cavallino

Mosley Wins His Case

104 posts in this topic

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:

No, you read people's posts for a change, instead of just trying to twist arguments all the time.

I have never made reference to the morality of the NOTW or if they had a case or not, it doesn't interest me in the slightest, to be quite honest. However, you started the thread with a dig about the people who didn't believe it was a private matter. I am simply explaining to you that common sense dictates that if you want to claim 'privacy' then don't go and pay 5 hookers to indulge in it. I have never said that Max's sex acts offended me, I have never said that Max should lose his job because of his sexual preferences, etc, etc. The only thing I have ever said that it is not a private matter when you pay or invite other people to indulge in it. You will never pursuade me otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never made reference to the morality of the NOTW or if they had a case or not, it doesn't interest me in the slightest, to be quite honest. However, you started the thread with a dig about the people who didn't believe it was a private matter. I am simply explaining to you that common sense dictates that if you want to claim 'privacy' then don't go and pay 5 hookers to indulge in it. I have never said that Max's sex acts offended me, I have never said that Max should lose his job because of his sexual preferences, etc, etc. The only thing I have ever said that it is not a private matter when you pay or invite other people to indulge in it. You will never pursuade me otherwise.

Well said! :thbup:

No, you read people's posts for a change, instead of just trying to twist arguments all the time.

This part I enjoy... it is how I know it s really Cav.

:lol:

Edited by shampion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Bollocks! I'll post if I want to! :D

Oh and I always get the last word :P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say I don't know. I don't know why it's relevant.

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.

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:

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?

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.

Ahh such memories. Except for the omission of a "Rubbish" at the beggining of your post, it's the good ole argumentative Cav.

If I shoot you with a gun, I should be punished for being a criminal. But you will still have a bullet trhough your chest.

If he does what he did with his wife, NOTW should have been closed for good. But his reputation would have taken a hit anyways.

Doing it with prostitutes sounds like begging for somebody like NOTW to pick this story up.

Another example because you seem particularly slow about this subject: He does it with his wife in his bedroom, NOTW needs lots of resources to get there. He goes with his wife to an orgy...well...there are more people implicated. He does it with prostitutes...mmmh...sounds a little too exposed.

He should have known better. Ergo, he is stupid.

About "my willy": my job has no public exposure whatsoever, so no. Furthermore, nobody caught me doing those things nor could they take a pic of my willy to even try to make me lose my job. So I'd say he is more stupid than I am (or my willy isn't as interesting)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he does what he did with his wife, NOTW should have been closed for good. But his reputation would have taken a hit anyways.

So he souhld have resigned from the FIA, even if it was his wife?

Another example because you seem particularly slow about this subject: He does it with his wife in his bedroom, NOTW needs lots of resources to get there.

Or a hotel bedroom. Or any private location. As far as I know, he was either renting or owned the place where this happened. So. Again. The location is irrelevant.

He goes with his wife to an orgy...well...there are more people implicated. He does it with prostitutes...mmmh...sounds a little too exposed.

Nice slippery slope there. Where does it become 'exposed', and filming him in a private location become legitimate? Only husbands and wives have that right to privacy?

He should have known better. Ergo, he is stupid.

HE has won all the battles over it. He is smart.

About "my willy": my job has no public exposure whatsoever, so no. Furthermore, nobody caught me doing those things nor could they take a pic of my willy to even try to make me lose my job. So I'd say he is more stupid than I am (or my willy isn't as interesting)

Remove yourself from the picture, put in a Mr. X whose job has public exposure. Then? Should he be kicked out because someone took a picture of his willy and he is an object of ridicule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing I have ever said that it is not a private matter when you pay or invite other people to indulge in it. You will never pursuade me otherwise.

It's a right to privacy not secrecy, you're confusing the two. If they hadn't published the video, and not made the Nazi allegations, I doubt if Max would have any legal grounds to sue.

Some young girl has a one nighter with a guy, he films it and puts it on youtube. According to you, she has no right to privacy, since she 'invited' him to have a one night stand.

He goes and boasts about it to everyone. No problem, he didn't sign an NDA ;)

Edited by cavallino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

European Human Rights thingy:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the News of the World should be caned for its scandalous errors

July 24, 2008 10:02 AM

The Max Mosley judgment won't inhibit press freedom. It might curb some of the excesses of the News of the World, but don't hold your breath. It might therefore mean that some people may avoid the humiliation he has suffered.

But, in the short term at least, it will not prevent proper journalistic investigation by responsible newspapers attempting to reveal stories that really count.

It was obvious that the NoW's story had not the least public interest justification. Mosley is hardly a public figure. To film him, and then to publish a sensational story based on the thinnest of thin "evidence" of his supposed Nazi interests, was contemptible. Without the Nazi allegations, as the paper knew well, there was no earthly reason to publish the story, beyond satisfying public prurience.

As the NoW's reporter, editor and lawyer trooped into court I have to admit feeling a little sorry for them. I know that reporter Neville Thurlbeck is not a bad man. I have little time for editor Colin Myler, but he is not an immoral man. I have enormous respect for lawyer Tom Crone, but his evidence was less than impressive.

All three, despite their claims to exercising free will, are really cogs in a scandalous machine that is based on gross hypocrisy. They seek out stories that they know will titillate their audience - and thereby maintain the paper's high sales - without any regard for the effect on the "victims" and on society itself. Much of the content of the News of the World nowadays makes a mockery of its old claim to be "a family newspaper".

It has laughingly set itself up to a moral arbiter. Yet, over the years, it has been responsible for consistently extending the boundaries of public taste by publishing the salacious details of sexual acts. Then, having done so, it affects to wonder why society is going downhill. But let's take a closer look at the catalogue of basic journalistic errors made by the NoW in publishing a story that Myler regarded one of "legitimate public interest".

Firstly, it failed to have the German dialogue in the S&M orgy translated. Why not? Potentially that might have provided better "evidence" of a Nazi theme than the English speech. Second, Myler admitted having seen little of the video himself. Surely an editor about to publish a sensational story should have concerned himself with every possible detail in advance of publication?

Third, Myler expressed surprise that his reporter had failed to obtain a signed statement from Woman E before printing her story. Should he not have known that from the beginning?

Fourth, the inbuilt, old-fashioned anti-German prejudice of the staff meant that they confused German play-acting for Nazism. To speak in German or with a German accent does not make a person a Nazi.

Fifth, the paper failed to put any of the allegations to Mosley prior to publication. Yet there is a clear requirement for journalists to do so. (It is ironic that a couple of years ago when I wrote a story that called into question the veracity of certain NoW investigations its editor and legal department not only required that I put the allegations to the paper but demanded a right of reply).

The great turning point in this sordid affair came when the NoW's star witness, Woman E, refused to testify. She was the key player. She negotiated a deal with the NoW in advance of the orgy (a deal, incidentally, in which she did not get the money originally promised to her). She was the one who secretly filmed it.

I was so looking forward to her being cross-examined to answer some simple questions. Who had really suggested the Nazi theme? Did she approach the NoW, or did they approach her? Did she brief the other women to implant Nazi-style activities into the scenario? Did her husband, an MI5 operative who has since resigned from his job, have any part in the affair?

Instead, she failed to appear because of her "emotional and mental state." Was that her emotional and mental state and that of the News of the World as well?

I was surprised that Mr Justice Eady did not call a halt to proceedings at that point because the NoW's defence had, in effect, collapsed.

What should happen now? Myler, like his predecessor, Andy Coulson, should resign. He won't, of course, even though he once spoke of Coulson having done "the honourable thing - a principle rarely seen in public life nowadays." Anyway, Rupert Murdoch, tends to circle the wagons around editors who screw up.

The News of the World should clean up its act. It won't, of course. The great British public - as the NoW likes to say of its readership - should stop buying and reading the News of the World. They won't, of course.

So nothing will change. A rogue newspaper will go on invading the private lives of people by using "the public interest" as a defence for its intrusions. The loser will be other newspapers because, gradually, judges will develop a law on privacy that might well lead to a genuine denial of press freedom. And one paper will be entirely responsible for that.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/200...world_shou.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a right to privacy not secrecy, you're confusing the two. If they hadn't published the video, and not made the Nazi allegations, I doubt if Max would have any legal grounds to sue.

Some young girl has a one nighter with a guy, he films it and puts it on youtube. According to you, she has no right to privacy, since she 'invited' him to have a one night stand.

He goes and boasts about it to everyone. No problem, he didn't sign an NDA ;)

Nope, again, you are not reading what I post. I never said he had no right to privacy, but there are ways of going about protecting that privacy.

Things are not black and white, Cav. There isn't just a single line when it suddenly become right or wrong. For instance if I had sex in my own house................... usually alone.....................with the curtains drawn, then I am protecting my privacy as much as I can. However, if I were to have sex in my garden, or with the curtains open (which is perfectly legal, by the way), then I am accepting the risk of somebody else seeing me................I mean us. I can claim invasion of privacy all I want, but essentially I accepted the risk of being seen. Similarly, having sex with 5 hookers, is a bit different to having a one night stand with a single partner. However, even then, yes you are running the risk of that sort of thing happening, there are many instances on the net. You can argue all you like over the legalities of such matters, but the simple fact is that you accept the risk that it could happen, or don't do it.

All I keep saying to you is that common sense dictates that if you want privacy, protect it as much as you can. If you want to have sex with 5 hookers, accept that you run the risk of losing your privacy.

Edit: Forgot to add, in your example, what if her partner says that she fully consented to being filmed and she wanted to put it on the net? What then?

Edited by pabloh20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I keep saying to you is that common sense dictates that if you want privacy, protect it as much as you can. If you want to have sex with 5 hookers, accept that you run the risk of losing your privacy.

So all you are saying is that the probability of being filmed by NOTW if you have sex with 5 hookers is greater than being filmed having sex with your wife? Wow. Insightful.

Edit: Forgot to add, in your example, what if her partner says that she fully consented to being filmed and she wanted to put it on the net? What then?

Search me. Ask a lawyer, I would guess if she put that in writing then well, nothing. How is it relevant here, since Max never consented to any such thing?

Also, if you read the judgement, the whole Nazi angle has been comprehensively disproven, I won't bother explaining, you can read the judgement here, nice sordid tale of blackmail and lies: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Medi..._news_group.pdf

So are people going to admit they were wrong to suggest that?

I'll hold my breath and wait. And die. No I won't on second thoughts.

Just as an example:

The interview contained one sentence, however, which was demonstrably false. He attributed to her the following remarks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't just a single line when it suddenly become right or wrong.

There is no line. According to the legal precedents based on the European Convention for Human Rights, the number or nature of sexual partners is irrelevant. Draw your own lines all you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those said something abotu the damages being small. It's not America.

The previous highest award a court has made for breach of privacy was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So all you are saying is that the probability of being filmed by NOTW if you have sex with 5 hookers is greater than being filmed having sex with your wife? Wow. Insightful.

How may months has it taken you to work it out? :lol:

Search me. Ask a lawyer, I would guess if she put that in writing then well, nothing. How is it relevant here, since Max never consented to any such thing?

You brough the example up, you tell me how in any way shape or form it was relevant to Max's case.

Also, if you read the judgement, the whole Nazi angle has been comprehensively disproven, I won't bother explaining, you can read the judgement here, nice sordid tale of blackmail and lies: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Medi..._news_group.pdf

So are people going to admit they were wrong to suggest that?

I'll hold my breath and wait. And die. No I won't on second thoughts.

Just as an example:

The interview contained one sentence, however, which was demonstrably false. He attributed to her the following remarks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct decision, with respect to an individual claiming breach of privacy. And the judge said it best when disputing claims that this expose was done in 'public interest'

Edited by lyka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you're turning into Ash1... so much cutting and pasting. :)

I don't think its particularly clever to quote journalists slagging off other journalists - since when is that "public opinion"? If you ask most members of the public they will agree that Max was stupid for getting caught with his pants down, that despite the protestations otherwise it was almost certainly styled on a German POW camp routine, that these girls were hookers and not "friends". They "enjoyed" it because they were being paid. I

Most people would also recognise that this case has nothing to do with privacy, Max's motivation for bringing this to court was to clear the "N" word from his name, something he is very sensitive about. Interesting considering his not-often discussed past - did you know that he and his brother were active members of his father's right-wing party - the Union Movement? Renamed from its original more fascist name as post-war anti-fascist sentiment was high.

Max used the privacy angle to get his way.

As well as being an adulterer, I believe Max is also now a perjuror. His exploits are also front page news (again). If I didn't know better I'd say he's enjoying all this media exposure.... hmmm

And as for the not affecting his job thing - Cav I dare you next time you go for a job interview, when they ask you about personal interests - slip in a few lines about how you enjoy private prison-based S&M sessions with hookers. Let's see how many job offers you get?

I think a healthy dose of reality is called for.

Doh! I said I wasn't going to post again on this.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense has prevailed. Can we move on now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cav,

I don't know if you are purposedly misinterpreting things or I am not too clear. I guess probably both :P

Nobody said he should be fired. Nobody ever claimed that. You are replying to a non existant objection. And, if somebody said it, it sure wasn't me. I said he should resign.

He was careless and stupid. I said it a million times but I will repeat it once again for your benefit: NOTW had no right to do what they did. But they exist, they are a factor known to Mosley and he made things a lot easier for them. That is not a crime. But only because stupidity is not a crime (yet)

Not enough to be fired. But enough for him to resign if he had some sense of honor and THEN crush NOTW with all the sue actions he could afford. Now that is something I would have agreed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NOTW will carry on as it always has, because there's a huge market for these kinds of stories. This result won't change a damn thing, so calling it a victory is really quite shortsighted. Max is and will continue to be a laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately,

There is not much "common" about "common sense" any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NOTW will carry on as it always has, because there's a huge market for these kinds of stories. This result won't change a damn thing, so calling it a victory is really quite shortsighted.

Yep

Max is and will continue to be a laughing stock.

Is that a bit like chicken stock, only runnier and funnier? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NOTW will carry on as it always has, because there's a huge market for these kinds of stories. This result won't change a damn thing, so calling it a victory is really quite shortsighted. Max is and will continue to be a laughing stock.

It's the end of these kind of expose's thank God. The NOTW are facing a bill nearing

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.

Personally I think Cav's "small willy" argument is an irrefutable one, but also your reasons for objecting are different to most. Imho your objection is marginally more sensible, although still not convincing to me, plus you have a teeny weenie so no one respects you any more. Now, unlike your reasons, Mr Tiny, I distinctly remember Messrs Droopy, Spotty and Oily were objecting on moral grounds. Droopy and Spotty didn't seem to mind what goes on in Max's sex life, but worried that some ignorant people in the Middle East would; whereas Oily in addition felt that Max's sex life was seriously immoral.

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?

Like I always do it: in the toilet with the door locked. :P And I never like appeals to common sense because they usually just amount to "we've always thought this, therefore it must be right". That Jews are responsible for all the ills in society was once "common sense".

This part I enjoy... it is how I know it s really Cav.

But do you?

European Human Rights thingy:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Yes. The NOTW is blaming their loss on the EU and its pesky insistence on human rights legislation. :lol: They lurch from one prejudice to another. I ought to be cheering them...

The opinion among the general informed (i.e. those who read the BBC ;) )public is strongly in Max's favour. It is only disgruntled motorsport 'enthusiasts' with an agenda who can't see the bigger picture, who still hold on to their indefensible views.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jsp...paginator

Indeed. And on the Guardian blog that you posted up the online comments from readers tell a very similar story.

The correct decision, with respect to an individual claiming breach of privacy. And the judge said it best when disputing claims that this expose was done in 'public interest'

Nice post.

Common sense has prevailed. Can we move on now?

:lol: It prevailed in the court of law, not here, but then what's new!

It's the end of these kind of expose's thank God. The NOTW are facing a bill nearing

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