cavallino

Mosley Wins His Case

104 posts in this topic


So much for the claims of people (including many here) that just because they don't approve of that kind of a sexual relationship it ceases to be a private matter.

So this is from a judge who spent long hours hearing testimony on the matter. Anyone still got a problem with him?

OJ Simpson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mosley has thus achieved what he set out to do. This is a decision which could have profound implications on British laws and it may be that the matter will go to appeal. There is little doubt that the News of the World has little to be proud of and has not come out of the affair well, but then the newspaper has never had a good reputation.

The other element that is important to consider is that while Mosley has the right to do what he likes in his private life (so long as it is legal), there is a school of thought that once these activities were exposed it was his duty to resign to protect the FIA because of the embarrassment that was caused for the federation and for the Formula 1 world. There is nothing wrong with Mosley then fighting for his rights as a private individual, but it should not have been a battle fought while he remained in the office of the FIA President.

The FIA member clubs voted to keep Mosley because of the need for stability in the sport. When that decision was made the damage had already been done to the federation and to F1 and some felt that getting rid of Mosley would add to the damage. He committed himself to standing down in October 2009 and we will now have to wait to see if he keeps to that pledge.

Good for him...........Bad for motorsport.Period.

Edited by la force supreme des mclaren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mosley has thus achieved what he set out to do. This is a decision which could have profound implications on British laws and it may be that the matter will go to appeal. There is little doubt that the News of the World has little to be proud of and has not come out of the affair well, but then the newspaper has never had a good reputation.

The other element that is important to consider is that while Mosley has the right to do what he likes in his private life (so long as it is legal), there is a school of thought that once these activities were exposed it was his duty to resign to protect the FIA because of the embarrassment that was caused for the federation and for the Formula 1 world. There is nothing wrong with Mosley then fighting for his rights as a private individual, but it should not have been a battle fought while he remained in the office of the FIA President.

The FIA member clubs voted to keep Mosley because of the need for stability in the sport. When that decision was made the damage had already been done to the federation and to F1 and some felt that getting rid of Mosley would add to the damage. He committed himself to standing down in October 2009 and we will now have to wait to see if he keeps to that pledge.

Good for him...........Bad for motorsport.Period.

Aha, thanks for lifting the grandprix.com summary. Typical trash journalism from them, always post an article with exactly one side of the story presented, but do it in a way so that they appear impartial. What about the other schools of thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huckelberry Finn?

(What's your point?)

I am guessing you don't know who OJ Simpson is. Clue - he is not one of 'The Simpsons' :lol:

So, presumably then, you believe that they were not in fact prostitutes at all, but friends of Max's that he 'gifted' some money because he was feeling generous?

Also, I will maintain until the day I die, that if you bring other participants into your sex life, paid or otherwise, then it ceases to be a private matter. You cannot control what other people say or do, no matter how much of a megalomaniac you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for the claims of people (including many here) that just because they don't approve of that kind of a sexual relationship it ceases to be a private matter.

So this is from a judge who spent long hours hearing testimony on the matter. Anyone still got a problem with him?

Bollocks Cav, that's not what people were saying (and you know it). Go back and re-read the postings.

- Interesting that a key witness chose not to testify.... hmmmm

- I agree the paper were hardly covered in glory, but then the press never are

- If you think this was an objective, fair trial you're in cloud cuckoo land e.g "they were not prostitutes, they were friends who he gave gifts of money to"..... yeah right!

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha, thanks for lifting the grandprix.com summary. Typical trash journalism from them, always post an article with exactly one side of the story presented, but do it in a way so that they appear impartial. What about the other schools of thought?

What, you've got a problem with grandprix.com too??????? :o I find them as one of the most impartial reliable websites around the subject of F1! Now I'm really dumbfounded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drive through does not fit the crime.

A 10 place grid penalty seems more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, you've got a problem with grandprix.com too??????? :o I find them as one of the most impartial reliable websites around the subject of F1! Now I'm really dumbfounded

He's a BBC man :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha, thanks for lifting the grandprix.com summary. Typical trash journalism from them, always post an article with exactly one side of the story presented, but do it in a way so that they appear impartial. What about the other schools of thought?

There are no other schools of thought here...........he did a very bad thing and has to be punished for it.........god decided that he is going to deal with him later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are no other schools of thought here...........he did a very bad thing and has to be punished for it.........god decided that he is going to deal with him later.

Oh boy..

Have you met Ash?

What was so bad about what he did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with that.

I accused him of criminal stupidity, not perverted sexual behavior. And he didn't win that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a problem with that.

I accused him of criminal stupidity, not perverted sexual behavior. And he didn't win that case.

:roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am guessing you don't know who OJ Simpson is. Clue - he is not one of 'The Simpsons' :lol:

I guess you're being deliberately obtuse? What does he have to do with it?

So, presumably then, you believe that they were not in fact prostitutes at all, but friends of Max's that he 'gifted' some money because he was feeling generous?

Why would I believe that and what does that have to do with anything?

Also, I will maintain until the day I die, that if you bring other participants into your sex life, paid or otherwise, then it ceases to be a private matter. You cannot control what other people say or do, no matter how much of a megalomaniac you are.

So all sex outside wedlock is a public matter?

Bollocks Cav, that's not what people were saying (and you know it). Go back and re-read the postings.

They're also saying that god will punish him but I won't argue that one.

- Interesting that a key witness chose not to testify.... hmmmm

Interesting? No, very expected and mundane, what would they get out of it, that would make up for losing all their 'clients'?

- If you think this was an objective, fair trial you're in cloud cuckoo land e.g "they were not prostitutes, they were friends who he gave gifts of money to"..... yeah right!

Again what does that have to do with anything (presuming that was said at the trial - show me where? ).

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a problem with that.

I accused him of criminal stupidity, not perverted sexual behavior. And he didn't win that case.

He has his job, he has won the case, so I guess you can all giggle like high school kids and point to him, doesn't make the slightest difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for the claims of people (including many here) that just because they don't approve of that kind of a sexual relationship it ceases to be a private matter.

So this is from a judge who spent long hours hearing testimony on the matter. Anyone still got a problem with him?

:lol: Good news! Max does it again. My hero. :wub::wub:

So, presumably then, you believe that they were not in fact prostitutes at all, but friends of Max's that he 'gifted' some money because he was feeling generous?

:lol: Personally, I don't think that's important. Everyone knows Max is a liar so it's not the issue. They might have not regularly have been prostitutes but just friends whom he persuaded to spank him for a fee, or perhaps he was trying to be nice about it. Who knows; who cares!

Also, I will maintain until the day I die, that if you bring other participants into your sex life, paid or otherwise, then it ceases to be a private matter. You cannot control what other people say or do, no matter how much of a megalomaniac you are.

And I will maintain until the day you die that somethings are not acceptable simply because you can't physically control someone's behaviour. :P If you have sex with someone and they film you without your permission, and then sell the video to a paper, which then twists the evidence to try to ridicule you, then you have been wronged, morally and legally. Everyone should agree that that's unacceptable.

- I agree the paper were hardly covered in glory, but then the press never are

- If you think this was an objective, fair trial you're in cloud cuckoo land e.g "they were not prostitutes, they were friends who he gave gifts of money to"..... yeah right!

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you're being deliberately obtuse? What does he have to do with it?

Yes, I am the one being deliberatley obtuse :rolleyes:

Read about it, if you don't know.

Why would I believe that and what does that have to do with anything?

Because Max said it during the court case. So if you don't believe it, please tell me why.

So all sex outside wedlock is a public matter?

Who said that??

Well, I tell you what to do Cav, get 5 people who know you, pay them to watch you masturbate, or spank someone, whatever you feel like doing, tell them you don't want anyone to know about it and then see how long it remains private. Welcome to the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has his job, he has won the case, so I guess you can all giggle like high school kids and point to him, doesn't make the slightest difference.

That's exactly why most of us objected.

Just imagine: Ron Dennis is caught cheating again as usual. Max calls for an urgent meeting. He enters the room, his fiery eyes sparkling with furious anger decided to bring back fair play and proper moral behavior on the track. As he issues a fire and brimstone speech against cheating on track, somebody says in a squeaky small voice: "Yes, Max, Ron needs more of ze punishment!"

So much for respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going here again. We've said it all before and you guys are not going to change your minds. I don't have the strength or inclination to go through all this again....

I'm glad you like Max, really I am :D You go well together :D

Muzza I know what it is really, since the leaked footage of his spotty botty you have never said a bad word about him :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I tell you what to do Cav, get 5 people who know you, pay them to watch you masturbate, or spank someone, whatever you feel like doing, tell them you don't want anyone to know about it and then see how long it remains private. Welcome to the real world.

Remind me not to buy a newspaper the day *that* video comes out :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Good news! Max does it again. My hero. :wub::wub:

Daddy did it again! :lol:

:lol: Personally, I don't think that's important. Everyone knows Max is a liar so it's not the issue. They might have not regularly have been prostitutes but just friends whom he persuaded to spank him for a fee, or perhaps he was trying to be nice about it. Who knows; who cares!

I don't think it is important to the case. However, if somebody is willing to go that far to insult our intelligence, then they aren't going to gain much credibility. Well, not in my eyes anyway.

And I will maintain until the day you die that somethings are not acceptable simply because you can't physically control someone's behaviour. :P If you have sex with someone and they film you without your permission, and then sell the video to a paper, which then twists the evidence to try to ridicule you, then you have been wronged, morally and legally. Everyone should agree that that's unacceptable.

It has nothing to do with 'acceptibility', the morals of the paper involved, or anything else for that matter, other than common sense, so I can see why you and Cav are struggling with it :lol:

So, tell me,if you wanted something to remain private, how would you do it?

Edited by pabloh20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's exactly why most of us objected.

Just imagine: Ron Dennis is caught cheating again as usual. Max calls for an urgent meeting. He enters the room, his fiery eyes sparkling with furious anger decided to bring back fair play and proper moral behavior on the track. As he issues a fire and brimstone speech against cheating on track, somebody says in a squeaky small voice: "Yes, Max, Ron needs more of ze punishment!"

So much for respect.

You speak for youself. I just like giggling like a high school kid.

Remind me not to buy a newspaper the day *that* video comes out :blink:

Yeah, you wouldn't like it. Cav's bottom is perfectly blemishless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read about it, if you don't know.

I didn't say I don't know. I don't know why it's relevant.

Because Max said it during the court case. So if you don't believe it, please tell me why.

Maybe it's to do with tie British laws as I gather where prostitution is sort of legal but isn't? Anyway, it's a matter of semantics, he said he paid them, he said he has done is for 40 years.

Well, I tell you what to do Cav, get 5 people who know you, pay them to watch you masturbate, or spank someone, whatever you feel like doing, tell them you don't want anyone to know about it and then see how long it remains private. Welcome to the real world.

Do your reading, instead of making stupid digs all the time, it get boring fast. NOTW argued that presenting the story was in public interest and that there was a clear Nazi angle. They lost. NOTW paid someone to trap him, hence they were the same party for the lawsuit. Max isn't claiming that the women were implicitly sworn to secrecy, but that the newspaper has no business making a videotape and publishing it. The videotape killed it for them really, arguing that that was in 'public interest' :lol:

That's exactly why most of us objected.

Just imagine: Ron Dennis is caught cheating again as usual. Max calls for an urgent meeting. He enters the room, his fiery eyes sparkling with furious anger decided to bring back fair play and proper moral behavior on the track. As he issues a fire and brimstone speech against cheating on track, somebody says in a squeaky small voice: "Yes, Max, Ron needs more of ze punishment!"

So much for respect.

You imagine that all business in the world is conducted the way you were mocked in high school? Waht if Max was filmed doing the same with his wife? Read your post again, it reads the same if it was his wife. Would it be fair then, if he lost his job because someone spied on his family? According to your argument, you can go spy on anyone, as long as you find out anything that is worthy of ridicule, the person has to go. No right to privacy. Brilliant. Someone takes a photo of your small willy, sticks it up all around the office, and according to your argument, you now deserve complete ridicule and to lose your job.

Do you people even think before you post?

I'm not going here again.

Yes but you'll just make a post and take digs, in a lame attempt to get brownie points and have the last word :rolleyes:

Anyone who does not want to discuss the topic, DON'T POST. You know where the door is. Make it easy for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now