Board logo

Poor old Nazi Max Mosley :D :D :D
James - 10/5/11 at 04:55 PM

Hahaha. Mosley the Nazi lost his case!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13341058

Let's hope it cost him a lot of money!


He can appeal of course.

But hopefully this is the end of it!

Cheers,
James

James - 10/5/11 at 04:59 PM

Court costs of £100million. £5m for the time wasted... £95m for being Mosley






*I realise this will only mean something to the hardcore F1 nuts out there!


Cheers,
James

scootz - 10/5/11 at 05:09 PM

I'm with Mosley on this one!

JoelP - 10/5/11 at 05:32 PM

im not, it seems obvious to me that if you are a famous person, newspapers will always want to publish any scandilous story due to the basic (and sad) fact that gossip and scandle sells papers. So dont do it! He chose to bang a collection of dubious ladies in dodgy circumstance, and got bent over, so to speak, by the NotW.

locogeoff - 10/5/11 at 05:55 PM

+1 Mosley supporter here (on this one issue I may add)

What anyone does in their private life is their business, as long as it has no effect on others who do not wish to be party to this business then there is no need for them to be informed.

It's bad enough being told how to think by an elected body, to have our moral guidance dictated by the press is reprehensible especially when it's done for profit, not the greater good of the populace.

spiderman - 10/5/11 at 06:27 PM

James just a cautionary note, calling someone a Nazi and putting it in print can make you liable to prosecution. I know he probably will never know but if he did and took you to court who do you think would win?

P.S. I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own home as long as all are consenting and it doesn't effect me, live and let live, I'm sure most people would not want all their habits and secrets to be broadcast to all and sundry.

jollygreengiant - 10/5/11 at 06:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by spiderman
James just a cautionary note, calling someone a Nazi and putting it in print can make you liable to prosecution. I know he probably will never know but if he did and took you to court who do you think would win?

P.S. I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own home as long as all are consenting and it doesn't effect me, live and let live, I'm sure most people would not want all their habits and secrets to be broadcast to all and sundry.


Your reply is very correct, however, I suspect that appart from the fact that the spawn of a Nazi Sympathyser could sue for libel, the chances that HE (MOSLEY the SPAWN of A Nazi sympathyser) would sue JAMES are remote as all that James james would need to do is declare bamnkruptcy and he would get nothing appart from the ignomy of winning such a financially biased trial. the only other possible victim of such a trial might be this web site.

However to publicly state that Max Mosely IS the SPAWN of a NAZI sympathyser and HISTORICALLY acknowledged (despised) BROWN SHIRT is not a problem as it is only stating historically accurate fact. But if the proverbial happens to stick to that which has not fallen far from the family tree, then.........................................




Oh and If I was so lucky and priveledge to live in the public eye and public scrutiny then I would expect to be under the public scrutiny and maybe even have to justify any randomly (or otherwise) observed behavior. If my behavior was not up to the expected public standard (even if it was something that someone not in the public eye might have double standards on) then that is the price that I would expect to pay for having so much more money than those of the general populace who would expect me to be of a higher standard. After all you see this sort of behaviour from Sir Cliff Richard.

britishtrident - 10/5/11 at 06:56 PM

Personally I would love a super injunction that made it illegal to mention the very existence of Max Mosley and M r Justice Eady,,

I'll repeat the well established undisputed facts; as an infant Max slept with a signed picture of Hitler under his cot, his mother was a 12 cylinder supercharged Nazi worshiper, his father was Fascist of the the Mussolini kind ( which is not any better as the Italian fascist was in some ways nastier than Hitler), the couple got married at Goebbels house, his Aunt was head over heels in love with Hitler to the extent she blew half her brains out with a gun Hitler had given her.

Thats without mentioning the very active part the 21 year old Max played in his father's post war ultra right wing political party with its racist policies or 45 years later what has been called the witch hunt against Mclaren-Mercedes, Ron Dennis and Lewis Hamilton.

Poor Maximus will maintain he never had a chance with that background, but the funny thing is at least one of his siblings became a very respected hero and champion of human rights.


[Edited on 10/5/11 by britishtrident]

David Jenkins - 10/5/11 at 07:08 PM

<<<< CLICK HERE!

blakep82 - 10/5/11 at 07:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
im not, it seems obvious to me that if you are a famous person, newspapers will always want to publish any scandilous story due to the basic (and sad) fact that gossip and scandle sells papers. So dont do it! He chose to bang a collection of dubious ladies in dodgy circumstance, and got bent over, so to speak, by the NotW.



what if you were to do something naughty, would you want it all over the papers? its nobodys business but yours after all? would you want the papers full of every single person in the UK banging a hooker every time it happens?
why should the persons level of fame be any bearing on it? what maes them any less entitled to privacy?

balidey - 10/5/11 at 08:08 PM

Tough one this.
The gutter press do sell lots of papers.
The general unwashed public do buy this tripe.
The paps and 'ahem' journalists often use the old line of 'well they're famous ain't they, they gotta expect all the negative press'.
But my argument is, lets say a singer wants to sing. Thats why they sing, not 'just to become famous'. So the people that shy away from the limelight are often persecuted more because the 'big brother' type of 'ahem' celebrities make the journos and general public this its acceptable.

Personally I don't buy newspapers, and make a point of ignoring website news stories about 'famous people'.
The sooner we have more privacy rights the better.

Although there is a funny story out at the minute where Hugh Grant has secretly taped a journalist and leaked it out on the internet. Thats funny and highlights the ridiculousness of it all.

mangogrooveworkshop - 10/5/11 at 08:28 PM

The face book comment are priceless

britishtrident - 10/5/11 at 08:29 PM

No matter whatyou may think of the scandal sheets Super Injunctions are just wrong they are basically just for the super rich to hide behind link to an example -- by sheer co-incidence istr a buddy of Mosley

link

02GF74 - 11/5/11 at 10:02 AM

quote:
Originally posted by blakep82

what if you were to do something naughty, would you want it all over the papers?
its nobodys business but yours after all?
would you want the papers full of every single person in the UK banging a hooker every time it happens?
why should the persons level of fame be any bearing on it? what maes them any less entitled to privacy?


no.
correct.
no but is not that deciding what the papers can and cannot report i.e. a form of censorship. reason why the gutter press report on tihs type of nonsense is that it sells papers so pumping money into the economy, not to mention the peope they employ.
see above.

britishtrident - 11/5/11 at 10:33 AM

Personally I couldn't careless what some footballer gets up to in a massage parlour, or if some model has a nasty drug problem but I do care about some of the serious stuff that has been buried by super injunctions. The important super injunctions are those taken out against respectable responsible news sources like The Guardian.

Many of these injunctions are to cover up serious wrong doing not just personal embarrassment.

The Mosley case was marginal and might have went the other way if The News of the World had dotted all the "i's" and crossed all the "t's" in its defence, of course the fact that Mr Justice Eady presided over the case should also be noted. Contrary to the view taken by Justice Eady, Max Mosley was a significant international public figure to most people who follow motorsport and who's moral proberty and judgement is important to his ability to carry out his then duties as president of the FIA.
Let us not also forget we also know Mosley used the courts to stop Martin Brundle's McLaren Witch-hunt remarks in the Sunday Times and on TV.

We never know if other significant stories have been blocked by super injunctions because we are not allowed to know they exist, that has to be wrong, increasing the one law for super rich & powerful scenario we already have. How long will it be before we reach the situation that exists in the USA where if you are rich enough you can run rough shod over any law.


Worth reading these links

Private Eye



Sky News

Guardian



[Edited on 11/5/11 by britishtrident]