F1 and it's relationship with host countries.

Yay, just North Korea and Syria to go for the full set of distasteful regimes who should not host international sporting events. Way to go Liberty Media!
Yay, just North Korea and Syria to go for the full set of distasteful regimes who should not host international sporting events. Way to go Liberty Media!
i cant disagree, dislike the underhand way qatar bid for world cup. although as we have said Liberty Media is carrying on with long held tradition of going to countries that have dreadful reputations. i said on different thread the penny only dropped recently about F1 & Apartheid. when watching a cricket documentary about rebel tour. & when the rest of the world oastriachsized them. F1 was the only sanctioned international sport to go

& also domincali is in situation where beggars cant be choosers & is in danger of how having a huge hole in the calendar between Russia in sept 27th & saudi on dec 5th. is fast running out of days & circuits
The problem is that the further east of the Straits off Gibraltar corruption increases exponentially per 1000 miles, we judge everything on our promulgated standards which may or may not be actual practice, back handers, bribes or cash incentives are standard, and are larger towards the east. The same goes for political stance, there are a far greater number of countries that accept non democratic rule, we may think it fair to be democratic, they don't, and really looking at where the UK is going they could be right, an unelected few seem to be calling the shots here and the government seem unable to squash them due to social media, depends on your outlook.
Dartman, there are benign dictatorships and there despotic dictatorships. There are acceptable Royal family systems and there are royal institutions which ride on the back of limited freedoms, slavery and brutality. There are elected political systems that try to create equality and freedom, there are elected political systems which limit the freedom of certain social groups and individuals.

Those who run major sporting organisations should be able to tell the difference between each of those and not simple follow the mighty dollar.
FB it's a matter of opinion as to whether one considers if a sporting or commercial company should operate in certain countries, we have no right to boycott certain countries to produce government change, some of these countries have successfully governed for thousands of years, long before the west invented democracy, I seem to remember that many communist countries styled themselves Democratic, it being the will of the people and free elections for the one party, though we tended to disagree.
Many western democracies produce laws that some would consider freedom limiting, in fact in these days of social media lives are being destroyed within the law,. freedom comes with its own problems as does draconian government.
The only consideration is that excessive rule making that destroys our preferred way of life is not imported here, there are moves affront to allow certain laws to be practiced here which seriously limit life for those considered subject to them, new laws should only be considered if technology overreaches the present laws, example a laser is legal but when you can buy one that is portable that drills holes in people it's time for a new law.
Boycotting actually defeated its own ends in South Africa and the people that it was supposed to protect were actually poorer, they are even worse off now
Two points.

Firstly, under English Common Law everything is allowed unless it's forbidden. This has been the way the our law has developed for centuries, which has always been part of the tension with the EU most of whom use the Napoleonic code, so to take your laser example they would be forbidden. If we, the electorate, don't like the laws being created on our behalf we can vote against the government, lobby, protest and stand for election without fear of imprisonment or worse. This is not the case in many of the countries which F1 visits. It's a simple measure.

Secondly, I disagree entirely with your suggestion that the (black) people of South Africa would have been better off if the apartheid system had been supported and allowed to continue. South Africa should have had stronger sanctions and total sporting boycotts much sooner to allow self determination and universal suffrage to be put in place far more quickly. Wealth is not a good measure of freedom.
FB I didn't say or imply that the apartheid system should continue or South African black citizens would be better off under that system, both black white and coloured suffered from the boycotts, apartheid regulated the three definitions and whites also could and did suffer under apartheid, Margaret Thatcher stated that the boycotts were counter productive.
Regarding demonstrations and protests, is it not time to consider that those that cause disruption to the majority, damage public and private property and even cause more pollution by protesting or demonstrating should be banned, the problem is that the UK with its freedom has become the place where every country protests here ably supported by rent a mob irrespective of legitimacy of that cause either here in the UK or their own country

Created as a separate thread to allow deeper discussion on a clearly emotive subject.

Please remember it could easily stray into areas that some posters may find objectional or offensive so be thoughtful in what you post.

As always, don't make it personal. Posts not poster.


Top Bottom