Max Mosley Case

Anone else following this? I find it fascinating for various reasons.

1. Mosley obviously has a right to have his privacy respected. What do you think: even if the News of the World had been right and the orgy had involved Nazi roleplay, did the paper have the right (let alone duty) to report it?

2. The News of the World obviously had no other purpose in publishing the story than to hurt Mosley in his personal life and shame him into retiring as Formula One boss. And now he's fighting back. I hope Mosley wins. But Mosley is bringing his case under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates the "right to respect for private and family life". How far should this article be stretched?

Not too long ago, a story such as that of Mosley's orgy wouldn't have made the media at all, neither written nor electronic media. Were we worse off in those days; was the freedom of the press curtailed to an inacceptable degree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Anone else following this?

---

I'm afraid I am not. I do find it odd that Mosley's fascist leaning only ever became a problem after an alleged sexual fascination with fascism.

Funnily enough saw this on the BBC site today and considered posting it. It's a curious case - I find his behaviour distasteful, but it shouldn't have been any 'journalist's business in the first place, let alone mine.

As for the chap's fascist tendencies, that's his right. Far as I can tell, what leanings he has have been well-concealed for the last decades at least, certainly of no public nuisance or any reason to draw attention to his politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I'm afraid I am not. I do find it odd that Mosley's fascist leaning only ever became a problem after an alleged sexual fascination with fascism.

---

Yes, everything about this case is odd. Mosley is certainly an unpalalable character. That is why his case is a litmus test for freedom of the press issues.

During the Geert Wilders/Fitna affair I regarded his case as a similar litmus test. Everyone would defend the right of a Voltaire to speak freely. But should we acknowledge the same right in the case of Voltaire's retarded nephew? I think we should.

In Mosley's case, I think we should respect the man's privacy even if his private life is disgusting, and even if his views are offensive to many. It is a litmus test of how strong the legal system really is when it comes to defending peoples' privacy.

By the way, Mosley has become a Conservative and even tried to stand for Parliament in the 1980's; the fascist leaning is no longer in evidence.

Its a funny story , he is into S&M but is complaining about the humiliation , does that mean he is only into part of it ?
If there is nothing wrong with the son of a nazi playing games with prostitutes with a third reich theme and people in stripy outfits then he has nothing to be ashamed of , its his own business he should be proud and flaunt it .
Its funny with the BMW and Mercedes exchange though , apparently they didn't like jews either so should not have called for his resignation .

Yeah well, the News of the World isn't exactly a hotbed of revolutionary Marxism either, is it? It's another of Rupert's rags right? That got me thinking whether there might be any business interests behind this article and the pics.

Formula One interests to be precise. https://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7561/car4ye5.gif

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should :daisy: off, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should :daisy: off, plain and simple.

---

The press has every right to print the story. I agree with Tribsey, if the dude digs humiliation, isn't it a bit silly to be sueing because of being humiliated? I mean come on, she should read the story while someone poops on him while having a rubber ball shoved in his mouth.. AND LIKE IT!!! Yes, you like it when Daddy humiliates you in the press, yes you do, yes you do!!! :yes:

Quote:

---

That got me thinking whether there might be any business interests behind this article and the pics.

---

Business interests ?

Quote:

---

Formula One interests to be precise.

---

No never , well by never I mean only if they were to become a little annoyed if Max was to do something like bringing his whipping crew on tour with him and claiming it as expenses:inquisitive:

But hey he wouldn't fly his whores out to Monaco would he ?
Surely he would just use the local ones . :oops:

Oh dear has Max been on the fiddle , naughty Max needs spanking..."but we are the aryan race"....or perhaps a good kicking woud be in order

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Business interests ?

---

Yes, business interests. As in: Formula One racing is a world-wide billion dollar motorcar, marketing, merchandising, sponsoring, advertisement and tv business, the funding of which is a mystery to every government and even to most participants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I mean come on, she should read the story while someone poops on him while having a rubber ball shoved in his mouth.. AND LIKE IT!!!

---

And thank you Professor Devastatin for a fascinating exposé on press freedom in the light of article 8 ECHR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should off, plain and simple.

---

I agree. :bow:

Some members seem unable to look beyond the merits of the person and grasp the legal and political merits of the case, no? If you think it's okay for the press to ruin Mosley's life for a laugh, don't be surprised if they ruin yours for someone else's laugh.

In fact I'm already on your case, Tribesy. Boy, those pics of you in lace-up boots and women's underwear look fine.

https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/179/hack4ok9.gif

Breach of privacy, I say. This information has absolutely no real value to us.

Scandal journalists should be given a neckshot, IMO. They're the greatest threat to democracy these days. The true opium for the masses.

At stake, if I read correctly, is his job, yes? Didn't he ask for and get a 'vote of confidence', after the alleged orgy?

: shrug : He's not an elected official, and no tax dollars are involved that I can see; so the story is about some rich guy's bedroom antics. Not news. Rather: scandal. Over here that kind of story would be covered by The National Enquirer, the supermarket-sold gossip and scandal sheet, with a reputation for about 5% accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Breach of privacy, I say. This information has absolutely no real value to us.

---

Hear hear. Guy has a fetish. So bloody what couldn't care less, whorenalists like this should get an anal probe with GPS tracking see how they like being watched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

The press has every right to print the story.

---

The press does not have every right to humiliate someone (America has these laws too, I'm sure), and that's all that article was.

That article reduced my opinion of fascists. I want the ideological fascism (minus the massive killing of the jews), not that SA orgie crap. Or the SS ritual of consumating marriage in ancient cemetaries. Go back to San Fran or Manhattan.

Thought crimes, crimes against the state for showing nazi paraphernalia, crimes against my right to engage in sado-masochistic nazi sex parties and not have anyone find out. Europe has a disease and should be quarantined before it spreads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Europe has a disease and should be quarantined before it spreads.

---

You mean to say Europe has privacy legislation and its extent is debatable. Sure, I don't feel entirely comfortable with any sort of legistation that curbs the freedom of the press, but if it protects my freedom from the press there may be something to it.

My best guess is that art. 8 will eventually cover the private life of people who are in the public eye for whatever reason, unless said private life is demonstrably at odds with their public function. I think it will not be restricted to people in public office only, but extended to all people with some sort of public role, including for instance movie stars. Tough luck for my esteemed colleagues the paparazzi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You mean to say Europe has privacy legislation and its extent is debatable. Sure, I don't feel entirely comfortable with any sort of legistation that curbs the freedom of the press, but if it protects my freedom from the press there may be something to it.

My best guess is that art. 8 will eventually cover the private life of people who are in the public eye for whatever reason, unless said private life is demonstrably at odds with their public function. I think it will not be restricted to people in public office only, but extended to all people with some sort of public role, including for instance movie stars. Tough luck for my esteemed colleagues the paparazzi.

---

This is a similar argument to illegitimate search and seizure clauses in the U.S. When a police officer pulls over a car for having a tail light out, opens the trunk without cause and finds kilos of Coke and heroin - the bad guys go free. While they are technically off the hook from a legal perspective, their credibility is shot to crap and people should be angered and disgusted. This guy, even though he is legally right, is a despicable fiend who should be given a scarlet letter.

Some people get confused into thinking that, because the press is liable they start to defend the actions of the degenerate. Sounds absurd, but it happens so often it is comical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Some people get confused into thinking that, because the press is liable they start to defend the actions of the degenerate.

---

Maybe some people do.

All I do is defend everyone's right to privacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Maybe some people do.

All I do is defend everyone's right to privacy.

---

I've always believed that you are a fair and bright guy. It is, however tempting to champion the acts after a long enough period of protecting the actor.

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

---

The latter does not justify the former.

By the way I don't think his actions are abhorrent at all, just mildly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

---

What's wrong with it, he's a grown-up man, nobody was forced to do anything (and before you guys start no that isn't quite as clear with 11 year olds and retards on the gayparade), so he has slightly odd sexual customs. If he likes that stuff what's it to me. Good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What's wrong with it, he's a grown-up man, nobody was forced to do anything (and before you guys start no that isn't quite as clear with 11 year olds and retards on the gayparade), so he has slightly odd sexual customs. If he likes that stuff what's it to me. Good for him.

---

"Good for him" is where i disagree. You are qualifying his actions as good. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"Good for him" is where i disagree. You are qualifying his actions as good. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it is good.

---

Just a fetish, completily harmless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Just a fetish, completily harmless.

---

Harmless? There was bleeding involved in his sado-masochistic nazi orgy. What does harm mean to you? You arn't technically "harming" anyone when you cheat on your wife. Sure, you may have hurt her trust, but so would smoking if you had agreed not to do it. Maybe it is her old fashioned idea about monogamy that hurt her own feelings?

I would call the man a degenerate and exclude him from whatever I legally could. I still don't understand what "good for him" means. Adrian - this is what I'm talking about when we start defending the act itself as "good for him".

Of course he can legally do it - but he is scum.

There's an old quote, I forget from which case, to the effect that the public interest is not the same as what the public are interested in.

The British press are (in part) a bunch of vicious :skull: whose own business doings or private lives would not stand up for a moment to the scrutiny they subejct others too.

There is quite obviously no justification for this story whatsoever. He broke no law. (Laughably, the News of the Screws is apparently suggesting he was coniving in a criminal assault,... on himself. Thank god we have such fearless champions to expose wrongdoing.) He paid the prostitutes, so his business ethics seem OK (certainly higher than the prostitute who secretly recorded proceedings to sell to the paper). I'd be very surprised if he has ever said in public that he supports family values and is opposed to nazi themed orgies. So on what possible basis can this story be said to be in the public interest?

People who worry about consensual activities going on in someone else's bedroom need to grow up.

Unfortunately though this is not how British law works and I suspect he may lose.

Quote:

---

Not too long ago, a story such as that of Mosley's orgy wouldn't have made the media at all,

---

I reckon it would in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Adrian - this is what I'm talking about when we start defending the act itself as "good for him".

---

Meaning it's his own business. And spare us the indignation about S&M, it is soo yestermillennium. Same for his wife: who knows what goes on between the two of them, it's none of the media's business either if they have fallen out or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Meaning it's his own business. And spare us the indignation about S&M, it is soo yestermillennium. Same for his wife: who knows what goes on between the two of them, it's none of the media's business either if they have fallen out or whatever.

---

You can form a black and white judgment of it and I expect that you have.

He is a badguy. I don't trust men who do the things that he does. Maybe I shouldn't know about it because the press did something wrong, but I do now and can judge his actions as immoral and... Wrong - ie; not right, bad, etc. You can rationalize it as a good thing but I don't suffer from the same affliction.

Invasion of privacy... what he does in his private life (as long as it doesnt harm others...here it looks like they were all consenting adults) is his own business :shrug:

Quote:

---

I don't trust men who do the things that he does.

---

Ah, the old John Redwood line "A man who can betray his wife can betray his country".

Actually, no. Because, guess what, wives aren't countries. And the fact that a man likes to be spanked by prostitutes speaking German tells you nothing about his trustworthiness in other contexts.

Desperately, desperately, some people want the world to conform to their little narrative of good guys and bad guys. And it just doesn't. So they cling to the simple, easy to grasp rule, because its just too scary to face up to the complexity of real life.

Ironically there is only one black and white judgement here and its not AII's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Ah, the old John Redwood line "A man who can betray his wife can betray his country".

Actually, no. Because, guess what, wives aren't countries. And the fact that a man likes to be spanked by prostitutes speaking German tells you nothing about his trustworthiness in other contexts.

Desperately, desperately, some people want the world to conform to their little narrative of good guys and bad guys. And it just doesn't. So they cling to the simple, easy to grasp rule, because its just too scary to face up to the complexity of real life.

Ironically there is only one black and white judgement here and its not AII's.

---

Corruption exposed tends to be the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being a death of morals and a contempt for decency. Think of his actions as red flags into his personality.

Is there such a thing as rotten and fresh fruit? There are places that you can keep fruit to keep it edible for long periods of time and other places that will rot the fruit and make it poisonous. Max lives in a brown paper bag.

Completely agree with frags here - it's just a bloody fetish. Who cares? We all have them for heavens sake.

I really don't see the problem, it's weird yes but I shave my privates because it makes me feel like a pornstar. Justv a little fun, being alpha in his trade is just his job, what he does in his free time, it's more cute then it is nasty te me to be so outragious.

In an instant I see why fundamentalists want us all dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

In an instant I see why fundamentalists want us all dead.

---

Yes, they want to get rid of the complexities of life by destroying it.

In another complex development, it seems there has been a serious fallout some months ago between Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone, who represents the industry and the teams in F1 racing. A man close to both of them has even revealed to The Times that the Mosley article was a set-up from one of Mosley's opponents, about which he was warned as well. Hm, business interests after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Yes, they want to get rid of the complexities of life by destroying it.

In another complex development, it seems there has been a serious fallout some months ago between Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone, who represents the industry and the teams in F1 racing. A man close to both of them has even revealed to The Times that the Mosley article was a set-up from one of Mosley's opponents, about which he was warned as well. Hm, business interests after all?

---

Life doesn't need to be as "complex" as some people make it. You say "complex person" others say "bad person".

What God is telling you not to judge the actions of others? Me judging someone on the internet doesn't hurt anyone. Can I get the same level of support as this degenerate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Can I get the same level of support as this degenerate?

---

If you don't stop I'm going to have to spank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

If you don't stop I'm going to have to spank you.

---

You and max would be great friends. Buckfutter. :whip:

It's complete non-news in my eyes and nobody's business but his own. The press have way too much freedom.

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.

---

He is talking about a literal stone. He is saying don't kill the person for their actions. He isn't saying rationalize it until their action is a culturally accepted norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Corruption exposed tends to be the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being a death of morals and a contempt for decency. Think of his actions as red flags into his personality.

---

Personally, I wouldn't trust a man of power who can't even organise himself an entertaining sex life with running a whelk stand. (...make that a hotdog cart)
And people who surpress their urges tend to take it out on something else. They are like pressure cookers. The pressure builds up and up but the steam can't be can't be released normally. I wouldn't want a sexually repressed maniac running anything.


Besides..four women in uniform, shouting German commands, a bit of spanking...it all tickles Louis' sense of ouh la la....
'Zo you think that you are tough, ja? Now feel how Inge und Eva vill exterminieren your French rezistance' :whip:

:sweatdrop:

It's between him and his wife. If he has a fetish that we think is strange, well, who cares? If his wife cares, then she divorces him and takes his possessions and his children. It's not for us to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You can form a black and white judgment of it and I expect that you have.

He is a badguy. I don't trust men who do the things that he does. Maybe I shouldn't know about it because the press did something wrong, but I do now and can judge his actions as immoral and... Wrong - ie; not right, bad, etc. You can rationalize it as a good thing but I don't suffer from the same affliction.

---

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

This man has certain sexual preferences, and so what?
I find it disgusting that certain people can condemn the more sexually interesting, a bit bored are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Besides..four women in uniform, shouting German commands, a bit of spanking...it all tickles Louis' sense of ouh la la....
'Zo you think that you are tough, ja? Now feel how Inge und Eva vill exterminieren your French rezistance' :whip:

:sweatdrop:

---

I´ll accompany you in the.... :sweatdrop:


:laugh4:


This is ridiculous, the man has a fetish,so what? nobody was harmed or forced to do anything against their will....so what´s the problem here?

It´s no one's business but his and his wife's if she decides that his behavior is a problem for her...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

He is talking about a literal stone. He is saying don't kill the person for their actions. He isn't saying rationalize it until their action is a culturally accepted norm.

---

so I take it you consider that every aspect of your personal life is open for my scrutiny(or anyone else´s) if I choose to do so?

speaking for myself I can say that I have certain "interests" that aren´t exactly "mainstream"....I am in no way ashamed of them......but there is a difference between not being ashamed and not minding it being publicized for everyone to see......and guess what...they are no one´s business but my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

so I take it you consider that every aspect of your personal life is open for my scrutiny(or anyone else´s) if I choose to do so?

speaking for myself I can say that I have certain "interests" that aren´t exactly "mainstream"....I am in no way ashamed of them......but there is a difference between not being ashamed and not minding it being publicized for everyone to see......and guess what...they are no one´s business but my own.

---

They aren't "open" to everyone - but I recognize my vices and call them like they are. If you find them out I would appreciate your guidance in eliminating them rather than condonement. You can legally do these things but that doesn't mean that they have to be accepted by the hearts of men and women if you are found out. People need to understand that you can have an moral opinion outside of your national legal system. That is a lowest common denominator morality.

I am not calling for him to be legally punished either criminally or civilly - I'm just calling a spade a spade. "my rights end where your nose begins" is a legal guideline - not morality. The rights guaranteed by the state are not the same as those granted by God.

If you don't believe in a superlative right and wrong then I see where you are coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

If you don't believe in a superlative right and wrong then I see where you are coming from.

---

You can certainly believe in right and wrong and not see anything wrong at all with what he's doing.

Come on. Everyone and their grandmother has a fetish or five. And there's nothing wrong with it at all, if you're having fun it's all good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You can certainly believe in right and wrong and not see anything wrong at all with what he's doing.

Come on. Everyone and their grandmother has a fetish or five. And there's nothing wrong with it at all, if you're having fun it's all good.

---

So sayeth most teens and twenty-somethings. Something changes around 26-30 years old; having kids maybe. Whatever it is, folks get more judgmental of other folks' behavior, and start seeing aberrations/fethishes, etc. as morally deleterious and/or threatening to their child-rearing efforts.

A "dirty old man" may be harmless to others as long as he keeps his "dirty" to himself. But he's still a dirty old man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You can legally do these things but that doesn't mean that they have to be accepted by the hearts of men and women if you are found out.

---

McGruff, we all know what you mean. Honestly, we do. Lying to your spouse is bad - in most cases, not all. If you love a woman dearly like you apparently love your own - and with every reason, judging by the great pictures you posted on your profile page - then it IS bad to betray her and lie to her. No doubt about it.

But there is lying and lying. Mosley has admitted that he lied to his wife about his sexual activities, and stated that their exposure by the paper was very painful to his family as well as himself. Now something (experience, knowledge of other peoples' affairs) tells me that his wife would have preferred him to keep lying about them and keep them quiet as well, so she wouldn't have to confront this sort of information either in private or in public. And you know what? Despite all this they can still love each other, their sexual attraction may have been over for years or even decades, and they could still be faithful in all matters that are truly important to them. More than a few great minds have lived such lives, and more than a few marriages of convenience have survived because the partners conveniently looked the other way now and then.

What it comes down to, and what I and other posters are trying to convey to you, is that there are obviously criteria for good and bad, but that we can not possibly know if and how they apply in some else's intimate life. It is not you business, nor our business or the public's business to decide what is right or wrong in other peoples' private affairs.

Quote:

---

If you find them out I would appreciate your guidance in eliminating them rather than condonement.

---

Well Tuff have you considered ECT to cure you of your vices ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well Tuff have you considered ECT to cure you of your vices ?

---

Is that the reformed gay thing? No i don't need that. I'm totally happy being a full blown gay.

I watch way too much internet porn, smoke cigarettes some times (the only thing I outright lie to my lady about). I bite my nails to an abnormally bloody extent. I am violently wrathful and bloodthirsty over minor transgressions. If I'm doing things that hurt me, however vaguely and serve only hedonistic interests - I would appreciate it if others were to help me reform. I essentially view the opinions of some in this threat to be a positive judgment of vice and of no use to people who attempt to be better in their lives.

Quote:

---

it's weird yes but I shave my privates because it makes me feel like a pornstar.

---

Way....too....much....information

Quote:

---

I would appreciate it if others were to help me reform. I essentially view the opinions of some in this threat to be a positive judgment of vice and of no use to people who attempt to be better in their lives.

---

Yes, but Max wasn't trying to be "better". So by what right should I have an opinion on his habits? It would be different if he was an old mate, and said he had this unfortunate thing for spanking and would I help him? :whip:

Umm, wait, you know what I meant.

Its not a question of being in favour of spanking, just not really regarding it as anyone's business but his.

On a related topic of who comes out of this as less trustworthy, according to the Guardian today the NoW admitted in evidence that they paid the prostitute less that half what they promised her for the story. So in terms of business ethics its Spankers 1, Gentlemen of the press nil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

On a related topic of who comes out of this as less trustworthy, according to the Guardian today the NoW admitted in evidence that they paid the prostitute less that half what they promised her for the story. So in terms of business ethics its Spankers 1, Gentlemen of the press nil.

---

Now it's my turn to say I like your style. More precisely, your business angle.

It transpires that the prostitutes were payed £ 2500 between the five of them for the entire session, which boils down to £ 100 an hour. NO hooker EVER accepts a special assignment of this kind with a man of Mosley's position and income for that sort of money.

Now what does that tell us?

It says to me that on that day, with this particular client, they expected to be paid an additional fee by another source...

Ah but Adrian , you miss out on that Max paid for the rent and upkeep of the basement .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but Adrian , you miss out on that Max paid for the rent and upkeep of the basement .

---

Oh alright. And I may have been be mixing up my euro's and pounds a bit here. An informed source (yes, they exist in this business) tells me that 100 quid an hour should just about cover for the average Fräulein Helga in London.

I'll find my angle yet... https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5876/hack1nn6.gif

Quote:

---

I'll find my angle yet...

---

The angle might revolve around if Ecclestone got annoyed that not only was Max bringing whores to the races on expenses but was also paying for the upkeep of a brothel out of Federation money .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The angle might revolve around if Ecclestone got annoyed that not only was Max bringing whores to the races on expenses but was also paying for the upkeep of a brothel out of Federation money .

---

Nah, like I wrote in #34 he and Mosley apparently fell out over serious issues, and Ecclestone isn't alone in hating Mosley's guts. First there was the matter of the $100 million fine exacted from McLaren by the FIA because of the alleged espionage of McLaren against Ferrari. Then there was the controversial FIA decision to freeze engine development for ten years, a measure (ostensibly) intended to keep down production costs and allow smaller, less well-funded competitors to enter F1 racing and take on the big five or six. It seems the big five or six, represented by Ecclestone, were not happy...

Ah but Adrian when they fall out over a big issue its easy to get a small issue start it rolling and watch it gather pace .
Its like when someone pisses you off at work , nowadays you cannot just beat the crap out of them and be done with it , but one phone call over one small infraction can set the ball rolling and before they know it they are having to leave the country in a hurry and the government has siezed all their assets .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but Adrian when they fall out over a big issue its easy to get a small issue start it rolling and watch it gather pace .
Its like when someone pisses you off at work , nowadays you cannot just beat the crap out of them and be done with it , but one phone call over one small infraction can set the ball rolling and before they know it they are having to leave the country in a hurry and the government has siezed all their assets .

---

Well yeah, but it's hard to figure out who did what to whom with this bunch of corrupt pasha's. Anyway there is more to Fräulein Helga than meets the camera eye.

The Times appears to be on to something with the Ecclestone angle, and it seems the F1 forums have been awash with gossip since December last year about their fall-out.

There is also a suggestion that one of Mosley's decisions angered The Sun because he blocked a car in which they (or Murdoch) had invested a lot of money or something.

https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3766/puzzledst0.gif


https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/...myspacerl7.png

Quote:

---

It transpires that the prostitutes were payed £ 2500 between the five of them for the entire session, which boils down to £ 100 an hour. NO hooker EVER accepts a special assignment of this kind with a man of Mosley's position and income for that sort of money

---

You are forgetting these were super efficient German prostitutes. £500 for a session is surely possible.

If they had been French they would have :daisy:ed off to lunch after the first couple of hours, and then gone on strike in protest at being undercut by cheaper eastern European prostitutes.

His money, his house, his business. That the paper is trying to get high and mighty after publishing information that a mercenary gave them is probably teh funniest part of the whole tale.

Is next anyone that thinks thoughts that are immoral / perverted / breaking the law?

I have frequently visualised slowly garotting irritating relatives - sometimes even whilst talking to them... And many other things that I'd rather not share. But I do my job well, and that's what matters.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

But I do my job well, and that's what matters.

---

Is that a quote from Shipman ?

Mosley wins the case...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7523034.stm

Quote:

---

The High Court ruled the News of the World did breach Mr Mosley's privacy, awarding him £60,000 in damages.

Mr Justice Eady said he could expect privacy for consensual "sexual activities (albeit unconventional)".

---

Its a judgement that is destined to delight generations of law students, too.

I especially liked:

Quote:

---

53. Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was “shaved”. Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display.

---