MAX MOSLEY

[RickD]

Rick first off Max did not break any law, so if you know something we don't know, then please share.. are you sure you are not letting your own personal bias get in the way of Justice? For justice to operate one has to recognise their own prejudices and then take them into account when making a judgement, you cant really say in any way whatsoever that what max did was criminal, its not even distasteful if thats what floats your boat, consenting adults in private, where was the harm and again where was the law being broken? the news of the world trampled over everyones rights here to privacy, you can't pick and choose who has this right it applies to us all, max did nothing wrong.. if you cant see that then its because your unable to put your own prejudices aside, what the NOW did was cruel, malicious and UNLAWFUL I am hoping the NOW have to fork out at least £5,000,000 but that may not happen and if not then they wont really have learnt a lesson, what if say RD was caught having a spliff? it would only be a spliff but if max is caught having a spliff it the nasty killer skunk stuff that sends people pyscho... the latter off course is total fiction

honestly, not having a go at you, just trying to steer you towards having a balanced opinion as your current one is so off the mark that it would be bad of me not to point this out.

Ok, so it is not illegal to pay for sex (had to look that up..lol), but the NOTW was ofered a video with a public figure involved in a bondage session, said individual had this bondage session with women dressed in Nazi regalia and prison uniforms, said individual also has past links with facism. Do you not think that the video would be public interest? Especially considering his position.

If the women were dressed nearly any other way, it would have just been morally (to most people) repugnant old man having a whipping, but due to the nature of the session, it WAS in the NOTW interest to publish their headlines. If they had waited on the story, I am fairly sure it would have been suppressed somehow.

If the NOTW get a big fine for this, then that is wrong in itself. Yes, people have a right to privacy, but when they have history with something morally repugnant and they are dabbling in that field, that is in the public interest.

Why sue the NOTW, why not sue the person who sold them the video as they are the ones that invaded their privacy?!?

Nothing wrong with a smoke now and then..

 

[left_toe_lace_ups]

Rick the NOW approached witness E before the "party" they even gave her the camera, so intent was on there side to discredit, also the NOW witness failed to appear in court, why would you think she never appeared? Perjury is a one way ticket to prison, we have seen this happen with Jeffery Archer and Jonothan Aitken so maybe thats why the NOW's star witness didn't turn up.

what max done was not illegal, it is more widespread than we think from top judges to army generals to post office counter workers, not my cup of tea but as long as it is behind closed doors and with consententing adults then who are we to judge.

Rick you seem to be under the impression that there was a nazi theme running through the theme of MM's indescretion? there wasn't, prisoners wear uniforms, guards where uniforms, there was no swastikas or pictures of adolf, there was no yellow stars on the prison uniforms,, so where is the nazi theme?

we cant hold max liable or responsible for who his father was, thats something max has to live with, the NOW story more or less jumps to the conclusion because of who max's father was.

our rights to privacy are exactly the same as Max's, we cant pick or choose who can have these rights and who cant.. again max committed no crime yet he was splashed across the NOW, sensationalised and damned and slandered by the NOW.. newspapers are not allowed to behave in the way they did, a massive fine and massive damages would stop them from doing this again, a small one gives them the green light to publish and be dammed and not worry about the consequences as petty cash can cover it.

again max did nothing illegal, if he has morally outraged anyone then all i do is wonder what kind of world those outraged occupy as thier is a lot more about so called Great Britain to be outraged and ashamed about, from institutional racism to banging down the doors and raiding the homes of people with devastating illness who grow their own medicine and save the NHS thousands upon thousands of pounds and off course where i am comming from i think people should be outraged at the way the NOW has acted and does act and we should be pleased if the get hammered hard, they had no right to do what they did, can't wait for the judgement next week.... maybe we could run a book on it?

I reckon this story will cost the NOW £3,000,000 it should be a lot more as this amount would not really deter them.

 

[markxero]

He won then... £60k lol

Max must be a lot poorer than we thought if that amounts to 'substantial damages'.

As much as I don't like the guy, I have to admit that I agree with LTLU that this amount is not going to make a blind bit of difference to the NoW. Thye must have made a heck of a lot more in publicity / sales. I feel sorry for the guy...





Ok - I'm over it.

linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523034.stm

 

[buxted-plump]

I agree with LTLU, what Max did was his own (not so) private affair, where do the NOTW get off publishing what they want? they aren't judge, jury & executioner much as they probably like to believe. People have a right to privacy and Im sure there are lots of people who at some point have done something they have been ashamed of and wouldn't like it splashed across the front page of the sunday rag. No children or animals were hurt and it's a shame the NOTW weren't hit financially harder than they were

 

[Andrea_Moda_Rules]

well buxted, NOTW may only be giving 60 grand to madmax, but they have to pay his lawyers costs too, around 1.5million odd, dunno what NOTW finacal postion is but surely that has gotta hurt them.

 

[teabagyokel]

I'd imagine that NOTW has a substantial fund for libel?

I don't know how much you guys are into English football, but remember the old "Fake Sheikh" investigation...

"Yeah, Sven, come to my boat in Dubai for drinks. By the way, bring your agent!"

They know how much they can pay...

 

[RickD]

Well, they were pretty up in arms about it in this weekends NOTW, was qute amusing..

LTLU, a luftwaffe officers uniform was the issue, usually classed with the Nazis, so the connection does exist in the video, as well as talking in German..

 

[teabagyokel]

Of course the NotW are up-in-arms over it... it diminishes their "right" to print libelous crap about people!

 

[Carter]

Is it just me who finds it ironic that The Sun slams Mosley's morals on one page, yet a few pages back they have a picture of a 17 year old girl in her knickers?

I also think that too much has been made of the "example" he sets. He's not a school headmaster FFS, he's in charge of a sport full of playboys. Are we supposed to think the people involved in F1 are all virginal and innocent?

Just my take on things.

 

[Brogan]

Just one of the reasons why I don't read the tabloids.
They're the most hypocritical bunch ever, picking and choosing which battles to fight and who to attack based on who owns and who's editing the paper at the time.

Welcome to the site BTW

 

[Carter]

Thanks.

I'm no expert on motorsport, but I do have lots of opinions. haha

 

[Brogan]

I'm no expert on motorsport, but I do have lots of opinions. haha

You should fit in well here then lol

 

[Carter]

haha.. good..

 

[slickskid]

can't remember the last time i read the sun... wish they would make a braile copy though!

 

[bogaTYR]

zzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

oh, hello! and you, done anything fun last night? let's hope there was no photographer behind your window.