with a Ton

Disgusting? Don't see it. I never watched the video, and don't intend to. It seems fashionable these days to take unashamed voyeuristic pleasure over other people's lives, that shock and disgust makes for easy conversation.

Despicable? The only argument regarding that that barely merits a reply is the exploitation of women. And barely, since I am sure these women were well paid, and most importantly noone who has brought up the issue gives a damn about them, and has done absolutely anything to convert their moral indignation into constructive action. This his nothing less that a personally motivated vindictive witch hunt, and people on this forum who take a mere game way too seriously are glad to be a part of it.

I picked on you in particular, because unlike others you refuse to even try and explain your views, simply cling to a religiously held belief that you have the moral high ground and hence have nothing to explain.

[milly 0]

Max has been an egotistical d#ckhead and got caught doing something he obviously didn't want people to know about. Now, everyone knows my standards or values are not very high, but if it was me in that situation, I would expect repurcussions.

I pretty much agree with this (although I don't know much about your morals pabloh20, so can't comment there )

It doesn't make any difference whether we think Max was in the wrong or not, but presumably he does, or he wouldn't have tried to deny it straight away. What I think does matter is whether or not it will effect his work, which it may well do, as he is being stopped from attending grands prix, but it is not up to me to decide that.

[monza gorilla 1]

He should go. End. Now for Pete's sake shut up and do something useful with your lives.

[Medilloni 6]

This is bordering on the insane. Which is strangely funny.

Cav, your last post is your opinion. Your opinion is highly valued ('cept when you're taking the p!ss ), but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Max is able to perform his duties in the manner and professional status that he did before.

Oli summed the situation up perfectly earlier, when replying to Murray.........

Because you're not in a position of global importance. Because part of your job does not involve negotiation with countries with certain strict moral and religious codes. And of course because you weren't in the News Of The World.

.......and either Murray and Cav are having great fun with a wind-up, or are a wonderful cross between idealistic and massively ignorant to the commercial world the FIA have a direct involvement for and with (no offence fella's). i.e. It doesn't matter what the details are, or what any of our opinions are - those are completely irrelevant, it's perceptions of others and the probable effects on Max's ability to promote a prestigious organisation across the globe. The 'probable' part will be judged by business people, some with vested interests, some not, but the outcome is just the same.

In most business dealings it's essential to clearly differentiate between your own opinions, and those of others, to arrive at a realistic real-life set of probable events - whether you happen to like them or not. And all this 'the FIA isn't a business bulls##t aside - because it is huge business!

Max no longer holds the same status globaly as he did before, it's been degraded, it's worth less, he is worth less, therefore someone worth more steps in. Whether anyone thinks it's fair or unfair has absolutely no bearing on this issue, at any level.

So, Cav and Murray, are you saying as the CEO of a multi-million dollar global business (a reasonable comparison) you'd have him represent you? Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do

[pabloh20 1]

I pretty much agree with this (although I don't know much about your morals pabloh20, so can't comment there )

It doesn't make any difference whether we think Max was in the wrong or not, but presumably he does, or he wouldn't have tried to deny it straight away. What I think does matter is whether or not it will effect his work, which it may well do, as he is being stopped from attending grands prix, but it is not up to me to decide that.

Indeed.

Oh my morals are low. Occasionally I make it as high as gutter level, not very often, though!

This is bordering on the insane. Which is strangely funny.

Cav, your last post is your opinion. Your opinion is highly valued ('cept when you're taking the p!ss ), but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Max is able to perform his duties in the manner and professional status that he did before.

Oli summed the situation up perfectly earlier, when replying to Murray.........

.......and either Murray and Cav are having great fun with a wind-up, or are a wonderful cross between idealistic and massively ignorant to the commercial world the FIA have a direct involvement for and with (no offence fella's). i.e. It doesn't matter what the details are, or what any of our opinions are - those are completely irrelevant, it's perceptions of others and the probable effects on Max's ability to promote a prestigious organisation across the globe. The 'probable' part will be judged by business people, some with vested interests, some not, but the outcome is just the same.

In most business dealings it's essential to clearly differentiate between your own opinions, and those of others, to arrive at a realistic real-life set of probable events - whether you happen to like them or not. And all this 'the FIA isn't a business bulls##t aside - because it is huge business!

Max no longer holds the same status globaly as he did before, it's been degraded, it's worth less, he is worth less, therefore someone worth more steps in. Whether anyone thinks it's fair or unfair has absolutely no bearing on this issue, at any level.

So, Cav and Murray, are you saying as the CEO of a multi-million dollar global business (a reasonable comparison) you'd have him represent you? Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do

Indeed.

[Max Mosley 2]

Oh for crying out loud, stop being a wind up merchant and talking bollocks!

I'm actually blow up doll, with talking bollocks, and crying out loud is what I'm built for. Don't hate.

Yes we do, but we are not all judged by our characters. You, for example, would be lynched if you held public office and expressed some of the weird views you espouse on this forum. Of course your views are faceless and therefore not subject to properr scrutiny, but Max is a public figure and will always be judged by his character, perceived or real.

What utter tripe. How will seeing my face help you subject my views to proper scrutiny? I find it highly amusing that you of all people use the image of lynching as a paragon of fair judgment.

It doesn't make any difference whether we think Max was in the wrong or not, but presumably he does, or he wouldn't have tried to deny it straight away.

Yeah. Funny you should say that because I honestly just shouted out my window to a cute old lady to ask if she fancied me and she denied it instantly. Obviously she was secretly gagging for it, but didn't want to admit to her sinful urges. Awwwww. Anyway, I'm a gentleman so I told her I liked her style (with matching white hearing aid and dentures), and wished her well.

This is bordering on the insane. Which is strangely funny.

Yes it is strangely funny.

So, Cav and Murray, are you saying as the CEO of a multi-million dollar global business (a reasonable comparison) you'd have him represent you? Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do

Yes. But then I can afford to lose out. If I were dependent on him for my pension, then ultimately I might have to compromise my principles.

But I don't even think it's a fair comparison. Cav has already shown that F1 is not important. The best thing it could do is apply pressure on intolerant regimes.

[Medilloni 6]

Yes it is strangely funny.

Yes. But then I can afford to lose out. If I were dependent on him for my pension, then ultimately I might have to compromise my principles.

But I don't even think it's a fair comparison. Cav has already shown that F1 is not important. The best thing it could do is apply pressure on intolerant regimes.

Firstly, principles or not, being able to lose or not (you really didn't play fair Muzza, you were meant to play 'pretend' ), reality would see your board sacking you, your employees would suffer and you'd struggle to get another similar position.

Cav has not shown that F1 is 'not important', he gave his opinion, which you seem to agree with. It's nice to think that the FIA would be brave enough to apply pressure on intolerent regimes, but it's also incredibly naive to think it'll happen any time soon - and I mean put pressure on them in a way they'd actually be arsed about!

Principles are wonderful, forthright, expensive things to run.

[Quiet One 15]

Paul: Indeed.

Milly: Indeed.

Oli: Indeed

Russ: Indeed

Medilloni: Indeed.

Me: Always right.

Why are we still discussing this, then?